National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

Under Standing Order 12.58, the leader of the house, Julie James, will answer questions on behalf of the First Minister today. The first question, Mark Reckless.

A public inquiry has been taking place over the last 12 months to scrutinise all aspects of the project, including costs and suggested alternatives. The independent inspectors’ report and the business case will inform a final decision this year on whether to proceed with the scheme.

The First Minister told us in 2015 that the project would cost, and I quote, 'nowhere near £1 billion.' I suppose, in one sense, that's correct because the cost is now put at around £1.4 billion. If the Assembly does support the black route in the vote that we're now going to have, how can we trust the Welsh Government to deliver it at acceptable cost when you've shown no ability so far to do so, and the costs on the Heads of the Valleys road are out of control? Are you asking the Assembly to write you a blank cheque?

No, not at all. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the project due to the fact that the statutory final decision remains to be made, and it's quite clear that there are a wide range of views on this significant potential infrastructure investment, and it's extremely right that these views are all being heard at the inquiry and should be taken into account. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport has clearly stated in this Chamber that he instructed the inquiry be comprehensive and test the need for the scheme in the light of the latest proposals for the south Wales metro, and consider alternatives, and, indeed, consider the costs involved in that. Once the outcome of the inquiry is known, that will inform a final decision on whether to proceed with construction, and that will include, obviously, a business plan, which will then be put into place. 

I was 13 years old when an M4 relief road around Newport was first mooted in 1991. [Laughter.] I haven't aged. [Laughter.] The current local public inquiry is the longest and most thorough inquiry in Welsh history, testing seven potential routes, including the option of doing nothing. The independent public inquiry is eagerly anticipated by my constituents, and it's only right and proper to look closely at the findings when they're published later this year. As for many businesses, visitors, commuters and constituents, the option of doing nothing, or more delays to a decision, are costly. It's estimated that the M4 is a key artery for 70 per cent of Wales's population and economy. Will the leader of the house relay to the Cabinet Secretary and the First Minister the imperative of a speedy resolution once the independent inspector reports, particularly with the removal of the Severn tolls, which will increase traffic and congestion on that part of the road?

Yes, I think the Member makes a fair point. Sadly, I was a little older than 13 at the start of this. Not much older, obviously. [Laughter.] There are a large number of legal implications involved in the consideration of the public inquiry, and we will need to consider options once we've got the outcome of the inquiry, and that will have to include also the timing of the decision, the costing and the business plan, as I say. But, absolutely, we're all aware of the serious issues on the M4 around Newport, and the Cabinet Secretary is here listening to your remarks, which I'm sure he heard. 

I'm sure you're not going to go ahead of the public inquiry, as you stated very clearly, but I'm sure you'd agree as well that we in this Parliament have not outsourced £2 billion-worth of public spending or the opportunity costs of alternative investment in alternative road transport, and alternative transport methods, to a public inquiry. We are the elected Assembly and, ultimately, we should take that decision. I welcome the letter today from the Cabinet Secretary saying there will be a real vote in the Assembly, and to make that an even more vital and real vote, will you now, in deputising for the First Minister and as leader of the house, and you're chief whip, make it a free vote for your group?

I'm very delighted to confirm that we'll bring forward a debate in Government time on the M4 corridor around the Newport project following the conclusion of the public local inquiry. Given the legal implications, we are currently considering options as to the timing and format of that, and I will be keeping the Assembly informed of those plans as myself, other than in deputising for the First Minister. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport has just written to all party groups in the Assembly, but he will be arranging a technical briefing with project team officials on the current position, to ensure Members are fully apprised of all the facts relating to the scheme beforehand. So, I hear what the Member says and I take the point he makes, but we will be considering that once we know the outcome of the inquiry. 

The survey provides a wealth of information to support work to improve population health. Its findings demonstrate that there is public support for many of the priorities set out in 'Prosperity for All', including our focus on early years.

Thank you very much for that. It's very clear from the survey that people expect action on public health issues to ensure that we improve the health of the nation. On top of that, today we learn that there's been a doubling of diabetes in the last 20 years, and we also heard from Cancer Research UK, demanding that junk food advertising to young people should be banned because of the rise and rise in cancers related to the poor diets that many people are consuming. So, could you tell us what appetite the Government now has to take action to ban junk food, and generally to ensure that young people are aware that they are what they eat and they will only live a long life if they eat well?

We have a very strong track record in Wales of taking strong public health action where there is evidence that it will improve or protect population health. The public health Act, the active travel Act, and the current minimum unit pricing Bill are very good cases in point. We'll be continuing to prioritise such interventions where there is merit and where taking action is within the powers at our disposal. But, for example, in areas such as broadcasting, we don't have all of the powers we need, but we will be looking at ways of maximising our powers and our influence in those areas where it isn't in our direct control. And we want a strategy to create a very clear vision for Wales, and this will mean working with the UK Government to ensure that we can drive forward changes required to tackle, for example, growing obesity levels in children.

The stay well survey actually, I thought, showed a population that was very keen to take part in responsible healthcare and understood that prevention is better than cure, and showed an enormous maturity on behalf of the public, something we tend to talk down sometimes, I think, here. And one of the things that they really picked up was that 76 per cent of the respondents wanted to see health services being offered more by employers, and employers taking more ownership of helping their employees to stay well. And we raised this last week—or the week before—in our debate on mental health, about the cost of mental health illness to the economy, and what we need to do as individuals and as employers to help people with mental health to do well in their workplaces. Can you please, leader of the house, perhaps outline what the Welsh Government can do to influence both public sector and, more importantly, the private sector to ensure that they stand by their employees and really help them through times of trouble?

I think Angela Burns makes a very good point. The survey was very interesting, wasn't it, in terms of the appetite of people to be regulated, almost, in terms of public health? The Welsh Government spends about £88 million of core funding on Public Health Wales, and we have a range of measures aimed at preventing ill health, alongside a number of other public health functions. We also have the Healthy Working Wales programme, which supports employers across Wales to improve health and well-being at work, and has already supported around 3,500 employers in Wales, which represents about 36 per cent of the working population of Wales. I can also say that, in looking at fair work, and the fair work agenda in Wales in social partnership, one of the things we have been looking at is ways of assisting employers to help with public health promotion. Because, of course, one of the big issues is about economic inactivity and making sure that people who are in work stay in work, and are able to be supported there. So it's all very much, as I say, part of the same programme. So, I take the Member's point entirely. We are already working in that way, and we're looking to extend that across all sectors of Welsh employers as part of our fair work agenda.

Leader of the house, the Stay Well in Wales survey highlighted that doctors and nurses are not the primary source of health information, probably due to the difficulty in getting an appointment with a GP or practice nurse. The situation is being made much worse by short-sighted decisions by local government. Bridgend council intend to cut bus subsidies, which put an end to services covering a lot of Porthcawl, making it impossible for some residents to get to the new health centre. What is your Government doing to ensure that local government decisions do not have an impact on people's ability to access health and social care?

I think that's really quite a stretch in terms of public health. We have a very good working relationship with all of our local authority partners in this, and, of course, they're responsible for delivering social care as well. And we have a very well-developed bond with them around travel and health travel in particular. That's something that also comes up in the workforce partnership council from time to time as well. So, I can assure the Member that we have a very good working relationship with local authorities and they take into account all of those sorts of decisions in making some of the very difficult decisions they've had to make given the austerity agenda still being pursued by the UK Government.  

Questions from the party leaders and their representatives. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I was encouraged when I heard that the First Minister was leaving the country, in particular because of what he said at the same time, that America was Wales's most important business partner and there are exciting opportunities that lie ahead and he was going to the United States to press the case for developing a free trade agreement between our countries. Unfortunately, the leader of the opposition at Westminster immediately torpedoed those laudable aims by saying that Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union, which, as we know from Mr Barnier, would not include any cherry-picking by the UK Government, and, as we'd be out of the EU, of course, we wouldn't have anything more than the right to be consulted. How can these two conflicting positions of the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the opposition at Westminster now be reconciled? 

Well, I don't think they are conflicting at all, because, of course, the First Minister was speaking about the potential for a free trade deal between the UK as a whole and the USA and, as we've explained on numerous previous occasions, in the sort of customs union that we envisage the UK would conduct parallel negotiations with third countries to those undertaken by the EU 27. Our talks with the US and the EU are currently in abeyance. These will undoubtedly come back on to the agenda in the coming years. It's obviously nonsensical to exclude ourselves from one of the most powerful trading blocks in the world on the basis of some dogmatic political belief. 

It's clearly impossible under EU law for any member state to conduct trade negotiations with a third country, because all that is reserved to the Commission in Brussels, so the Labour Party's position is totally incoherent.

But I was also encouraged by what the First Minister said that, 

'I want to reassure...the United States that Wales remains an outward looking and welcoming country.'

Unfortunately, that laudable statement was also undermined by the shadow foreign secretary at Westminster, Emily Thornbury, who described Mr Trump as an asteroid of awfulness that has fallen on this world. She said, 

'I think that he is a danger and I think that he is a racist.'

I'm delighted that Welsh Labour's true face is on display today, agreeing with sentiments that can only do damage to the interests of the United Kingdom and the interests of the people of Wales. If the First Minister is serious about wanting to engage the Trump administration and investors from the United States in the possibilities and potential of our country here, then it pays generally in diplomacy to be nice to people rather than to insult and abuse them. 

Well, I'm very glad to hear Neil Hamilton's idea of appeasement, which is not my idea of appeasement. There is a huge difference between the presidency of the United States and the United States as an entire country. The First Minister and the Labour Party have been extremely clear about the position on the customs union. We have made it explicit that it's in Wales's best interest to remain inside the customs union and actually, indeed, inside the single market. The FM could not have been more clear in that regard. 

Well, clarity of that kind is normally to be found only in the pages of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass, because you can't be inside and outside at the same time. 

The First Minister, I see, intends, in the course of his visit, to talk to Hillary Clinton. Nothing wrong with that in itself but, as Hillary Clinton actually lost the election for the presidency to President Trump, wouldn't it actually have made more sense to try to meet with people in the Trump administration rather than the candidate for the party that lost the election the last time the presidency was up for grabs? 

The leader of UKIP makes his usual nonsensical alignment between two completely different things. Of course, the First Minister is conducting a series of important negotiations with a range of investors right across the United States and Canada, as it happens, in the best interests of this country. Of course, he will be meeting with Hillary Clinton and a range of other people who have an interest in continuing our good relationship.  

On behalf of the leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. 

A few moments ago, leader of the house, you said that the First Minister had been very clear on the customs union issue. I beg to differ, so I'll keep my first question very simple: does your Government favour staying in the EU customs union or a customs union? 

I think it's very important that we maintain an open mind during the negotiations with the EU and therefore we need to have a customs union of one sort or another. If that turns out to be the customs union as a result of the negotiations, well that would be very interesting, but, in the spirit of a negotiation, of course we have to keep everything on the table. 

I'm afraid to say that's a regression from the position taken by this Government some months ago. The joint White Paper 'Securing Wales' Future' concludes that Wales and the UK should remain in the EU customs union, and I quote:

'we'—

that's you and us—

'are unconvinced that the possible benefits of withdrawing from the EU Customs Union outweigh the costs.'

In fact, every single reference to 'customs union' in Government policy since is to the existing customs union. There's not a single reference to a new, as yet non-existent type of customs union. So why, I ask, has the First Minister changed his tone or changed his language? Why does he now talk about 'a' customs union, as do you? Is it because the position as outlined by Jeremy Corbyn is at odds with what's in the interests of Wales and the people of Wales, and for want of a better term, the First Minister is therefore having to fudge it?

No, I disagree entirely. I think it's a very sensible point to make that we need to be in a position to negotiate the very best possible deal for Wales and for the UK as a whole, as part of these negotiations in leaving the European Union. Therefore, we need to try and negotiate the best possible deal. I personally think that the best possible deal is the current state of play. I'm a remainer, I make no bones about it. But clearly, in a negotiation, we need to get the best deal, and a negotiation is a two-way street, and we have to see what's on the table from the other side and what their negotiation stance is. So, it would be ridiculous to rule out all other options.

But what I don't understand is if you were happy as a Government to set out with us what our position was when this document was published, why is that still not the case now? I want to work together on this. I'm really proud that through the work that's been done by Steffan Lewis more than anybody on our side—it's good to see Steffan with us today—we have been able to bring Government towards us on some of these core issues, and will continue to try to do so. 

Now, apart from the customs union issue, I think Jeremy Corbyn's Labour position has another fundamental error, in that he is committed to pulling out of the single market. He wants to pick and choose aspects of that market, but President Tusk, as we know, has said that there can be no cherry picking, and no single market à la carte. The solution is that we need both: customs union and single market. Jobs in Wales need both customs union and single market. The port of Holyhead in my constituency, our constituents, all of us, need both. It feels as if, at every corner, the Welsh position is being undermined and undercut by the whims of Westminster, and by that I mean the whims of Government and opposition at Westminster. You know that the position I have set out, that Plaid Cymru has set out, makes sense. Will you help us deliver it?

We've been very clear as a Welsh Government, and indeed, in co-operation with Plaid Cymru, about the very best possible outcome for Wales, and we're still very clear about that. But I reiterate what I said: this is a negotiation. It is about getting the best out of the negotiation overall. So, if you rule everything out except the position you start from, that's not a negotiation, and you're very likely to fail. 

So, I think it's a very sensible thing to have a range of options on the table that you can start the negotiations with. It remains to be seen where the negotiations will end up. I personally still believe that staying inside the European Union as a whole is the best option for Wales. That's not something the people voted for, and we're in a position of having to negotiate the best deal we can short of that.

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, just before we started today, a letter came from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport highlighting the Government's intention to have a vote on the M4 relief road, and I welcome that movement on behalf of the Government. In the letter—it's three paragraphs long, so it's not particularly long—it indicates that the Cabinet Secretary is seeking legal advice as to the timing of the debate. So, I'm assuming that the Government have set their mind on what type of debate you will be bringing forward for Members to vote on. Will it a 'to note' debate, will it be a budget vote or will it be a more substantive vote around the inquiry itself? Because as I said, the letter clearly indicates it's more of a timing issue, and the Government is quite clear as to the type and nature of debate that we will be able to vote on. I'd be grateful for some clarity on that particular issue.

Well, yes, as I said earlier on in answer to the question, we've confirmed we'll bring forward the debate in Government time on the M4 corridor around Newport, following the conclusion of the public local inquiry. The debate is likely to be a 'to note' debate at this point in time, but I'm hesitant to say that categorically because we don't yet know the outcome of the public inquiry. So, until we know the outcome, we don't really know what we can form the debate around. So, I'm prepared at this point to give an indication, but I can't be categoric about it because, until we know the outcome of the public inquiry, we are not in a position to be categoric about it.

In fairness, I'm basing my questions on the letter, obviously, and the letter indicates that the Government has set its mind on the type of debate we'll be voting on. It doesn't tie into the public inquiry, it talks more about the timings of the debate based on legal advice. But, you do indicate that it doesn't seem as if it's in the Government's mind at the moment to bring forward a budget vote or an allocation of resources to this project. As you said earlier, it is a 'to note'. Because there's quite a difference, there is, for Members to vote on. Given this is the largest capital project that the Welsh Government will be bringing forward, I think it's important for us to understand exactly what the Government is proposing. So, can I just be crystal clear: you are at the moment minded that that vote will be a 'to note' vote?

Yes, currently, we are minded that it will be a 'to note' debate, but I want to reiterate that until we see the outcome of the public inquiry and the consequent legal advice and so on it's impossible to be categoric. So, I'm not in a position to be categoric about it, for the best possible reason, which is that we need to react to it in the light of whatever the outcome of the public inquiry is. So, when we have that then I'll be able to give an indication of what the Government's position is.

I'm grateful for an element of clarity. I appreciate the public inquiry is still ongoing, but obviously I'm basing my questions on the letter that was received by Members on another transport issue that came to light over the recess, which was Abellio's withdrawal from the rail franchise that is currently up for negotiation and tender from the Welsh Government. A bitterly disappointing outcome, obviously. Now, 50 per cent of the bidders have withdrawn from the process. One would ask the question: did the Welsh Government or Transport for Wales work proactively with Abellio to try and resolve the problem around Carillion to keep them in the race for the tender? Because the more ideas, hopefully, the better franchise agreement we will get. And one thing that train users in Wales deserve is a better service than they're getting at the moment. Irrespective of party colour, we can all agree with that, we can.

So, what I'd like is an indication from the leader of the house, if possible, on whether the Government is confident that the two remaining bidders' bids are robust and will go the duration. And, secondly, what clarity can she give around the engagement with Abellio to try and resolve some of the issues they had with the Carillion collapse? Given Carillion's longstanding financial problems that were well understood for many months, was there much engagement from Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government to try and facilitate them staying within the tendering process?

Yes, we worked very hard to keep them inside the procurement. The leader of the opposition is absolutely right: it's better for us to have the widest range of possibilities open to us in terms of the procurement. So, a lot of very hard work took place actually before the Carillion collapse, and after it, to keep them in the procurement. However, we've still got two very robust tenderers to go ahead with and we're very confident that we will get a good outcome for the citizens of Wales, which I completely agree with him that they richly deserve. 

Yes. In partnership with the WLGA, we will continue increasing the number of local authorities and schools running this scheme by making a further £500,000 available during 2018-19. This will involve working with partners, including local health boards and Public Health Wales, to align agendas, for example, by reducing adverse childhood experiences or increasing sport participation. 

Thank you, leader of the house. It was a real privilege for me, last summer, to visit the lunch and fun club in Penywaun in my constituency and see the positive benefits that this initiative was having, and that's threefold: it's in terms of providing two hot meals a day to all pupils who are eligible for free school meals; providing fun educational activities; but also I was interested in the fact that it provided additional work hours for some of the lowest paid school staff as well. Last week saw perhaps the most game-changing announcement on the holiday hunger agenda with Labour-led North Lanarkshire Council announcing that it is looking to provide meals to its FSM pupils 365 days a year, with an additional cost implication allegedly of only £0.5 million for one of the authorities with the highest rates of free school meals. This is backed up by research that shows that it could improve concentration and possibly provide a powerful lever to close the elusive attainment gap between those who are eligible for free school meals and those who are not. Will the Welsh Government look to monitor this pilot to see whether it is something that could also be tried in Wales?

Yes, indeed. The food and fun scheme is a great scheme—it's won seven awards, including an NHS award recognising the scheme's adherence to the tenets of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I'm delighted to say that the Sustain charity wrote to all UK Governments in 2017 highlighting the Welsh model for tackling holiday hunger as the best in the UK. So, we're very pleased with what we've got already, and, as I've said, we are extending it. We will, however, be watching with keen interest the outcome of the North Lanarkshire pilot, which is funded by the local authority, and we'll be looking to consider the evaluations of that pilot in taking our own scheme forward. I very much hope that it works out and that we can emulate it.

Leader of the house, one thing that is very important is, of course, to make sure that there is childcare provision in the school holidays, and, indeed, outside of the school holidays. What consideration has the Welsh Government given to the concerns that have been expressed by the future generations commissioner and, indeed, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years about the penalties that grandparents, aunties, uncles, brothers and sisters might face if they are child minding on behalf of their relatives? Surely, we want to be encouraging families to share responsibilities for caring, not discouraging them by penalising them because of the Welsh Government's change in its guidance last year.

I share the Member's concern, actually, but I'm not sure I'd put it in quite the way that he did. Only registered child minders are currently eligible to receive funding as part of the offer because legislation for 2010, actually, states that the person looking after a child does not act as a child minder if that person is a parent or relative of the child, or a foster parent of the child. So, we can't currently fund child minders to care for children who are related to them unless it's part of a wider scheme where they're looking after other children.

We have been discussing this with PACEY, and we continue to talk to them about what changes, if any, might be made to the legislation ahead of the national roll-out of our offer, with a view to seeing what we can do to balance the two slightly conflicting priorities of ensuring that people meet all of the regulations and qualifications—the food safety and all-the-rest-of-it standards you'd expect for somebody looking after children—and enabling grandparents and so on to take advantage of that scheme. So, we are working on that. I do share some of his concerns, but I wouldn't put it in quite the way he did, and we are actively looking to see what we can do about it. 

Apologies.

It's written down. 

What is the Welsh Government doing to reduce the use of plastic in Wales?

Apologies for that. The Welsh Government ensured that Wales was at the forefront of introducing the charge on single-use carrier bags. Since its introduction, there has been a substantial reduction in single-use plastic carrier bag usage. We are now developing legislation to introduce a microbeads ban in Wales, on both the manufacture and sale of those products. 

Thank you very much for that response. I was very pleased to attend an event at Rhosneigr last Friday evening where a new campaign was launched to turn Anglesey into a plastic-free island. What that does is appeal to people—individuals, businesses and councils—to cease the use of plastics in many areas. There is a motion about to go before Anglesey County Council so that the whole council can take a stance on this. Does the Government support this kind of campaign to reduce the amount of plastic in our environment? Will the leader of the house also agree that we need governmental leadership and legislative leadership from this Assembly too in order to ensure that there is all-Wales action to reduce the use of plastics and plastics in our environment?

Yes, indeed, I very much welcome Anglesey's bid for Anglesey to become Wales's first local authority to have official plastic-free status. I think it includes plans to establish a water refill network across the island, and we'd be very interested to see how that goes. The Member will be well aware that 2018 is Wales's Year of the Sea, so it's very timely to act to protect our natural assets by taking further action of this sort. We set up the Wales clean seas partnership and working group to look at these issues and to focus action on preventing the problem at source.

The Minister for Environment was pleased to offer her personal congratulations to the Plastic Free Newquay campaigners in Newquay last week, when they were officially awarded plastic-free status. It's really pleasing to see Welsh communities taking positive action on the issue. Newquay joins its neighbour, Aberporth, as official plastic-free communities, and we very much hope that other towns and villages across Wales will follow suit. It's great to see Anglesey local authority taking that initiative.

As I said in the initial answer, we are developing legislation to introduce the microbeads ban in Wales on both the manufacture and sale of products—by 30 June 2018, we hope. Llantwit Major recently became the first town in Wales to sign up to the Refill app, which encourages people to refill water bottles at shops, cafes and businesses, so we'd like to encourage that sort of thing as well. But we very much welcome it and we're very much actively looking to see what we can do, both legislatively and culturally, to help people reduce their use of plastics.  

Leader of the house, last September the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs announced that she'd commissioned a study that would be looking at ways to, and I quote,

'increase waste prevention, increase recycling and reduce land and marine based litter.'

The study would also be including research on the impacts of extended producer responsibility schemes. Leader of the house, can I ask: when can we expect the findings of that report to be made available? 

We've commissioned consultants to conduct a study to examine the potential for extended producer responsibility approaches in Wales, which will help increase recycling and reduce the littering of packaging. I think the research will be focusing on food and drink-related packaging, including plastic bottles and cans, and will also include an analysis of a potential deposit-return scheme. The Minister for environment is, in fact, making a statement on recycling in Wales later on in today's agenda. I just think it's worth pointing out that Wales has the highest municipal recycling rate in the UK, the second highest in Europe and the third highest in in the world. So, we're doing very well already, but the Member is quite right—we could do more, and we will be looking to see what we can do. 

Leader of the house, I'm sure you'll welcome the decision by the BBC to eliminate by 2020 all single-use plastics from their premises, and the royal family, which is an institution nearly as grand and august as the BBC, has said that internal caterers at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyrood will have to use china plates and glasses, or recyclable—[Interruption.]—recyclable paper cups. I just wonder if the Welsh Government is going to follow the royal family and the BBC's example and do the same on its premises. 

I think it's a very laudable aim. I'm not too sure about china ones, but I know that David Melding has heard me on one of my many soapboxes on a number of occasions about my antipathy towards single-use coffee cups, and my carrying around, to the detriment of the inside of my handbag on occasions, coffee cups that can be refilled. Indeed, I'm very pleased that the Assembly estate largely uses china cups as well, but we have a little issue with the lids, I think. 

It's surprisingly hard to eliminate plastic from your life. I've had a go at it myself, and there are some products that are very, very difficult to get hold of without plastic, so there is a big issue about us working with the UK Government to ensure that we put some pressure on manufacturers to come up with alternatives. There are lots of things we can do in the meantime, though, and I will certainly be taking up his suggestion on the Welsh Government estate to see what we can do to reduce what we currently have in terms of single-use plastic. And, if the Llywydd will indulge me for one minute, I will repeat something I've already said in this Chamber, which is that I would thoroughly encourage everybody to be using bamboo-handled toothbrushes, which are an excellent substitute for single-use plastic toothbrushes.  

Yes, indeed. The new clinical response model is ensuring all patients receive the right response from the right type of clinician and vehicle to optimise their chances of a good outcome, and that patients in most need of an immediate intervention receive the fastest response.

Thank you. It's that immediate intervention question I want to raise with you, because, as you'll be aware, there have been some distressing stories in our neck of the woods where a reported injury has in of itself perhaps not been life-threatening, but the outcomes for patients have proven serious because secondary factors have not been taken into consideration by the call handlers. We've got one incident where individuals were left for hours in freezing conditions at night in a rural location, with an injury that perhaps at home in front of a warm fire wouldn't have been a problem. In another, an elderly person was left lying for hours on a cold floor after a fall with a fracture that would have proven life-threatening had they been moved by a lay person, which, of course, is the temptation when somebody's been left lying too long. And in another correct lay person report of knocked unconscious, that wasn't interrogated to reveal that the person was barely breathing and actually deteriorated so quickly that the amber categorisation proved to be a mistake. So, would the Welsh Government consider revisiting the questions asked by call handlers, not for a wholesale change of principle, but to allow environmental conditions to be taken into account before refusing a red categorisation?  

My understanding is that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services has already asked the chief ambulance services commissioner to review the monitoring of amber calls in order to reduce the time waited by those with the longest response times and consider how the amber calls are being dealt with. So, I'm sure he's heard that additional point that you've made and will be taking that into account. 

Welcome to the Chamber. I think that's your first question, so I'm delighted to be the one answering it. Our plans for investment across north Wales are detailed in the 'National Transport Finance Plan 2017 Update'. Our resources are directed to achieving a sustainable and integrated transport system that supports all modes of transport. 

Thank you. Leader of the house, we know this Government is delivering game-changing investments in Alyn and Deeside, from redevelopment of Shotton station to the £250 million road investment and improvement across the Deeside corridor. This investment is definitely welcomed by my constituents, but I'm sure you'll agree that we can and should do more. Transport links within the local communities and across north Wales are very important as are links from the north to south. But I'm sure you'll agree with me that links with our English neighbours are vital. Will the Minister update us on the work being done to ensure that we have closer economic and transport links with the north-west of England? 

Yes, very important points. We certainly recognise the importance of improving transport connectivity between north Wales and north-west England, and that's why we're working closely with organisations on both sides of the border to develop and deliver improvements across all transport modes. Representatives from Cheshire West and Chester, Merseyside travel and Wirral are members of the north Wales and north-east Wales metro steering group to ensure we plan and deliver improvements in a joined-up way. In terms of bus services, officers are working closely with Merseytravel to improve bus connectivity between Liverpool and north Wales and we're expecting a proposal to be brought forward by a bus operator to run the long-distance service shortly. 

I'm sure as you're aware, the 'West and Wales Strategic Rail Prospectus' was launched in Westminster yesterday—with Ken Skates speaking alongside the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling—a proposal developed by a partnership of public and private sector bodies on both sides of the border. Clearly, we also support the proposals within that. But parallel to that and critical to its success will be the calls in the growth deal bid for north Wales. How, therefore, does the Welsh Government respond to the call, or the invitation, in the growth deal bid for north Wales, to come to both Governments, inviting the Welsh Government to support the formation of a regional transport body and a regional transport fund where additional powers will be needed to enable the planning of integrated passenger transport networks? 

My understanding is it's part of the consideration of the connectivity that I was just talking about. The Cabinet Secretary's indicating to me that it will be part of the consideration, but, if the Member wants to write for very specific details, I'm sure he'd be happy to give you specifics. 

An all-party group from north Wales heard from the Cabinet Secretary earlier this afternoon on this Government’s plans to create a series of transport hubs across north Wales and we welcome the investment of tens of millions of pounds in that infrastructure, but, simultaneously, a few weeks ago, we saw the publication of a report that Wales saw the biggest decrease in the number of miles travelled on public buses throughout the whole of the UK. Now, whilst the Government talks of significant capital investment, which is to be welcomed, it’s also clear that we need corresponding revenue investment to actually cease this decrease in the use of bus services. So, would you agree that the risk is that it would be a mistake to invest in transport hubs if we are still losing fundamental services on our buses?

