National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon, Members.

If we can all come to order, we start this afternoon's proceedings with a nomination for the Chair of the Finance Committee. Following the Chair of the Finance Committee becoming vacant, I invite nominations under Standing Order 17.2F for the election of a new Chair. The Business Committee has decided that the Chair should remain allocated to the Plaid Cymru group. Only a member of that political group may be nominated as a Chair, and only a member of the same political group may make the nominations. So, therefore, I invite nominations for the Chair of the Finance Committee.

I nominate Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch. Are there any further nominations? Llyr Gruffydd has been nominated for the position of the Chair of the Finance Committee. [Applause.] Well, I was going to ask you: does any Member object? I was pointing out, because I could hear people asking, but I take it from that that you don't. But I will have to ask: does any Member object to the nomination? No. Therefore, Llyr is elected as the Chair of the Finance Committee. So, diolch for that, and congratulations, Llyr. So, there we go.

We now move on to questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, and the first question is from Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch. Improving the availability and quality of work in all parts of Wales is absolutely essential in our aim of tackling regional inequalities. And through our economic action plan, we are taking action to empower people and regions to benefit from and also to contribute to inclusive growth.

Thank you for that response. You will be aware, of course, that the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for agriculture is currently consulting on a document call 'Brexit and our Land', and there are specific proposals in that document that will have far-reaching implications for the rural economy in Wales. That consultation is happening whilst there hasn't been any kind of modelling or any kind of review of what the impact of proposals will be on jobs in rural areas. So, I just wanted to ask whether your department is looking at what the impact of such steps would be, because the Cabinet Secretary’s going around saying that, whatever emerges from the consultation, she’s going to continue with the proposals.

Well, I think it's worth saying that these issues are discussed at the Cabinet sub-committee on European Union withdrawal, and my officials and I—and, indeed, I think all Ministers across Government—recognise the very grave risk to rural jobs and to communities in the event in particular of a 'no deal' Brexit. I think it's fair to say that the red meat processing sector itself is most at risk. It employs, I believe, something in the region of 2,000 people in Wales, and any loss in access to the single market will put these jobs at risk. For our part, in the economy and transport department, we're ensuring that Business Wales provides the best possible advice to businesses of all sizes and types, but specifically those that are small and medium-sized and micro-sized businesses, whether they're in rural areas or urban areas.

I think it's worth saying, Deputy Presiding Officer, that, in recent years, employment rates in rural parts of Wales have improved faster than in urban areas, and that unemployment rates have fallen to a greater degree than in urban areas. However, we wish to see improvements to the rural economy maintained, and through the services offered by Business Wales, and by Welsh Government, working together with our partners in higher and further education, and with stakeholders in the farming community, I think we will be able to ensure that we position Wales in the best possible place we can. It's going to be for UK Government, though, to ensure that the outcomes of the negotiations are such that the rural communities that we serve, and that many of us live in, are not left at a significant disadvantage. And I will be working together with my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, to ensure that the UK Government goes on listening and, hopefully, goes on acting on the calls made by the Welsh Government.

My region is visibly urban, bisected by the M4, but my constituents in rural parts of South Wales West also need work. Getting to work from the rural valley communities in the east of my region would probably benefit from a rail link from Brackla, for example. But, in the west of my region as well, a strategic Swansea pathway would help residents in Gower access job opportunities without needing to travel into the city, as well as acting as a speedy link, of course, for communities in Carmarthenshire. Both ideas, I think, will help future employers think hard about maybe locating their businesses outside an increasingly crowded south-east Wales. As well as standing alone, both these ideas could form part of a South Wales West metro. So, I'm wondering what Welsh Government can do to help progress these ideas. 

Well, the work by the local authority is progressing in terms of the development of the south-west Wales metro, and, for our part, we've also enrolled Professor Barry to ensure that projects that can be funded by the UK Government are brought forward with a compelling business case as soon as possible. 

The Member raises a number of interesting prospects that could attract funding from Network Rail and the UK Government. Historically, we've fared incredibly badly compared to other parts of the UK, and, of course, the cancellation of electrification to Swansea had a major impact in terms of not just the competitiveness of the area, but also, I think, the confidence of the area. Consequently, I believe that it's absolutely essential that we do identify rail schemes that could attract UK Government investment through Network Rail to improve the prospects of us sharing the fruits of economic growth more evenly across the country, and that includes those communities that the Member has identified in her region. 

Yes. I am very pleased to say that we're currently considering comments made by statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, and these comments will help me decide on how we should progress this particular scheme and whether a public local inquiry will be required.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer? The Cabinet Secretary will be aware, of course, and agree on the need for the new Dyfi bridge, especially in the light of flooding, which has closed the bridge on a number of occasions, as it did again last month and in August, causing significant traffic disruption. Now, I did write to you earlier in the summer and you wrote back to me in August confirming that you were expected to provide an update in this regard in September. I am a bit concerned that we haven't had that update yet. Can I ask how far away you are from appeasing, potentially, objectors, because there are just a few objectors? If those objectors can be appeased, there will be no need for a public inquiry—that would be my understanding—and, if that is the case, what then would the timetable be for construction to start on the new Dyfi bridge?

The Member is absolutely right; we are working hard to resolve what is a small number of objections to the scheme, and the Member is also right that the current bridge was not designed to carry the current volume of traffic, and so it's a major pinch point on the A487. And, as the Member highlighted, the road is also often closed due to flooding, with diversions taking place that leave motorists having to travel an extra 30 miles on many occasions. So, the proposal would see a new pumped drainage system installed at the Cambrian line railway bridge to address flooding in this area. We're going to continue to work closely with landowners to resolve the remaining statutory objectors, and we're also finalising land agreements with Network Rail.

This process, as you can imagine, given the objections that we have received, and our desire to resolve them in order to avoid a public local inquiry, has taken longer than we would have liked and longer than we had expected. However, if we can resolve the remaining objections, then we will be able to avoid a public inquiry, which would save significant time in terms of the delivery programme. Until a decision on whether a public local inquiry is required, I'm unable to confirm a specific date for the start of the works, but I do recognise the major importance of this particular project to the community and the wider area. 

Cabinet Secretary, as Russell George has said, and as you've acknowledged yourself, this is an absolutely crucial link, connecting parts of the region that I represent. The inconvenience particularly to businesses, but also to families, that occurs when that bridge is closed is really substantial. I obviously welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to address this. I was going to ask you a question about timetables, but, taking on board what you've said already, which is that it's very difficult to do that until you know whether the inquiry will need to go ahead, will you give us a commitment today to come back to this Chamber once you are aware of what the timescales are going to be, because knowing that is quite important, particularly for local businesses' planning?

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her question? I will commit today to issuing a statement concerning the particular project and whether a public inquiry is required once we have finalised our discussions with the objectors.

We now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the first spokesperson this afternoon is Russell George. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, a number of weeks ago you stated, in questions, I think it was, from me, that you were due to meet the chief executive of Transport for Wales to discuss with him a number of matters in relation to the new Wales and borders rail franchise. You made clear that one of the issues that you were going to raise with him was details regarding timetabling matters, namely the proposed improvement to services, including those between Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare and Cardiff, and between Llandudno and Chester. Can you update us, Cabinet Secretary, as to the outcome of those discussions with Transport for Wales and in particular the outcome of the discussions with regard to the timetabling?