I think the whole situation with bus transport is a fraught one. We are indeed spending an enormous amount of money on bus transport right across Wales, not just in the north of the country. Once we have the bus regulation powers devolved to Wales, we will have to have, I think, a fundamental look at how we use that subsidy money, including both revenue and capital subsidies, because I think all of us in this Chamber have problems with bus services in our area and there are some significant difficulties around the planning of the routes and the preponderance of routes where, for example, concessionary travel passes are unavailable and so on. So, I actually completely agree with the Member that a fundamental look needs to be had but I think we need to look at the point in time when we have the power to regulate, so that we have a bit more leverage in terms of some of the routes that we would like to see. I'm not familiar with the specific routes in his area but I can assure you that, in my area, I have many of the same difficulties. We will certainly be looking at it again. 

Yes. Grants and contracts totalling more than £3.7 million have so far been allocated to Mudiad Meithrin for the 2018-19 financial year. This includes an additional £1 million to expand Welsh-medium early years provision across Wales.

Can I thank you for that answer? I want to raise the importance of Mudiad Meithrin, which gets children to start using Welsh at a very young age, which leads on to them attending Welsh-medium schools and thus increasing the number of Welsh speakers in Wales. Will the Welsh Government produce a plan to increase the numbers attending Ti a Fi and Mudiad Meithrin, because that is going to be the only way in which the number of Welsh speakers is going to be increased dramatically over the next 20 or 30 years?

I've some sympathy with what the Member's saying as my own parents are Welsh speaking, as he knows, and I'm not Welsh speaking as they didn't teach it to me as a child and I've singularly failed to get any better at it than knowing my colours and numbers, I'm ashamed to say. So, I think there's a lot to be said for bringing up your children bilingually. Cymraeg for Kids provides advice and support for parents and prospective parents aimed at enabling families to use more Welsh. The programme's targeted at prospective parents and families with children aged 0 to four, and Mudiad Meithrin delivers local activities and support on behalf of the Welsh Government. These include story and song sessions, baby yoga and baby massage groups. These activities were expanded to all local authorities from April 2017, and the contract for delivery of the activities has been extended to March 2019, as we absolutely agree with the Member that the earlier the engagement with the Welsh language and the more frequent that engagement in the family, the more likely it is that the language will stick.

We've got a network of more than 400—I can't even say it in Welsh, I'm ashamed to say—cylchoedd Ti a Fi parent and toddler groups across Wales. These provide activities promoting the development of children from birth to school age and offer the opportunities for families to socialise in an informal Welsh atmosphere.

I'm going to add something else in there that I know from my digital portfolio myself, which is that I very much encourage everybody to get as much Welsh onto Wikipedia as possible and onto the web because what we find is that if youngsters can use it in their day-to-day activities as part of their socialisation then they tend to use Welsh much more frequently amongst their peer group outside of the school setting, and that also helps to cement the use of Welsh language in their lives. So, we've been trying to encourage that for some considerable period of time.

The additional £1 million to support the work in 2018-19 will enable them to make rapid progress to expand Welsh-medium early years provision and it will be used to undertake work specifically aimed at establishing new settings in areas with a current shortage of Welsh-medium childcare provision as well.

This money is very welcome, and of course it's a very important seedcorn investment for the 1 million speakers policy by 2050, but you can't make the assumption that just because a child goes to Ti a Fi and Mudiad Meithrin they will continue to use Welsh throughout their lives, particularly when they leave school. While it might be quite difficult to monitor the progress of individuals using Welsh when they perhaps learn it online, it should be easier to track the progress of a child and whether they develop and use their Welsh throughout their life. Is that something that's a part of Welsh Government's plans within the 2050 strategy?

I'm not absolutely certain whether that specific is, but I know that the review of Welsh in education strategic plans undertaken by Aled Roberts in 2017 included recommendations to strengthen the strategic relationship between local authorities and Mudiad Meithrin to ensure growth at local authority level to contribute to the Welsh Government target for 2050 and to ensure the system for capital investment takes need for preschool provision into account in order to plan more effectively for the transition between preschool and the primary phase. So, that's partly answering your question, in the sense that we are tracking people from preschool into the primary stage provision, but I'll ask the Minister with responsibility for Welsh language to specifically answer your question.FootnoteLink

May I also welcome the fact that the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Government on the budget secured these additional resources for Mudiad Meithrin? But I would disagree to a certain extent with the point that Suzy Davies made, because the evidence shows that if you do go to Welsh-medium preschool education, then you’re far more likely to go on to Welsh-medium education than if you don’t.

We are talking here of the Government’s strategy to secure a million Welsh speakers by 2050, but I would like to refer specifically to the childcare offer that the Government is now developing, and the crucial role that that has in ensuring that as many children as possible in that preschool age group are caught within the Welsh-medium continuum rather than starting their education journey outwith that continuum, because, once you’ve lost them in those early years, the great likelihood is that they won’t come into Welsh-medium education and that they won’t become bilingual.

So, may I ask how you are ensuring that all children will have access to Welsh-medium services in terms of the childcare offer and also the need to ensure that there is sufficient workforce in place to secure that provision?

The Member's quite right, we did put the additional £1 million in—invested it—to enable them to respond to the challenge set out in 'Cymraeg 2050' to make rapid progress in expanding Welsh-medium early years provision. We've delivered to over 2,000 groups so far during 2017-18, providing support and advice to enable families to use more Welsh. The Member's absolutely right—there's real data to show that preschool activity does lead on to Welsh-medium activity. As I was saying to Suzy Davies, we've extended our monitoring of that to make sure that we have the data available, and we've extended the contract for delivery of the activities as well to March 2019. As the lead organisation within Cwlwm—a consortium of five leading childcare organisations in Wales—Mudiad Meithrin has also undertaken projects aimed at delivering a bilingual integrated service that will ensure the best possible outcomes for children and families across Wales, with a view to that bilingualism, as opposed to teaching Welsh as a foreign language, which I think is a policy that hasn't stood the test of time, and I'm living proof of how well it doesn't work.

Leaving the European Union will affect every community in Wales. In particular, jobs, business and public services in Islwyn, and, indeed, across Wales, will be critically dependent on securing full and unfettered access to the single market and a customs union, which are our top priorities.

Diolch. Leader of the house, David Lidington, UK Tory Government Minister for the Cabinet Office, speaking at Airbus in north Wales, offered to rewrite the alleged flagship Brexit Bill to address the concerns of the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland. The First Minister of Wales in reply has stated that, as currently drafted, the EU withdrawal Bill allows the UK Government to take control of devolved policy areas, such as farming and fishing, once the UK has left the EU. This is an unacceptable attack on devolution in both Wales and Scotland. Leader of the house, what further actions can the Welsh Government take to ensure that the UK Tory Government respects the hard-fought devolution settlement to this Assembly? How can the Welsh Government safeguard the economic interests of the people of Islwyn, once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union?

The Member makes a very important point, and, of course, we've been in extended negotiations with the UK Government about the respect for the devolution settlement as indicated in the EU withdrawal Bill. We will be looking to bring forward a Bill—the continuity Bill—and I'm very pleased, myself, to see Steffan in the Chamber this afternoon. We'll bring forward that continuity Bill to ensure that the devolution settlement is properly reflected in the EU withdrawal Bill and thus we're able to protect our economy, our jobs and our future prospects.

Minister, last week, Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff University—[Interruption.] Well, yes, I listened. He told the Welsh Affairs Select Committee that Welsh consumers will benefit enormously from the lower prices as a result of competition and rising productivity resulting from—[Interruption.]

I do need to hear the Member, please. Carry on, Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer—resulting from leaving the customs union and the single market. He predicted that poorer households such as those in Islwyn would make even bigger gains. Why is the Welsh Government so dismissive and negative about the views of economists like Professor Minford and reluctant to recognise the economic opportunities resulting from Brexit for Wales?

Well, Professor Minford is a little of an outlier amongst economic professors. Actually, in fact, I think he is entirely alone in his analysis of Welsh economic prospects without the EU. Our economic analysis shows that, over the long term, our economic output could be up to 8 per cent to 10 per cent lower than otherwise if we leave the single market and are forced to trade under World Trade Organization rules. This is in line with other published economic analysis and the reports of the UK Government's own assessment. This is equivalent to around £1,500 to £2,000 a head. The impact on the UK's economy will hit the public finances available to provide public services, following a long period of sustained austerity. This will only make worse the continued challenge of delivering our priorities within the context of growing pressures and an ever-decreasing budget. Economic growth and jobs in Islwyn are being supported through multimillion-pound European Union funding schemes, including Working Skills for Adults, Bridges into Work, apprenticeships and the SMART business and innovation schemes. The benefits these schemes are creating for our communities, people and businesses demonstrate the need for replacement funding from the UK Government after we leave the EU. Otherwise, I am afraid Professor Minford will find himself, once again, on the wrong side of the academic argument.

Finally, Steffan Lewis.

Diolch, Llywydd. I deeply regret the new-found politicking and ducking and weaving on the question of the single market that was apparent yesterday in the UK Labour leader's speech on his vision for a future relationship with the European Union. There are real consequences to leaving the single market for real people. One of those will be that we will lose the right to benefit from clinical trials from the European Medicines Agency. Only EEA and EU member states benefit from clinical trials and treatments, so I'd like to have reassurance from the leader of the house—. And this isn't something you can achieve, by the way, through free and unfettered access; you have to be a member of the single market to benefit from EMA membership and for your citizens to benefit from the clinical trials. Can we have a commitment that you will robustly oppose any attempt by a Government of any colour in Westminster to deny Welsh citizens the access to the best cutting-edge treatment that they can be provided with?

Yes. I am very happy to categorically say that. We've never made any bones about the fact that we need to stay inside those arrangements. It's disastrous for research of all sorts—not just clinical research—across Wales and across the UK to be outside of those far-reaching partnership arrangements for that cutting-edge research. So, I'm very happy to say that that remains our position and we will be robustly defending it at whatever level.

Thank you, leader of the house. 

The next item, believe it or not, is the business statement and announcement, led by no other than the leader of the house, Julie James, wearing her other hat. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are three changes to this week's business. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance will make a statement shortly on the JMC(EN) held last Thursday, and in order to accommodate this, I have postponed the statement updating the Assembly on the UK inquiry on infected blood until 13 March. Finally, the Business Committee has agreed to postpone tomorrow's short debate until next week. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement, found amongst the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

I have two things I'd like to raise with the leader of the house, if possible. Firstly, I had the pleasure of returning to my old school, Connah's Quay High School, to meet a group of students partaking in the F1 in Schools competition. The competition involves designing and manufacturing carbon dioxide-powered model racing cars using sophisticated computer-aided design software and computer-aided manufacturing techniques. I actually took part in this competition myself, and I'd like to wish all the students from Connah's Quay High School, and all others across the north Wales region, good luck for the regional finals.

Finally, last week I also spoke at the conference held by Deeside Business Forum on the importance of full-fibre digital connectivity. We are promoting north Wales as an especially attractive location for business growth and investment, and as part of our long-term vision to accredit it as the most digitally connected region in the United Kingdom, would it be possible to have a statement during Government time on what the Welsh Government is doing to ensure we implement gigabit-speed full-fibre broadband connectivity across the north Wales region?

The Member makes a very good point. Gigabit services are already widely available today across the UK, Wales and north Wales. Businesses that require gigabit speeds can access them, but of course, they come at a price. There is a real issue with the market price for gigabit services, but unfortunately the Welsh Government is not the controller of that. It's a matter for Ofcom to address those through the market regulation. We are participating in the full-fibre rounds that the UK Government is offering, and I will be able to say something more to the Assembly once we know where that particular competition is going.

In terms of domestic gigabit services, we are, as Jack Sargeant will know, looking at investing in fibre-to-the-premises technology throughout north Wales through the Superfast Cymru scheme and other schemes. And, of course, the successor scheme is currently out to procurement. Llywydd, I'll resist the temptation to go on at great length about that today, as I'm answering oral Assembly questions tomorrow, and I believe a number of those are in relation to broadband schemes.

With questions tomorrow, leader of the house, you're earning your crust this week, in fairness to you. Can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance around the non-residential land transfer tax? I've had extensive correspondence over the half-term recess, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary has had similar correspondence from the sector in relation to the impact that the tax will have on the commercial attractiveness of Wales as a destination for capital. It is imperative that we do understand exactly how this tax will impact on Wales's ability to attract investment. As I understand it, the sector are pointing out that the evidence that the Government bases its commitment to introduce this tax on is Bangor University's assessment and there was little or no consultation with the sector to ascertain the impact of the tax on the sector. Seventy-nine per cent of inward investment on capital projects that the tax would effect, over the last 10 years, would fall into the increased taxation rate that the Welsh Government is setting. What we've seen in Scotland, with a lower level of tax, is greater inward investment and greater flows of capital into the commercial property market. So, I'd be most grateful if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance could bring forward a statement to outline exactly the levels of consultation that the Government undertook with the sector, importantly, over the impact of this new tax, and what response the Welsh Government has to the very detailed analysis that the sector has put together over the likely impact of being able to attract such valuable capital into Wales to develop new opportunities for properties the length and breadth of Wales.

Well, the Assembly has only just passed the tax regulations. We had a full and frank debate about it at the time. I think that it would be far too early for a statement to be brought forward on regulations that have only just been passed. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will bring forward a statement once we've had a good period of time for the regulations to show what they do in Wales and we've got some empirical evidence on which to base that statement.

If I could raise two issues with the leader of the house. First of all, I see, from the business statement, that the continuity Bill is to be tabled next week. Now, the new title is very long-winded, but let's call it the continuity Bill, as Steffan Lewis has done in the past. Of course, there will be a statement shortly from the Cabinet Secretary—I understand that. I just wanted to ask you about the Assembly procedures of dealing with this Bill. I think we will, first of all, decide whether we accept it as an emergency Bill, and if we do, we will then adopt it in those terms.

So, can you tell us how long you expect this Bill to be discussed, and how long you expect it to take for a decision to be taken by the Assembly? And will there be any time during that process for committee scrutiny? It appears to me, although I understand that it's an emergency Bill, it has been in the pipeline since the summer, at least, and it would appear to me that we established a particular committee to look at issues around Brexit—not just Brexit, but mainly Brexit—chaired by Dai Rees. Surely, there should be time for this committee to have a look at the Bill and to provide some sort of feedback and to seek people's feedback on the Bill. So, I just wanted confirmation of procedure rather than policy. We'll have an opportunity to question the policy in due time.

The second thing I'd like to ask for is a statement from the Government on the situation of banking in Wales, and particularly banking in rural Wales. This is an issue that's been raised on a number of occasions by Members from all parties in this place, but I'm raising it today as I would like the Welsh Government to look at a Bill being brought forward by my colleague Ben Lake today in the House of Commons. It's a 10-minute rule Bill, which will put in place three important principles, which will be very useful for us to look at in terms of rural banking

The first is looking at how we can change the protocol on access to banking in terms of distance rather than time to access. When you think of rural areas, the distances can be quite short, but the time that it takes to access those services can be much longer, particularly if you are reliant on public transport.

The second principle is that the banking regulators should look at the possibility that different banks could share premises, share equipment and even share staff, if required, of course. We will need a change of regulation to allow that, but you could see how that could be beneficial to many rural towns, and you will be aware that this has happened in the context of mobile telecommunications. So, it is something that we should be open to.

The third principle is the one looking at enhancing the services provided by the Post Office. Often, they can provide excellent services but it's not always appropriate for business banking, particularly businesses that still deal with cash, for example.

So, those three principles in the Bill are worthy of consideration by the Government, and I would like the opportunity to discuss them, and perhaps also to hear from the Government what their view is about this Bill, or anything similar that may improve the situation of banking in Wales.

Those are two very interesting points. The first one on the procedure on the continuity Bill, which I'm also going to call it, because the title is indeed very long and complicated, is that we will be looking to table a motion next week, to get the Assembly to agree that it should be treated as an emergency Bill, and that will also have a debate on the scheduling of that Bill, rather than the merits of it. And, then once the Assembly has agreed the scheduling, then obviously the scheduling goes forward. So, next week, there'll be an opportunity to debate the merits of the various sorts of ways that you can deal with the emergency Bill, and, obviously, in the motion to treat the Bill as an emergency Bill, we will be putting forward the Government's reasons for wanting to do so and the various things. So, I won't reiterate them here, as we're scheduling it for next week, but the Member's quite right: we need to sort out both the Assembly accepting that it should be treated as an emergency Bill, and then what the scheduling of that Bill should be. So, that's a matter for next week.

I wasn't aware of the Ben Lake Bill on banking. That's very interesting. I will make sure that the Cabinet Secretary becomes aware of it. We've had many debates in this Chamber about access to banking and I share all of the concerns that the Member raised. I have to say I don't think it's just rural. My own very urban constituency has all of those problems, including time taken to get to banks, and businesses banking with cash and so on, so I'd be very happy to talk to the Cabinet Secretary about what we might do to look at that Bill and any of the things we might be able to take forward here in the Assembly. 

Last week, I had the opportunity to talk to a lot of university professors and lecturers who are on strike at Cardiff University, which really closed down the university for the last two days of last week. And it's unsurprising really, given that the university's superannuation scheme has been torn up and teaching staff are expecting to see the biggest pay cut they've ever had in their history, because instead of having a pension scheme based on what they pay in, and therefore what they get out, when they retire, they've been told that their pension will be reliant on the vagaries of the stock market. So, it's unsurprising that university staff across 64 universities in the UK are really concerned about this latest watering down of their terms and conditions and the casualisation of much of the workforce in our universities.

Given the importance of universities for the future economy of Wales, our future leaders, our future inventors, our future entrepreneurs, is it possible to ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education about what, if anything, the Welsh Government can do to ensure that Universities UK gets back around the negotiating table with the unions, given that if the strike goes on for beyond this four weeks, it could actually have an impact on students' ability to sit their exams, so it's extremely serious?

Yes, that's a very serious and important point. We'd very much like to see the university employers and unions negotiating a settlement to this dispute if at all possible. The Welsh Government has made it clear that if needed we're prepared to facilitate that process in Wales, and whatever it takes. The Cabinet Secretary for Education is meeting union leaders and representatives of Universities Wales this week, and I'm sure she'll provide an update during her Assembly questions next week on how that goes.

Higher education institutions are autonomous bodies responsible for all employment matters, and unfortunately, as such, neither the Welsh Ministers nor the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales can play any formal role in what are UK-wide negotiations. But we're continuing to monitor the situation, and any future negotiations that may occur, both on the staff and on the students, and we're very concerned to limit the impacts that affect the reputation or future sustainability of the sector in Wales. The greatest concerns is, of course, the impact on students, but the staff are also a concern for us. So, our fervent hope is that they can get back around the negotiating table as soon as possible and bring a very damaging dispute to an end. 

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement from the Welsh Government on financial support for apprentices in Wales? The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has reported that there is substantial evidence that financial barriers are discouraging, and in some cases are preventing young people from taking up apprenticeships across Wales. The committee has called for the Welsh Government to establish a universal grant to cover living costs for apprentices, and a hardship fund for those on the lowest pay levels, or to provide concessionary bus or rail cards. Could we please have a statement on this important issue?

The Member's quite right—apprenticeships in Wales are a very important issue. But I have to point out at this point that one of the biggest issues is the minimum wage regulations that the UK Government impose on apprenticeships, which are very low indeed, and which are a matter of some concern. We are looking to see what we can do to support vocational forms of education through grant schemes, and others, and I'm sure in due course the Minister will bring a paper forward on what can be further done. But there is a big problem around expecting that apprentices are able to live at home with family and don't need to earn even the minimum wage, which we need to address in the UK as a whole in order to be able to maintain our apprenticeships system, even remotely in the situation it is in at the moment.

Leader of the house, can I thank you for your statement in the first instance? And by means of whetting your appetite for tomorrow's questions, can I ask for a progress report on the new roll-out scheme for superfast broadband? I've been consulted in the last couple of weeks by constituents in Llangynwyd, Maesteg, who are stuck with slow broadband. This is affecting their business, their online advertising, payments for goods and service transactions, meaning they are losing customers as the internet drops. So, can I press the leader of the house, with one of her several hats on today, to provide more detail on the process by which different areas will be selected for the new roll-out scheme? And, in particular, when will the superfast broadband get to Llangynwyd? Thank you.

Yes, the Member's quite right, I am answering a series of questions tomorrow—I believe he might be one of them—on this very point. And as soon as we have got full details of the Superfast 2 scheme, I will be announcing it. But just to reiterate my previous point, it will not be a one-size-fits-all, and we are looking to modify it across Wales to suit particular communities. If the Member wants to invite me to a particular community to hear their concerns, and to see whether there's a viable community scheme there, I'd be more than happy to do that.

Leader of the house, can I first of all agree with the comments from Jenny Rathbone? As a member of the University and College union, I totally agree with the statement she made and the comments she expressed. It's critical that we address this matter.

Can I ask for two statements from the Welsh Government? The first one's an easy one. The former Cabinet Secretary for communities and regeneration actually instigated an investigation into NSA Afan back at the beginning of last year. I know that process has not been completed, but it would be good to have an update from the current Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services as to what progress has been made in that inquiry and as to what lessons can be learned from it, because it's important how it now delivers to the communities in Aberafan, because that organisation has been delivering many, many services to many of our vulnerable individuals in that community.

And the second one: can I ask from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport for a statement on steel? We've heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, obviously, on the work done on the procurement aspect, but we are now two years down the road since the disastrous comments we had that threatened the steel industry in Wales, yet there are still concerns over the future. There's a joint venture scheme—I had the privilege of being able to talk to the chief executive of Tata Steel UK this morning, to discuss some of those aspects, but it's now important that we discuss the Welsh Government's ability to actually continue supporting the steel industry here in Wales. It was agreed, as part of the deal with Plaid Cymru, about £30 million towards Tata. What progress has been made in delivering that commitment? The £60 million has been identified—£30 million loan, £30 million grant. Where are we with that? It's now, I think, important to understand where the Welsh Government is in working forward with the steel industry to ensure we continue to have a thriving steel industry in Wales.

David Rees makes two very important points, as always. I believe the NSA matter is still a matter for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and he's indicating his willingness to keep you informed as the matter progresses.

In terms of steel, of course that's an issue that affects almost every community in Wales, and continues to do so. It's a very important point. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will be looking to update the whole Assembly as to where we are with the steel industry in Wales, as part of his ongoing plans to keep the Assembly informed, and I'll make sure—. Well, he's here, and he's nodding happily at me, so I'm sure that he'll be doing that in due course.

In November, the Minister for Children and Social Care announced the setting up of a ministerial advisory group to steer delivery of cross-Government support for carers, with a supporting sum of about £95,000 for the project that would deliver a sort of national approach, if you like. That was three months ago, and I'm wondering if I could ask for an update on that, particularly covering the areas of how the group will be chosen, and when they will begin work.

The Cabinet Secretary is indicating he's happy to write to you and keep you informed. 

Okay. Lovely, thank you. 

Further to the comments made previously about the industrial action by the University and College Union regarding the universities' superannuation scheme, which, as we've heard, will leave lecturers' pensions to the whims of the stock market, but according to First Actuarial as well will leave the average lecturer with £200,000 less in pension income, can I say that Plaid Cymru supports the UCU strikes and we certainly support their calls on Universities UK to come up with a better offer? I'm not content with just asking the Government to make a statement. Can I ask: will this Welsh Labour-led Government unequivocally support the UCU strike so that we can all pull together in putting pressure on Universities UK to come up with a better and a fairer deal on their pensions? 

Yes, I think a lot of us have a lot of sympathy with the UCU employees. I understand that the talks broke down on the casting vote of the chair. So, it was hardly a good discussion even at that point. I think we take the firm view that we need to get them back into the negotiating arrangements, to get the vice-chancellors to come to that table with an open mind and to get the very best deal for UCU colleagues that can be got, because it's quite clear that they are the absolute pivot of the world-class universities that we have in Wales and throughout the UK and they clearly ought to be remunerated accordingly.  

Could I ask for a statement on the rising levels of congestion and pollution on the A470, particularly in the Taff Ely area? You'll be aware of the recent reports that actually identify the A470 as the most congested road in Wales, with a travel time of seven miles per hour at peak traffic times. Also, in conjunction with the level of pollution, of course, you'll be aware of the recent judgment that relates to the UK but also has an impact in Wales. And this is a matter that clearly relates also to the issue of the importance of the metro in getting vehicles off our roads but also perhaps in balancing the debate on the importance of dealing with traffic issues and the promotion of the metro as a priority. 

The Member makes an important point. Air quality is a very important matter throughout Wales. We've recently announced the clean air plan for Wales and that will include a clean air zone framework to ensure the consistent and effective implementation of clean air zones by local authorities, improvements to local authority reporting and the establishment of a national air quality assessment monitoring centre for Wales. Air quality is a lot more than just traffic pollution. There are lots of other pollutants in our atmosphere that the clean air plan for Wales will be taking into account and that, of course, includes whole new sections on builds and transport modal shifts and a number of other issues, which the Member highlights and which will be very important as we go forward. 

I'm looking for a statement from the Government on St David's Day, which is coming up this Thursday, and what I think should be happening is that all Assembly employees and all Government employees should be given the day off. I'm giving my staff the day off, so I'm just wondering what the Government makes of that and whether you will make an effort next year. 

Well, I don't think we have any plans at all to make St David's Day a national public holiday, but the First Minister, when he returns from his St David's Day travels, I'm sure will be updating the Assembly on what he's managed to achieve over this St David's Day week. 

Leader of the house, you'll be aware that we're at the start of Fairtrade Fortnight and will you join me in congratulating all those who won awards at the Wales for Africa ceremony recently at the National Museum, including Barry Town Council fair trade group and also the Dinas Powys fair trade group? They were highly commended, the Dinas Powys group, in both the communications and shoestring budget categories, and in fact, in their statement they said that they were able to link up with different parts of their community, always looking at ways to engage with people on fair trade issues and increasing the number of fair trade products in local shops. So, that was my first question.

My second question is: can I also welcome the dignity and respect statement, which was issued by the Llywydd, by all the leaders and Jayne Bryant, as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, on 16 February? I'm glad that there'll be engagement with stakeholders. Can you clarify who they will be and how that engagement will take place, and also update us on when we're likely to have a cross-party motion and vote on the statement here in the Senedd?

Yes, taking those in reverse order—both very important points—I believe that the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee is going to be making a statement next week in the Assembly that will take us forward, and then we can see what needs to be done as a result of her statement, which will take us all up to where we are in terms of that agenda. I'm very much looking forward to hearing what she's got to say on that point.

In terms of fair trade, I'm happy to say that I had a birthday recently, which some of you may not know, on account of my youthful looks, and I received a large number of fair-trade items, which I was delighted by, one of which was a goat, which I believe resides somewhere in Africa, and which I am to receive updates on. So, I was very delighted with that. It's a hugely important agenda, actually, for Wales, and the import of fair-trade goods is one of the main issues for us as we support developing nations across the world by what we are able to use in terms of consumer power. So, I very much support that agenda and I very much welcome the initiative.

And finally, David Melding.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, can I ask for a statement on the progress that is being made with the cladding safety tests in high residential buildings in Wales? You may know that, last week, a report to the south Wales fire and rescue authority stated that a hotel and a block of flats in Cardiff had not met, I quote, 'combustibility requirements'. This now brings the total of failed cladding test buildings to 12 since the fatal fire at Grenfell. I'm particularly concerned about the assessment of risk in the private sector, and I think a statement is appropriate because this is a difficult area for the Government, I realise, in terms of your reach in that area. But I do think we should have a statement of progress.

Yes, the Minister's here listening to your very important point, and she's indicating that she's happy to make a statement updating us as to where we are with that important agenda.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) meeting on 22 February 2018, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the latest meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Union Negotiations)—the JMC(EN)—which was held in London on Thursday last, 22 February.  

The JMC was chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Lidington, and was attended by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as Michael Russell, the Scottish Government’s Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe, and myself. Northern Ireland was represented by civil servants, following the failure of the latest attempt to put a new Executive in place.

The meeting was constructive. It took place just ahead of the UK Cabinet committee meeting at Chequers intended to provide greater clarity about the Government’s positioning on the long-term relationship between the UK and the EU-27. Both Mike Russell and I gave clear and unequivocal presentations of our well-established priorities, stressing the importance of putting the needs of the economy at the head of that priority list and ensuring the rapid agreement of a transition phase, a step which, together with Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Government called for formally as long ago as January 2017. I also emphasised the importance of clear commitment from the UK Government to the engagement of the devolved administrations in the second-phase negotiations, particularly where these concerned devolved policy areas. I am glad to be able to report that the UK Government made a commitment to bring forward proposals in this regard for consideration at a March meeting of the JMC.

Llywydd, there was considerable speculation in advance of the meeting about progress on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently before the House of Lords. As Members here know, the UK Government has given commitments to both Houses of Parliament that it will work with the devolved administrations to bring forward amendments that might enable both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly to give legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill.

While intensive work at official level has been under way for a number of weeks, we were disappointed that the UK Government was only able to put a proposal on the table very shortly before the Thursday meeting. This meant that we were not able to have the full and meaningful discussion of the proposals that the importance of this matter merited.

Nevertheless, all three Governments agreed that they shared the objective of reaching an agreement on these issues, and while the UK proposals fall some way short of what would be acceptable to either ourselves or to the Scottish Government, we agreed that they provide a basis for further discussion at political level in the very near future.

Mr Lidington sketched out in his speech yesterday some of the thinking behind the UK Government’s new proposal. I would like to acknowledge that the UK Government does appear to have moved some distance from its original position, particularly on clause 11. That original position was wholly unacceptable to the Welsh Government and, I believe, to the majority in this Assembly. However, as the First Minister said yesterday, we now need further progress that goes beyond warm words and which makes agreement possible. I remain hopeful that such an agreement can be reached and I will, of course, update Members as developments happen.

This is, Llywydd, also highly relevant to the fact that, as is now known, we have today also taken steps towards the introduction of our own continuity legislation. One of the reasons why there has been such frustration at the slow pace with which the UK Government has taken forward discussions on amending the EU withdrawal Bill is the implications of this slow progress on our own plans. We have been absolutely clear, and remain completely clear, that our preference is for a workable UK-level Bill. But, as is well known, and with strong support across this Chamber, very regularly articulated, for example, by Steffan Lewis, we have been working hard on a fallback option, both to provide legal continuity of EU legislation about devolved matters in Wales, and to safeguard devolution. We have come to the point where we cannot delay any longer if this legislation, even as an emergency Bill, is to have a reasonable opportunity of getting onto the statute book in time for us to be able to take the steps necessary to secure legislative continuity.

Our Bill, the law derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, remains a fallback, fail-safe option. But it is, we believe, a robust, considered piece of legislation, which will do the job required if our preferred way forward—a withdrawal Bill that respects the devolution settlement—is denied to us by the UK Government. I continue, Llywydd, to hope, that the discussions at next week’s JMC will lead to a successful outcome, one that enables us to recommend that the National Assembly gives its legislative consent to the EU withdrawal Bill while it is still before Parliament. If we succeed in that endeavour, we will not hesitate to withdraw the Bill we will present here.

In summary, Llywydd, in the whole Brexit discussions, the Welsh Government remains firmly focused on the best outcomes for Wales. As we leave the European Union, the needs of jobs and our economy must come first. That process cannot and must not be used as an excuse to row back the boundaries of devolution within the United Kingdom, and the powers of this National Assembly, as confirmed in two referendums of the Welsh people, must be respected and protected. Our efforts remain constructively but unremittingly focused on achieving those ends.  

Thank you, finance Secretary, for your statement. The joint communiqué issued by you, by David Lidington for the UK Government, by the Scottish Government, and a senior civil servant from the Northern Ireland administration, following last Thursday's JMC on European negotiations, 

'noted the engagement that had taken place between UK Government and Devolved Administration officials since the previous meeting',

and said,

'Engagement would continue with the aim of ensuring the Devolved Administrations were fully involved in developing the UK’s negotiating position, while respecting the UK Government’s role as negotiator.'

That, clearly, applies less to what you've thus far addressed and more to negotiations ongoing between the UK Government and the EU itself. Therefore, I'd be grateful if you could give us a little bit more information about what involvement the Welsh Government has in developing the UK's negotiating position, as articulated in that joint communiqué by you and others.

The same communiqué stated that the JMC discussed the EU withdrawal Bill and the proposal to amend clause 11, as you've addressed, noting that progress had been made but agreement had not yet been reached between the three Governments, or Northern Ireland, on the form of amendments, but discussions on further detail would continue. I welcome your confirmation that there will be a JMC meeting next week, I think you said, and you also referred to a meeting in March. So, perhaps you could just clarify that my understanding is correct.

Could you tell us whether there's also progress on the next JMC(P), i.e. a meeting with the Prime Minister and First Minister, on setting a date for discussions at that level to go ahead, or is it not felt that that's necessary at this stage given the complex position that you and your officials are already engaged in?

Yesterday's speech at Airbus Broughton by David Lidington, who, as you know, chaired the JMC(EN) meetings, said that we must protect the UK internal market whilst respecting devolution. He noted that eight out of 10 goods lorries leaving Wales go to the rest of the UK, highlighting the importance of the UK common market. He said,

'We will build on the future North Wales growth deal by also fostering opportunities between Welsh cities and the rest of the UK,'

which was encouraging. He said that we'll protect the vital common market of the UK, but then said that four different sets of rules

'would only make it more difficult and more expensive for a cheesemaker in Monmouthshire to sell to customers in Bristol or for a cattle farmer in Aberdeenshire to sell their beef in Berwick-upon-Tweed.'

He added, therefore, that his proposal was to amend the Bill before Parliament to make clear that, while frameworks are being agreed, the presumption would now be that powers returning from the EU should sit at a devolved level, and I think that's what this house seeks. He said that Westminster would only be involved where, to protect the UK common market or to meet international obligations, there needed to be a pause to give the Governments time to design and put in place a UK-wide framework. Only yesterday, I note that the President of the British Veterinary Association responded to the UK environment Secretary's proposals in ‘Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit’, saying that,

'With all eyes on Westminster, we’d urge serious consideration be given to the coordination of agricultural policy across all four regions of the UK as we head towards Brexit.'

So, that's the impasse, I believe: the UK Government position, as articulated by David Lidington yesterday, and the ongoing concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in particular about some devolved matters not passing directly to the devolved Governments. Therefore, can you tell us, specifically, what further movement, beyond the movement that's already occurred, you would like to see, or you need to see, in order to move matters forward in the context of the points you've made and the position outlined by David Lidington yesterday?

Finally, in reference to continuity—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, but this is an important matter; it's not something simply to score points, and I'm trying to avoid point scoring in this context. You state that your preference is for a workable UK-level Bill. You also rightly point out, or refer to, the amendments currently before the House of Lords, and that the UK Government has given commitments to both Houses of Parliament that it will work with the devolved administrations to bring forward amendments that will enable both Scotland and Wales to give consent to the Bill, which is your preferred outcome. Will you, therefore, confirm that it remains the case—I think you've said this—that, ideally, agreement on a withdrawal Bill or, if that fails, amendments through the House of Lords remain your preferred options, but, as you indicate towards the end of your statement today, because of the clock ticking, unless you lay a continuity Bill over the next week, you would miss the Royal Assent opportunity before a UK Bill itself would receive Royal Assent? Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'll try to take those questions in order.

Mr Isherwood is right that the JMC did discuss devolved administrations' involvement in phase 2 negotiations. We had discussed exactly this point during our meeting in the middle of December, where UK Ministers agreed that there would be the need for a different level of participation in phase 2 discussions, because direct devolved responsibilities will be at stake in them. It was agreed in mid December that officials would work together rapidly—that was the word used, 'rapidly'—to come up with practical proposals for how that might happen. It was particularly disappointing, therefore, to have no paper at last week's JMC that reflected any of that work. I said in my statement and I'll repeat it: I was nevertheless glad that the chair of the JMC, David Lidington, committed to the production of such a paper for a JMC during March. 

The second point that the Member asked was about the next meeting on the EU withdrawal Bill specifically. What was agreed at last week's meeting was that there will be a regular JMC during March, in which we will discuss the wide range of matters relevant to leaving the European Union that form the agenda of the JMC, but that there would be a separate political discussion focused entirely on the EU withdrawal Bill and an opportunity for us to be able to respond to the paper that the UK Government did table very late in the day, and which we were therefore not able to discuss with the sort of detailed engagement that we would have preferred. 

Is there to be a JMC plenary in March? Well, I hope so. Is it necessary? I certainly think it is. The JMC plenary has now not met since January of 2017, and if this is the mechanism through which the UK is meant to operate together, and the glue that keeps the United Kingdom together, then it really is not satisfactory that the First Ministers and the Prime Minister have not had that opportunity to discuss these matters in that formal setting. There is a date in circulation for such a meeting in the middle of March, but I have seen dates in circulation in January, in February and now in March as well, Llywydd, so I'm afraid we remain in hope rather than complete expectation that it will be delivered. 

Turning to the final set of questions that Mark Isherwood raised, he is right to say that the speech by Mr Lidington yesterday did move a step forward in relation to our clause 11 concerns. The UK Government's proposition now is that all those responsibilities that have been at this National Assembly and exercised through the European Union should remain here after Brexit, other than a small number that would be retained centrally while we continue to negotiate framework arrangements so that the UK internal market can continue to operate effectively. What we now need to do is to have a detailed discussion with the UK Government about some of the practical ways in which that would operate, and the key issue at stake remains that of consent. If there are to be a small number of matters retained centrally, who is to decide what those matters should be? Who is to decide for how long they will be retained centrally? Who will decide who will have access to those powers while they are not in the hands of this National Assembly?

We will go to the next meeting with constructive proposals as to how those questions could be resolved, and if they are resolvable, then Mr Isherwood had the sequence of events entirely correct. Our preferred course of action remains an agreed amendment that all three Governments could see put down at the House of Lords, and a Minister could come here and recommend to this National Assembly that legislative consent to the Bill could be provided. If we can't have an agreed amendment, we will continue to pursue the amendments that, jointly with the Scottish Government, we laid in the House of Commons and will re-lay in the House of Lords, and we will work as hard as we can to get those amendments passed. We have, we know, considerable support right across the House of Lords, including cross-bench peers, for our position. If we do not succeed there, then we have to protect the position against the day when this National Assembly would not be prepared to give its legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill. That's why we have to bring our continuity Bill forward as a fail-safe mechanism. The issue of getting it onto the statute book before the withdrawal Bill receives Royal Assent is indeed driving the timetable for bringing it in front of the National Assembly next week. 

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and for the continued patience that he shows with some of these difficulties? Can I particularly thank him for confirming today that the Government is moving ahead with the continuity Bill, long advocated by my honourable colleague, Steffan Lewis? We are, in Plaid Cymru, very pleased to see that this is now a firm part of the Government's armoury—something that we thought should have been there earlier, it has to be said.

I shall return to that just in a second because I want, first of all, to ask the Cabinet Secretary about David Lidington's speech in particular, and what has emerged since the meeting of the JMC. I did find that speech somewhat frustrating and I felt it still demonstrated some of the bullying and threatening manner that Westminster has used towards both governments in Wales and in Scotland. A slight element of threat was there that if you don't behave, then we will retain these powers. I really want to put it in this way: the speech by David Lidington was peppered with reference to the common or internal markets of the UK—something that the Cabinet Secretary didn't mention once in his own statement. We've been part of a common market or a single market for 40 years now. It's had some difficulties and some people have disagreed very strongly with it, but it hasn't affected how we run our own internal mechanisms.

Surely, all that's needed to ensure that we have strong frameworks and agreed frameworks in the UK is a simple respect agenda that addresses all parts of the UK equally, and gives equal roles and weights and strengths to that. The weakness in that of course is England, not Wales or Scotland, but that is a matter for the people of England. If we were to achieve that, there is no-one here of any party that wants to hold back on strong UK frameworks on agriculture, the environment, social welfare or anything else. It's not necessary to hold powers that are now held in common at the European level, to hold them now at Westminster and not to roll those out, following the decision to leave the European Union, to all parts—constituent and constitutionally administratively devolved parts—of the United Kingdom. So, that's very much where Plaid Cymru comes from in this regard.

I understand that the Cabinet Secretary wants to keep his powder dry, wants to continue to negotiate with the Westminster Government, but I don't think he has an opportunity to get a unanimous view on the legislative consent motion here unless it is clear that the people of Wales do have those powers returned to them and that there is no veto, whether it's a short-term veto or a long-term veto, in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

So, coming from that perspective, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to clarify how he is now intending to work with the Government of Scotland, as Northern Ireland doesn't have a devolved Government at the moment? How he will continue to work—? I thank him for the work that he has done, and Michael Russell as well; the work has been very clear and has been jointly authored in some cases and has been more successful because of that, I think. So, how does he continue to ensure that does happen?

Can I remind him of what I did say about six weeks ago: you can't trust the Tories? I think we've been proven right, which is why of course you've gone for, now, the continuity Bill. Looking in particular at that Bill, which does give us that extra string to our bow, I do think that had it been introduced earlier, we may have quickened this process. I think we may have demonstrated more strongly to Westminster that we were taking this very seriously, but, you know, we are where we are.

Can the Cabinet Secretary just give the assurance to the Assembly that he does think, assuming we do approve emergency measures next week, that we can deliver this Bill in time not to be overtaken, if you like—or undertaken, whichever way it will be—by the EU withdrawal Bill, so that it will still be a viable option and could still be used in that regard? Can he just say as well that he has had talks with his colleague next to him, the Counsel General, about how such a Bill may, if necessary, be defended in the Supreme Court, if it does come to a lack of agreement between this Government and the Government in Westminster?

Presiding Officer, thank you to Simon Thomas for the questions.

I didn't mention, he is quite right, the business of the common internal market within the United Kingdom in my statement because the position of the Welsh Government has been, from the very beginning, that we entirely understand the need for an orderly transfer of EU law into the domestic statute book in a way that will allow the United Kingdom to operate effectively into the future. In many ways the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's references to this yesterday are simply to put up a straw man. They are to point to a problem that simply does not exist and then to try to use that to justify the way in which they argue that only they are capable of using powers in a way that would allow that effective functioning to continue. We completely disagree with them on that point. We have said from the very beginning that we would, of course, come to the table completely constructively with the devolved responsibilities that we exercise to look to find agreed ways to make sure that the UK can go on operating successfully into the future.

I am prepared to consider a position in which the best way to give the legislative underpinning to some of those frameworks—might be achieved—would be for the powers to be held at Westminster while that legislation is being enacted, but what I am not able to agree to is a position in which the powers that we would temporarily surrender in that way could be done without our agreement. If it is done with our agreement and with the Scottish Government's agreement and with the UK Government's agreement, then there is a pragmatic case for doing things in that way. The UK Government has to be willing to operate with a greater level of trust and respect, Simon Thomas said, than it has up until now, and veto powers that say that, in the end, only they are to be trusted simply isn't to live up to the way in which devolution has developed over the last 20 years.

We do continue to work closely with the Scottish Government. Of course, there are fundamental differences of political outlook between the Government in Edinburgh and the Government here in Cardiff, but on this issue we identified very early on that we had a strong identity of interests. We've done our best to work constructively together and we've done that in every way we can: the First Minister writing jointly with the First Minister of Scotland; the first ever joint governmental event at the House of Lords, so we were jointly able to brief Members of the House of Lords; we continued to work together on those aspects of the agenda where we have a strong identity of interest at the JMC last week, and I expect that we will continue to do that for as long as that identity of interest continues.

I think I can provide Simon Thomas with an assurance that we will bring forward a timetable next week where, if the National Assembly does agree to an emergency procedure to consider the law derived from the European Union Bill, we would be in a position to complete its consideration in front of the National Assembly in time to secure Royal Assent before the EU withdrawal Bill is in that same position, and of course the Counsel General is closely concerned with all the debates that go on inside Government on this matter to make sure that the Bill that we present to the National Assembly is the strongest and most defensible Bill that we are able to put before you.

The finance Secretary will know that I do not shrink from being coruscating in my criticism of Welsh Government where I think that is necessary, but also, being fair-minded, I'll be unstinting in my support when I think the Welsh Government is in the right, and I welcome the statement that we've heard from him today and I would like to say that I think he's displayed the patience of Job in his negotiations with the UK Government. It's a curious paradox that, when the British Government is negotiating with the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, drawing out of them concessions from an unsustainable position is like drawing teeth with a pliers, and yet in their negotiations with the Commission in Brussels they appear to be completely toothless. The Brexit negotiations, whether they be with the EU or with the other parts of the United Kingdom, have been a total shambles.

Does he share my perplexity that the UK Government has handed to the opponents of the Brexit process a weapon by creating an unnecessary dispute in this particular instance? The whole point of leaving the EU is that it is a devolutionary process; it is restoring to elected politicians at the levels that are appropriate the powers that, ultimately, belong to or derive from the consent of the people, and it would be quite wrong for the UK Government to retain powers or seek to retain powers that have been devolved to Wales as a result of other referenda where the will of the people has been expressed. It may be inconvenient for the UK Government to recognise this fact and, because England is so dominant by population in the United Kingdom, perhaps English politicians find this rather difficult to understand—or some English politicians do, anyway. But, as Simon Thomas said a moment ago, fundamentally, this is a question of respect due to institutions that have been set up following a democratic process, of which Brexit is an extension.

I would like to express again my perplexity at the dilatoriness of the UK Government in coming forward with proposals to amend the withdrawal Bill given that they had, in principle, agreed to bring those amendments forward. It's quite unacceptable that these should be slapped onto the table within hours of the meeting of the JMC—and nobody can give proper consideration and therefore have a meaningful discussion to such proposals given that timing. This is not a surprise that these amendments are necessary, and it's quite inexplicable that the UK Government should have been so dilatory in coming forward with them.

Of course, we all know, as everybody agrees, that there will have to be, and it's certainly desirable to have, UK frameworks for matters such as agriculture, but, during the referendum campaign and subsequently when I've addressed meetings with farmers up and down the country, I have advocated the Brexit process on the basis that this will give us the opportunity to create an agricultural policy that is tailor-made for the interests of Wales, Welsh farmers and Welsh consumers. So, I'm utterly perplexed by the failure of the UK Government adequately to understand the nature of this process. So, I support the proposal to introduce an emergency Bill into this Assembly. I think that this is necessary as a tactic, at least, to force the UK Government to recognise the reality of the situation, that the Welsh Assembly is a legitimate expression of the views of the Welsh people and our purpose here is to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected by the UK Government and that the Brexit process should not be used to undermine it.

Well, of course, Mr Hamilton is right: we have profound disagreements between the position taken on the whole business of Europe and leaving the European Union, between the position taken by the Welsh Government and the position that his party—as he himself has regularly outlined it here on the floor of the Assembly. But, in the ecumenical spirit of his contribution this afternoon, let me make two or three points: first of all, I think it is a sobering conclusion that has to be drawn that the UK Government has struggled so much to carry out negotiations with its very closest neighbours here inside the United Kingdom at the point when it's about to embark on trying to conclude the most complex negotiations with 27 other European states. Successive UK Ministers tell us just how easy this is going to be, just what a breeze it's going to be, to get all the agreements that they say are necessary as we leave the European Union, yet they have failed to be able to come to an agreement on a matter where—and I definitely do agree with what Neil Hamilton said here—a dispute was unnecessary from the very beginning. The very first time David Davis, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, said at a JMC that there was to be an EU withdrawal Bill, I said, on behalf of the Welsh Government, that we agreed that it was important that that Bill was brought forward and we wanted that Bill to be a success, because the Bill is about an orderly transfer of law that we have relied upon as a result of our membership of the European Union into the law that we will need the other side of Brexit. And picking a quarrel with a group of people who were on your side in that endeavour has been mystifying to me when the UK Government has its hands full—so very full you might say overfull—with trying to navigate and negotiate all the other complexities of leaving the European Union. I think that in many ways that does explain the dilatory nature of their response. It's a Government overwhelmed by the task that it faces and it struggles to find the time and the energy and the effort that is needed to pursue matters, which, when they're not pursued, become really difficult problems that could have been resolved far more easily.

I said here in the Chamber in the last week or two, Llywydd, that, at last week's meeting, David Lidington was to be the fifth chair of the JMC on European negotiations, in a body that has been going for less than 18 months. That just tells you something about how difficult it is to create a momentum in that forum, because the key individuals have been changing so rapidly. And that's why we didn't have a paper tabled that would've allowed for a proper discussion at a point in the process where that would've allowed that to happen. That's a step backwards from where we were in the autumn, where the JMC was conducted on a more orderly basis, where we had agendas, where we had papers, where we had minutes, where we had a room that we could be sure that we would meet in that didn't change as we were in the train between Cardiff and London. Last week's meeting—constructive as it was—represented a step backwards from the stability that we'd seen in the autumn. Nevertheless, we press ahead in the way that I've described. Our job is always to try and be as constructive as we can to find ways of coming to an agreement, of bridging positions that are not in the interests of either the United Kingdom or of Wales, and the Welsh Government's part in all of this is always to try to look for ways in which difficult situations—even ones that need never have happened—can in the end be successfully resolved.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon, and I must say that I continue to be in awe of the Cabinet Secretary's relatively sunshine disposition. I can't imagine what a frustrating and painstaking process this has been, yet he always seems to get the word 'constructive' into a statement about the JMC(EN), although trying to find anything constructive can sometimes be a challenge, but that's something I very much admire about the Cabinet Secretary.

Obviously, I very much welcome the decision to go ahead to publish a continuity Bill, not because, as the Cabinet Secretary says, it's desirable but because it is the right thing to do, it is the measured thing to do, and, in fact, it is the necessary thing to do if we want to preserve the will of the people of Wales that was expressed in two referenda, not just to establish a Parliament for Wales but to have a Parliament for Wales with the powers that we enjoy today.

I also would be interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary's views on whether he believes that the mishandling—shall I put it politely—on the part of the UK Government of the relations more generally with the devolved Governments is a conspiracy, or is it incompetence? I keep going from one to another; I can't believe at some points that a Government could possibly be so incompetent, but then I listen to some of their Ministers and then I can quite easily believe it.

I also think that as well as this being a necessary step to legislate pre-emptively, if necessary, in terms of our constitution and preserving it, that, actually, this is an important moment for this National Assembly and for the national character of Wales, because, if we have to press ahead with emergency legislation to defend our constitution, then I hope that it'll mark the beginning of the end of Wales being perceived as the pushover of these islands, and that any Government in Westminster in the future, of whatever colour, will think twice before they start pushing us around and believe that they can play hard and fast with our constitution.

I'd like just to have clarification from the Cabinet Secretary in terms of the future discussions that are being planned for the JMC(EN), particularly next week. The word 'negotiation' is thrown around a lot these days, for obvious reasons, but, in terms of the bar that the Welsh Government has set in terms of what would be acceptable in an improved EU withdrawal Bill, can he just reassure this Assembly that any negotiation will not amount to Wales being stripped of powers, that there is a need for discussion and a need for collaboration and negotiation, but that he is prepared to push through this legislation and that it won't just be enough for Westminster to move a little bit, that there would have to be a fundamental change to the legislation as far as devolution is concerned?

Also—my colleague and friend Simon Thomas touched on this in his contribution, but the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government have been so busy firefighting the potential damage of the withdrawal Bill, I wonder whether he can update us further on any progress that there might have been in terms of common frameworks. It's something touched on by other Members too. Because, if we don't have a paradigm shift at the UK Government level when it comes to the withdrawal Bill, I fear that we definitely won't get one when it comes to future frameworks, although there was talk in the past that there had been some progress, at least a concession that frameworks could be jointly composed and jointly agreed, which was a landmark moment for the Westminster Government. But I'd be very interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary if there's been any further discussion on those common frameworks.

Just finally, does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that discussions such as this, and agreements between the devolved Governments, should have concluded long before a group of people met at Chequers to decide our fates without our country being represented in that group?

Can I begin by saying just how good it is to have Steffan Lewis participating in discussions of this matter here this afternoon and how much I think the contribution that he has made up until now and again today helps us to think our way through some of these very complex and important matters?

So, I agree with him that I think our continuity Bill, the law derived from the European Union Bill, will be a measured piece of legislation, and it is a necessary piece of legislation to protect the interests of devolution, albeit that it remains, as I've repeatedly said this afternoon, not our first choice, but a fallback position that we have to have been able to articulate and take forward.

How do we understand the position of UK Ministers? Well, it is a perplexing matter. Undoubtedly, incompetence plays its part, at least in this way: as I say, my impression of meeting the UK Government is that the whole business of leaving the European Union has come as an enormous shock to the system. The lack of preparation for this eventuality, the huge struggle to mobilise the intellectual effort, the people you need, the sheer grasp of detail that lies behind so much of all of this—you get the impression of a system that is almost always in danger of being overwhelmed by the task that it has. But there are some voices in the UK Government—and, as Steffan Lewis will well know, it is by no means a Government that speaks with a single voice, but there are elements in that Government who are unreconciled to devolution. While they may have got a form of words that they're given to use, deep down they believe that devolution is something that the Westminster Parliament was good enough to give us and can take it away from us as soon as it becomes an inconvenience to them. And I don't say those are a majority of voices, but there are people you meet in the UK Government for whom it is clear that the profound change that devolution has brought about in the constitution of the United Kingdom has simply passed them by, and they do believe that to step out of the European Union is to step back in time, and that they will somehow be able to recreate the United Kingdom that was there before we ever joined. This is an important moment in our history, of course. If the National Assembly agrees to the procedure that the Government will propose next week, we are going to spend the month of March as a legislature having to be directly engaged in the complexity of the continuity Bill, and that will require efforts right across this Chamber to make sure that Bill is as good as it possibly can be.

Let me finish what I say to Steffan Lewis by confirming his belief in my ability to be optimistic, because as far as common frameworks are concerned, then there has genuinely been a great deal of detailed work that has gone on at official level since that process began. There have now been over 20 of what are called deep dives involving the Scottish Government, ourselves, the UK Government and civil servants from Northern Ireland, and there are up to another 10 or so still planned for the month of March. So, it is demonstrating the point that's been made around this Chamber this afternoon: that we are quite capable of coming together and solving these common problems by sitting around the table and acting constructively without the need for a big stick to be waved at us and told that we can't be trusted to get these things right. We're doing it all the time, and successfully. What it is throwing up—and Steffan Lewis I know will be interested in this and will be wanting to think about it—what all that work is throwing up is a need for a set of governance arrangements that underpin them all. If we were to be able to agree on a framework approach to aspects of agriculture, for example, how can we all have confidence that, a week later, having agreed it, one of the parties to that agreement might not walk away and do something that was beyond the agreement? How could we be confident that, six months into an agreement, when something else is emerging, there are proper mechanisms for that new issue to be alerted, for discussions to resume and, if necessary, for disputes to be arbitrated? And right across the discussions on frameworks, there's a sense that the UK in future needs stronger governance mechanisms through which its component parts can come together, transact business, and keep the show properly and purposefully on the road. I think that is a big challenge that is emerging from the framework discussions, and we will have to persuade the UK Government to find some of the energy necessary to address that issue alongside everything else that it has to think about. 

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome very much your statement and the tabling, or the proposed tabling, of what we'll call for now the continuity Bill—a very important step forward. I also listened to David Lidington's speech. I have to say that I was somewhat confused by some of the messages that were coming out of that, particularly with regard to what seemed to be an attempt to create distance between Wales and Scotland, and the sort of implied threat in respect of overriding Sewel that seemed to be there. Nevertheless, I think we have to recognise that this has been the most tortuous process, almost like extracting teeth, dragging the UK Government kicking and screaming to accept the reality of the UK constitution. And it seems almost as if David Lidington is almost like the substitute brought on at the end of a soccer match, doesn't it, in an attempt to salvage something from the game.