Yes, I can confirm that I've met now with the chief executive of Transport for Wales on two occasions since I last answered the Member's questions. We covered a great range of issues, including those that he identified. I'd be happy to provide Members with updates not just on the timetabling matters, but also on issues concerning the governance of Transport for Wales, the recruitment process for a chair and also the potential future role of Transport for Wales in terms of delivering on the wider transport agenda.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I was hoping that you might be able to give us some specific answers in terms of the timetabling issues that I've raised today. If you are able to do so, please do so today.

The Government and Transport for Wales have made a number of commitments to rail passengers regarding the delivery of new trains. One of the main complaints, as you will be aware, regarding trains running on Welsh lines has been about trains that are overcrowded, old, unclean and environmentally substandard. You will understand, of course, that passengers are disappointed and frustrated that the same old trains are still in operation now, even though the new franchise era has begun. Can I ask you to make crystal clear when the new trains will finally arrive? Will you also outline a rolling stock strategy so that the public can have the confidence that the new trains will arrive, as promised? And, finally, will you provide an update as to when the tender specification and final contract that we use to deliver the new franchise will be made public? I know you've previously committed to doing this.

Yes, absolutely. The Member raises a number of questions. In terms of the trains, we inherited the trains that had been operated by Arriva Trains Wales when Transport for Wales took over the franchise, but we were also very clear in articulating that there will be £40 million spent on improving those existing trains whilst we await new rolling stock. On new rolling stock, we anticipate delivery by 2021. The first of the new trains will be seen rolled out on the north Wales coast line. There will be a mix of trains built in Wales and built abroad. The procurement exercise identified the best rolling stock for each of the particular routes that are going to be served by the new franchise. In addition to the £40 million that will be spent on improving the existing trains, I'm also pleased that a deep clean of all stations will commence in December of this year, and that, by 2023, every single train on the network will have been replaced. It's also worth pointing out that, over the course of the next 15 years, we will spend almost £200 million improving each and every one of the stations in the franchise network. 

In terms of the other points raised by the Member, I'll happily provide updates on the queries. I'll write to Members with details of the various points that the Member raised.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. I would really appreciate a statement, perhaps, so that we could have some tangible, detailed information in regard to when the trains will arrive, with associated dates. I did ask you as well about the tender process and about the tender specifications in the final contract. If you're able to give an answer on that today—on when you foresee those being publicly available for us to scrutinise—I would appreciate that. 

Many Welsh rail stations are in a very poor state and they have been neglected and had underinvestment for some years. Again, Transport for Wales has recently announced that there would be an investment programme to upgrade Wales's stations as part of the new franchise contract. Can you ensure that Transport for Wales publishes a timetable for station improvements so that rail passengers know exactly when their station is going to be upgraded? Because a theme throughout the questions today is that passengers just want information and communication, and being open and transparent is absolutely key.

I think the Member is absolutely right. Communicating the programme of improvements is essential in ensuring the confidence of passengers can be guaranteed. We've already published the time frame for the rolling out of new trains. However, I would happily recirculate that to Members. I've offered Members in the past a number of workshops with Transport for Wales when they are able to provide the detailed time frame of delivery of the replacement rolling stock, and it's also published online. But I will happily provide a detailed table of all of the replacement and new rolling stock that's going to come into service in the coming five years. And in terms of the tender specification and the contract, we are reaching agreement on how we can suitably publish that. I am keen to make sure that that is in the public domain as soon as possible for the purpose of ensuring that there is transparency and scrutiny.

In terms of the station improvements, we're currently putting together an assessment tool to ensure that we can categorise and prioritise station improvements, and I think it's going to be important, once we've done that, to be able to identify a suitable time frame for those improvements to take place. I've said in the past that £15 million will be made available, for example, for improving access to stations. I'm keen to ensure that we're able to identify those stations that will benefit from that funding and that we are able to identify the period during which they will be improved.

The Member may be aware that we've already published specific dates for certain stations that are being improved, but I think the Member is right, and I'll endeavour to put together a table of all 274 stations that are going to receive an upgrade and improvement. But it's important just to reiterate that those improvements will begin in December of this year with a thorough deep clean.

Thank you. Spokesperson David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we are of course all aware of the congestion problems at Brynglas tunnels in Newport. Notwithstanding the decision on the black route or otherwise, it is obvious that any intervention will take some considerable time to be effective. What measures is the Cabinet Secretary putting in place to alleviate the problem in the short term?

Well, there are a number of short-term measures that we continue to look at. There are a number of short-term measures that we are already implementing. I think that the additional resource that has been allocated for active travel will improve the availability of safe active travel opportunities within Newport itself, taking traffic from the motorway that doesn't need to be on the motorway, given the substantial number of vehicles using the motorway simply to get from one side of Newport to the other.

Bus reforms and legislation on the bus network will help us to improve the provision of local bus services right across Wales, including in the Newport area, and those reforms will be outlined very soon. So, it's my hope that, through considerable and radical reform of local bus services across the country, we'll be able to encourage more people out of their private vehicles and onto buses, particularly in the more urban areas. 

Funding through the local transport fund can be utilised for creating designated bus and taxi routes, again making the provision and the use of bus services more attractive to people who perhaps would otherwise travel by car, and I'm also keen to go on working with schools and education colleagues in encouraging young people to take part in active travel journeys rather than using private vehicles for the purpose of getting to and from schools and colleges and universities.

In terms of the road network itself, of course we have looked at and implemented variable speed limits in order to ensure that there is a constant flow of traffic, and these improvements have been particularly successful on the M4. It's an intervention that I think motorists value. I think that at the outset perhaps some motorists thought that we were reducing speed limits in order to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Actually, what it was designed to do was to ensure that there is greater consistency in the way that people were driving and that you didn't have stop-start motion on the motorway. So, all of these measures that have already been implemented and that will be implemented will contribute, I hope and believe, to a reduction in journey times.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, and I recognise the interventions that you talked about. If I can talk about a much more direct intervention, you've just mentioned speed limits, but as someone who faces the congestion on an almost daily basis, it has become obvious to me that speed limitations that are used at certain times actually greatly exacerbate the situation. A speed limit of 40 mph is often in place, especially at peak times. Would the Cabinet Secretary consider re-evaluating this procedure?

Well, we always look at the evidence from the—. It's all computerised, essentially, and this is not carried out by a human being who randomly increases or reduces the speed limit. This is a complex tool that ensures that traffic moves smoothly. One of the major contributing factors to, if you like, phantom traffic jams is people moving from stop to a high speed and then stopping suddenly again. It's effectively the slinky-dog effect. That can cause a phantom traffic jam, which, in turn, causes congestion, which can take a significant amount of time to resolve, and so just having traffic travelling at a consistent albeit lower speed than what the national limit might be does reduce congestion.

It's also important to recognise that motorists who choose to switch lanes regularly also contribute to congestion. Now, in other parts of Wales—notably along the north Wales coast on the A55—we carried out a resilience study that looked at the potential of limiting access to the trunk road for certain slow-moving vehicles at certain times of the day. I would happily review—. If we do implement that particular measure, based on the consultation that will take place, I would happily evaluate that and determine whether such an intervention could also be utilised on other trunk roads, including the M4. I'm determined to make sure that people, whether by private mode or by public transport, are able to get to and from their destinations as quickly as possible, and based on all the evidence available to us, variable speed limits contribute to doing just that.

Again, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, and I do acknowledge that there is a problem, which you mentioned, with switching lanes, particularly the late lane changes, that is from the Malpas turnoff lane back onto the main carriageway. They pose a very serious problem. But having experienced the approaches under almost all traffic conditions, from light to excessively heavy, I am of the firm belief that two gantries, one before the High Cross turnoff, and another 500 yd further on, giving very clear instructions to move into the appropriate lane for the use of the tunnels, would obviate the need for speed restrictions and thus allow traffic to flow freely. This observation comes from having seen heavy traffic conditions but still free movement of traffic when there is an absence of speed limits. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that much longer tunnels on the continent, often incorporating curves, have a speed limit of 80 to 100 km per hour. Why do we need a 40 miles per hour speed limit on such a short tunnel as Brynglas? Can I urge the Cabinet Secretary to have a proper evaluation of my proposal, which I believe would greatly alleviate the congestion problems at Newport?

I should reiterate again that the 40 miles per hour—or 50, when 50 is introduced—is designed to prevent stop-start traffic. The particular proposal that the Member has suggested I think merits further investigation. I'll certainly ask my transport officials to look at that particular proposal. There are a number of solutions that can be deployed on any given road designed to reduce and eliminate congestion and improve safety, and if the Member has any further suggestions, I'd very much welcome them.

I think it's important as well to recognise the contribution of what the French call, I believe, 'elephant racers' make to congestion on trunk roads—elephant racers being large vehicles overtaking one another and taking up a huge length of road in order to do so, thereby causing all traffic behind to move far more slowly and, in turn, often causing phantom traffic jams. So, again, we are looking at, on the A55, as part of the resilience study, a move to end that form of driver behaviour and to ensure that traffic is flowing as freely as possible. All of these measures together can make an enormous difference. Sometimes, though, motorists do believe that we are making them for reasons other than improving the movement of traffic. I can guarantee to you that first and foremost on our minds is traffic safety, passenger safety, and free flow of traffic.

Thank you. And then spokesperson Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, as you know, the HS2 railway has been designated as a project for England and Wales, even though there isn't a mile of it here in Wales, and even though studies show clearly that it would cost money for the Welsh economy. The designation means that Wales will not have a full Barnett allocation from the original cost of about £55 billion. That would mean Wales would lose about £25 million a year. We're talking now, possibly, about £100 billion for this project—£50 million a year for Wales over a period of about 15 years. That's £750 million. Can you tell us what you and the Welsh Government have been doing to try to get hold of this full Barnett allocation, as Northern Ireland and Scotland are receiving, of course?

Well, can I first welcome the Member to this new position? It's very good to see a fellow north Walian with an economy brief, and I'm delighted that one of his first actions coming into the role was to welcome the announcement of the preferred route for the third Menai crossing, a particularly important infrastructure programme serving his own constituency. His predecessor in the role was very keen to promote, on many occasions, a certain racing track in south Wales. I'm hopeful that the Member will be keen to promote a certain racing track in his own constituency as well—the excellent Trac Môn.

In terms of HS2, I think all of the evidence shows that north-east Wales would be a major beneficiary of that particular investment, provided the right solution is adopted at the Crewe hub. Equally, for many other parts of Wales, and principally south Wales, the impact on the economy could be considerable and could be very negative indeed. That's why we've said to the UK Government that alongside a consequential, we would also wish to see further and greater investment in mitigating the adverse impact on the economy of south Wales, and to ensure that opportunities for the whole of north Wales are maximised, for example, through electrification.

Furthermore, we've pressed the case as well for those trains that would be utilised on the high speed 2 rail service to be built here in Wales. If they were to be built here in Wales, that would provide invaluable work for potentially more than 1,000 people.

Thank you for the kind words, and in reference to north Wales and what's in it for north Wales from HS2, you say it's provided the right connections are made at Crewe. We haven't got the assurances that we need on the connections at Crewe.

To give some perspective about the costs we're talking about here, the first 6.6 miles north out of London is projected to cost £8.25 billion. That's £1.25 billion per mile. You could fully fund the reopening of Carmarthen to Aberystwyth railway line, electrify Cardiff to Swansea, reopen the Gaerwen to Amlwch rail line in my constituency for the cost of a single mile there of HS2, and still have enough change left for a lifetime of sandwiches, no doubt, on a new Transport for Wales buffet trolley.

Now, the Welsh Government has supported the project in the past, despite you yourself quoting the UK Government study that shows a loss of economic activity, in the south, in particular, but that's for the whole of Wales, remember. Can you name another Government that would willingly support a project, knowing that it's costing its own economy and that it'll damage that economy for the long term?

Let's just get a few things straight. The solution at Crewe hub is absolutely essential; this is not a side issue. If the solution at Crewe is not beneficial to north Wales, then that will lead to HS2 having an adverse impact on the north of the country as well as on the south. Now, Wales has already received additional funding over the current spending review period as a result of the increases in the Department for Transport budget, which, in no small part, is due to HS2, and we are making a compelling case for further consequentials to be delivered to us as soon as possible.

I think it's important to say that in rebalancing the UK economy, we need to ensure that we rebalance all of the Welsh economy as well. Many parts of Wales interact very closely with other parts of the UK, principally those border areas. Now, it's essential, therefore, that the UK Government spend that serves the purpose of cross-border economic flow is utilised as much as possible. That means improving the M4 corridor, it means improving the Great Western line, it means improving the north Wales coastline, it means improving that cross-border area in north-east Wales and, of course, between mid Wales and the midlands as well. It means drawing down far more money than has been spent by the Department for Transport on rail services and rail infrastructure in Wales in the future than has been the case in the past.

I note that the particular projects that the Member said could've been paid for by the HS2 programme were all in Plaid Cymru constituencies. I would suggest that it's essential, as we move forward, that we don't seek to identify projects that would only be beneficial to our own immediate areas, and we actually rely on the expert advice of the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, whenever and however possible. That commission is now up and running. I will be seeking advice from that commission. I would urge all Members, given its independence—all Members—to make statements of support for any infrastructure programme based on the evidence that is provided and the advice that is provided by those experts on the commission.

Forgive me for getting up too early; I thought you were never going to stop. You—[Interruption.]

No, I make the decisions on when people stop, and you're in danger.

[Inaudible.]—I quoted a number of projects that were all in the Plaid Cymru constituencies, I said that it could pay for the Cardiff to Swansea electrification. Now, yes, they will be in Plaid Cymru constituencies one day, but we're not quite there yet.

To deal with your deflections, you make my point for me—you make my point for me by saying that Crewe and getting that connection there is important. The whole point is that that connection hasn't been assured yet, so that's another failing in terms of what there is in HS2 for Wales. 

On Barnett consequentials, I must say, to get the understanding right, Scotland has a comparability factor of 100 per cent, which means in simple terms that it is considered that it's not a project for Scotland, therefore it gets an additional consequential. Wales has a comparability factor of 0 per cent and that is why Wales is losing out to the tune of probably up to £50 million per year. Now, considering that it's clear Wales will not receive a full consequential, that Welsh companies have lost out in the procurement process—whatever your hopes for building trains in the future, we haven't got that assured—the potential cost to the Welsh economy, that there's no news on electrification in the north or in the south, given that you failed to win that full consequential, isn't it time that the Labour Government in Wales changed its mind and argued against HS2, because it is against Wales's interests?