I think the point that Steffan Lewis made is probably the most important one, and that is whether there is a genuine change in attitude capable of being detected. Because it seems to me that there's still a grave risk that although we can win in this area, or we can achieve satisfactory progress in this area, there are still a number of major elephants in the room, to take John Morris's old phrase. Firstly, the issue of JMC reform. Now, I know we'll be discussing the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report tomorrow on that, but that is a fundamental area that has to still be resolved, and where there's need for a change in attitude from UK Government. The second one is in terms of the financial autonomy of this place, in respect of those former EU funds. Because, on the one hand, we can achieve what we want in respect of the devolved powers, but at the end of the day, if there is control over the finance that should be coming to this place, they can be undermined—and secondly, as we know, in respect of the consequential legislation that's under way at the moment, in particular with regard to the trade Bill. Now, I understand why the Cabinet Secretary will be reluctant to take on too many battles at any one time, but these matters are all interlinked, and what we don't want is a situation where we are just going from one battle to the other onwards; there has to be genuine cultural and political change from the UK Government in order to achieve the consensus that is necessary for the post-Brexit era.

Llywydd, overriding Sewel would be a major constitutional issue. I don't like using the word 'crisis', because it's bandied about too often here, but the UK Government has never been in a position where it agrees that the consent of this National Assembly is needed to a piece of legislation, and then if it didn't secure that consent, to go ahead anyway. And if it were to find itself in that position, it has found itself in some of the most difficult constitutional depths.

I agree entirely about the need for JMC reform—it was the last point I was making to Steffan Lewis. It is difficult to engage UK Ministers in the need for that. Their reflex action, whenever anything is said about the need for reform and governance arrangements, is to say, 'Oh, you're looking for a federal United Kingdom'. They've been reading Mr Melding's thoughts on this matter too assiduously, it seems to me. But it's not a real engagement with the issue; it's just a reflex way of trying to sort of brush past the points that are being made, and in the end that will not do. The United Kingdom, the other side of Brexit, will need a more powerful set of institutional arrangements through which it can continue to operate successfully, and the JMC does not provide the blueprint for that in the longer term.

Of course Mick Antoniw is right about financial autonomy. Those discussions do not form part of our discussions on the withdrawal Bill, and they haven't featured heavily so far in the JMC. I give him an assurance, however, that I certainly have raised them with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as has the Scottish finance Minister, and we continue to pursue the points that he made there. Those who voted in Wales to leave the European Union did so on a promise that, at the very least, Wales will be not a penny worse off than we have been as a result of our membership of the European Union, and that promise has to be delivered.

Finally, Mick Antoniw was absolutely right to point to the interlinked nature of the trade Bill and other pieces of legislation we expect at the UK level with the EU withdrawal Bill. It's part of the reason why I think we've put such effort, and indeed such patience from time to time, in trying to get that Bill right. Because if we can get those things put right in the withdrawal Bill, then I think the solution that we craft there will cascade into the trade Bill, the trade Bill will be amended in the same way, and we will have solved the problem not just for the withdrawal Bill, but for legislation that will follow, and that's why we think it's worth putting in the effort we have to get that right.

I think this was always going to be a tough negotiation, but the way I read it is that we are moving decisively towards agreement. And I have to say, in terms of how this will be viewed by the historians, I think it will be seen as a classic federal-type discussion, because, whatever you think about the UK Government, it is not treating the devolved administrations—unfortunately, as they term it—but the devolved Governments as anything but fully fledged Governments over their sphere of—let me use a polite word—interest rather than sovereignty. We've not in any way been treated like local government, and I don't want to disparage local government, but there are real interests in constitutional principles here and they are now playing out. I welcome in general the Cabinet Minister's tone and, as I said, I do envisage that agreement will be reached and, therefore, the continuity Bill will become redundant. Obviously, on this side of the house—let's be frank—we're uncomfortable about this emergency legislation, both here and in Scotland, but it's part of a wider landscape and I don't want to be distracted by the reasons for that. We need an effective settlement here and the EU withdrawal Bill is the best way to do that.

I agree with Steffan Lewis—and I've said this from the very start—that the heart of this is the shared governance that has to be agreed so that we can run UK frameworks. And that's not just UK Ministers getting it—some have always got it, others struggle, and I can list the departments of state that I think don't do as well. But, frankly, it's also the civil service culture in Whitehall that finds a lot of this process difficult. Most of running the frameworks will be behind the scenes with your officials and the officials in the various departments, and the great capacity we will have in terms of Whitehall will still be necessary to run these frameworks, obviously with our full participation and that of Scotland and Northern Ireland. But they're going to stand in the place, in many ways, in which EU officials stand in the Commission and we feed into that. So, there's a level there as well.

I think I'm going to lose the Llywydd's patience in a moment—

Never. 

Can I just—? Because we've had a very interesting statement. I think the CLAC report that we'll discuss tomorrow is one of the best reports CLAC has ever produced and we do some heavy lifting or, if I can change the metaphor, we get pretty dirty down in the engine room. But tomorrow's debate I think is very significant and that really is about the governance arrangements we will need for shared governance.

And can I finally say that I hope the Welsh Government is thinking carefully about how the legislature here will scrutinise the Welsh Government's work ongoing in shared governance? Because we do not want the equivalent of the rather closed system they had in the EU about how governments get together and agree. We need the like of the legislature to hold you to account for what you decide and gain through those procedures in the future. 

Well, Llywydd, I absolutely hope that the Member is right that we are on the threshold of reaching an agreement. I agree with him that settling this matter through a withdrawal Bill that respects devolution is the right and best way to do it. Again, if we're looking to be optimistic, David Lidington I think is one of those UK Ministers who probably does grasp the idea of shared governance, because as Minister for Europe he chaired the JMC on Europe over many years. The JMC on Europe is a far more effective piece of government machinery, where the devolved administrations have come together with the UK Government four times a year in advance of the Council of Ministers to share ideas and perspectives on what will be discussed at the Council of Ministers, and devolved Ministers have represented the UK level, from time to time, in those discussions. So, I think there is some sense of optimism there that Mr Lidington is a Minister who has seen that work and seen it work effectively. 

I think David Melding is absolutely right about the civil service and it's why I think those deep-dive discussions on the frameworks have been so important, because they have brought UK civil servants into the room with people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a way that they probably have not had that opportunity previously. They've been using the set of principles that were agreed at the JMC back in the autumn and it is as a result of those discussions that they themselves are concluding that the need for a framework for future Governments and therefore through to the United Kingdom is so important.

I'm really grateful to Members of the CLAC committee for the detailed work they are doing. There is no great either appetite or, certainly, there is no available energy elsewhere to do the heavy lifting that is required, to do the thinking of how this is to happen in the future. And the report of that committee will, I think, be genuinely influential in shaping thinking, not just here and with the Welsh Government, but in our ability to use the arguments and the thinking through of the different ways in which this could be done that that report grapples with that will allow us to use it to be influential elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement and your update on your discussions at the JMC. What's striking from this statement and the responses and questions is that you're seeking to be constructive but that's not being reciprocated by the UK Government. But I will welcome the commitment by the UK Government to involve devolved administrations in the second phase of negotiations at the forthcoming meeting. And, of course, you are told that you will have a paper in advance of that meeting, but you didn't get a paper in advance of the proposals that you received at the JMC, and I think that demonstrates, as has been said today, a lack of respect and trust—or is it just thoughtlessness? Are we the 'any other business' in terms of these important negotiations? Because, obviously, what's come forward is not acceptable. The proposals could indeed set us back in terms of devolution, so I do welcome the news that the continuity Bill will now be commenced, and thank Steffan Lewis for helping to position us so effectively.

Two questions. One: from your discussions at the JMC, can you clarify why the UK Government is not prepared to accept the Welsh and Scottish Government amendments, which they've had before them for so many weeks and months? They would provide the best way forward, rather than setting us back at this late stage with the centralising proposals, were you able to make the case, indeed, to discuss the amendments at the JMC. And secondly: yesterday, we received evidence at the external affairs committee on the impact of Brexit on equalities in Wales. What's clear is there's a fear of loss of the EU charter of human rights, loss of EU funding, loss of influence on equalities in Wales, which are underpinned by EU legislation such as workers' rights and the employment accessibility Bill. Can you clarify how those who have an interest in providing evidence on the impact of Brexit and the fear of loss of those powers could contribute and engage with the continuity Bill, which, of course, would provide legal continuity of EU legislation about devolved matters in Wales?

I thank the Member for both those questions. I want to say, again, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the JMC has been a better forum since the autumn of last year than it was previously, and that there has been constructive talk by UK Ministers. What we have to see now, as the First Minister said yesterday, is a move away from the warm words and into the actions that are necessary to secure consent. Why is the UK Government not prepared to accept our amendment? Because they are fearful. Because they do not believe that devolved administrations can be trusted to come to the table in the way that we say we will and to reach agreement. They want to have, always, a veto power in their pocket, because they believe that somehow they are the only adults in the room. And that is such a problematic place from which to start, particularly when it is so directly contradicted by the facts.

As far as equalities issues are concerned, I can give the Member complete assurance that the Welsh Government, and, indeed, the Scottish Government to, take regular opportunities through the JMC to hammer home with the UK Government that leaving the European Union cannot be used as an excuse to erode those citizenship rights that we have secured as a result of our membership of the European Union, and that includes a huge raft of gains that we've made in the field of equalities. I was able to discuss all of this with a group of third sector organisations with whom I meet on a six-monthly basis and where the Welsh Government's approach to Brexit is a standing item. We will look, even in an emergency timetable, to make sure that interests beyond the Assembly, who have important things to say on these matters, can have an opportunity, probably most often through the established machineries we have in those circumstances, to continue to influence our thinking in this regard.

And finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon? I'll try and be as brief as possible because I actually have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Secretary next Monday in the committee meeting, and we'll go a bit deeper then. I'll try and focus purely on the JMC today, and not the continuity Bill, although I agree with Simon Thomas and Steffan Lewis on the issues they both raised in relation to that.

In your discussion at the JMC—clearly, you've talked about the EU withdrawal Bill very much, heavily, but it is a question of what discussions you had about the transition period, because that is clearly an important step. All I see at the moment are the delays being enforced by the issues on the withdrawal Bill knocking us back on those discussions, and the ability to actually be partaking in the decision making in the negotiations for phase 2 being delayed. As Steffan Lewis pointed out, last week we saw the Cabinet—or a part of the Cabinet—meeting privately in Chequers, with nobody from the devolved nations representing them. It seems to be another mechanism by which our input is being ignored, effectively. So, can you tell us where you are on that? And have you got guarantees that we will be in the rooms when negotiations on phase 2 take place so that we can actually have our say in the areas that are important?

On the issues of frameworks, you've mentioned 20 deep dives so far—10 more to come next month. You're optimistic; perhaps I'm cynical. Is that another way of simply saying at the end of it, 'Oh, look, we've done so much, we don't actually worry about the powers because it doesn't affect that many areas'? I just think that the UK Government are working away that way. But you talked about the frameworks and who decide on those frameworks, but can you confirm as to what discussions you've had about who will decide upon who will take the actions on the frameworks? Because when it comes to agreeing a framework, where will those actions be taken, and will that be with consent as well?

I thank David Rees for those questions, and for the work that he and this committee have done in this area. When I was in front of the House of Lords for a briefing session, the fact that his committee had met with parliamentary Brexit committees was very well recognised. The work of the committee has undoubtedly had an influence in making sure that Welsh views are clearly represented and understood.

As far as the transition period is concerned, it was discussed at the JMC. I said to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that he needs to get on and make sure that the transition agreement is reached at the March council, and that it's not in the UK's interest to fail to reach an agreement in March because, if it's put off until the next council, our position will be weakened, not strengthened, by that. He did agree, as he'd agreed at a previous meeting, that a speedy resolution of transition matters is very important.

There is a big day coming tomorrow, as David Rees will know, when a document is likely to be agreed at the Commission, which will attempt to translate into legal understanding the agreement that was reached back in December at the end of phase 1 negotiations. That will shape the nature of transition. So, transition is very important, and the UK Government needs to make the necessary compromises to get a transition period agreed.

As to phase 2 negotiations, as I said, we were hopeful that there would be a paper at last week's meeting. It didn't materialise. Again, there have been some constructive things said by UK Government Ministers about recognising the need for greater involvement in that phase of negotiations, but we do need to see the practical proposals that they will come forward with to make that happen.

As to deep dives, I recognise that there will be some people in the UK Government who will be attracted to the idea of saying that, because the deep dives have all gone on, and the discussions have gone well, there's really no problem here at all, and, you know, 'Forget all this nonsense about clause 11; look how successful these things are being resolved.' I'm afraid we would have to say that that is in spite of, rather than because of the withdrawal Bill formulation, and I think that deep dives confirm our position on all of this: that proceeding by consent and by agreement is possible—eminently possible—in the United Kingdom, and the law should be constructed in a way that reflects that.

How the frameworks are to be put into action takes us back to the very interesting discussion we've had this afternoon and the paper that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will be discussing tomorrow, because it is about the underpinning governance arrangements that can give everybody confidence that if you reach an agreement on a framework, there are ways in which those agreements can be translated into action and the interests of all parties to it can be properly protected because there will be a rule book within which we are all bound and we are all bound equally. Then I think we can be optimistic that those frameworks will be capable of translation into action and successfully go on protecting the proper operation of the United Kingdom.

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the 'Services fit for the future' White Paper. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement. Vaughan Gething.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to make today's statement and publish the outcome of the consultation on the 'Services fit for the future' White Paper published earlier today. This is an important piece of work, forming part of the picture for the future of health and social care services here in Wales.     

The Government remains committed to supporting practical steps that build closer links between health and social services to meet future needs. We restated our commitment to that ambition in the national strategy 'Prosperity for All'.  

As part of our ambition to develop, improve and integrate health and social care services, I launched the 'Services fit for the future' White Paper for consultation on 28 June last year. I asked for views on a range of interrelated proposals for potential legislation.  

The proposals contained in the White Paper looked at how we might futureproof aspects of the health and social care system, with a focus on person-centred care and greater integration across the health and social care system. There is wide agreement that the health and care systems here in Wales need to work differently to deliver those services and outcomes that people across Wales will want to see. That’s why the White Paper looked at a whole-system approach and examined several areas where future legislation might help to achieve this in a new way of working.  

The proposals in the White Paper covered stronger governance and leadership at board level, new duties of quality and candour, and areas such as standards and complaints handling where common processes could support a more integrated approach. There were also proposals relating to citizen voice, pace of service change, regulation and inspection.   

During the consultation a number of stakeholder meetings and focus groups were held across Wales. These included approaches to reach some people who do not traditionally respond to and take part in consultations. The consultation ran until 29 September last year. There were 336 submissions from individuals and organisations, as well as 1,328 pro-forma responses relating to proposals for citizen voice and representation. 

It is clear from the responses and the report of the parliamentary review that we need to act now to preserve our health and care services for generations to come. Responses to the consultation reflected the view that joint working between organisations is essential in order to promote well-being, to identify people’s needs and to plan and provide quality services to a robust and consistent standard. Many respondents agreed in principle with what was being proposed in the White Paper. However, some respondents asked for more information and detail on how some of the proposals might work and be implemented in practice.  

There was support for more effective leadership, for having the right skills and experience at board level and for robust action to be taken if organisations were seen to be failing. In terms of service change decisions, respondents were keen to ensure clinical evidence was considered and that the views of citizens were given real weight, together with experts. 

As in the previous Green Paper consultation, some respondents remained unconvinced about the use of legislation to promote behavioural change such as collaborative working. Some wanted to see the more effective use of provisions set out in existing Assembly legislation. However, many respondents saw the value of the proposed new duties of candour and quality and felt that these could provide further impetus to integrated working and better outcomes for people in Wales.  

There was significant support for an independent voice for the public across the health and social care system. That aligns with the findings of the parliamentary review that Wales must be a listening nation, to accelerate change and improve quality, not just by paying full regard to citizens' experiences of health and care, but actively seeking out diverse views and experiences.

The proposal to replace community health councils with a new national body to represent citizens has, of course, drawn much comment and debate. There was a broad consensus that reform in this area is needed if we are to strengthen the voice of citizens in health and social care. However, we must be careful not to lose things that work well, including representation at a local level.

Linked to this, there was also support for the idea of more common standards across health, social care, the independent and third sectors. We will therefore consider how to develop and take forward proposals on: board leadership, scrutiny and membership; an informed process for service change; duties of candour and quality; a new citizen's voice body across health and social care; and common standards.

There were mixed views in relation to a possible merger of the health and social care inspectorates and making them independent of the Welsh Government. We will not be looking to make these changes at this time, but will instead explore an approach that addresses the regulatory gaps that exist, and futureproof the underpinning legislation for Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. This will allow for more closer working with Care Inspectorate Wales. This very much aligns with the recommendations in the parliamentary review around joining up inspections.

Of course, the outcome of the consultation is of great interest in the context of the recently published final report of the parliamentary review, where aligning actions to continually drive up quality was a key theme. I will of course consider how we link the White Paper consultation to the recommendations of the review.

In light of the responses to this consultation, the Welsh Government will now undertake further policy development. We are actively considering whether legislative solutions are the most appropriate way to meet the challenges identified and commented upon in the consultation. I will of course be happy to continue to update Members in the coming months. 

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. There are a couple of questions that have sprung to mind having read your statement and, indeed, the 'Services Fit for the Future' White Paper. I'd like to firstly and mainly address appointing members to the board in regard to underperformance. The consultation states that there was significant support for the principle of introducing time-limited ministerial appointments where health boards or NHS trusts are found to be underperforming.

Cabinet Secretary, four of seven of Wales's health boards are underperforming to the point of either being in special measures or with targeted interventions. Most recently, for example, we've learnt of the acute financial challenges faced by Hywel Dda, which has accumulated an overspend of some £149 million over a three-year period—the greatest of all the health boards. When recently asked, via a written question, about the Welsh Government's knowledge of this, the Welsh Government said they were only made aware of this deterioration in December. Furthermore, in regard to stabilising the financial situation of the health board, the Welsh Government only issued general guidance.

Back to this consultation and about the appointing of members to the board in regard to underperformance, could you please clarify what is the role and function of these Welsh Government levels of intervention? Because it seems to be completely unclear as to what part Welsh Government really takes in understanding what is going on in a health board when you have had to put people in for either targeted intervention or special measures.

I raised this issue in November 2017 in quite a wide-ranging debate on this subject, because I think that it is right and proper for Welsh Government to put extra people on the board in order to ensure that we have health boards brought back into the fold, meeting the targets of service delivery and financial management that you set upon them. What I fail to understand is what we've been doing so far in terms of putting those targeted interventions in and the people in, who can then turn around and say, 'Gosh, we didn't know £176 million-worth of debt, for example, was being racked up.' And there are examples in Betsi Cadwaladr that I have raised with you in the past. 

The second area of concern I have coming out of the 'Services Fit for the Future' White Paper is about the public presence on the board. Again, the consultation talked about the fact that there was a general consensus that the public and their representatives should be able to make meaningful contributions to board meetings and that board members should understand local people's needs and local issues. I find that quite staggering in a way, that there should be any doubt over that, because if the board does not represent the needs of the local people, then surely they are a board that is not fit for purpose, because their function is to ensure that local people have the healthcare that they need. So, could you please just expand on that a little bit more, about what you intend to do about that and whether or not you think that there's been a sufficient or fairly significant shortfall in that provision of public presence?

I'd like to tie that in with the proposal to scrap community councils. Again, I note your comment in your statement about the community councils, but there has been a lot of criticism of the perceived lack of details around the proposals. On the one hand, we talk about the need for the public to have a strong and considered voice that is able to be heard by all. The parliamentary review talked enormously about how the public need to take responsibility and be part of the game changer that we need to see in the NHS. This 'Services Fit for the Future' White Paper talks about the same thing, yet the policy that appears to be coming out talks about dilution, diminution and making it more difficult for the voice of the public to be heard on boards. Can you please reassure us as to what the Welsh Government's intention in this area is going to be?

The last area I'd like to talk about is the duty of candour. It's a very interesting concept, to put forward a duty of candour. There was a considerable amount of support in the White Paper, or in the consultations that came in. What I don't quite understand is how you believe we can incentivise being truthful and open. What is the best means to encourage openness and honesty? We firmly believe that our NHS should have, without a question of doubt, an inbred culture of shared responsibility, openness and learning, but I don't think that this can be achieved simply by legislating for it. So, what are the measures that you think you might be able to look at, or bring forward, to ensure that this duty of candour, which, as I said earlier, I think is actually a very interesting concept, can be translated into a real deliverable? It's very hard to legislate for honesty. We just need to inculcate that into every single person who works in the NHS and for the NHS, and indeed in us, as the general public, when we deal with the NHS, that there is that openness and transparency that we all crave and expect to see in the NHS going forward. 

Thank you for those questions—I'll take them in turn. On your point about ministerial time-limited appointments, we're always looking to review not just our ability to have a transparent framework for intervention and escalation, but the tools that we then have to intervene and support boards that are not performing as they would wish to or as we would wish them to as well.

On your point about those organisations in heightened stages of escalation, of the three organisations in targeted intervention, two of them have made real improvement in their financial management over this year. I said earlier in the committees that I don't expect them to break even this year, but I think they've made real improvements from the start of this year over the course of the year.

Now, for Hywel Dda, the deterioration reported in the Assembly is obviously a problem. To be fair to the board leadership, they've had enough recognition and insight to say that that is a challenge that they themselves need to do something about. They've been supported by the Government with the reviews that we've had done of their financial management, and of the zero-based budgeting review as well. The first report will be taken through the public board, I think, if not this month then next month, so there'll be, again, public board conversations—[Interruption.]—I'm dealing with your question—about how they will deal with the financial challenges they have got.

Part of our challenge is that having additional ministerial time-limited appointments could help us to deal with some of the specific challenges that exist in different organisations. For example, if you have a challenge in financial management, is it about appointing someone to deal with that particular aspect, to sit either on the board or be part of the executive team to help them to get over that particular issue if other parts of that organisation are running and working well? As you know, in north Wales the organisation is in special measures, but much of healthcare in north Wales continues to be performed and delivered at a high quality across different communities. It's about how we have enough tools to be able to support organisations that need to improve.

The point about the escalation framework is that it is both about intervention and scrutiny, so it's about what we need to do to intervene to support organisations and having a heightened level of scrutiny as they go about their business. So, this is a proposal about the potential for time-limited appointments to help fix some of those potential individual skills gaps in an organisation, in addition to what we already have. 

And on the point about public voice and the way in which the public can make meaningful contributions to board meetings, there's a challenge here about the different roles we expect the board to cover. So, we want a board that's got the skills and the oversight to be part of the challenge and support that the executive team need and that we require, so that's where we have all of our independent appointments that take place on those boards. These are organisations that typically have a budget of around about £1 billion, and you and I know that the NHS is a wonderful and complex organisation, multifaceted, so, actually, that's quite a challenge, and so we set high standards for the board members we want to see come in. That means, though, that those boards don't often reflect the nature of the local population.

Some of that is understandable, because if you have a limited number of independent members, unless you're going to expand that massively, then in whichever board area you choose, you'll find that those independent members don't necessarily represent all the people within that community where that citizen's voice matters. That's why the proposals we've been looking at are if you're going to have something else around that, would that be about having associate members to try and have a greater representative voice around that board table when those discussions are taking place, and not just about, if you like, the essence of having those board meetings taking place in public?

Because if you look at boards around Wales, actually, on a leadership level across chief executives and chairs, women are well-represented, but not everywhere in all of the independent members or all the executive leadership positions, and, actually, the position on black and Asian origin communities is certainly not one that reflects the country that we are. So, there are challenges about our diversity as well as, frankly, the people that are the greatest participants and users of healthcare services. So, we do have socioeconomic challenges about a lack of diversity in board membership too, so we need to think about how to manage that appropriately, as well as boards themselves going out and being proactive in talking to and wanting to listen to communities. I think there's something different there about the role of a citizen's voice body. So, what do we expect boards to do regardless of the citizen's voice body, and then how do we expect them to work alongside those, and they obviously have a scrutiny role as well? 

And I say again: you know, I recognise the points you made about the parliamentary review. The review understandably didn't say that community health councils must stay or must go. That wasn't something that we particularly asked them to do, but they recognised the need to have citizen engagement. I've said on a regular basis in this place and outside it that if we want to have a strengthened citizen's voice body with a clear mission and purpose across health and social care, then we need change the legislative footing on which CHCs operate, and the title should change as well, because it's about looking at how they go across health and social care. The challenge is that CHCs are actually set out in primary legislation, so we've got to be able to change that. This isn't abolishing something and not replacing it; it's what comes in to take on board the citizen voice across health and social care, and how we properly engage with the very constructive conversation we had with the national board of CHCs about a change in their potential role and remit for a successful organisation across the health and care sector. And that remains our objective within the Government, rather than seeking to diminish or avoid having a voice for the citizen. 

On the duty of candour, again, this goes back to the point that I made in the statement. There are different views about how far legislation can change organisational culture, although we all recognise that legislation can have a part to play in that. Other parts of the UK have a duty of candour, and part of what's been interesting commentary in response to the White Paper has been about whether that should be a duty on individuals. Of course, lots and lots of individual healthcare professionals already have duties in this area, but in particular it's an organisational duty of candour about the decisions and choices that it makes. So, I'm keen, as I said, that we take forward that policy. We have to think about whether legislation could and should be part of that answer, but that is about promoting an organisational culture, rather than being the only thing that we could and should expect.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the statement today. I am trying to assess how much recognition that there is in truth of the concern that has been raised in the wake of the publication of this White Paper. There is a description by you, as Cabinet Secretary, of the broad-ranging nature of the responses, and we have to remind ourselves how short the consultation period was over last summer, and that the public meetings were last-minute steps as were the public forums that were held around Wales. It’s important to remember that. But, even though there is, as you said, quite a response that's been received, it's quite superficial what we’ve heard from you on what exactly came out. Maybe that’s inevitable in quite a brief statement, but a lot of those who responded you say agree in principle with what was proposed by the White Paper, but some who responded have asked for more information and details. I do appreciate the positive spin you’ve put on that, but we have to remind ourselves that there is a very deep concern that’s been voiced about some elements of what was in the White Paper.

I will start with the concern on the intention to get rid of the community health councils. I will make the point again, as I’ve done previously, that we’re not asking for the CHCs to be kept forever—that’s not what people are asking for—but for the retention of their function and the purpose that was and is delivered, as the voice of the people.

I hope that it has become clear to you as part of this consultation that there is a feeling that the health inspectorate and the CHCs or any new body can’t be doing the same work, because the purpose of the body that represents the patient is to measure and to assess and evaluate the experience that the patient has within the NHS, and what was recommended in the White Paper wasn’t going to deliver that on behalf of patients in Wales. So, I would like to have confirmation from you, while you say that you’re going to develop and take new proposals forward in terms of a body to give the patients a voice, that getting rid of CHCs or something similar to them is now off the table, because patients in Wales deserve far better than that.

Two other questions. The statement says that support has been voiced that very robust steps should be taken against health bodies that fail. What does that mean when we’re talking about organisations that are already in special measures? Are you talking about introducing very special measures or hugely special measures? Please give me an explanation of that.

Finally, in terms of the representation on health boards, are you as Cabinet Secretary in agreement that more balance in terms of gender across the health boards is necessary and that we have an example of the need for that balance in order to prevent decisions such as getting rid of perinatal services back in 2013? I think that decisions could have been different if there were more women on the boards at that time. Possibly, we could talk about decisions regarding gender identity and so forth too, but I would appreciate more comments from you about that important balance on our health boards.

I don't broadly accept much of what Rhun ap Iorwerth said in his contribution to be frank. When it comes to the consultation, I think this was a full public consultation over a reasonable period of time. We deliberately chose to have additional events for those people who don't regularly take part in consultations. We engaged Communities Connected to do so. I realise that the Consultation Institute wanted to run their own event. We said we would not engage with that because I don't believe that the Welsh Government should send Ministers or officials along to events where our stakeholders pay for that access. I do not believe we should help the Consultation Institute to run their business. This is about how the public engage and how we have gone out proactively for the public to engage in those events more generally and then specifically for those people who regularly do not get engaged in consultation. 

On the point about the future of community health councils, again we've been around this track many times before and I continue to say I want to have a citizen-voice body across health and care with a strengthened role in representing the citizen across the health and care sector. That means reforming CHCs. It means you have to remove CHCs as they currently are, given they're in primary legislation, and replace them. This isn't about having a period of time where no citizen-voice body exists for a period of months or years before I then genuinely need to replace it with something different. It is about, if we were to move forward with legislation, we would have to then set out what that new body would look like and how it would replace at the same time when CHCs are then superseded by that new body.