I was sorry to hear the Member respond in such an agitated and uncomradely way. I think it's important to recognise that on many issues—[Interruption.] On many issues, I think we would agree. And, on the particular issue of rail investment, there is no difference, I'm sure, across the Chamber, in our views that more resource should be spent in Wales. But the Member has already highlighted that he would wish to take on responsibility for spending Welsh taxpayers' money on projects that the UK Government should be investing in, such as the electrification of Cardiff to Swansea. That is a UK Government responsibility—that is not a Welsh Government responsibility—and the money should come from the UK Government. Why do you not challenge the UK Government over this issue and say, instead, that you would wish to take on that spending? It's absurd. It's absurd. I know that we're in the period of Halloween, with scary stories and practical jokes, but your idea of spending Welsh taxpayers' money on services and infrastructure that should be paid for by the UK Government is nothing short of a joke.

We now return to questions on the order paper and question 3—Michelle Brown.

Well, my aim is for the Wales and borders rail service to be the best passenger rail service in the UK within the next 15 years. The new agreement will measure success by collating data on passenger numbers, feedback from passenger surveys, along with measuring passenger time lost from disruption.

Okay. Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I'm really, really interested to know what sort of service level agreement you've got set up with the new franchise holder, particularly around the targets and performance indicators that are laid down in that SLA. How strict on enforcing those performance indicators in SLAs—? What remedies do you have in the SLA and the franchise agreement to actually enforce the SLA?

I think the Member raises a very important point, and it's important because, in the recent franchise arrangements, there were very few metrics by which we were able to test the performance of the operator. In this franchise agreement, a key measure will of course be whether or not passenger numbers are increasing, but we'll also be looking at operational performance, which includes more passenger-focused measures of passenger time lost. It's going to take into consideration the punctuality of services throughout the journey, rather than just at the final destination, as was the case with the previous contract. We'll also be looking at the percentage of stops missed. That will be constantly monitored. We're also going to be looking at short formations. There are more stringent measures for trains being shorter compared with their usual formation and for the number of skipped stations. It's also worth my pointing out that a service quality regime is being implemented that requires both trains and stations to meet a variety of passenger-based standards at regular inspections. And, of course, we will also be utilising the national rail passenger survey as well as regular customer satisfaction surveys, and mystery shopping surveys will also be undertaken. The monitoring of the performance of the ODP will take place on a constant basis. If the performance falls short of the levels expected and agreed to, we will enter into a remedy situation. That remedy situation could see the payment of subsidy to the operator and development partner reduced or stopped.

Cabinet Secretary, part of the new franchise includes a commitment to a half-hourly rail service in the Vale of Glamorgan. I've campaigned for a half-hourly service for many years, believing that the development of an integrated public transport plan is a more sustainable way to achieve connectivity for commuters, Vale residents, visitors to the heritage coast and for Cardiff Airport. Cabinet Secretary, I know you're aware of the significant opposition to Vale proposals for a major new road linking the A48 to the M4. Campaigners are very concerned about pollution and a lack of environmental group representation on the road review group. So, do you agree that my call for a half-hourly service in the Vale should be brought forward? It seems even more urgent. 

Can I thank the Member for the campaign that she has led for improved rail services for her constituents, and can I also thank the Member for agreeing to meet with me recently to discuss local concerns about the proposals for a major new road linking the A48 to the M4? The issue that the Member raises concerns the availability of rolling stock. Now, the Vale of Glamorgan line will see an increase to two trains per hour from 2023, and the increase in the number of services is dependent, of course, on the availability of brand new tri-mode rolling stock coming into service. The current lead-in times would suggest that the earliest that these trains are available will be 2023. However, if there is any way whatsoever of acquiring the trains earlier than that, then we will have them running before that date.

Just wondering if I can get away with being a mystery shopper under the new franchise, Cabinet Secretary—I'd probably be spotted. 

One area that you know I've been interested in seeing a big improvement in—I raised it with the First Minister in questions last week—was that area of disabled access to our stations. It wasn't particularly improved under the previous franchise. I know the First Minister gave a commitment that under the new franchise improvements are in the pipeline. I'm particularly concerned about the access at Abergavenny station, as you know. I wonder if you could provide us with some more details about what is being proposed for stations in terms of improving disabled access, with specific regard to the stations in my constituency.

Can I thank the Member for his question? And I'll also consider his request to become a mystery shopper for the franchise. [Laughter.] I'm delighted to say that Abergavenny station will be a station that will benefit from investment to make it step free to improve access for all people. It's quite a contrast that, in the last 15 years, only about £600,000 was spent on improving stations across the Wales and borders area, and, in the next 15 years, almost £200 million will be spent improving those very same stations that have been left, in many respects, undervalued by the former operator. 

Now, I think it's important also to note that, within that £200 million, around £15 million will be utilised for improving access to stations. We're going to try to make as many stations as possible step free, to improve, particularly for disabled people, the accessibility to rail services in the Wales and borders area.

Well, as a Government, we are absolutely committed to improving access to public transport that removes barriers to travel, that promotes independent living, and which empowers vulnerable groups to participate in society. This is a cornerstone of 'Taking Wales Forward', which sets out our ambitions to build a united, connected and sustainable Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, I was very impressed a few weeks ago by an announcement from Arriva Trains Wales about their new package to assist rail users with sight loss. That included such things as specialist audio guides, assistance dog cards and familiarisation trips for groups that support people affected by sight loss. We know that there are 107,000 people affected by sight loss in Wales, and the RNIB suggests that 80 per cent of people affected by sight loss could not travel whenever or wherever they like. What I would like to know is: will the new provider, Transport for Wales, be rolling out this package of support measures previously introduced by Arriva, so that ambitious schemes like the metro are accessible to all in Wales?

Yes. I'd like, first of all, to thank the Member for her question and recognise her keen interest in this area. I can confirm that the intention is to continue to improve the experience of people with sight loss who wish to use our public transport system. I'm also pleased to say that provisions such as assisted travel audio guides, the orange wallet scheme, mobility scooters and assistance dog travel schemes will be rolled out across Wales.

Now, I think it's fair to say that buses provide a huge number of journeys for people with limited sight or with sight loss. And we, I think, led the way in many respects in ensuring that audiovisual announcements are made on bus services that depend on taxpayers' subsidies. This was very ambitious and, at the time, it was quite a controversial measure—it was a controversial intervention and demand on the industry. However, we didn't shy away from it, and I'm keen, through the reforms that I spoke about earlier this afternoon, that we go on improving the passenger experience, not just on trains but on buses, for people of all ability, for people who have limited sight or people who have no sight at all.

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the recent announcement that the Abergavenny railway station is to be provided with disabled access after a long campaign by local residents. Given that nearly a quarter of railway stations in Wales are not accessible for wheelchairs, can the Cabinet Secretary advise this Assembly on what discussions he has had about making all stations fully accessible for disabled people and when this objective is likely to be achieved in Wales? 

Can I thank the Member for his question? I highlighted to Nick Ramsay how we intend to spend, specifically, £15 million of the nearly £200 million available for station improvements specifically on improving access for disabled people. I will be writing to Members as soon as we have put together the tool that will measure which stations should be prioritised. I recognise that a number of Members in this Chamber represent constituencies with communities that currently have platforms that can't be accessed by disabled people. I wish to ensure that the tool that's adopted to measure the priority stations is one that is transparent, easily understood and is fair. I'll be writing to Members with details of that tool as soon as possible.