This goes back to, whether innocently or not, not reflecting on what has been said on several occasions in this place and outside it. I understand the concerns that are raised, but the national Board of Community Health Councils themselves have recognised that they want to see an expansion in their role across health and social care. As we have more integrated care, it must be sensible that a citizen-voice body doesn't just stop at an artificial line between health and social care. It's also that they recognise that they want to see a reform of their place within the service reform conversation. They also want to see a reform of their role as regards inspection. When CHCs were created, of course, we didn't have Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. We now have a professional inspectorate undertaking one part of inspection, but CHCs themselves are very clear that they would like to have a successor body still having the right to have unannounced visits to areas where care is being administered, and that's something that we are talking constructively about, about what could happen in the future. So, this isn't a case of abolishing and doing away with CHCs and not replacing them at all. That simply isn't the perspective that the Government takes. It isn't the proposal we've set out. It isn't what I've said time and time again in this place and in others as well.

And, on the points about intervention, I thought your comments were somewhat flippant about where we are and looking to intervene in organisations that are struggling in some aspects of their performance. This is, as I've said to Angela Burns, about how do we have additional tools to intervene in and support bodies that are not meeting all of their duties. Sometimes, there will be a corporate challenge and not simply an individual service area or functional challenge, but sometimes even that service area or functional challenge may require support in a time-limited way in which Ministers could act promptly by appointing someone to work alongside the board or the executive team. And that is a proposal that has been well received in the consultation, and I just don't think that's particularly difficult to understand.

On your point about board representation and gender and the gender split, actually, as I said earlier, we actually, on a leadership level for chairs and chief executives, do rather well in the health field. A really good example is the recent appointment of Alex Howells to be the new chief executive of a new body, Health Education and Improvement Wales, and, in addition, Tracy Myhill moving across to be the chief executive of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg. She did that not just as someone from our system here in Wales but actually as someone the external assessor also agreed—and a high quality external candidate as well—Tracy Myhill was the best candidate, not just the best Welsh candidate but the best candidate, and that is someone who has done a significant job in turning around the ambulance service as well, and that is a real positive. This is being done on merit and it's being done because there's been some determination about how we develop and promote people, but we recognise actually, in other tiers within our service on executive-level leadership that we have a real challenge about the next tier down, about the middle tier and who is coming next. That is something that I'll have more to say on, but this is only partly about—. It's also then, of course, about our public appointments process, and I dealt with those comments in response to Angela Burns.

I just don't think that the decision around the previous in-patient mother and baby unit was driven by representation of women on boards. Actually, the concerns came from the staff in the unit at the time that they were not able to provide the care that they could and should have been able to. Those staff were women themselves who were saying, 'We don't think we can do the job that we could and should do.' We've looked again at the position. I said right at the outset of this particular inquiry—and thinking about the debate we had in this place two weeks ago, that brought to a close the inquiry of the committee, but the work of the Government and the health service certainly doesn't stop at that point, because we've committed to having in-patient care within Wales, not because of the number of women on boards across Wales but because we think it's the right thing to do and we have a way to deliver that care in a way that meets the needs of citizens across Wales, and this White Paper is about doing that. How do we meet the needs of citizens across Wales? Can we resolve some of our challenges by taking forward proposals for legislation in the White Paper? And that's what I'm committing to do, as I've outlined in my statement.

Can I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement? The consultation on services fit for the future was very wide-ranging, and it covered significant areas of governance and, as you say, sits alongside the parliamentary review looking at how we ensure that services are delivered in the right places by the right teams of people. From the responses that were received, it's clear that there was a support for more effective leadership and for having the right skills and experience at both board and corporate level, and, in that regard, I wanted to specifically raise with you the invaluable contribution of therapists to the Welsh NHS, a group of professionals that I think are sometimes overlooked when we're having the talk about doctors and nurse recruitment, training and service delivery, and ask you whether you'll recognise the benefits that they deliver by including a role of director of therapies and health sciences within the executive leadership of LHBs and whether it is the case that the recognition of such a strategic corporate lead—a lead that, of course, can straddle both health and social care—is an invaluable contribution to securing services fit for the challenges ahead, and, finally, whether you therefore agree that in the vital areas like rehabilitation, prevention, early intervention and then securing a strong corporate lead on these matters, that that surely will help to deliver the type of transformational change that we know we need in our health and social care services.

Thank you for the focused question around our colleagues in the therapist end of health and social care. Many of these roles can either be employed within a health board or in local government, and that's part of their value. I think therapists are real can-do practitioners as well; they're often at the heart of making things work regardless of the institutional barriers—a bit about that point about culture and the way in which people work. And there was lots of comment about the particular roles and whether there should continue to be a core executive membership that we prescribe, broadly, as we do now, or whether, in fact, we want to have a smaller number of core roles and allow more flexibility for boards to have executive-level leads. That's some of the work that we're going to continue to consider and I know that therapists themselves are particularly keen to see an executive-level role that combines, at the moment, therapy and health sciences. So, that's something I'm actively considering, but what I certainly won't ever want to lose is sight of the fact that our therapists are a really important part of making the healthcare services work, because people who need to move through different parts of our system—often a therapist will be a really important part of doing that. You mentioned rehabilitation—prehabilitation as well, getting people ready for healthcare interventions, as well as the roles that, for example, occupational therapists take and undertake within the health service, but also within local government as well.

I just want to use this opportunity to welcome in the Chamber Ruth Crowder, formerly of the college of occupational therapists in Wales, who is now the chief therapies adviser to the Welsh Government. So, there's real value placed on that within the Government and we'll continue to have a conversation to make sure that continues to be the case in the way in which we organise and deliver health and care services across Wales.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Like many of the respondents to the consultation paper, I am generally supportive of the intent behind your White Paper. I fully support the intention to introduce a legal duty of candour that will extend to other parts of the health and social care system, the same codes of conduct that apply to doctors and nurses. This will also ensure that Wales is in line with other parts of the UK. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you anticipate that the duty of candour will apply to everyone working in health and social care in Wales? Doctors, nurses and midwives are trained to abide by the GMC's good medical practice guidelines. What guidance and training will be made to NHS managers and social care managers to ensure that they abide by the principles of being open and honest with patients? Can you expand further upon what sanctions could be imposed for any breach of the new duty? I would also be grateful if you could outline the timeline for the proposed introduction of the new legislation. With regard to replacing the CHCs, whilst I support this in principle, any replacement must strengthen the patient voice and not dilute it. I accept that not all CHCs were effective, but there were some very good examples that fought for patients' voices and rights. Whatever the form of the new national arrangement, it is important that we don't lose these patient champions. So, can you assure us, Cabinet Secretary, that this new national arrangement to represent the citizen's voice will not only be comprised of mainly citizens but also truly independent from Welsh Government?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the decision not to proceed with the merger of HIW and CIW. We have to first develop a consistent approach to inspection and ensure that the changes introduced by the RISC Act are given time to bed in before we seek organisational change. We have to ensure that both organisations work closely together in future and we have to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps. When can we expect to see legislation to address these gaps, Cabinet Secretary?

Thank you once again for your statement. I look forward to your proposed legislation and working with you to ensure that our health and social care systems have the needs of the patient at the forefront. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I'll take those three broad points in reverse order. On inspectorates, as I've outlined in my statement, we're not taking forward proposals to merge the organisations. The challenge, again, comes with any legislative underpinning, as I've indicated. There'd be a real opportunity to resolve some of the challenges Healthcare Inspectorate Wales have about their legislative underpinning to allow them to do a more effective job, but this goes into your point about the duty of candour and a timescale for legislation. I can't give you a timescale for legislation because it's up to the First Minister to stand up in this place and indicate the new legislative programme and the timetable for new Bills to come forward. But everybody knows that, even with Bills that we may want to bring forward, the reality is that the discussion we've just had before this statement on Brexit—well, that may take up more time than this place has to undertake every other piece of legislation we may want to and think there's value in. So, there are real caveats about our ability as a legislature to get through all of the pieces of legislation that we want to, and I'm not in a position to give you any kind of commitment on a timescale because it simply isn't my place to do so.

On CHCs again, I make the point that this is a new body that we're seeking to create to cover health and social care. I recognise her points about independence, however the Government funds the CHCs, so we provide a budget for them. It's a significant budget; well in excess of £3 million to undertake their work. The chair of the national board is a ministerial appointment undertaken through a transparent public appointments process, so we need to think about what people mean by 'independent of Government'. In effect, though, I don't interfere, and I'm not particularly interested in interfering in the way in which the national board of CHCs operates, or, indeed, the way those functions are carried out to support people on the ground in their very important advocacy role.

On the duty of candour, the healthcare professionals already have their own duties; they're not all covered by the GMC. So, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Health and Care Professions Council as well—including, of course, Dawn Bowden's question about therapists—they have different professional and regulatory bodies, but they all have, essentially, broadly the same duty as healthcare professionals that looks like a duty of candour. What we don't have is one that covers all staff, because not all staff are in those groups, and we don't have an organisational duty as well. That, again, is some of the work that I'm committing to take forward, and, obviously, any conclusions that we reach we'll come back on, make a statement to this place, and if there is to be legislation, I'll have to front up in front of a committee at Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 to do so.

Thank you very much for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I've just got three questions here, I think. I've been looking at responses from those who have contributed to the consultation from within my own region, so this is where this is coming from. Can I just start with common standards to achieve person-centred care? As you know, the NHS is currently characterised by standards reflecting a medical model, whereas in social care, it's very much an alignment with a social model, and I note Rhun mentioned earlier this focus on experience and what we might mean by experience.

Now, I personally still have some underlying anxiety that social care priorities may struggle to compete, if that's the right word, with some medical priorities in an increasing merger. I just wonder if you can explain whether that kind of anxiety is what's at the core of preventing the two inspection regimes coming together at this stage? I recognise the stalling, but I think it'd be quite useful to have a slightly fuller explanation of that. And beyond that, what safeguards are you considering now to ensure that both the patient voice—however that's articulated, and I'll come to that in a minute—and the views of social care professionals are appropriately weighted against those clinicians who are traditionally seen as experts when we come to conversations of this nature? I want to make sure that there is a genuine equality between these voices, rather than the NHS being the loudest and the proudest.

Just briefly on CHCs—I don't want to go through what everyone else has said—I take you completely at your word that it's not your intention to leave a gap at any point in the advocacy, but you've repeated this phrase 'a national body' a few times now, and I think what concerns me in this is it sounds very much like the statement we've had previously earlier today on the comparison between the UK Government trying to take responsibility for imposing a framework and the devolved bodies having to put up with that. Don't you think there's an argument that if you're looking at a national structure here, then, actually, the voices that should be at the forefront of designing that should be the CHCs as modified to cover social care, not a top-down model? I appreciate that you'll want one voice to communicate with Government, but that shouldn't be something that you design, and that CHCs are subsidiary to that. It should be the other way round, surely.

Then, finally, I'm just picking out a few quotes from the responses that I've looked at, where people—and these are individuals, now, rather than big bodies—say that '“Trust” is a misnomer', that they expect to see 'actual penalties' imposed on boards, not people 'pensioned off', and that the whistleblower provisions in existence at the moment don't seem to be very effective. I presume the duty of candour will go some way to addressing that. But I heard what you said to Angela Burns about Government and the stages at which it knows about problems. These responses are more about what does Government do when the working together bit fails and, actually, there is still a problem. There's a genuine sense, in these responses, that nobody gets to carry the can when there's a problem that can't be resolved. If you're hoping for this to create a greater trust in our governance system, which I'm sure we all agree would be great, I think you need to really consider—I say it with a heavy heart—a punitive element at some point, and I'm not getting a sense of that within the statement to date, anyway. Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions. I'll try and run through them as briefly as possible, but as directly as possible.

On common standards, I recognise what's been said. There's an impression that in the history of the health service there's been a more paternalistic medical approach, as opposed to a more engaged social model within social care, and actually it's part of the movement within healthcare, in any event, to have a more social model to understand what that really means—seeing that person in their context and that person having a real voice. I recognise that, in the field of social care, more progress has been made on the citizen having more voice and control in those choices. That's actually why co-production matters so much within the healthcare system. It really, really matters for people to be informed, for people to make choices and to say what matters to them. That's where we're trying to get in the way we design our system, as well as they way in which individual interactions take place.

I hope that also helps in terms of the point about health being seen and heard over other voices, especially social care. So, if we're going to have, in a whole range of things, the parliamentary review and others, there's got to be more genuine partnerships, and something that is genuine in the way that health deals with others. If we don't do that, then we recognise we'll just see more pressure coming into the health system in any event. So, this isn't just budget choices, this is the way in which we organise and run our wider system, and there'll be more to talk about with that as we take forward the parliamentary review and a long-term plan for health and care in Wales.

I'll deal with your point about the national bodies. The national body for the citizen voice—it's about having a consistent national body, but one that does have local standing and engagement. This is about not doing away with all the things that work in CHCs. I've been really impressed by the way, from the outset, through the consultation, the CHCs initially engaged in this and told us that they were particularly unhappy with the national board. There have been a number of meetings that have taken place with officials, and then, the ultimate response was when, actually, they recognised there were some things that could and should change, but they want assurance that a new voice for the citizen across health and social care will still have an entitlement to organise its business, which must include—. You know, any sensible national body would want to have a local way of communicating and engaging with its citizens. That's what we would expect to be the case. Now, there's something about what we set out on the face of legislation, should we bring that forward, what should be in secondary legislation, what should be in guidance about how a body should organise, where you can be much more descriptive, frankly, than legislation sometimes allows you to be. But I recognise the challenge that Members on all sides have about making sure you don't lose sight of having a local locus for that national citizen voice body, rather than, if you like, a top-down organisation that's based in Bangor, Cardiff or Aberystwyth, that could be remote from local communities.

On your point about the merger of inspectorates, there was a real divide in opinion. Some people thought that the inspectorates should merge and do so as quickly as possible, others felt it was an incredibly bad idea for a range of different reasons. Some think it's about the sprawling nature and how broad health and social care are in any event. The care standards inspector, of course, rubs up against early years and Estyn, in any event. So, actually, there are links between the three inspectorates that matter as well, and having a new superinspector is something that not everybody thought was the right thing to do. So, we'll develop how we have further joint working between those inspectorates, deal with the legislative underpinning for Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, but it's possible, of course, that a future Government may come back and say, actually, the time is now right to think about having a merged inspectorate, not just an inspectorate that works on a more complementary basis.

And finally, your comment about carrying the can. I think the easiest thing is to call for somebody to go, and as a Minister it's much easier to get rid of someone—although that's sometimes difficult—than to then replace them with someone who will improve the position you find yourself in. And I think there's a real challenge about the culture that we have within health and social care and more broadly across public services. So, we don't simply tolerate failure. There is accountability, but equally, we don't move to the extreme end where people recognise their time is limited and they can expect to have a tap on the shoulder or be shown the door within a brief period of time. I heard Bruce Keogh give his leaving speech, and I think it was interesting. It was his leaving speech to the NHS Confederation conference in Liverpool last summer. He said, 'We must recognise there is something wrong in our system if the average life expectancy of a chief executive within an NHS trust in our system—England—is less than two and a half years.' Two and a half years is not a period of time for a chief executive in a large, complex organisation to understand it, to get on top of the challenges, and to be able to make real and lasting change. Now, that's one end of our spectrum. We need to think about what is appropriate here, how much tolerance we have, our ability to get different and better people if we recognise there is a problem, and also how we work to support organisations that are going through difficulty. So, I want a generally rounded approach—one that has real teeth and real accountability within it.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 5: a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on high achievement—supporting our more able and talented learners. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to make the statement. Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This Government’s action plan for education, 'Our National Mission', commits us to a system that combines equity with excellence. It is these values that ensure that we succeed for all pupils and teachers, with an inclusive, innovative public service education. We can be rightly proud of the success of the pupil development grant in raising aspirations and ensuring extra resources for children from our most disadvantaged communities, and our new Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 paves the way for a new approach in driving improvement for that significant group of learners.

However, an education system that is truly equitable and excellent ensures that all pupils are supported to reach their potential, and I am very clear in this conviction. Therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, we must follow the evidence. It is clear from PISA, previous Estyn reports, the Sutton Trust and UCL research that Wales must do more to identify, support and stretch our most able learners. As I have said on previous occasions, and outlined in 'Our National Mission’, we are committed to developing and delivering provision to address this weakness in our system. Quite simply, a truly equitable and excellent system supports and inspires the needs of all learners. My statement today further strengthens our commitment to an equitable, fair, progressive education system, which sets high aspirations and ambitions for all. We are not, however, starting from a standing start.

There have been improvements, year on year, as learners transition from primary to secondary, and last year performance at the highest grades at key stage 4 remained stable, despite the introduction of new examinations. At the same time, the pass rate for A-level students getting A* and A increased, and the Seren network goes from strength to strength. Within the further education sector, we have introduced a national programme to help practitioners support more able and talented learners and, more widely, improved decisions around GCSE subject choice and early entry are already having an effect. Set within this context, I want to further accelerate progress for our more able learners, whatever their background. Today, therefore, I am setting out core principles for sustained action and improvement: firstly, better identification and support at school, regional and national levels; secondly, opportunities that will inspire the highest levels of achievement; and thirdly, the development of a rich evidence base to support further investment and work.

There are already pockets of innovative practice in Wales, and I'm determined to see these rolled out. In fact, this is an area that suffers from a relative lack of high-quality international best practice and research. The opportunity is there for Wales to lead the way through both action and research. Therefore, I'm making available up to £3 million over the next two years. As a first step, this will support a new national approach for identifying and supporting our more able learners. We will establish a new definition, which will facilitate early identification of those learners, together with new comprehensive guidance. Challenge and support actions through local authorities, consortia, national networks of excellence and Estyn will help schools take this work forward.

Further encouraging a culture that recognises and supports high aspirations for all learners, teachers and schools is crucial to the delivery of an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence. Deputy Presiding Officer, we must provide rich experiences that broaden horizons and intellectual curiosity for all learners. This is fundamental to our curriculum reforms.

Today, I'm announcing that the Seren network will be expanded. It already makes a hugely positive contribution to raising aspirations, boosting confidence and encouraging post-16 students to be ambitious. The recent evaluation asked that we consider expanding its scope, and I agree with that recommendation. Therefore, from September we will pilot an approach that involves younger learners, before GCSEs. Working across the regional hubs, it will connect like-minded learners from different schools and communities, providing access to leaders and experts across a range of disciplines. Our very brightest students benefit from learning opportunities that will deepen their skills and their knowledge, and the Seren network is well positioned to share and develop effective practice here. For others, the key is widening horizons and raising aspiration, helping young people understand where hard work could take them in terms of future study and onward careers. We will build on Seren’s existing links with leading global universities, and I will make a further announcement on their involvement in the near future.

Finally, and integral to the principles of a self-improving system, we must encourage exploration and innovation. As I mentioned earlier, by providing this focus, we can be a pioneer in pedagogy, policy and research in this area. The investment I’m announcing today will include funding to develop capacity to capture the evidence from our approach, both to support our own developing policy work and also to be recognised as an international innovator in this field.

To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, today’s statement is not simply a matter of supporting a few select learners. Far from it. It has far-reaching system and societal benefits. It is these learners, from all backgrounds, who can be, will be, the public servants, the entrepreneurs, the teachers and scientists who will drive Wales’s future prosperity and success. Getting it right for these learners, and those with the potential to be these learners, means getting it right for everyone. It is a true test of our principles of partnering equity with excellence, and I believe that this comprehensive approach and investment ensures that we can meet that test head on, raising standards and aspirations for all within our system. Thank you.

Can I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement, although, I have to say it's been a long time coming? We've known that we have not been sufficiently stretching our most able and talented pupils for a number of years now. Not only has Estyn confirmed this, but we've had others also confirm it—in particular, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—and I do believe that the lack of action has, unfortunately, left some people behind. But that said, I do welcome the fact that we have a statement today that there's going to be some additional investment in the Seren network.

Quite obviously, we have a problem here in Wales. We're not doing well enough on the OECD league tables. Our GCSE results last year were the poorest for a decade, in spite of the fact that the arrangements with Qualifications Wales et cetera seek to eliminate the impact of the fact that they were new GCSEs. We know also that we have some problems within the existing Seren network in terms of inconsistency, in terms of different qualification criteria from one Seren hub to the next, and indeed not having equitable access within those Seren hubs or, indeed, across Wales.

I note that you're making £3 million available over a two-year period, but what about beyond those two years? Is this going to be a sustainable thing? You said you want to do some research as well. It's going to take probably more than two years to be able to follow and track these individuals through the education system, and if you're picking up youngsters pre GCSEs and taking them all the way through to the end of their A-levels, that's a four-year period. So, how on earth is simply committing £3 million over a two-year period sufficient to be able to measure the progress of those individuals? We don't have any base data, of course, because the reality is that none of the kids who are currently engaged with the Seren network are being tracked to see where they actually go on from their studies in schools. We have no idea how many of them go on to the best universities in the UK and, indeed, overseas. So, I'd be grateful for an explanation from you as to where the £3 million figure is from, how you've worked out that that is sufficient funding for this network, why you've only committed to funding it to that extent for the next two years, and what precisely you're going to be measuring in terms of the baseline data, so that we can see whether there's been any improvement in order to hold you to account for this.

In addition to that, you talk about equity. We hear a lot in this Chamber about parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications. What about putting something in place for high-achieving vocational young people? Why can't we have something similar to get those new engineers through with higher level apprenticeships in our further education system? Why can't we be tracking those as well as the high academic achievers? I don't understand why you aren't announcing anything for them, and I would very much like to see what you're going to do in order to support them too.

So, we need a different approach. I welcome the fact that there are extra resources on the table, but I don't think that this statement answers many of the questions that lots of people have about the current framework and how you're going to make sure that the new framework works.

Can I just also ask you in terms of eligibility criteria very quickly? This is, of course, a big problem with the current Seren hubs and networks. It's very different from one to the next. Are you going to set eligibility criteria so that young people know from the outset what they're expected to achieve in order to access the support from Seren? If so, what is that support going to look like in a tangible sense? Is it schools that are going to be getting extra resources, or is it just simply people getting together now and again, and the occasional meeting for practitioners to attend, or is there going to be some finance attached to those individuals in those schools in order to give them extra support with their education? I don't think that you've said enough today, frankly, Cabinet Secretary, and I would certainly like to know a lot more detail.

If I could deal with the points that Darren has made—Darren, as you well know, I am not satisfied with current Welsh performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment. What a close examination of the PISA results tells us is that one of the reasons we are not doing as well as I would like is because the attainment of our more able and talented pupils in Wales does not compare with the OECD average. That's why we need to push more on this particular agenda. I don't hide away from that. That's one of the reasons why we're bringing forward this additional support.

You ask why am I not able to commit funding for more than two years. Well, if your Government in London could commit to a comprehensive spending review—and there was uncertainty over the overall Welsh Government's budget—I would love to be in a position to be more certain. But I have to say, Darren, with the Westminster Government actually taking money out of the overall education budget, which reflects on our budget here in education terms, it's very difficult to be able to plan more than two years ahead. But I can't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I could sit here and wring my hands and say, 'I can't go beyond two years, therefore I will do nothing', or 'I need more resources, therefore I will do nothing', or we could take charge of this agenda and start to make some progress.

Darren is right to say that there is an inconsistency in approach to Seren. He says that we don't know how many of those pupils have gone on to study at our top universities. There is a reason for that, because it is the students that are sitting their A-levels this summer who are the first complete cohort of Seren support. We do need, I acknowledge, to improve the way in which we track outcomes for Seren, but the Member will be aware of the initial evaluation that has been carried out of the programme that says that incredible progress has been made in a short period of time. It says, for a relatively small amount of money, the programme has been able to lever in, in kind, many, many more resources from partner organisations. We will take on board the recommendations of the initial evaluation of Seren as we develop Seren going forward. I would expect, from this September, a more consistent entry requirement to the Seren programme across the individual networks.

But, Darren, we will always have to have some flexibility within that system. Flexibility, for instance, for a teacher recommendation for a child who perhaps underperforms at GCSEs for a very good reason. We shouldn't have a hard-and-fast rule that says, 'If you didn't get those grades at that particular point, that's it, you're out.' So, we will always have to have an element of flexibility, based on teacher recommendation, on individual students, and recognising, if you can, that from a more deprived background, the ability to do better is harder. So, maybe your A has represented a bigger journey for you than perhaps an A* from a pupil who has had all the advantages. So, we have to have some flexibility in the system that recognises the journey individual cohorts from schools have taken. That's the only fair and equitable way to run the programme. But we can have a more consistent approach, and a more consistent approach to what is available within the programme.

Only yesterday I was at Y Pant School in Rhondda Cynon Taf, talking to sixth formers who have been part of the Seren programme. They said it has been invaluable to them in helping them recognise that they are good enough, that they can compete with students across the rest of the United Kingdom, that there is nothing wrong to aspire to becoming a doctor and to have that dream, and not to think that they have to be self-deprecating about their talents, that they are good enough. They have found it absolutely invaluable. I spoke to one young man who said that he'd been to a meeting with this individual, this history lecturer, who talked about Oxford and Cambridge, talked about what was needed to make a successful application, and I said, 'What are you going to do?', he said, 'I'm applying. Come the autumn, I will be applying to go and read history in Oxford.' And that's what we want. We want to inspire that sense of knowing that we are good enough, our children are good enough, and we need to give them the confidence and not to feel somewhat embarrassed by standing up and saying, 'I am really able at my subjects.'

That's been part of the problem. Too many of our children have not had that confidence to stand up and say, 'I'm really, really good.' Sometimes, our sportspeople and our musicians—they're the heroes in the school. When was the hero in the school the person who excelled at physics or the person who really excelled at computer science and we lauded them too? So, we've got to get better as a nation at being a little less self-deprecating, I think, and standing up when we are excellent and encouraging our children to stand up and say that they are excellent.

The Member asked about vocational qualifications. I'm surprised that he's missed this, but we already have a programme in the FE sector. We already have, working in conjunction with ColegauCymru, a new programme within the FE sector to support excellence in our vocational subjects. We will be co-sponsoring with ColegauCymru later on this year a symposium and conference to be able to share that good practice. So, we already have a programme in the FE sector. Actually, we need to accelerate it in our school systems. So, we have to look at encouraging excellence in all aspects of our education system. This is an area that has not had the attention it has deserved, and if we get this right, we will not only succeed for individuals, we will succeed for our nation.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement? Certainly, more needs to be done to tackle this agenda. Perhaps I won’t be quite as negative as the Conservative spokesperson, but I do agree with some of the points that he has made—one of them being the fact that we’ve had report after report that’s highlighted weaknesses in this area, and we have, at last, reached a point where there is more specific action being taken.

In relation to further education, I do think that the point that was being made is a valid one. Yes, there is a programme in place, but we are talking here about a programme that goes to schools to promote these opportunities prior to GCSE; therefore, I do think that we need to ensure that this parity of esteem extends down the years into our schools too, and not just when one gets to FE, having made those decisions. Perhaps you could respond further to that point in responding to my questions.

The statement that you’ve given us today emphasises that we need to facilitate the identification of the more able and talented learners at an earlier stage. I could ask, 'How early are we going to go?', because the sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. One of the greatest challenges facing schools—I will go back as far as primary schools here—is differentiating within classrooms, particularly in rural schools where you have a small number of teachers, perhaps, and you have classes that not only have a range of abilities but a range of age groups, from eight to 11, perhaps, so the more able at 11 are in the same learning environment as the less able pupils who are perhaps eight years old. That brings about an exceptional challenge to the workforce and the education system.

My first question, then, is: how do you, as a Government, believe that we can arm our teachers more effectively with the skills, techniques and strategies required to differentiate within classrooms, so that we can start to identify these skills and take advantage of that as soon as possible, because it is a huge challenge? I’m not saying that it’s a direct role for Government to do that—certainly, the consortia are going to be at the heart of it—but I would like to hear what the Government is doing to encourage and promote this, even at the primary level, if we are going to identify, encourage and take full advantage of the opportunities for our more able and talented pupils at the earliest possible stage.

You also refer in your statement to the pupil development grant.

There's a danger that we forget that the PDG isn't just about getting the lowest attaining children from deprived backgrounds up to a certain level—it's about meeting all of those individuals' needs, some of whom, of course, are more able and talented. I think Estyn has said that very few schools are actually using the PDG to target more able and talented pupils. Indeed, the national pupil database impact analysis shows that the gap between those eligible for free school meals and non-free-school-meal pupils attaining the highest grades of A* or A remains large—indeed, it hasn't changed over the past five years—despite, of course, the overall attainment gap at key stage 4 closing.