Well, this is an incredibly important issue right across Wales, and, I think, especially in Mid and West Wales. We continue to engage with and to fund local authorities to enable them to provide local bus services, and we also work very closely with them on a number of fronts to further improve bus services, particularly in Mid and West Wales. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his response. He won't be surprised to know that access to public transport is one of the issues most frequently raised with me by constituents across the regions that I represent. There are several specific questions that I could raise, and I will write to him about some of those. But, specifically today, I would like to ask what discussions he and his officials have had with Gwynedd and Conwy councils about the possibility of including the Blaenau Ffestiniog area in the route of the TrawsCymru T2 service, and what progress those discussions have made if they have taken place.

I'm afraid I will have to write to the Member with details of what discussions have taken place specifically with regard to the T2 service. I am pleased to say that we are utterly committed to improving and extending the TrawsCymru services across Wales. They have proven to be incredibly popular, and the pilot scheme that has seen free transport provided at weekends has proven to be particularly popular, with an increase in passenger numbers way in excess of 60 per cent. I think that the TrawsCymru service has also been able to complement rail services in areas of Wales that would otherwise be left stranded. So, I'm keen, as I say—and I can assure the Member I'm keen—to see that particular service, TrawsCymru, expanded further in the coming years. 

Cabinet Secretary, there is a local campaign calling for the reinstatement of a bus service from St Dogmaels in my constituency to Cardigan, which has recently been axed and replaced with a new route that sees the final bus back from Cardigan to St Dogmaels now at 4.24 p.m. I'm sure you will recognise the difficulties that this can present for the local community, and I appreciate the Welsh Government can't be involved in micromanaging bus services, but what specific work are you and your officials doing, working with local authorities like Pembrokeshire and like Ceredigion, to find workable, realistic solutions that actually can meet the needs of local, rural communities?

First and foremost, it's important to recognise that reform is needed, legislation is required, and we'll be bringing this forward presently. Clearly, I was disappointed to learn of the changes to the services that the Member has outlined. Each local authority, of course, is responsible for determining which services it supports and for using its own budgets, or our allocations from the bus services support grant, to supplement local authority budgets for the purpose of providing services that would not be viable purely on commercial grounds.

Where necessary, and where affordable, we have intervened, as exceptional, often one-off measures, to address particular efforts being made by local authorities. So, for example, we intervened in Denbighshire and Flintshire and Wrexham when GHA Coaches collapsed. We are working, not just with local authorities, but with the sector and with passenger groups in assessing how we can ensure that changes to services meet passenger expectations and passenger demands, and that changes can be reflected through full and genuine consultation with users. I think it's absolutely essential that whenever a service is stopped or is changed, it is done so on the basis of genuine and authentic consultation with those people who use those services.

Through the Arts Council of Wales, this Government supports a wide range of theatre activity across Wales in both languages, including Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru yn Gymraeg, National Theatre Wales, and, of course, those very important production centres, building-based at the Torch in Milford Haven, Sherman here in Cardiff and at Theatr Clwyd.  

Diolch. Thank you very much indeed. Of course, Theatr Clwyd is the biggest production centre or producing theatre in Wales, a major contributor to the north-east Wales economy, and a major employer, and seeing increasing turnover over recent years. You mentioned the arts council. They have funded a feasibility study for the capital redevelopment project proposed, and have now put in their biggest ever funding of £1 million for the design and development phase, with the council match funding that. But, in total, they're going to need £15 million to £22 million over three years to complete the project, and they tell me that if they can't deliver the capital programme now, the building will have to be closed. What involvement are you and your department having to support them, to give them the confidence to know that they can access that level of funding, to ensure that the biggest producing theatre in Wales will continue to prosper and grow?

I am pleased to give the assurance that this building will be maintained as a live theatre, and will be refurbished over a period of time. In fact, it makes its place, and gains its place already, as an example of late modernism in John B. Hilling's latest edition on the architecture of Wales, which has just been published.

I have visited Theatr Clwyd myself and have had long discussions with them. We are unable to indicate clearly how we will progress this refurbishment, but I do recognise what the Member says about the importance of the theatre, not only as a cultural asset in north-east Wales, but as an economic driver across the Marches, since it obtains a lot of support, as I know well through my visits there, from the north-west of England as well. It is a high-priority project, both for the Welsh arts council and for Welsh Government, and we will continue to ensure, as the Member says, that this building will remain to be a major production centre for live drama, set as it is in the beautiful countryside of Clwyd, and, in particular, in the area around Mold and the Alyn river.

Thank you. Finally, question 7, Julie Morgan.

With Government funding flowing to the Cardiff capital region city deal, the region continues to identify, prioritise and agree projects and interventions that will drive sustainable economic growth, and benefit the region as a whole.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response and I welcome the investment that the city deal will bring, both in terms of jobs and transport. But I'm very concerned about how the deal as a whole has the input of women, and that the services and the projects that are developed take into account what women need. Because, of the council leaders, the 10 council leaders who make up the cabinet for the deal, only one is a woman, Debbie Wilcox from Newport. So, I wondered what steps the Cabinet Secretary could take to ensure that the city deal has a positive impact on women in the community in those areas that are covered by the deal.

Can I thank Julie Morgan for her question? The issue of gender imbalance, actually, was on my mind just recently, but with regard to another part of Wales, when discussing a particular deal, in north Wales, where, again, I do not believe there is fair balance in terms of men and women as leaders of councils or, indeed, on councils as a whole. The economic action plan makes inclusive growth the Welsh Government's top priority, and I think it's absolutely essential that we talk about inclusive growth, we talk about balance and fair growth, and we need to look—not just in local government, but also in Welsh Government—like the community that we serve. So, it's absolutely essential that, when photographs are taken or when deals are signed, the people who are there with the pen, carrying out that important duty, reflect the communities that they serve. So, it should be balanced and it should be representative of the people of the community that they represent.

Can I commend the Welsh Government and Cardiff council, and the private sector, for the excellent joint working that's doing so much to transform central Cardiff at the moment? The only fly in the ointment that I can see at the moment is the Welsh Government-owned land at Callaghan Square, which I think has been ready for development for some time. It's certainly been owned by the Welsh Government since 2013. When may we see some progress on the disposal of that site for an appropriate use in this very important part of our capital city?

We are considering a particular project in Callaghan Square. The Member, I'm sure, will appreciate the value of that particular land has increased since it was acquired by Welsh Government, and we're working to make sure that it is put to best use for the community and that we gain maximum return on the investment for the taxpayer. I think that, as part of the development of the centre of Cardiff, it could become a crucial point for redevelopment, and so we're keen to make sure that this once-in-a-generation opportunity is maximised for the people of Cardiff and the wider region.

Thank you very much.

Item 2 on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Helen Mary Jones.

The Welsh Government continues to press the UK Government to guarantee that EU nationals in the UK won't lose rights, even in a 'no deal' Brexit. Creating a hostile environment in which EU nationals choose to leave would be deeply harmful to our economy, our public services and our international reputation.

I'm grateful to you for your answer, Counsel General. You will be aware of how grave the concern continues to be of EU citizens and their families in Wales and across the region. I've, particularly, had concerns raised with me by citizens based in universities in the region that I represent. Have you received a formal response from the Westminster Government to your 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' paper? And what further reassurances can you give to EU citizens and their families that Welsh Government will continue to prioritise pressing the UK Government on this matter? It is really very distressing to families to feel that they're not welcome in their homes any more, and I'm sure that you would agree with me that this is completely unacceptable. 