So, I think the point I'm making here is that, actually, there's more that we can do with existing programmes and initiatives to maximise the opportunities for more able and talented children, let alone then embarking, as we rightly should, on other new initiatives. I'm just wondering what the Government will do to make sure that the PDG is actually being used more effectively in that particular respect than is currently clearly the case, as evidenced by Estyn.

Finally from me, you tell us that there will be a pilot approach from September involving the younger learners before GCSEs. I trust that that will particularly test approaches in relation to provision in rural areas, which I'm sure—I know—you will be passionate about, but also the availability of support through the medium of Welsh, because these are areas that have been highlighted in the individual evaluations previously, and certainly they're ones that I would hope and trust that the Government would want to make sure are met robustly.

Could I thank Llyr for his questions? Can I start by going back to the point about further education? I'm committed to meeting the needs of more able and talented learners within the further education sector as well as in the schools sector. We have for the first time produced guidance tailored to the needs of FE learners. This is not just for those whose ability lies in the more traditional academic subjects who may be doing their A-levels, for instance, in an FE college, but also for those with outstanding vocational and practical skills. Our guidance is designed to reflect the inclusive and diverse ethos of the FE sector. It's never been done before, we've done it, it's out there in the sector and, over the next year, in partnership with CollegesWales, we will continue to do more to strengthen the FE sector support for MAT learners including, as I said to Darren Millar, funding a programme of professional development for practitioners in the FE sector. And we're also working in partnership with them to deliver a conference that will provide the opportunity for colleges to showcase and to learn from each other about how they support more able and talented learners to succeed.

So, this is a first in the FE sector. We've already produced that guidance in that sector, and now we are looking at what we can do in the schools, because, Llyr, you talked about the issue of identification. One of the problems that we have is that what more able and talented looks like in one school is different in another school, so we need to get a universally understood definition of the cohort that we are talking about, and we need new refreshed guidance from Welsh Government to the education sector on what happens then. 

In all schools, actually, we would expect to register a child who is more able and talented, but at the moment, in some cases—not all, because we have some outstanding practitioners—but in some cases that's the end of the process: a child is identified, a box is ticked and then nothing emerges after that particular process, and that's not good enough. Our new definition, our new identification system and our new guidance for schools will push that on, and that will be reinforced by local education authorities, by regional consortia challenge advisers and by Estyn. Simply ticking the box and identifying the child will not be enough; we need then support. 

And Llyr, you're absolutely right: that then comes down to pedagogical approaches within the classroom and, undoubtedly, delivering that in a very small rural school is a challenge, but we have to rise to that challenge because the alternative is just to close those schools. That's the alternative, and I don't want to do that, and that's why we can't see this programme on its own. You're quite right to say that although this is a discrete pot of money for this particular scheme that I'm announcing today, we cannot see it in isolation from resources that are already going into our schools, whether that be the pupil development grant or the rural and small schools grant, which is specifically designed to address some of these challenges of teaching in a rural area. So, we can't see this on its own. It combines with the criteria around the small and rural schools grant, which is to try and address some of these very practical challenges that teachers face without the need to say, 'Well, it can't be done. The only answer is to ship our children in rural areas to larger schools'—something that I don't want to do and something I know that you don't want to do. So, we can't see it in isolation.

The pupil development grant: we have to continue in our determination to see that that money—£91 million in the new financial year—that £91 million is getting to those children who need it. And you're right: some of our more able and talented children are also children who are entitled to free school meals. And sometimes, and that has been evidenced to the committee, the PDG goes towards those less able children, but the challenge for us in working with schools, regional consortia and LEAs is to ensure that that PDG is used in its fullest possible sense.

We need to continue to drive evidence-based approaches in our schools. We know what works. The Sutton Trust has done a huge amount of research into what interventions make the biggest difference for these children, and we have to continue the drive, via our regional consortia, that if a school is not following the Sutton Trust toolkit, if the school is not following tried and tested approaches and evidence, then there has to be a really good reason why that is not the case, and those schools themselves should be carrying out their own action research project within their schools to demonstrate that their approach is actually making a difference. 

But what is absolutely clear to me is that we cannot start young enough. We need to identify these children as early in their educational careers as possible, but also recognising that, for some children, those talents might emerge later on in their schooling. And so, we shouldn't say, 'Right, if you haven't made the grade when you're five years old, that's it.' We don't want to be in that situation. We need to recognise that children reach their milestones in different ways, and that talent may become more evident in different shapes. We shouldn't have a system that is so rigid that we can't take account of the fact that each of our children is very different and their educational journey is different. 

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. We in UKIP Wales welcome your announcement of £3 million in support of Wales's brightest and most talented pupils. It is important to nurture talent and identify who our brightest pupils are at the earliest possible stage. So, because this needs to be done earlier than at sixth-form level it is a good initiative for the Seren network to embark upon targeting younger learners.

Also, I'd like to ask how sustainable you think the £3 million is going to be in achieving your target. How productive is it going to be in the educational system? Do you think also—I think so—that this initiative may not have been necessary if we did have schools that catered for everyone's individual talents and abilities and we did have grammar schools, secondary schools and technical colleges for pupils at quite young ages?

I'm pleased that you said about Y Pant School, because Y Pant School was a school that went in between the grammar school and the secondary school many years ago. So, pupils, if they went to a secondary school at the age of 11, they then had an opportunity at 12 where their talent was identified to achieve a place in Y Pant School or go to the grammar school. So, nobody was missed, really. I thought that that was quite a good system and Y Pant School was a very good school to bring on pupils' abilities and strengths because a one-size policy doesn't fit all and we have to recognise that.

It's good announcing this extra funding that will be specifically targeted for pupils who are earmarked early to go to a leading university. But what are we doing to support our children who aren't academic in the traditional sense of the word, but who are just as talented? What are we doing to support children who aspire to do an apprenticeship and learn a trade? I'm talking about pre GCSE. Wales's brightest and most talented pupils, as you describe, are not just academic, but are those that work hard at what they're good at, who excel in physical education, art or design. So, talent does not necessarily equate to academic ability. I'd like to know what you are going to be doing for these pupils.

One area that may help those who are most academically talented in traditional subjects are sixth term examination papers and special papers. These papers are seen as positives for admission in some subjects in Russell Group universities, such as Cambridge and Warwick. So, Cabinet Secretary, could you outline what improvements the Welsh Government and the Seren network are making to ensure that students receive the very best of preparation if they decide to take such examinations? Thank you.

Can I thank Caroline for her questions? The first evaluation that we've had of the Seren network made a recommendation that we should look to bring Seren earlier into a child's schooling career and I think there are real benefits and the network is well placed to do that. For instance, in choosing GCSE subjects, that can have a profound effect on a student's ability to go on and study things later on, so if we don't get the advice right at the end of year 9, a student may unwittingly cut off particular paths to themselves. So, actually, having that support in earlier, I think, will be beneficial, so we will pilot it. We want to walk before we can run. We are still developing our Seren network programme for the 16-plus learners, but I do think we don't need to wait to get that perfect before we can learn the principles and apply it earlier on in the schooling.

Caroline, I'm not going to rehearse again today why I absolutely reject selection at 11. I reject it. This Government rejects it. All the evidence—I just quoted the Sutton Trust—you know, independent researchers like that tell us that selection is not a way in which we can promote equity and excellence for all students, so I'm going to gloss over that because I'm never going to be convinced of those arguments because the evidence is simply not there to back it up.

However, you are absolutely right that we need to be very open with students about a wide variety of opportunities that can be taken. You will be aware of my remit letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, where we are working with HEFCW and further education to develop degree-led apprenticeships. I met a young man yesterday at Y Pant. I think he's in year 8, and he'd been to the University of South Wales and he had seen some activities in the University of South Wales, and I said, 'What do you think?' and he said, 'Well, I think I might go to university now, but I don't know because I might do an apprenticeship.' And I said, 'Actually, by the time you get there, we won't make you choose, because you will be able to do both. You will be able to gain a very practical, high-level apprenticeship, and you will do that at a higher education institute, as we develop our degree-level apprenticeships. You won't have to choose.' I think that's what we need to do, and we are funding and working with HEFCW to develop those programmes in conjunction with the FE sector. 

You're absolutely right: we need to ensure that those children who are aspiring to go to some of our universities but in particular aspiring to do certain courses, especially around medicine, are given advice on what kind of exams and what kind of aptitude tests they need to sit alongside their A-levels. That's part of the job that the Seren network has. It has specific streams for people looking, for instance, to go into medicine or go into veterinary science, and they get very specific advice about what they need to do alongside their A-levels to give them the chance of getting into those places. That's the job of the network. And that's the difference that I'm told that Seren is making. A teacher said to me yesterday, 'Seren is allowing us to give our children what those people who went to private schools always had, that extra leg up, that inside advice, that support to make those applications be successful applications', and we are now doing that for all of our children.

Thank you. Finally, Mark Reckless. 

Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, I'm especially interested in the Seren network to support able and talented learners into university, as you may be aware from my volume of written questions on the—[Interruption.] Thank you.

First, I'd like to ask if you've made any assessment of the summer camps run by some leading universities, including their cost-effectiveness. For example, I note the Yale camp costs us £2,000 per pupil, and that's coming out of the existing Seren budget. Second, through discussions I've had with the sector, including key admissions officers, there's a concern that some schools are cautious about putting in the necessary effort to engage with the Seren network as they fear their Estyn rating could suffer if teacher time is taken from other areas where they're rated by Estyn. Would it be possible as part of your commitment to expanding and bolstering the Seren network to have Estyn inspections consider engagement with the Seren network and its objectives?

Finally, could the Seren network do more in training and improving teachers to support pupils into elite universities? Whilst there are some workshops run for teachers already, I have heard that they've—or at least some of them—been poorly attended, with Seren unable to cover the costs of teachers' attendance, particularly the supply costs. If we're able to give people exposure to some of the evidence the Sutton Trust has found, I think that would be particularly valuable. If we are, as you're saying, to become world leaders in pedagogy, do you agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved? 

Thank you, Mark. And I really do welcome—and I mean this sincerely—your interest in this programme. I know this is a particular area that you are keen to see develop and work well for Welsh students, and I welcome the extra scrutiny, which keeps me on my toes to make sure I'm in a position to answer your questions.

We are looking at the effectiveness of all the interventions, and, as we respond to the initial evaluation into Seren, we will be really asking the question: what activities get the greatest return? Mark gives the example of the Yale summer school. Well, personally, I'm delighted that, this summer, a number of Welsh students will have the opportunity to go to the Yale summer school. What an amazing opportunity that is for those young people—what an amazing thing to inspire them, to be able to write on their applications and their CVs in years to come—but we will need to understand whether that is an effective intervention and use of that money. But I want to expose Welsh students to the very best, whether that be in Wales, whether that be in Oxford or Cambridge, or whether that be around the world. And I'm delighted—I'm really jealous; I'd love to go to the Yale summer school this summer.

You're right about Estyn and the crucial role Estyn plays and how Estyn influences behaviour within our school system. I am very aware—very aware—that I can say something in this Chamber, but, if schools think that Estyn are going to mark them down, they will ignore it and they will do what they think Estyn will require them to do. So, we need a joined-up approach from Estyn and the regional consortia, who, of course, are part of the evaluation that comes up with the schools categorisation model, that we are all working in a line and clear that, actually, teacher time spent on this should not be regarded as a detriment to something else going on in the school. The inspection regime, of course, is a matter for them as independent of the Government, but I will be sure to raise it when I next meet, in one of my regular meetings, with the chief inspector because I'm aware that what Estyn does does, indeed, drive behaviour within individual schools.

The roles of teachers are absolutely crucial in being realistic cheerleaders for their students, and, therefore, they themselves need to be equipped, and one of the things we do know: where there are teachers who are less experienced in the application processes for Oxford or Cambridge or for some of our top universities, then we don't see children making that transition. So, training teachers and giving them the information is absolutely crucial and I promise, as we look at our guidance and the development of the Seren network, we'll ensure that we are breaking down any barriers that stop teachers from participating fully in the opportunities that are available, because they are crucial in supporting that child through that process and helping them make decisions and they themselves need to have the confidence that they know what they're doing, they know what works.

As I said, it's quite surprising that, if you look at international research, more able and talented pedagogy isn't something that there is a great deal about and I think this gives us in Wales a real opportunity to get on the front foot and actually develop our skills and expertise in this area, where there is a combination of action in our schools, but that is backed up by research so we can become leaders in filling that gap that there is at the moment about really, really intensive research in this area about what works.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport on active travel integrated network maps, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to make the statement. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome this opportunity today to update Members on a major milestone in the implementation of our Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. Following the submission and approval of the maps showing the existing active travel routes in 2016, local authorities in Wales have submitted the maps showing their plans for integrated active travel networks last November and these have now been fully assessed.    

The active travel Act requires local authorities to submit an integrated network map within three years of the Act coming into force. The then Minister for Social Services and Public Health extended the deadline for submission by six weeks to 3 November 2017 due to the local government elections and the potential difficulty to consult on the draft maps during the pre-election period.

Today, local authorities have received a decision on the submission of their integrated network maps. My officials provided regular support to authorities, including through workshops and advice notes. Most local authorities were fully engaged in the process and attended a variety of workshops that we held across Wales to assist them in the development of their integrated maps. We also commissioned a project that piloted elements of the integrated network map preparation process. The project, commissioned with Sustrans, worked with a number of local authorities through some of the key integrated network map stages and developed good practice and disseminated lessons that were learned. 

I'm pleased that 21 of the 22 local authorities submitted their maps on time. Monmouthshire County Council informed my officials on 5 September that they would not be able to meet the deadline. In October, a direction was issued to Monmouthshire County Council and they are now due to submit their integrated network maps tomorrow. 

All the integrated network maps submitted have been assessed against the requirements set out in the Act and the statutory guidance. As this first iteration of implementation of the Act is a learning process for all of us, I appointed Professor John Parkin at the University of the West of England as an independent validator. He was asked to look at the appraisal outcomes to ensure that they are consistent and reasonable and to help reach a sound decision. I was impressed with the commitment local authorities have shown across Wales and with the standard of the majority of submissions.

Maybe inevitably in this first cycle, a range of approaches has been taken by authorities in the development of these maps, and there is a great degree of variation in the levels of ambition expressed in these maps. On the basis of the appraisal carried out by my officials and Professor Parkin's assessment, I have come to the following decisions: I am pleased to be able to approve the submissions from 14 local authorities outright, because they have shown that their proposals are based on meaningful engagement and form a credible first-stage integrated network map. There is another group of submissions that fall a little short of our expectations, either in the way in which communities were engaged and consulted in the process, or in the coherence of their planned networks. For these, I've decided to approve the maps on this occasion, together with clear recommendations for addressing these weaknesses.

I am disappointed that submissions from four local authorities are unsuitable for approval in their current form because these local authorities either failed to consult effectively on their proposals or because they do not propose meaningful active travel networks, and, in some cases, their submission was falling short in both. To those local authorities, I will be issuing a direction to resubmit their proposals by 27 August this year. We will support them continually throughout this period. The independent validator provided specific recommendations of areas that should be addressed, and my officials will work with the local authorities affected to ensure swift progress. We are also making recommendations to other authorities highlighting areas for improvement. These first integrated network maps are the starting point; I expect local authorities to continue to work and refine these network maps in dialogue with their communities. This way, when they have to submit again in three years' time, this will be a much simpler process. 

Now that we have the first integrated network maps for the majority of places in Wales in place, we have a sound foundation to make these walking and cycling networks a reality and to get more people walking and cycling in Wales. I have now received the bids for the next round of local transport grants, many of which will be active travel schemes, and I'll be announcing which schemes will be funded next month. I'll continue to look to supplement this funding in-year whenever the opportunity to access additional capital arises, as I have done this year. I allocated additional capital funding of over £8 million for schemes benefiting active travel for 2017-18 to boost existing schemes and fund additional projects. I also commissioned a broader review of how we fund active travel and to look ahead to future requirements. It is my intention to boost the amount that we fund active travel and that we make available centrally for infrastructure significantly, and I'll share more detail on this with you shortly.

The integrated maps represent a great opportunity for joined-up planning. I urge local authorities and other bodies to ensure that other plans and programmes take account of them and, importantly, to use them proactively to secure funding from a range of other sources. When we succeed in creating these networks, and when they are well used, we all stand to benefit from better health and reduced healthcare costs, from reduced congestion, reduced air pollution and emissions, and, overall, from better places. Achieving this is a shared opportunity and responsibility for us all in Wales.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon. Cabinet Secretary, do you feel that the lack of any financial and human resource is one of the reasons why eight local authorities did fall below your expectations? There is also some concern from the cross-party group on active travel that the implementation of legislation has been process heavy, meaning that the development of routes has been delayed and vital time has been lost. I'd be grateful for your views on that.

It does seem that, without adequate funding, local authorities will be unable to properly implement priority schemes identified in their integrated network maps, so do you recognise the concerns expressed by some local authorities that funding in Wales for active travel has historically fallen far short of what is needed to implement the active travel Act? Can I ask what considerations you've given to a distinct active travel budget with a multi-year funding settlement, as well?

So, turning to some outcomes in Wales, the recent data shows that outcomes are actually worsening, with a third of people not engaged in any activity at all, and there's been no improvement in overall numbers of people walking and cycling. So, the latest data makes it clear that progress on encouraging active travel in Wales is slipping and that one of the reasons for this, according to Sustrans Cymru's Bike Life safety study, is the need for better safety in order to get people on their bikes. Developing safe active travel infrastructure has, of course, the potential to significantly reduce congestion on our roads and help deliver public health outcomes that we would like to see. So, can I ask what you are doing to improve road safety in order to promote active travel and how do you respond to safety concerns that have been expressed by Sustrans Cymru, Cycling UK and Ramblers Cymru regarding the Welsh Government's plans for the A487 in Caernarfon, which they say would worsen safety and does not adequately cater for walking and cycling?

Finally, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, to consider taking personal ownership of the active travel agenda to ensure that it does have cross-departmental attention? Many of the places around the UK and Europe that have made significant progress in promoting active travel have had Ministers or mayors that seem to have personally led this agenda. I look to Andy Street, the mayor of the west midlands, as a good example of this. So, in this regard, what do you intend to do to work with your Cabinet colleagues to increase the levels of active travel programmes in schools and workplaces to support behavioural change so that schools and employees can drive the change that is needed for people to embrace active travel?

Can I thank Russell George for his questions? I think much of what he's offered today shows that there is a need to significantly improve behaviours in Wales, and also across the UK for that matter, in terms of active travel and the choices that we make when moving from A to B. There have been instances where individuals have taken personal leadership and charge of active travel agendas, and there have been great outcomes as a consequence. The Member identified the mayor of the west midlands as one particular case. But then, if we compare the assertion that one person can take direct control with the consideration of having a single budget and, perhaps, suggest that having budgets available from across Government would make it far easier to ensure that you get cross-Government buy-in, that doesn't mean that you don't have single leadership of an agenda, and, certainly, I wish to see the amount of resource allocated for active travel to be significantly improved. But that increase in funding shouldn't just come, in my view, from within one departmental budget. So, whilst I accept that there should be strong leadership on this particular agenda from myself, I also believe that having a distinct fund for active travel may not actually get the sort of cross-Government buy-in that we require. It is, however, something that is being considered as a consequence of the review into the funding of active travel that I commissioned.

In terms of the multi-year funding of active travel, well, we've outlined in the economic action plan how we'll be moving to five-year cycles for funding, and I think that could have great benefits for active travel. Certainly, it would be my intention to utilise some of the funding savings that can be made from multi-year budgets for the purpose of improving the infrastructure that supports active travel.

In terms of where the concern over a potential lack of financial and human resource at a local government level is concerned, we did make available £700,000 for local authorities to prepare their maps. It's worth noting that one of those local authorities—at least one of those local authorities—that has not yet had the maps approved decided not to utilise that resource that was made available. But in addition to the financial resource, officials from within Welsh Government have been working with local authorities across Wales in ensuring that there is the expertise and that there are the skills available and the experience to hand in order to produce maps.

We're already allocating £5 million to work up shovel-ready schemes across Wales. As we move into future years, I expect the proportion of capital that is made available from the overall transport budget to increase for active travel. We've seen an increase from about 3 per cent to 6 per cent in the last 10 years in terms of the proportion of funding available for active travel from within the transport budget, but I would like to see that proportion increased still further, so that we can have a pipeline of projects that are fundable, that can be delivered, based on the initial £5 million of identified schemes, or the schemes that are identified through the £5 million of funding.

In terms of safety, one of the most inhibiting factors that prevents many people from travelling to work or travelling to school or travelling to services by foot or on a bike is the fear of fast-moving traffic. Twenty-miles-per-hour zones have proven to be very successful around schools. These are available for local authorities to develop if they so wish. It's certainly something that we have encouraged. But in order to really have the change, to really see the behavioural change that I think all Members in this Chamber would wish to see, we have to ensure that the next generation of responsible adults see active travel as a priority means of moving from one point to another.

The data that's highlighted by the Member does regrettably show a decrease in the number of adults that are walking regularly once a week in Wales. Likewise, there is a worrying decline in the number of young people who are walking. What we have noticed is that in terms of young people, it appears that parental concern over safety is a major factor, because the percentage walking with an adult actually appears to be quite stable if not rising, whereas there is a reduction in the number of young people who are walking either with friends or by themselves. So, there is certainly, it appears, a concern over safety—whether it be road safety or whether it be safety insofar as children being allowed out without their parents is concerned. This requires attention, I think, within the school estate, and I'm certainly doing work to look at whether school closures, consolidating the school estate, has had an impact on this data.

In addition, we've developed a toolkit for school routes, and this work has enabled schools to be able to assess and audit the walking routes that young people take to school. This is something that is an ongoing piece of work, but it will contribute, I think, to changing perceptions of active travel and to encourage young people to take up bikes or to take up walking, particularly to go to and from school. The actual data that concerns primary and secondary schools where children live within a 10-minute walk is very impressive. Something in the region of 84 per cent of children at primary school level access their schools by foot if they're within a 10-minute walk of the primary school, and that constitutes around about 31 per cent of all young people. At high school, the figure is even higher—it's 96 per cent. So, what we need to do is actually get more of those who live a little further away to take up cycling or walking. The data—. Sorry to go on about the data, Deputy Presiding Officer, but the data also indicates that insofar as adults are concerned, those adults who were walking or cycling some years ago, or in recent years, are probably walking even more now. The problem is that those who have not been walking are still not walking, and for that reason we have to ensure that the maps that are developed and the networks that are built are suitable for the needs of people in communities right across the length and breadth of Wales.

Thank you. The reason I was urging you on is that we have a number of speakers. We're almost half way and we've only had one speaker. Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I welcome the statement from the Cabinet Secretary? Obviously, from a public health point of view, it is vital to tackle this agenda. It's vital to tackle the obesity agenda inherent in active travel and encourage the total physical fitness agenda in general, because all the stats show, from a medical point of view, that if you are physically fit as an individual, as I've said before in this Chamber, your blood pressure is 30 per cent lower than if you're physically unfit, your blood sugar is 30 per cent lower than if you're physically unfit, and your cholesterol is also 30 per cent lower than if you're physically unfit. Now, if we'd invented a tablet or a drug that would have that dramatic effect on those indices—because we haven't yet—it would be a totally transformative drug, and there would be a clamour for NICE to approve it tomorrow. No such drug exists, but physical fitness exists. So, I would suggest, in your hunt for some additional funding, that actually having close consultations with the Cabinet Secretary for health would be of benefit because we are talking a huge agenda here, which needs to be grasped, obviously.

So, I do welcome your statement, and obviously welcome the vision of the active travel legislation of which this statement on active travel integrated network maps today forms an integral part. But, obviously, this active travel vision requires a step change in behaviour, as you've already alluded to, Cabinet Secretary, and obviously, that step change in behaviour is a challenge to us all, personally, as well as being a challenge to government, both national and local. Because there remains justifiably a real fear of road traffic—a fear of the danger of cars and lorries—and a very real situation in terms of accidents, particularly involving cyclists. Allaying that fear requires, I think, proven spending on safety and keeping cyclists and pedestrians safe so that we can prove to people that it is safe, and keeping them apart from cars and lorries. Now, that can't happen overnight, I appreciate, but that is the idea. Those ideas need to be transformative, as much as our thoughts on behavioural change need to be transformative, and spending, I would contend, needs to be transformative too.

Now, obviously, you've mentioned your intention to boost funding, which is very welcome, but as we know, spending per head on active travel is around £5 per head per year in Wales. Scottish Government spending on active travel is £16 per head per year. Dutch and Danish cycling utopias spend around £30 per head per year. So, I'm not saying we jump to that tomorrow, but that's the transformative change that we are looking for. Presumably, spending challenges informed the local authorities that have responded in their integrated network maps and, obviously, as you alluded to, not all of which have met with your approval, but obviously local authorities, like everybody else in this age of austerity, are under tremendous funding pressures.

So, basically, can you just detail how much additional funding you will be searching for, or can be made available for active travel legislation so that we can truly see the transformation that needs to happen? Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Dai Lloyd for his questions? I'd agree entirely with him that active travel can play a crucial role in reducing incidences of obesity and other physical illnesses, but it can also assist in improving our well-being, and certainly our mental health. I, for sure, benefit from regularly walking, cycling and running, particularly when I'm down here in Cardiff Bay, after or before work. I find that I perform much better if I've had a run after work or in the early morning than if I'm sedentary for most of the day. I think all of us in the Chamber probably have a role to play in leading by example and trying to be more physically active more of the time. I know that time is very precious, but it's absolutely essential in modern life to be able to carve out sufficient time for you to be physically active. It's absolutely crucial for your physical health, mental health and well-being.

In terms of the importance of other colleagues in Government and other departments, I think in particular education and health are crucial in challenging and changing behaviours of people in order to get more people physically active, not just in terms of physical activity, but generally to be more active, to be doing more, to be more physical more of the time. Certainly through forums such as the active travel board we are able to call on officials across departments for updates from their respective Cabinet Secretaries on the actions that are being taken to deliver on the spirit of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. I think fear, as Russell George has already said, is a critical factor preventing or dissuading people from being active in their travel. It used to be that fear of missing out, or 'FOMO', as it's now called amongst young people, led them to walk home or walk to school, because they feared missing out being with friends. Now, I'm afraid, FOMO leads many young people to demand that they get picked up in order to get back home in order to get on social media quicker, or onto the computer system. Unfortunately, that has become a cultural norm. That has to be challenged in schools, and that's something that I know that many schools are already doing. We have some great champions within the education service as well, and I think we need to ensure that more people get the sort of support that certainly I had, and many other people had, in terms of cycling proficiency.

There was a great book written by Anthony Seldon a few years ago entitled Trust, in which he painted quite a dark picture of modern life where we are constantly bombarded with fearful images, with negative images, that lead to dissipation of our trust in one another. I think as a consequence people believe that they are less safe than they actually are, they are less likely to trust other people in society, as they would have done in years gone by, and that's most unfortunate. What we need to do is encourage people to actually be more trusting and to be realistic about the threats on our road system and our cycleways and on our pavements.

In terms of the spend per head, there is no need to convince me whatsoever that we need to see a significant increase in the amount of resource that is allocated to support active travel. I'd like to get my Boardman bike used more often. I'd like to be more active in walking, and although I wouldn't wish to put a figure right now on the amounts that I'd like to increase active travel spend by, I would like to see it brought up, in terms of pounds per head of population, to the Scottish level. I think that would be an aspiration. I think if, essentially, one day we could reach the cycling utopia levels of some of the continental countries then that would be fantastic, but certainly, in the first instance, we need to aspire to be increasing to that sort of level that we've seen in Scotland. But I think we also need to be realistic about where we identify the funding. It can't just come from one pot within one department within the Government. It has to come from a range of departments and not just, indeed, from within Welsh Government. There has to be a contribution, in my view, from local government as well, and many, many councils across Wales have been incredibly responsible and proactive in this agenda.

It's good that you now have all these plans from local authorities, but I hope we're now going to see some action at pace. As Dai Lloyd's already said, there is a huge public health benefit from this and we have to take heart from people like Professor Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK Government, who warns that air pollution is more harmful to children in cars than those walking on the street. This is a message that we somehow have to get across to parents—that actually they're putting their children at risk more by taking them to school in the car than they are by walking with them or encouraging them to walk on their own or with their friends. 