Can I just echo the point that the Member has made in relation to that? It is profoundly unsatisfactory that we are having to have these kinds of conversations and, difficult though it is for us, it's immeasurably more difficult for those individual citizens whose lives are in limbo, in some senses, because of a lack of long-term clarity around some of these areas.

The Government did welcome the phase 1 agreement on citizens' rights in the draft withdrawal agreement, and the Member will be aware that in June of this year, the UK Government published the EU settlement statement of intent, and she's mentioned people working in the higher education sector—in October, the Home Office agreed to extend its private beta-testing phase of that settlement scheme to Wales, to include higher education institutions, the social care sector and the NHS.

There's been an ongoing dialogue between the Welsh Government and the UK Government in relation to both the settlement scheme in general—. We have concerns, which we've expressed forcibly, in relation to the prospect of several thousands, perhaps, not being able to take advantage of that scheme because of, perhaps, vulnerability or because they may be hard-to-reach groups, and the inadequacy of the communications around that. But in particular, in relation to the pilot scheme, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has made specific representations to the UK Government. We are unhappy that that scheme is open only to individuals and not to their families. We think that is disrespectful and it's also undermining of family life and, indeed, perhaps, even the intention of the scheme itself. We're also concerned about the lack of a statutory appeals mechanism in that, and, I dare say, there are people holding off engaging with that scheme until they can have a greater certainty that their families will be encompassed within it and that they'll be able to access an appeals process.

So, there are many points of concern that we continue to press with the UK Government in relation to this, and she'll be aware, of course, that this relates, if I may put it like this, to the immediate plans. We still have a lack of clarity about the long-term plans and we know very clearly in Wales that we need migration into Wales to support our public services and our economy. 

I want to raise the position of European citizens living in Britain, married to a British citizen, with British children, who are afraid that they will have to leave the country, leaving behind their spouse and their children. It's not an academic question, it's not one based on possibility—it's one from one of my constituents who fears such an outcome. What discussion has the Counsel General had with the Westminster Government regarding this potential, very serious problem for the individual concerned?

I thank Mike Hedges for that supplementary question, and the issue that he raises is an issue that I'm sure many, if not all of us, have had raised with us in our surgeries, as have our Member of Parliament counterparts. It just goes to show how deep into all communities in Wales this issue reaches.

Under the settlement scheme, the constituent who you've described their circumstances—. EU citizens and their family members who, by the end of 2020, have been continuously living in the UK for five years will be required to apply for settled status. People who arrive by then but won't have been here for five years can apply for pre-settled status, which will then enable them to meet that five-year threshold. And if they have close family members who are living overseas at that point, they will be able to join EU citizens after that date where the relationship existed on that date.

I thank the Counsel General for his very comprehensive response to Helen Mary Jones and I agreed with every word of it. It's lamentable that the United Kingdom Government has not taken the moral high ground in this respect. It would have been quite easy for the UK Government, unilaterally, to guarantee the rights of EU citizens lawfully living and working in the United Kingdom, regardless of the EU Commission's view. They, clearly, want to treat people as bargaining chips in the negotiating process, which I think is quite wrong. UKIP fought the recent general elections, and indeed the Assembly election, on a basis of giving such a guarantee to EU citizens living and working in Wales, and my party will give every possible support to the Counsel General and the Welsh Government in its further pressure on the UK Government to do the decent thing.

Well, his party may have campaigned on that basis in the last two elections, but it certainly didn't campaign on the basis of an open and inclusive society during the Brexit referendum itself. 

Stick to the question.

And a fair amount of the anxiety caused and suffered by people living in the UK and overseas is as a consequence of the sorts of representations and arguments being made by his party during that referendum.

Counsel General, the questions have been focused very much upon EU citizens. On Monday, members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee actually went to the Norwegian embassy, and we were reminded that it's also European Economic Area citizens that we need to reflect upon. So, can I ask you that, when you have the discussions with your colleagues in Westminster, it's actually EU and EEA citizens you need to focus on, to ensure they both get treated equally?

Well, the Member makes a very important point. It's absolutely vital that we make sure that EEA citizens have the same protection as EU citizens will have under the deal that we understand. We've paid careful attention to the successive drafts of the withdrawal agreement, and we'll continue to make representations in support of that.

Well, the case raises an important question around the interpretation of article 50, which it would be helpful to have answered to ensure that a fully informed decision can be taken on any withdrawal agreement reached between the UK Government and the European Union, or in the case of a 'no deal' outcome.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. Clearly, the chaotic scenes that we have seen in Westminster over the failure of the UK Government to actually get anywhere near a deal at this point in time raises this much more to the like of: what can we do to extend or even revoke article 50? And I know that this case puts it back in the ECJ situation, but it's not likely to actually report back until some time towards the end of the year, maybe even after a meaningful vote. So, how can you take this message forward to the UK Government, that the shambles they are creating, they should be addressing this matter, and perhaps looking at the possibility of revoking article 50, so that we can get that extra time that everyone is crying for? Because the time is so short, it's unlikely that we're going to complete anything by March 2019.

Well, I thank the Member for that further question. It may be helpful just to remind ourselves what's at stake in the case itself. The claim alleges that the UK Government's interpretation of article 50, and in particular its apparent assertion that it's not legally possible to unilaterally revoke an article 50 notification, is incorrect. That's the argument being put. The UK Government's response is simply that it has no intention of revoking it, and therefore the question doesn't arise of whether it's legally possible to do that or not.

The Scottish courts—the Inner House of the Court of Session—agreed to refer that question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and there's a provisional date, as I think his question implied, of 27 November for that to be determined. But the UK Government has sought leave now to appeal against the reference to the CJEU, which will be heard on 8 November, in Scotland. I've been keeping a close eye on the progress of this case, as he will have anticipated, and there has obviously been an increase now in the anticipation of the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit, which, as we have repeatedly said, would be catastrophic, both for Wales and for the UK.

I think the best way to describe the potential outcome of this case is that it's important context for the discussions and the decisions that will need to be taken in the course of the next few weeks and months. I think it needs to be recognised that any UK Government would have to think very carefully indeed before taking the step of revoking article 50, even if we discover from the court process that it's possible. The Welsh Government's position is that the result of the referendum means that the debate should be about the form and not the fact of Brexit, but, as his question makes clear, the disastrous and incompetent handling of the negotiations by the UK Government, which is making a 'no deal' scenario ever-more likely, means that we need to have clarity about all the legal options that might be available as those decisions and discussions unfold.

The memorandum of understanding between the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State for Transport, which essentially makes arrangements to facilitate the appointment and funding of a Traffic Commissioner for Wales, was finalised in 2016. My officials provided advice as to the legal basis when memorandum of understanding was entered into.

Thank you for that. I now understand that this now comes under our purview, as the Traffic Commissioner for Wales is for Wales. In August of this year, he, or his office, put a notice into the local papers asking for comments from people as to a goods vehicle licensing request that had been made by a superfarm in west Carmarthenshire. And, on behalf of the people of Llanybri, Llanllwch, Llangain, Llansteffan and Alltycnap Road, I wrote back to him raising our objections in the strongest terms. This superfarm has been a long-running sore to their neighbours and there have been many accidents and many problems. To my absolute shock, I got a letter back that said, and I quote,

'As Members of the National Assembly for Wales are not included in the list of statutory objectors'—

and we're not always a statutory objector—

'AMs are only able to oppose an application in terms of its impact on them personally if they own or occupy property in the vicinity of the operating centre.'