In my day, I used to have to wait around the corner to pick my kids up from secondary school, if I had to pick them up to take them somewhere after school, because it was simply not cool to be seen with your parents. At what point are we going to stop taking our kids to school? Are we going to be taking them to work? Somehow, the infantilisation of young people—they could be operating independently and deciding which route they're going to take home and which child they're going to walk home with et cetera. So, we really, really do have to labour this point: it is nine to 12 times higher—the pollution inside the car than outside it. In a place like Cardiff, that is very significant because Cardiff has such high levels of air pollution. We know that the Welsh Government has admitted that our current plans for resolving this are illegal. I wonder what consideration you've given to implementing a clear air zone for Cardiff, because we really do need to move forward at pace. 

I'm very interested in the fact that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says that off-road cycle routes are very good value for money with every £1 invested returning £14 in benefits. Investing in walking infrastructure has a £37 return for every £1 invested—no doubt, referring back to some of the statistics that Dr Dai Lloyd has given us.

If you're in search of money for implementing these excellent schemes, I wondered whether you might consider the additional funding that could be raised by having a levy on city-centre car parking, because in Cardiff alone I have estimated that a 100 per cent levy on a two-hour charge on all the city centre parking could raise £1 billion. You could introduce an awful lot of walking and cycling routes with that sort of money. So, I'd be very interested to know what consideration you've given to this sort of thing, because we have the roads already—we don't need to build more roads, we just need to use them for different purposes. We need to use dedicated routes for walking and cycling. 

Lastly, I wondered if you could just tell us, for those submissions that fell short of your expectations, which you nevertheless decided to approve with recommendations for addressing weaknesses, what action you are going to be taking to ensure that those weaknesses are addressed.

Can I thank Jenny for her questions and for highlighting a most pressing problem, particularly in urban areas, which is the existence of carbon canyons, in many respects, that are polluting the lungs of commuters, and in particular young people? The irony, of course, is that within those more intensely urbanised areas young people can most easily access places of education on foot. What's preventing them from doing that is either parental fear or their own fear of not being safe on the roads or on pavements, or indeed, I'm afraid, a lack of desire to actually be physically active. 

It used to be, certainly when I was in school, that it was cool to cycle to school. I'm not sure whether that's still the case today. It seems to be that it's often cool to be picked up, to have a chauffeur. Again, it's absolutely crucial that, within the school estate, they check these behaviours and that practices are challenged and changed. I do think that there is a role for education practitioners to take up in leading that sort of cultural change.

Money I don't think should be raised just by Welsh Government for these purposes. I stated just previously that I think it's absolutely essential that local authorities also play a role in increasing the amount of resource that can be made available for active travel. I think it's a really interesting suggestion that you've made about having a levy on car parking. The Welsh Government doesn't have a monopoly on ideas and what we're looking for from local authorities as partners, working individually or together, is good ideas that will challenge and also deliver game-changing proposals that will increase levels of physical activity and bring about a healthier nation. I think that the idea of a levy is certainly one that's worth further consideration. 

I think Jenny has been very consistent over many years in championing active travel, and I'd like to put on record my thanks to her for ensuring that I, personally, am fully accountable for the level of spend and the commitment that the Welsh Government shows to active travel. Again, I can give my commitment to Jenny that in future budgets I will be seeking a significant increase in the amount of funding that's available for active travel projects.

I'm afraid, coming a little late in a debate, that sometimes many of the points that I wish to make have already been made, Cabinet Secretary. I thank you, obviously, for your statement, and please forgive me if I do reiterate some of the points that have already been made this evening.

The measurement of any programme can be challenging. We see with many plans that the focus is often on activities surrounding their implementation, rather than their outcomes. What is the Cabinet Secretary putting in place in order to monitor the effectiveness of your active travel programme?

It has been stated that funding was set at £5 per head of population. We've already talked about funding, but it has been mooted that it's probably nearer £3. Could the Cabinet Secretary update us on figures that are more current than that? You mentioned the Scottish figure, but you didn't actually give us that figure, so could you do that as well?

The active travel Act puts Wales at the forefront of action to promote walking and cycling, for which it received international recognition. However, the sight of ranks of buses and cars outside schools, often engaged in travelling quite short distances, shows how deep the problem is in effecting a modal shift in people's attitudes. Does the Cabinet Secretary share with me the belief that there should be a concerted effort within schools to convert our young people to a greater use of the bicycle and walking for school access?

The last point I wish to raise with the Cabinet Secretary is the seeming lack of ambition by local authorities with regard to their integrated travel maps. This has been identified by no less an authority than the Welsh Local Government Association, who believe that this is due to local authorities' fears of a lack of funding for the active travel infrastructure that they envisage. Could the Cabinet Secretary make a comment on this observation? Thank you.

Can I thank David Rowlands for his questions and actually touch on a point that I should have dealt with that was raised by Jenny Rathbone, which concerns the funding that's available for schemes that are being developed? That £5 million that I talked of earlier is being allocated for the purpose of bringing schemes to the point of construction. The reason that I want to see a significant increase in the available resource for those projects is because that £5 million-worth of funding is likely to result in a significant number of projects that will require capital resource. If we are to ensure that, if you like, the vision doesn't just remain a dream, but that the action turns it into reality, we're going to have to back it up with significant resource. That's why I'm pressing hard the point that I will be searching for a significant increase in the amount of capital investment that goes into active travel.

The Member raised the figure of £16 per head in Scotland. The overall sum that is spent in Scotland—it has increased significantly recently—is £80 million. Here in Wales, I was pleased to be able to allocate an additional £8 million within the current financial year for active travel, which resulted in a figure within my department itself of £23 million. That equates to more than £7 per head of population in Wales, but it doesn't reflect some of the additional spend that has gone into schemes that have encouraged modal shift. It's far more difficult to be able to identify all of the spending, all of the investment, when you don't have a single active travel budget. Nonetheless, I wish to see within my department a significant increase in the capital available for schemes able to be delivered in future years.

I think that the variation in the quality of submissions from local authorities demonstrates that the challenge for councils across Wales has not been primarily one of financial resource, but of a willingness and a belief in this agenda—a willingness to work hard to deliver excellent integrated network maps and to contribute to this agenda meaningfully, often with a financial resource. There are exemplar councils in Wales in this regard, and I wish to see all councils perform extraordinarily well in the years to come.

For that reason, we are monitoring the progress of those three local authorities that we've approved the network maps for. We're going to be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations that Jenny Rathbone asked about, and we're going to be monitoring the roll-out of projects and programmes across all 22 local authorities. This is an initial phase. Further maps will be submitted in three years' time. We'll be assessing in terms of data and uptake of those routes that are captured within the maps. We'll be assessing the effectiveness of them. We'll be looking at the projects that are delivered as part of the mapping exercise, and working to make sure that we work with partners in Sustrans and across local government and other third sector organisations to increase the availability of active travel. 

I think, again, the Member highlighted the role that education can play in this regard. If we can change the behaviour of children, we will also, in all probability, change the behaviour of their parents, as was the case with recycling. The increase in recycling rates has largely been down to young people driving this agenda, influencing and inspiring their parents and older generations. 

In terms of air quality, which, again, was raised by Jenny Rathbone, I know Members around the Chamber are very concerned with this issue in terms of air quality. This is a matter that the Minister for Environment, my colleague Hannah Blythyn, leads on, but we have a ministerial task group that meets regularly to discuss decarbonisation, and air quality of course is a key concern that we have within that group.  

Thank you. Lee Waters. 

Thank you. Minister, on Monday research revealed that levels of diabetes are set to double in the next 20 years, and type 2 diabetes, in particular, linked to physical inactivity. Research yesterday shows that 70 per cent of people born between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s are going to be overweight before they reach middle age. This is a public health measure being delivered by a transport department, and transport departments across the country without the skills, capacity or culture to fully grasp the opportunities of this agenda.

I welcome very much what you've said about the intention to significantly increase the investment, but we have been hearing of intentions in this Chamber, with respect, for a number of years now. You said that the first of these INMs are the starting point. This Act was passed in 2013. I started campaigning for it 11 years ago. You've described them as a solid foundation. They're exactly the same words that your predecessor, Edwina Hart, used in December 2015 when she described the existing route maps as 'putting in place the foundations'. We need to move beyond this at scale. We need to ramp it up big time. 

You said that there's a degree of variation in the levels of ambition from local authorities, which depend on the willingness and belief in this agenda. It shouldn't rely on local authorities depending in this agenda. There is an Act of this Parliament that requires them to come forward with plans. There is design guidance that sets out very clearly the requirement for a basic network, and for a 15-year vision. I'm very pleased that you have sent the signal to four local authorities that what they've come up with isn't good enough, but I really do fear—and the cross-party group on active travel that I chair has brought together groups from all across Wales—and the evidence is consistent: there is a lethargy and a lack of ambition right across Wales and, on behalf of local authorities, genuine difficulties in terms of capacity and senior buy-in. That's why the drive needs to come from this Government. 

So, my question to you, Minister, is: you say you're going to be reviewing the active travel guidance, so what are the Welsh Government going to be doing to enforce it? That's the key point. Yes, we need the investment, and yes, we need cross-departmental buy-in, but we also need a lead from the top. This legislation is in place. It's our landmark Act. We've now got to really show we believe in this and push it home because the public health of future generations depends upon it. 

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I'd say again, just to repeat, that the benefits of active travel are not just physical; they are also emotional and mental as well. Fifteen billion pounds is wiped out of the UK economy every year because people turn up at work unable to perform to the best of their ability because they're anxious or they're depressed, and this needs to be challenged. It can be challenged through getting more people physically active to improve their mental health and well-being. That's not the only answer, of course it's not, but it has a part to play.

I know that the Member has been, again, very helpful in holding us to account and has often, I'm sure as he would recognise as well, been very critical of the approach that Government has taken as far as transport is concerned. I would very much agree with him that enough is not enough and that whilst we do have this Act, I would urge all partners not just to meet the minimum requirements of the Act but to go an extra mile and to make sure that we do deliver the change in behaviour that is required in order to improve the health of Wales. As a consequence, for our part, we'll be looking at the requirements on Welsh Government, not just meeting them as a minimum standard but making sure that we can excel on them.

We can turn Welsh Government's activities and leadership into an exemplar in Europe, and I accept it will require some difficult decisions as well. I'm prepared to make those difficult decisions, but it will be important that all Members recognise that difficult decisions will carry criticism from some quarters, from some constituents, from some people who disagree with the active travel agenda. So, whilst I'm hearing across the Chamber today a call for more money to be invested in active travel, for stronger leadership to be made on active travel, I hope that, when the difficult decisions are made by me, my department and this Government, Members in this Chamber will also support them when the time comes rather than offer a megaphone to those critics outside of this Chamber who I'm sure will be quick to object to increases in spending on active travel.

I think it's also important to recognise that, yes, it's taken three years to come to this point, but those three years were outlined, they were built into the Act. Whilst I accept it's taken time, I do believe it is a starting point and that we do now have solid foundations. The key is in making sure that those foundations are not left without the infrastructure that is required to be built upon the foundations in order to get the behavioural change that I think everybody in this Chamber has been talking about. 

Thank you. I have three more speakers, so if they can just ask their questions and, Minister, if you can just respond to the one question that they're going to ask you, then we won't run that far over time. John Griffiths. 

Can I very much welcome the statement, Cabinet Secretary, and your commitment, which I think is very clear? Some of the answers you've given on funding, for example, I think are very welcome. You will have the support, I'm confident, across this Chamber, that you're looking for in terms of the difficult decisions around implementation. 

Could I just say that interest groups, I think, are very clear about the great potential of the legislation, Cabinet Secretary, but there is some frustration around implementation that has already been expressed. There's some concern as to whether local authorities are looking at commuter routes that cross local authority boundaries, for example, and joining up in that way, and concerns about the basic network for modal shift around things like the 20 mph speed limit that you mentioned. We need to make the local neighbourhoods friendly for walking and cycling to get to the new routes and join up in that way.

Can I ask you about behavioural change, Cabinet Secretary? We do need people to have the skills and confidence to make this shift to walking and cycling, and I do believe that schools and workplaces are key to that. As far as schools are concerned, Sustrans Cymru are doing some very good work, but they're only reaching 8 per cent of schools, even though it is effective work because we see a 9 per cent increase in active travel after one year of their work. Cycle training is—

You're really taking my patience. Come on, quickly. 

I will be very quick. It's all connected with behavioural change, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Yes, we do need some behaviour changes in the Chamber. [Laughter.] Come on. Move on. 

So, I just ask about cycle training as well, and Cymru Travel Challenge has ended in terms of workplace behavioural change, Cabinet Secretary, with no replacement.

Can I assure the Member—and I'm pleased to be able to share this news with all Members actually—that I've recently agreed to extend the Active Journeys contract for another year up until July 2019 for the reasons that John Griffiths outlined? It's proven to be exceptionally successful in those schools that it's operated in. I think 88 per cent of respondents said that the number of pupils cycling to school had increased as a consequence of this programme, so I'm happy to extend it for a further year. 

Thank you. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to welcome your announcement today, particularly the boost in funding available centrally for infrastructure investment. During recess, I and my colleague Dawn Bowden had a wonderful day trip where we were actually allowed to go through the Abernant railway tunnel that links our two constituencies, and you'll recall that I raised a question with you on this just prior to recess and you spoke about the funding you've allocated to Merthyr council to look at developing the Abernant tunnel in particular. The main barrier, as other people have said, to more use of active travel is the perception of danger from traffic, so do you agree with me that the use of disused railway tunnels such as Abernant could overcome this significant barrier as well as significantly improve the east to west links in our northern valleys to complement the north-south links that will be improved with the metro? If the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 is to become more than a paper exercise, is it time for Welsh Government to act more boldly and invest in these railway tunnel infrastructures that we have on our doorsteps?

I think Vikki Howells makes a really valid, very important point that we shouldn't just view roads as the only infrastructure that people can use for cycling. I've noticed in my constituency that upgrading the Llangollen canal towpath has proven to be incredibly important for cyclists to be able to access places of work and to get to school in Llangollen. I think also tunnels can play a very important role, whereas in more urban areas I think it's essential that dedicated cycle routes and cycle highways are considered. So, wherever you are in Wales, there should be a bespoke solution that's developed by the local authority in conjunction with third sector partners. I'm sure that Sustrans would take a very keen interest in advising and supporting any local authority that wants to develop an innovative solution to the particular challenges that they face. I'm very pleased, in the case of Vikki Howells, to have been able to provide the local authority with the funding to take forward further work that could be required in order to convert that particular tunnel into a cycle way.

Finally, Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In January, I organised in my constituency an event to encourage more people to take up everyday cycling, which was very well attended, and people had a chance to go for a short cycle ride from the Whitchurch rugby club, where we held the event, and it was very successful. We had representatives of Welsh Cycling to tell us about group social rides, which were very attractive, and rides for people who need to build up their cycling confidence. This event was held on the Taff trail, which obviously is fantastic for cycling, but many of the people there raised the issue of how they have to battle with the traffic to get to the Taff trail, and that is the point I want to raise with the Cabinet Secretary: how are we going to ensure that the cycle routes and the walking routes that are set up are linked up? I think that's one of the key issues.

Absolutely. I think the answer is through great ambition and determination and by showing strong leadership. It's certainly the case—if I can identify one example in London, where the development of the cycle highway over Westminster Bridge I think probably met with furious objections from some motorists, but actually it's proven to be hugely successful in getting more people to cycle to places of work. It's proven to be incredibly successful in improving, I think, cycling safety as well. So, perhaps that shows the way for other local authorities in Wales to operate—to be ambitious, to be bold and to be brave as well in the face of criticism whilst proposals are being worked up.

Thank you very much. We finally got there. Thank you. 

Item 7 on the agenda this afternoon has been postponed until 13 March.

We moved to item 8, which is a statement by the Minister for Environment on recycling in Wales, and I now call on the Minister, Hannah Blythyn, to make the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a nation, we can be proud of our groundbreaking success on recycling.

Before devolution, Wales only recycled 5 per cent of waste. We have now reached over 60 per cent. We are leading the way in the UK, and I want us to build on this to make Wales the No. 1 recycling nation in the world. Our success is down to the hard work of people everywhere in Wales, whether they are recycling at home, in the community, or at work. I want to place on record today my thanks and congratulations to all individuals, organisations and businesses for their contribution to tackling waste in Wales. Our impressive results demonstrate that by us all working together and playing our part, we can make a real difference.

Our groundbreaking collaborative change programme provides local authorities across Wales with access to technical expertise on recycling. This enables them to adopt the systems in our collections blueprint, which are the most sustainable and cost-effective options for collection services. Today, I am pleased to announce that I am approving a further £7.5 million for the collaborative change programme.

I was in Merthyr Tydfil yesterday to see, first hand, improvements the council has made to their services through the collaborative change programme, and how this has driven up participation in household recycling. Over the last five years, the programme has helped Merthyr Tydfil council to adopt more sustainable waste collection systems whilst also reducing costs. During that time, their recycling rate has increased from less from 50 per cent to over 65 per cent. Our continued investment in the collaborative change programme and in our award-winning waste infrastructure investment programme has significantly driven up the quality and quantity of recycling collected in Wales. Our ongoing support will ensure that Wales remains at the cutting edge of recycling systems and infrastructure.

Whilst our recycling has significantly improved through, for example, targeting food waste, we now need to focus on other difficult-to-recycle materials, such as some plastics and textiles, whilst maintaining our current progress. The BBC’s recent Blue Planet series highlighted the urgency for global action on plastics and marine litter. Wales’s coast is one of our treasures and a massive tourist attraction. Two thousand and eighteen is Wales's Year of the Sea, so it is timely to act to protect our natural assets by taking further action. We have set up the Wales clean seas partnership with a working group to look at these issues, and to focus action on preventing the problem at source. 

We led the UK in introducing a carrier bag charge and are now bringing in legislation to ban microbeads. We are exploring options to widen access to drinking water in public places in order to reduce the number of disposable water bottles, as well as engaging with water companies and with City to Sea, who worked on the scheme in Bristol. We have secured Wales’s involvement in the UK Government’s call for evidence about how it will address the issue of single-use plastics, including through the use of tax. Alongside this, we will continue to work on a potential stand-alone disposable plastics tax for Wales. We are also exploring the feasibility of whether a deposit-return scheme for drinks containers would work for Wales, given our already high recycling rate.

Community action has a key part to play in encouraging recycling on the go, and addressing littering. Last week, I was pleased to be in New Quay when it was awarded the Surfers Against Sewage plastic-free status, following on from Aberporth who were the first place in Wales to achieve that status. I congratulate these communities for their inspiring achievement and I am keen for similar initiatives, such as the plastic-free status, to take place throughout Wales. The Surfers Against Sewage initiative shows the power and influence of grass-roots movements and individual communities to tap into the public’s social conscious and turn it into co-ordinated action on the ground and change individual patterns of consumer behaviour. The communities of New Quay and Aberporth have shown that by offering and buying alternative products to those made of plastic, consumers, vendors and producers can make a real difference to the eradication of plastic in our seas and on our coastline.

Managing waste appropriately wherever we go reduces the blight of littering on our towns, rural communities and national parks, creating a more pleasant and prosperous environment for us all to thrive in. We provide funding to local authorities and to organisations such as Keep Wales Tidy and Groundwork Wales to address issues around littering and recycling away from home. We are also working with the manufacturing sector to examine the issues around recycling food packaging and recycling on the go.

Recycling and re-using products and materials for as long as possible, in a circular economy, provides wider environmental and economic benefits. A successful circular economy relies on high-quality, recyclable materials and a highly trained and motivated workforce. Wales’s recycling success has been recognised by industry, which values our higher quality recyclable materials. Our research shows the municipal waste and recycling sector provides over 4,000 permanent posts across Wales. There are a further 23,100 jobs in Wales's wider circular economy, with a projected figure of another 12,000 by 2030. I am pleased to hear that a major plastics recycling company is looking to locate a new state-of-the-art facility in Wales within the next 12 months. In addition, we are funding WRAP to work with industry to develop a plastics route-map for Wales that will be published this year. The route-map will identify steps to significantly increase the amount of recycled plastic used as feed material by Welsh industry.

Our impressive recycling results are down to the hard work householders put in, and I want to see this level of achievement equalled by the private sector. As part of our drive for businesses to meet the 70 per cent recycling target by 2025, we are developing proposals for new regulations under Part 4 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and we intend to consult on these proposals this summer.

We are working with Natural Resources Wales and industry to tackle waste crime and to prevent recyclable material being lost from the circular economy. This will address poor quality, contaminated recyclable materials being illegally dumped, burned or exported abroad. Stamping out these practices boosts the legitimate recycling industry, strengthening public confidence and participation in recycling. As other countries increase environmental protection and build their own circular economies, they will become less reliant on the importing of recyclable materials, as illustrated by China's ban on imported waste plastics.

Extended producer responsibility can be achieved by working together across borders. We support the recently published EU plastics strategy and commitments on plastic made by the UK Government in its recently published environment action plan. We welcome a UK approach on extended producer responsibility to tackle the issues around litter and waste prevention to achieve the best outcomes for the people of Wales.

We in Wales should be proud of our record of groundbreaking environmental policy and our successful Welsh way to tackling waste. I intend to sustain and build on this approach, reclaiming our resources towards a zero waste Wales. By working together, from grass roots to Government, and everything in between, we can become the top recycling nation in the world by 2020. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I just start by saying that this is largely positive news? Wales does have much to be proud of, and I do think it is a success for devolution. I remember all the debates way back 20 years ago about what sort of policy differences could emerge, and even in areas where the policy direction is largely agreed, comparing different jurisdictions and their performance could be key to the general efficiency of public policy, and I do think it's been demonstrated.

Also, I think the Minister's quite right to commend the work of most local authorities in Wales; they clearly have been the main agents to achieve an awful lot of the successes that we have enjoyed over a 20-year period. I also welcome the acknowledgement of the private sector's role, and often they are responding to public demand; I think that's something that we should very much welcome. Last year, as you know, Ikea started its textile take-back scheme in its Cardiff store, and that relates to all sorts of textiles, not just clothing but fabrics in general. So, that's the sort of initiative we want to see.

I note what you said about the access to drinking water, and I think Water UK's Refill campaign has really started to take off in England. You mentioned Bristol, which is where I think it started, and the aim now is that every English town and city would be covered by 2021. I do think it's imaginative to be able to go in to all sorts of retail premises and, for free, have a refill of water. I'd like to hear a bit more about how it's being taken forward here in Wales.

I do think as well as more recycling, we do need more careful use of materials, and that does take us into a more general strategy about what sort of materials we want to encourage in our circular economy. You do refer to those materials that are difficult to recycle, and they're the prime ones that we don't want, really, in our economy. But I think the public are getting much more demanding about the type of depth and integration they want in this sort of strategy. Therefore, I am pleased that you are working closely with the UK Government to encourage producer responsibility, which is obviously key in this area, and I note what you say about the plastics policy that's now contained in the environment action plan published by the UK Government, and, again, I would encourage you to co-operate fully so that we learn lessons from them and vice versa.

I think you're right that littering is a very important problem to tackle. I think, sometimes, people see it as one of the more trivial crimes out there, but in terms of impact on the environment and a sense of well-being, it's really serious. I think we've all been in communities where there's a very poor record, really, of tackling this, and it can be very debilitating, I think, for some communities that see great amounts of waste being just thrown on the streets, for instance. It extends to all sorts of issues, like dog fouling, as well. We need to be vigilant, and we need to ensure that all communities have that ability to ensure it is tackled, because unless you catch people and then there is a deterrent established, unfortunately, behavioural change amongst some offenders can be very slow, as the majority of people everywhere, of course, do not litter.

I do have a few specific questions. I still think it's important to be tough on the local authorities who fail to meet their recycling targets. This is, overall, a positive message. We don't need to be too strict in what we say in this area, but I think that is a mechanism that needs to be used occasionally, and I'm not quite sure what Welsh Government policy is at the moment: you don't seem to be imposing the fines very often.

I do think it's time for an integrated plastics strategy, building on this work, and I note what you said you're doing in terms of microbeads and exploring legislation there, possibly. Similarly, we would welcome further investigation of the use of a plastic tax, if that could be coherent. I'm not quite sure where we are with the deposit-return scheme. That probably is a question that Simon Thomas will pursue, but we were supposed to have a pilot scheme and now we're just having an investigation. There's this qualification—I'm not sure whether the civil servants have sneaked this in—that you're considering it in the light of our already high recycling rates. Well, that does seem slightly cool to me.

Finally, let's not forget that we could stop an awful lot of the need for recycling by having a return to the days that I can remember all too well when not everything was covered in plastic or packaged in polystyrene trays. I think that is something that we really need to send a clear message on, and, again, the public want to do it. They don't mind having their fruit and veg sold loose.

Diolch. Thank you for that comprehensive contribution and questions. You mentioned how litter and dog fouling are often seen as those trivial or low-level political issues, but if you go around a local community and you do a survey, they are the things that are likely to be most high on it, which is why, for me, it's very important that we tackle litter as part of recycling and how we deal with things on the go. Now, we're so used to that culture of collecting things at the kerbside, but what happens with somebody when they've got a bottle, they've gone out for the day, and they're walking down the street? We need to make sure there are places more available for people to be able to recycle when they're out and about.

You make a number of comments—all, on the whole, very positive, which I welcome, course. In terms of you talking about the local authorities, 20 out of 22 local authorities met or exceeded their statutory recycling target of 58 per cent in 2016-17. Overall, local authorities are taking action. They've had support from this collaborative change programme, and we've seen returns of improvement in their recycling rates. Where local authorities have failed to meet their targets, Welsh Ministers are considering options available in regard to applying penalties for local authorities that did not meet the statutory target, and that's something we could update on in due course.

An integrated plastics strategy—absolutely. I think we have to consider everything in the whole and in a way that works for us in Wales. I think it's really important—I talked about the communities that have become plastic free already and how we are seeing there's a huge wave of public opinion and movements. I think it's really important that, as a Government, we embrace that as well, and, as individual Assembly Members, we practise what we preach on that too. So, I think it's really important that we bring all that together and make sure that any solution we come up with in the next few months for Wales meets our needs and actually does tackle those areas that are still outstanding that we still know are problems in terms of hard-to-reach textiles, plastics—that we bring that all together. I think you were talking about the packaging in supermarkets things. It's pleasing to see a number of well-known supermarket brands now starting to announce they're taking notice of this rising public opinion that we now need to—. They will look at how they package, and particularly their own-brand products. I think that's really important and why, as a Government, we work with stakeholders, including the retail consortium, to try and bring businesses along with us to take the action that we need. 

And also looking at our extended producer responsibility study and DRS, I'm sure you're absolutely right that there's going to be a question from Simon Thomas in great detail very shortly. It is something—. You reference where we have high levels of recycling. I think this goes back to what I've just said. It's about making sure that we have a solution that has no unintended consequences but actually complements what we're already doing in Wales and builds on that success.

Of course, I welcome the content of the Government statement today and I note, as David Melding did, that this is the fruit of efforts at a national level not only by Government, but also by local authorities working on the ground too, and the fact that Wales has placed itself as a green nation in all senses of the word in relation to recycling does demonstrate what we can do with the appropriate powers at a national level, and what we can do for the future, and I note that the Minister concluded with the statement that we can become the top recycling nation in the world by 2020, and I hope that becomes a target, not just an aspiration.

The Government has a decent record that it can take pride in in this area, but there’s always room for improvement of course, and I just wanted to ask a few questions on some of the issues that are perhaps more ambiguous in the Minister’s statement this afternoon. Now, first of all, many will be asking: where is the report on producer responsibility? That report should have been published this month. I remember asking the First Minister around a month ago, and he said that at some point in February we would see that report, and I just want to be clear that this delay isn’t something that’s holding us back from doing something in Wales as we wait, for example, for the Westminster Government to make a decision on its own proposal or whatever. Because the record is clear: we can innovate here. We don’t have to wait for the rest of the UK to catch up with us in these areas; we can lead the way and they can catch up with us. But what’s important in that context is that I do think that many people, many citizens, are very concerned, particularly about plastics and the uses that David Melding mentioned, and they are seeking leadership from Government. They realise that the citizen can only go so far. Once you go into the supermarket, you have no option. Well, you can, of course, remove all of the packaging from the goods, as they tend to do in Germany, but that’s not culturally what’s seen as acceptable in this country. But there isn’t an option; there isn’t anything else that you can do. There are interesting developments. I look forward to visiting a new shop in Crickhowell next week that is called Natural Weigh—'weigh' in the sense of weighing goods—which is trying to do everything entirely plastic free, selling produce loose. We’re just returning there to what we used to do, with some of these methods. But, certainly, that report on producer responsibility is important to show that we are taking the lead at a national level.