Now that the traffic commissioner has become a Wales entity, I wondered if you would be able to review this situation. I thought it was probably in your purview rather than that of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, because, whether we are statutory objectors or not, we represent an awful lot of constituents, and I was absolutely horrified by this response because there are hundreds of people who have been affected by that, and if they ask me to be their voice, the whole point of me standing here before you today is to be their voice. 

I thank the Member for bringing that matter to my attention. There are, I think, two points to make. The MOU between the Welsh Government in relation to the traffic commissioner effectively provides funding for enhanced services. Since the MOU was entered into, there's been a change in the devolution settlement, and now, bus registration services, which are provided by the transport commissioner, are devolved to this place, and you heard the Cabinet Secretary talk about his plans in relation to those earlier. But the other range of functions, which the Transport Commissioner for Wales exercises, including the one that she's referred to in her question, are, in fact, reserved competencies. They're reserved to the UK Government and Parliament under the settlement. And I can't comment specifically, obviously, on the individual example that she's given because he will be entering into correspondence in his capacity as discharging his statutory functions. But I would be happy to look at the broader point that she raises about consultations and the ability of AMs to perform their functions, even if it's on an informal understanding rather than a statutory basis. 

I thank the Member for her question. The devolved Welsh tribunals are operating effectively with a significant caseload, but I'm aware that the England-and-Wales tribunal system, which is a much bigger system, is working at the moment to overcome some specific capacity issues in light of the Supreme Court’s very welcome judgment on employment tribunal fees last year.

Thank you, Counsel General. And as a former trade union official, I know only too well the value of the tribunal service in securing justice in the workplace for so many people. And I'm very proud that it was actually my union, Unison, that took that case to the Supreme Court and overturned the very unjust tribunal fee system that had denied access to so many workers in their place of work. And it's perhaps partly in response to that that we've seen such a rise now in the number of claims being brought against employers rising sharply across the UK. I understand that Her Majesty's judiciary has recently said that it will seek to recruit judges to cope with the soaring caseload in tribunals, including allowing those without previous judicial experience to serve on tribunals. So, bearing all that in mind, Counsel General, what discussions have you had to ensure that workers here in Wales can have timely access to the tribunal services? 

Thank you for that question. I would just like to echo the fact that I think that, in bringing that case to the Supreme Court, Unison, who I know she previously worked for, was doing a great public service, and it was clear that the introduction of those tribunal fees had the effect of suppressing great numbers of injustices and their ability to be resolved. So we have seen, since the decision, a very, very sharp increase in the number of complaints being brought forward. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, I think, have reported receiving about 700-plus extra complaints per week, which gives you a sense of the scale of the issue.

As a consequence of the introduction of the tribunal fees, the judicial capacity of the tribunal was diminished significantly. And what's happening now, as her question anticipated, is essentially a recruitment exercise in order for tribunal judges, both in England and in Wales, to come on board to deal with that backlog and future workload. So, I'm pleased that that is happening. It's obviously essential to have a fully functioning tribunal system that is properly staffed in order for those cases to be heard.

I'd like to also welcome the fact that the president of the employment tribunal is looking for applications from those who have not got conventional judicial experience. I think that has the potential to open up new avenues for recruitment to that role, and by doing so, may increase the diversity of the tribunal judiciary, which I think is an objective that we would all wish to see fulfilled.

I've met with a number of law firms across Wales over the past six months and, whilst their take-up and interest in new digital technologies necessarily varies, it's clear that all of them see the opportunities to improve productivity and enhance their specialist knowledge and their skills. The utilisation of tech and innovation within the legal sector is very welcome.

Thank you, Counsel General. The Law Society president has recently said that the law profession is not preparing new entrants for the realities of current practice, let alone the changes that we can foresee. I'm very pleased that you and the Minister for digital, the leader of the house, and the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning are able to attend the round-table I'm convening next month with the law schools and with the big law firms to consider the implications of this for the sector. I know you've shown a great deal of interest in how developments in technology can improve access to justice. Would you also consider the implications for the business model for many small law firms? In my constituency alone, there are some 30 small solicitors. It could well be that the development of automation in the sector could have the same impact on the legal profession as we have seen on high-street banks, where they are wiped out from our towns. I'd be grateful if you'd consider the implications of this and how we can help the sector to adapt.

The Member makes a very important point. I, in fact, met this morning with officials to discuss this topic, amongst other topics in fact, and it's clear, as I hinted at in my initial answer, that the challenge and opportunity of technology is felt across the sector, although, admittedly in different ways, in different parts of the sector, as you would expect.

He mentioned the question of the need for a new skillset, if I can put it like that, for people entering the profession, to address the new realities. There is an interesting recruitment planned in various firms in Wales, where people are looking at unconventional routes through the practice, rather than the conventional route of associate and partner—that you can follow a route that perhaps develops your expertise on the interface between technology and law. That's happening already in some of the larger city firms in London, but it's also happening here in Wales. I think that's an interesting development that recognises some of these changes.

But there are also aspects that go beyond the impact on the business model, which is important, into the actuality of law, with smart contracts and blockchain becoming an increasing reality in some aspects of practice. That requires a very different way of practising law in itself. The Law Commission is embarking on a project to review the law in this very area, so you may be interested in that. I think the message to law firms in all parts of Wales is that there are opportunities, but also threats to some aspects of their business model and that they should engage with that actively and we stand ready to support them in any way that is possible.

Thank you very much, Counsel General.

Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is topical questions. There is a topical question by Llyr Gruffydd to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs. Llyr.

Thank you. Welsh Government has always been clear the basic payment scheme is ending. As set out in 'Brexit and our Land', I propose to replace the common agricultural policy in its entirety. The consultation is ongoing and I will consider responses before making decisions. No changes to farm payments will be made without further consultation. 

Well, I have the article here. You've just told us that you will consider responses, but here you say,

'Asked whether she would consider maintaining some form of direct payment if the vast majority of respondents to the consultation requested it, she said: “No"'.

Now, only last week you were trying to rewrite history about what Sue Hayman had said in comments about payments in England, and today you're trying to maybe rewrite a little history here in terms of what you said as well. You're starting to sound a bit like a Welsh Donald Trump, I venture to say. And it does have the feel of a bad joke about it, doesn't it, really? When is a consultation not a consultation? Well, when the Cabinet Secretary has clearly decided exactly what she's going to do regardless of what anybody says. And that's not a good look, is it? You've really botched this process, I venture to say. First, it was your intervention with your letter midway through the consultation to farmers intervening and influencing the discussion then, and now you're saying that, regardless of what people say, you're not going to listen to their views. So, how can the public have confidence in this process, Cabinet Secretary? Do not your comments undermine the whole validity of your public consultation—or so-called public consultation? And does it not bring into question the integrity of the Welsh Government's engagement with stakeholders on this issue?

'Not at all' is the short answer to your question. Let me put a few of those points you raised right. As I said, way before the consultation started, we always said that the basic payment scheme would end. We believe that it's not the best design to support our farmers— [Interruption.] If the Member would like to listen. [Interruption.]

No, we can't, and that's not a helpful comment, I'm sorry. Cabinet Secretary. 