The second thing that I want to ask you about this afternoon is the plastics tax. I was disappointed that it wasn’t the tax opted for by Government, because I haven’t seen any issue capturing people’s imagination—environmentally, anyway—over the past six months as the use of plastics, but could you give the Assembly an update in terms of what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance had to say in saying that the Government now intends to collaborate on the concept of a plastics tax along with the Westminster Government? What should we expect to happen now? And what steps need to be taken in order to follow through the issue of single-use plastic tax or levy?

Now, I welcome the fact that you have announced £7.5 million, I think, in addition for the joint programme with local authorities, but one of the questions that are still being asked by citizens is: why isn't this consistent across Wales in terms of what is recycled and what isn't? So, the way I recycle here in Cardiff, when I stay in Cardiff, is different to the way I recycle in Aberystwyth—and Aberystwyth is in the vanguard, of course, but that's another issue altogether. But it would be interesting to know what you're doing to standardise things across Wales, because people do travel from place to place, of course, and, as you referred to yourself, if you're on the street with a bottle in hand and you want to deposit it appropriately, well, again, it varies from place to place. In some towns and city centres, there will be an appropriate means of disposing of it; in others there will not.

The final question is the question on the deposit-return scheme. I welcome the fact that there is funding in the budget for such a programme. As I think is clear now, these proposals do work— they work abroad, and they work on the continent. The question for Wales, I think, is: how can a scheme work with the system that we currently have? I've seen what you had to say in your statement—and David Melding referred to that too—but, of course, we must bear in mind that although we are successful in recycling plastic bottles, or the bottles that get to the litter stream, as it were, there's a great deal that doesn't get there, and I think a deposit-return scheme endeavours to tackle those bottles that are thrown onto our streets or put in litter bins and don't even have the possibility of being recycled.

I don't think that we are recycling as much plastic as we think, because we don't count the plastic that is disposed of through the main waste disposal streams. If you look at Norway, where they manage to recycle 90 per cent of plastics, it includes all pieces of plastic sold or in the system. That's what we want to aim for here. In my view, that's where a deposit-return scheme and the possibility of adding to our recycling achievements lie. Implicit in the ambiguous words in the statement here is the fact that plastic is valuable, of course, and that not everyone wants to give up control over a valuable stream of waste, which is currently bringing funds in. But with the changes happening in nations such as China, we don't simply want to switch from China to Vietnam, as far as plastics are concerned—we want to tackle these issues here in Wales and use every piece of plastic that can be recycled or reused as much as possible, and a deposit-return scheme is certainly part of that.

Thank you for those questions.

To start with, in terms of the extended producer responsibility report—and I agree with you that we're proud that we've led the way and we're able to innovate in Wales, and we do want to continue to do that. In terms of when the report is due, it is due this week. When that's out we'll be assessing this and developing recommendations, where appropriate. So, I do hope to be able to come back in the very near future with some dates on that.

If I go straight to look at the deposit-return scheme, the question for Wales on how we work with what we currently have, you're absolutely right: how can we make it fit with how we work here in Wales? And it is something that we need to give careful consideration to, and I know this is something that you're very passionate about because of the agreement, and I'm sure once we have something from the study then we can hopefully meet and then take that further as to what the next steps are. But we definitely need to look at how it fits within what we do here. Also, I think, just linked to what you said about China—that we don't want to simply export our recyclable products elsewhere in the world—I think one of the best ways to do that is to look at how we do better recycling, but also look at making sure we have the infrastructure here in place to recycle and reuse those products in Wales. I've seen some innovative examples recently when plastics have been recycled to be used as part of tarmacking roads as well. So, there are lots of innovative ideas out there, and I think the key is to be open to that but, actually, at the same time, making sure that we turn, like you said, our aspirations into—. I was going to say into 'concrete action'; that's probably not the right phrase then.

In terms of the funding for local authorities in terms of the way they recycle, I'm very familiar with the difference in practice in terms of Cardiff and my own council in Flintshire too, being in two places within the week. The Welsh Government, as you know, has a collections blueprint, which recommends things, but local authorities, as sovereign bodies, can make their own decisions, but, obviously, through our collections blueprint and the support we can give through the collaborative change programme, we hope we can support and work with councils to both improve their efficiency in terms of recycling and also in terms of, actually, invest-to-save with the councils as well.

I think the other thing that links into is how we take forward further education on behavioural change campaigns, because we have seen, to get to the levels we have, a significant cultural shift in terms of attitudes to recycling and it just being an automatic thing that people do now, but I think there's still quite a level of confusion, and I could see that when I visited certain sites and you can see some of the things that people are putting in, even in separated recycling collections—so, the importance of further behavioural campaigns to talk about actually, at the moment, what plastics can be recycled, what can go in your recycling bags or bag, whatever the case may be.

Finally, the plastics tax: I'm not surprised to learn that you're disappointed by the finance Secretary's decision and I recognise the considerable interest in and support for a tax. I saw it myself online and in correspondence as well, but I appreciate the complexity of developing an effective tax in this area. We have had constructive discussions with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level on the need to tackle the issue of disposals tax, including taxation, and it's on this basis—. We're clear that we have expertise to bring to the table on it, being at the forefront of leading on the waste agenda and have much to offer in terms of what we've done and our research capability. So, it's on that basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and I have agreed that the UK and Welsh Governments should work together at this early stage and that we contribute to the analysis of findings following the call for evidence. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has agreed to meet the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury again to discuss progress and contribute our Welsh views on the development of policy options on possible ways forward to reflect the needs of Wales. But, as I said in the statement, we also continue to explore the options for a stand-alone disposable plastics tax for Wales as well.

I'd just like to introduce perhaps a rather different perspective on this. I fully acknowledge the success of the Welsh Government in achieving its recycling objectives, but I think we should recognise that the benefit to the planet of what we do in Wales is obviously going to be very, very small. More than half of the plastic waste that flows into the oceans comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka. Indeed, the only industrialised western country on the list of the top 20 plastic polluters is the United States, which weighs in at number 20 on that list. We are not mismanaging our collected waste in either the United States or Europe. There is, of course, a certain amount of litter that is deposited. Nobody's going to be in favour of that; nobody is going to be in favour of waste, but I think we have to recognise where the source of the problem is, if we're going to deal with it effectively. China is responsible for 2.4 million tonnes of plastic that makes its way into the ocean every year. That's 28 per cent of the world total. The United States by comparison is responsible for 77,000 tonnes, which is less than 1 per cent. Nobody's defending even that 1 per cent, but if we're going to make significant inroads on plastic pollution in the oceans—I heard the Minister refer to the effect of the programme Blue Planet II, which I fully endorse—we have to deal with the problem at its source. Ninety five per cent of the plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just 10 rivers. Eight of them are in Asia, and two of them are in Africa. It is not a European problem, still less a British problem. So, we have to put more pressure on or provide incentives for the countries that are substantially responsible for this problem. Although what we do in this country is all very worthy and worth while, no doubt, it's not going to make the slightest difference to the real problems that exist. I certainly approve of banning plastic beads, for example, which are causing significant problems with fish, and we know that if the problem is not dealt with in a meaningful way, things are going to get worse. By 2050, the amount of plastic in the ocean is going to weigh more, apparently, than the total weight of all the fish in the seas, and nobody's going to want to see that. So, I don't know what the Welsh Government can do to aid the UK Government in putting more pressure upon countries that are responsible for the overwhelming bulk of this kind of pollution, but anything that the Welsh Government could do, I'm sure, would be, perhaps, even more beneficial than the good work that is being done rather closer to home.

Thank you for that question. Actually, I think I fundamentally disagree with many of the points that you made there. It's not for us to turn our back and say that just because we don't create the vast majority of the world's problem, we're not going to show leadership and do something about it. The responsibility is on all of us—individuals, communities, governments—to actually step up and show leadership on this issue and to play our part as responsible global citizens. And that's what we're hoping to do in Wales by actually being there: we're number one in the UK, second in Europe and third in the world. We should be using that and showing our leadership to use leverage to encourage others to take action. If we don't play our part, how do we expect others to play their part as well?

I agree with the Minister that we can be very proud of our success in recycling; before devolution, 5 per cent of waste was being recycled, now it's 60 per cent. But a lot of that has been driven by the taxation on waste, and that's gone up. Local authorities have worked harder and harder in order to recycle. Now we need to look at taxation as a driver for changing people's behaviour.

I think everybody welcomes the ban on microbeads. In fact, I think that if we'd had this discussion 10 years ago, most of us wouldn't have known what a microbead was. The 5p charge for plastic carrier bags has had a visible effect on the environment. You only have to look back to before it existed, and everywhere you went where there was grass, there'd be carrier bags; now there aren't. If you see a carrier bag on a sports field, it's unusual; if you see one in a grassed area, it's unusual. It used to be a very common sight.

Recycling and reusing products and materials for as long as possible in a circular economy provides environmental benefits and economic benefits. Can I just add my voice to that of Simon Thomas? If you want to have things reused, a deposit scheme is the way to do it. It doesn't even have to be very much. If somebody came and asked me for 5p now, I'd give it to them, but paying 5p for a plastic bag, I feel I don't want to, and I'll do anything possible to try and avoid doing so. An awful lot of people follow that—. It's the fact you're paying for something and you don't really need it. I think exactly the same can be true with bottles. Some of us are old enough to remember taking Corona bottles back and getting the 5p. That worked incredibly well. Unfortunately, we've gone to so much plastic and so little glass.

Of course, recycling and reusing are second and third best, because the best is not to use, or if we have to use it, then use less. That's got to be our priority, and we need to give more thought to that. And it's not just plastic. We seem to have gone to plastic now as something that we talk about, but we've also got glass, tin-plated steel and aluminium—they could all be made thinner, and thus reduce the weight of recycling.

Something we've got to be looking for is trying to reduce the weight of recycling by trying to reduce the amount of metal, glass and others in the materials being created. So, what is the Government doing to promote less material in packaging? You probably want a tin of baked beans—you wouldn't want to get them loose; carrying them home might be a bit difficult and embarrassing—but do you really need such a thick tin? It's in the interests of the manufacturer, the consumer and the environment to get thinner tins. So, what is being done to try and reduce those sizes?

May I thank the Member for his very illuminating contribution? I also thank him for his work and interest in this area, particularly as Chair of his committee.

I'm just about old enough myself to remember getting the money back when you took the Corona bottle back, but I think I used to keep it and use it for a mixed bag of sweets, so that's probably not the behavioural change we'd be looking to go for. I think the Cabinet Secretary for health would have something to say about that if I were to suggest that as a policy going forward. [Interruption.] Yes.488

Looking at the how we could use taxation and behavioural campaigns, I think it's actually how we get that balance of the carrot-and-stick approach and, at the same time, to make people aware of why we're doing this and why it's important and the difference that it makes too. So, we're looking in terms of the fact that, yes, it's good for our environment long term, and for our future generations, but also there are economic and social benefits as well from reusing and recycling.489

On promoting less material and packaging, yes, absolutely, I think it's something that could be considered, and that's why it's so important the work that Welsh Government does in terms of working with our stakeholders and working groups across Government to look at how we can engage with the sector. That also goes back to making sure that we are getting that investment in terms of having the innovation and infrastructure in there to be able to make these advances.490

I do hear what he says about the fact that you probably couldn't have your tin of baked beans not packaged, especially if you forget to take your carrier bag to the supermarket. It has absolutely changed behaviour and I think it shows us how that can be done and gives us that—. That's why I think, in Wales, we have such a good platform to build on. If anybody else is like me, you've got a boot full of bags ready for when you call into the shop—and I was talking to some people about this—but sometimes, you forget them. Particularly now, in this position, I'm probably carrying out a load of things like this and trying not to drop them or I run out and leave somebody else to deal with it if I've forgotten my bag. We have seen that shift in awareness and why it's important now as well. That is something we are looking at: how we continue to build on that in a way that not only businesses understand, but also that behavioural change so that people are actually 100 per cent behind it and passionate and believe in why we're doing it as well.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon? I will just raise a few concerns that I have about the way in which some local authorities are trying to squeeze further recycling rates out of their local communities.

As you will know, Minister, one of the issues that is causing some consternation in my own constituency is the advent of four-weekly general waste collections by Conwy County Borough Council. It's important that we take the public with us on a journey of behavioural change and you can see from the results across Wales that people don't need to collect waste on a four-weekly basis in order to hit the targets. Some of the best performing local authorities are still collecting their waste on a fortnightly basis. So, there are other ways of achieving greater recycling rates, without actually simply just axing services for local communities. What concerns me, I think, is that there needs to be more consistency across Wales in terms of the way that services are being provided, particularly those waste services from people's homes at the kerbside, because if you've got greater consistency, then you've got greater familiarity from members of the public, and you can potentially achieve far bigger economies of scale for people, and therefore better, more efficient recycling services.

One of the big problems with the situation in Conwy at the moment—and I'd appreciate hearing the Welsh Government's position on this—is the concern about public health. So, not only have we got more litter on the roadsides—and I charge anybody to drive down the A55 at the moment or through some of the trunk roads in Conwy at present, where they are absolutely strewn with litter, absolutely strewn with litter—but, you also end up with more fly-tipping. We've had a big, significant increase in fly-tipping in that community, even though the recycling rate is marginally better. And then, on top of all of that, we've had increases in pest control problems, and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health have expressed serious concerns about the public health implications of four-weekly waste collections, particularly with pet waste going into people's bins and the problems that that can cause.

So, what we need, I think, is greater levels of consistency so that people can have better access to consistent services across the country, so that when they move from one local authority area to the next, they roughly know what they're dealing with. But, when you have waste collections on a four-weekly basis, if you miss one—if you miss one collection, as people can do from time to time—then it's eight weeks by the time that your bin is collected again. That cannot be acceptable in a modern nation like Wales. I'm all for championing recycling, I'm all for supporting behavioural change. I was one of the first to declare support for a carrier bag levy in this Chamber almost 10 years ago now. And I think that it's time that, as a nation, the Government was able to set a standard below which the frequency of waste collection should not fall. So, I urge you, Minister: please give some consideration to this, please give some consideration to allowing some local flexibility whilst still maintaining certain levels of service and, in particular, a level of service with regard to the frequency of waste collections. 

Thank you for that question. I'd like to congratulate you on being among the first to declare your support for the carrier bag charge in Wales, with us being the first in the UK. [Interruption.] Yes, in the bad old days. I completely hear what you're saying in terms of the issues you're having on a local level. It is, of course, a matter for individual local authorities to determine the frequency of their residual waste collections in their areas, but certainly if you want to get in touch we can give consideration to some of the specific problems you're raising. In principle, we would support less frequent residual waste collections, provided that recycling and food waste collections are weekly, and also with separate arrangements for nappies and similar materials like that, so to tackle some of the issues in terms of—[Interruption.] Yes. So, if the Member would like to get in touch about that in more detail, then it's something we could give some consideration to. 

I agree we have a very good story to tell, but I think the fact that other countries are not quite as far advanced in their recycling as us is not a reason for us not to continue to pursue this matter, and we absolutely have to remember that it's the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. I was astonished to read the other day that the bottled water industry has managed to persuade us to buy bottled water to the cost of £2.4 billion a year for a product that is freely available for nothing in the tap. It's extraordinary what a bit of advertising can do to counteract rational behaviour. 

We mustn't forget, of course, that food waste is a significant issue, and it's an ethical issue in a world where so many people go hungry that one-third of all of our food is wasted and never consumed, and that's clearly an area we need to something about. But taking 'reduce' first, I wonder what assessment the Government has made of the German legislation—it's a very long title—the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act 1996. That forced manufacturers to reduce their packaging, and has obviously been effective there. 

On the reuse front, I think that there is huge merit to the bottle deposit scheme, as mentioned by others, but I also think that Julie James's behaviour of bringing her coffee cup with her when she goes to buy a coffee—that is a practice that's now being rolled out across most of the best-known coffee shops in the country, and something to be celebrated. But I think that it is still a major problem that we have plastic and cans littered all over our countryside, contrary to what Neil Hamilton thinks, and I think it is a real eyesore.

So, there's no doubt that we can reduce the amount of litter that's produced by these substances if we have a deposit scheme, because you can see in countries like Australia—80 per cent of all their plastic is recycled, 90 per cent in Denmark and 97 per cent in Norway. And in Norway, the chief executive of the deposit-return scheme says:

'Our principle is that if drinks firms can get bottles to shops to sell their products, they can also collect those same bottles.'

I can't understand why it isn't cost-effective to do this. I also think that automation plays a very important role in all this, because in the Norwegian scheme, they post the empty bottle into a machine, it reads the barcode and produces a coupon for the deposit-return. But if the careless consumer has left the liquid in the bottle, the machine takes the bottle anyway but the coupon goes to the shopkeeper who's got to empty and clean that bottle out.

Lastly, focusing on the cost of recycling, what thought has been given to introducing kerbside separation of recyclables across Wales? Because there's no doubt of the volume and value of recycled materials that have been contaminated by glass fragments, which contaminates the plastics and the paper and makes it impossible to recycle it. Conwy, an excellent local authority—they do kerbside recycling, so if they can do it why can't all other local authorities? That would produce more valuable recyclable materials and less cost to the local authority.

I thank the Member for her contribution. She makes some very valid and important points, particularly starting off by emphasising the need to reduce, reuse and recycle—the three Rs that we should all be regularly reciting. 

In terms of the points you make in terms of food waste, that is a big issue as well. I think that's why it's so important that our ambition to halve food waste coming from homes is linked to the work we're doing in terms of working with retailers and industry to reduce the packaging and the sort of packaging they use as well. Because part of that is that the way things are packaged actually lends itself to increasing food waste as well. So, it's all interlinked in terms of the bigger picture in terms of how we tackle that and why it's important that it's all connected.

I'm not overly familiar with the German legislation from 1996 that you mentioned, but I will certainly try and take a look at that or ask officials to do that as well.

On reusable coffee cups, I think you can certainly see how that is building and gaining ground now. I won't mention the well-known coffee retailers who are using them. I was going to say perhaps one of them could use some of the money that they're charging for their coffee cups to pay their taxes. But I have to confess, I have jumped on Julie James bandwagon and have my own branded recyclable cup that I got for Christmas. It says 'Hannah for Delyn' on it, so nobody can pinch that mug, it would be very obvious.

But in all seriousness, on the point that's been made about automation and innovation and how that can present opportunities, we've talked in the Chamber about how automation can also present opportunities to us in terms of how that fits in with our environmental ambitions and agenda as well. The only thing I would say is that I hope the coupons are actually recyclable as well.

I don't know whether they recycle plastic pellets to make heating, but if they could put them into the system here and warm the Chamber up, that would be great. 

Minister, I'm sorry I missed you in Merthyr yesterday. I wanted to welcome your announcement, particularly the nearly £1.3 million that you've announced to invest in specialist machinery equipment in Merthyr, including a recycling rebaler. I'd love to go down and see what that actually does. 

What I would say is I think Welsh Government has in particular reflected the public concerns around the levels of plastic in the environment. We've heard the contributions today about the plastics deposit scheme and that's already been well covered, but clearly we can achieve more through increasing our plastic recycling rates. But, as we know, there are some plastics that we're not currently recycling, simply because the food industry or consumer preferences prevent us from doing so. Both of those are matters that public policy can actually influence.

There are also some plastics like the cellophane covers that are not generally accepted in our current recycling systems, yet other EU countries do collect and recycle that material. While concerns have been expressed over the decision taken in China on not receiving plastic, doesn't that also present us with an opportunity to greatly increase our own domestic plastic recycling sector?

There's a common perception that the plastics industry is a problem, but it does seem to me that we should be working alongside the industry to invest in the plant technology that can take us further on our recycling journey, so that those plastics currently not recycled can be. If we can develop plant technologies, then surely those could be exported to help those parts of the world where, as we’ve heard, plastics and recycling are a far greater challenge than they are here.

So my question, really, is how do you think we could work alongside the plastics industry, which we have to assume are experts in that particular product, to help develop further and innovative ways of helping our plastics recycling?

I thank the Member for her comment. As you mentioned, you missed the visit to Merthyr yesterday. I certainly found it a very interesting visit and it's good to see how they've built on their success following the funding and increased the recycling rates in Merthyr. They'd not only improved their recycling rates but they'd actually helped reduce their costs as well, so having added invest-to-save benefits for the local authority. You said you'd love to go down and see what a bailer actually does—they have invited me to go back, you're very welcome to join me, but I think the next visit includes me actually having to go out with the recycling teams on collections to see how that's working with the public. [Interruption.] The Member just said to go down her street. 

The point she made in terms of the plastics we're not currently recycling—it's really, really key to look at how we could expand what we do on that. Also in terms of—it's been mentioned here before—China buying exports and the solution is not necessarily to export to other markets. The solution should be to actually see how we can invest that as part of our circular economy, which not only brings environmental value but also brings economic value in terms of job creation and working with plastic supply chains.

You're absolutely right, there are some companies out there, and in Wales, who are doing innovative things already. That's why it's so important, the work that we're doing, to bring industries and stakeholders together. And our plastic route-map is so important, so that we can approach that as a whole to make sure we get solutions that work for the long term into the future.  

Thank you, Minister.

The next item, therefore, on the agenda is the legislative consent motion on the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Vaughan Gething. 

I am happy to move the motion before us today on the LCM, the legislative consent motion, relating to the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill.

I feel that many of us are regularly shocked by the continued reports of emergency workers being attacked both verbally and physically whilst they are fulfilling their already demanding roles that are of such great value to all of our communities across Wales.

Chris Bryant, the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, has introduced his private Members' Bill to provide additional protection to those emergency workers. That Bill was introduced on 19 July 2017 and it enjoys cross-party support. Interestingly, in introducing his Bill he's undertaken a wider consultation encouraging members of the public to vote for the potential options if he was drawn in the ballot. More than 10,700 responded directly. Both in the UK consultation and also the very local Rhondda consultation, this particular Bill topped the poll as to the proposal to take forward. It also had the support of more than 145,000 petitioners online. So, the Bill enjoys widespread support and I certainly hope it will receive the support of all parties in the Chamber today.   

The Bill as drafted extends and applies to England and Wales and it would strengthen the law by creating a new aggravated version of the existing offence of common assault or battery when committed against an emergency worker. The maximum penalty would therefore increase from six to 12 months imprisonment. It would also create a statutory aggravating factor for other assaults and related offences against emergency workers, such as actual bodily harm, gross bodily harm and manslaughter. That aggravating factor would merit a more severe sentence but does not increase existing maximum penalties for those offences.

It would also extend police powers to take blood samples with consent, and non-intimate samples without consent, from individuals who assault emergency workers when an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the emergency worker has been exposed to a risk of transmission of an infectious disease. That proposal is intended to reduce the number of emergency workers who sadly have to undergo a blood test themselves and take prophylactic medicine sometimes unnecessarily. That will provide emergency workers with faster and greater certainty about whether they have potentially contracted an infectious disease.

The Bill defines emergency workers to include the police, National Crime Agency workers, prison and custody officers and fire services, rescue service workers and NHS workers in public-facing roles. Of course, a number of those are in devolved areas. I would like to thank both the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee for their work and their conclusion that they too have no objection to today's motion. Some of the services in the Bill do fall outside devolved competence, but others—as I said, fire and rescue in particular, the rescue service and NHS workers—are devolved. I'd ask Members across parties today to support the motion, so the provisions will therefore ensure that Welsh emergency workers will be afforded the same protection as emergency workers in England, and on the same timescales. I hope that Members will rapidly agree today's motion and bring proceedings to a close. 

I call on the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd.

Thank you, Llywydd. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee considered the LCM at its meeting on 11 January.

I’m sure everyone in this Chamber will agree that we should welcome any measure that seeks to improve the protection for our front-line emergency workers: as we've heard, the police, fire service and those in the NHS—nurses and doctors and so on—by strengthening the law when certain offences are committed against them.

We should also welcome the fact that, in the unfortunate event of an emergency worker being assaulted in the course of their duties, there are clauses in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill that will allow for the taking of samples from the person who carried out that assault if it is believed that the emergency worker has been exposed to the risk of transmission of infectious disease. That is to be welcomed as well.

As well as enabling the worker to find out quickly if they are at risk of contracting an infectious disease, and taking swift action to address that, it will spare them the prolonged stress and worry of waiting for results, which can be weeks if not months.

So, on the basis that taking forward these provisions in a UK Bill will mean that emergency workers in devolved services in Wales are afforded the same level of protection at the same time as those in England, the committee has no objection to the agreement of this motion. Thank you very much.

I will try to be brief, but I do want to first of all say congratulations to Chris Bryant for bringing this forward in Westminster, because I think it's an excellent Bill to have brought forward and it absolutely reflects the Welsh Conservatives' 2016 Assembly manifesto where we sought to strengthen laws on penalties.

A quick bit of context, because everybody else has spoken about what the Bill will do: in 2017, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board alone saw 1,136 physical acts of assault against NHS staff, of which only 27 went to court—27 the year before, 27 the year before that. That's a complete nonsense. In total in 2017 verbal and physical assaults against NHS workers came to—quick mathematics here—just under 7,000 cases. Of those 7,000 cases, 906 made it to court. We need to tell the public that when people are putting themselves on the line for the public, going out there to help you no matter what your cause is, you have got to treat people with absolute respect. We will be supporting this Bill. Well done, Chris Bryant. Well done, Darren, for having this in our manifesto last time.

I just want to make a few points on this, because I think this is a piece of legislation at Westminster that is very, very desirable and long overdue. It is an area where we might have considered legislating ourselves at some stage, but it's absolutely right that we have a certain degree of consistency in this area.

I'd like to raise a number of points. It's all very well us talking about increasing the sentences and so on. The biggest problem that has arisen has been the lack of prosecutions, and I think we need to have a better understanding as to why that has occurred, because I remember the campaigns that we had for zero tolerance on assault in the health services. What happened to that? It certainly didn't result in an increase in prosecutions, and no matter what we set the sentences at, unless we actually ensure that there are prosecutions in these cases, then it will not actually have that impact. So, all I would suggest is this: I think that this is something that's eminently worthy of support, and congratulations to Chris Bryant for actually taking this forward, but this is a matter that we do need to keep under review ourselves, because if, over the coming years, it is not having the desired effect, we may want to look ourselves at the issue as to how the legislation's working—

Would the Member take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

It's just to say that I absolutely agree with you and I wonder if there may be a case for asking the Counsel General if he would review why there's been so few prosecutions. Going back to my ABMU case, year after year they've had the highest number of assaults and the least number of prosecutions. So, I think you're absolutely right in identifying that something, somewhere is going wrong and we have to send out a strong message that it's not acceptable to assault people.

I agree with that. There was some debate of this in Westminster, where the evidence recalled that with some of the sentences where there were prosecutions it was so paltry that it was an attitude of, 'Well, it's not worth the trouble. It's not worth actually doing it'. I think there's actually a broader imbalance in criminal prosecutions within our society, to the extent that there is a greater likelihood of prosecuting someone over a theft, over a welfare benefit offence than an unprovoked assault, for example, and I think that is the issue that goes throughout our criminal justice system. But, in particular, the need to actually emphasise the importance of the role of emergency workers who are serving the public and ensuring that they are protected I think is absolutely essential. But I think it would be, yes, a very good idea to monitor this, and it could be a function of the Counsel General to actually do this, but also to engage with the Crown Prosecution Service as to ensuring that, when this legislation goes through, there is a presumption of a prosecution and there is a review of the sentences that are then handed down and there is then also, I think, engagement with the sentencing guidelines body to ensure that the sentencing guidelines are particularly clear, because otherwise this important legislation may not have the desired effect.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

I'd like to thank Members for their support for the Bill proposed by Chris Bryant. I look forward to Members voting in favour of it, and I note the comments made by both Angela Burns and Mick Antoniw on the broader issues about the criminal justice system actually taking up complaints over assaults against emergency services workers. I look forward to working with Members across the Chamber and, indeed, colleagues in Government on doing something about that too. Many thanks.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings today's proceedings to a close.