So if you want to listen, we said before the consultation started basic payment schemes would end. I've been clear on numerous occasions—you will have heard me say it at the Royal Welsh Show, you will have heard me say it in the Chamber, you may have heard me say it in committee, and I've certainly said it at my round-tables, so all the stakeholders were very aware of that. We have to support farmers in a better way. So, it is a consultation on the entire common agricultural policy replacement, as I've said. 

We've proposed two large flexible schemes: the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme, and that's what we are proposing in relation to income support for our farmers. In relation to Sue Hayman, it might be of interest to you to see the letter that Sue Hayman has sent to the president of NFU Cymru today, which has been copied to me, and then you'll see why I said what I said. So, I think that's a very important point for you also. 

You also referred to the open letter that I sent to farmers. Brexit is unprecedented. I think that was the word you used—that I had made an unprecedented move. It's perfectly appropriate for Welsh Government to provide further clarity on its proposals. We want an engaged and informed debate. And I have to say, I was really concerned when we brought this very long consultation forward that we'd see a bit of Brexit fatigue. It's great that we haven't. It's really good that we're engaging in a way—. You were at the event, as was I, at lunchtime hosted and sponsored by Paul Davies. I think it's great that we're having this consultation. But it is a meaningful consultation. If anybody's undermining it, it's you. I don't want that taken forward. I want people to understand that those responses that we receive—and we've had thousands, literally, in—. It doesn't close until Tuesday, and I'd be grateful if everybody could bring forward their views.

Cabinet Secretary, I was privileged to host the joint briefing session you referred to earlier with NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales, and I was pleased to see you at that particular event. Now, what I believe came across loud and clear at the event was that farmers across Wales are concerned that the Welsh Government is not listening to them, and this consultation is seen as a smokescreen for the Welsh Government to plough ahead and end direct payments regardless of the will of the agricultural sector or the businesses in the supply chain that would also be affected indirectly by these proposals. It's very important that any proposals going forward give food production the importance that it rightly deserves, provide parity for Welsh farmers and recognise the serious implications that these proposals could have on Wales's rural economy and, indeed, on our culture. It's crucial that the right balance is struck between land management and food production in order to protect the sustainability of the industry for the future. Therefore, will you now commit to listening to the views of Welsh farmers after this consultation closes in order to protect the sector for the future, and work with the industry to develop proposals that are fair, appropriate and that genuinely reflect the views of the farming industry and the wider rural economy here in Wales?    

I was very pleased to be at the event at lunchtime; I'm sorry I was not able to stay for the full hour. I don't know if you were listening, but what I heard the NFU and the FUW say, when they were asked the question whether they did feel we were listening, was 'yes'. Both of those people up on the stage, both the presidents, are part of my Brexit round-table. They both said there were no surprises in that document, because they'd sat round that table. One of them said to me, 'This is a time for radical reform', and what we are proposing is radical—I accept that—but we have to design the best system for farm support here in Wales, and that's what we are consulting on. 

I absolutely agree with you about food production, and if you look at the four consultations that are being held in the UK on agriculture, I think food production is far more at the heart of those consultations in Wales than in any other of the consultations.

I mentioned in my answer to Llyr that we've proposed two schemes. That will offer farmers the opportunity to create more resilient and more diversified businesses. It's absolutely right that we make them as sustainable as possible. We want them to remain on the land. We want them to compete in global markets. There is so much uncertainty around at the moment. We also want them to provide the public goods that we all need as a society which, at the moment, I wouldn't say farmers are being paid for. So, a lot of the public goods at the moment, they're not getting an income for, and that's what the public goods scheme will do.   

I think it's quite right that the Cabinet Secretary should have an open mind about the future of agricultural policy and the opportunity that Brexit provides, but I think she has to recognise that farmers in Wales are far more reliant upon the common agricultural policy than farmers in England; it can make up to 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, whereas the average in England is only 55 per cent. Therefore, it's very important, in my view, that we should take this step by step, and not rush into making wholesale changes in too short a time, which would make it very difficult to manage a transition. Given that 85 per cent of the farm subsidies that are paid are under pillar 1 rather than pillar 2, so therefore they are direct payments rather than for environmentally related schemes, it's quite difficult for me to see how we could move very quickly to making those pillar 2 type of schemes sufficiently robust to maintain current levels of farm income. Given that farm incomes are less than £20,000 on average and the amount of subsidy that is received in direct payment is on average about £16,000, I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will understand why a lot of farmers are very, very worried that they will lose substantial amounts of income, which they can ill afford, and tip their businesses over from small profitability into loss-making enterprises. That could have devastating consequences for the countryside in general.    

If I can just pick up on the two points I think Neil Hamilton was making, I think that you're right about the 80 per cent of farms and that being their income, and I think that tells you a story, and that's exactly what I'm saying: the common agricultural policy doesn't, I think, encourage or protect farmers from a lot of, particularly, the volatility that we've seen. What we want to do is make them more resilient. I don't think CAP has actually done that, if we have farms that are 80 per cent reliant on those schemes.

In relation to taking things step by step, you are absolutely right, and I've made it very clear that no decisions have been taken and neither will they be until we have all the consultation responses in. I've made it very clear there will be further consultation next spring. There will be no changes to payments at all. No schemes will be designed without a proper impact assessment. No old schemes will be removed before the new schemes are ready. So, I've committed to basic payment schemes for 2018-19, and then we'll be looking at this from 2020. I've even said—and I think I said it in the article to which Llyr has referred—that if we think it needs to be another year of transition or another two years of transition, then we will look at that. I'm very flexible around that. We'll see what comes in from the consultation.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 is the 90-second statements, and the first this afternoon is from Leanne Wood.

One year on from the #MeToo movement, and the sea change that many of us hoped it would spark has not happened. Encouraging people to report is important, but all too often, when they do, nothing happens. Police and victim support services are underfunded, waiting lists for counselling and other support are unacceptably long. Organisations' procedures are inadequate and unable to deal with the particular characteristics of sexual harassment and assault. There is often no scope to consider historic complaints or patterns of behaviour. Victims are discouraged from sharing information, and anonymity or freedom from victimisation are not guaranteed. People don't have confidence in our systems and the majority of incidents therefore go unreported.

So, I'm putting out a call today for anyone interested in changing how we tackle sexual harassment and assault to get in touch with me to be part of a new network. E-mail me so that we can create a network to provide emotional, practical and legal support, share information and campaign for political change.

For many women, the #MeToo movement was the first time they felt able to openly talk about their experiences of sexual harassment and assault, and I fear that, as political leaders and as a society, we are letting them down. We cannot allow their voices to go unheard, and we cannot let the demand for justice to go unanswered.

For well over a century, people from the Yemen have been coming to our country to make Wales their home. It's a little-known fact that the first mosque in Britain was built on Glynrhondda Street in Cardiff. The Yemenis came as sailors to work on coal boats that stopped at the port of Aden before returning to Cardiff and Newport. My grandfather was one of those Yemeni seamen who settled in Wales. The country that they left behind is now in turmoil. Since 2015, it's been under attack by a vicious military campaign led by Saudi Arabia. Thousands of civilians have been killed, and those whose not fallen to bombs and bullets are now facing widespread disease and famine. The British Government has done little other than sell even more weapons to the Saudis, but as the Welsh Parliament we need to stand up for communities living in Wales, including the long-standing Yemeni community. I've introduced a statement of opinion calling for mental health and aid support from the Welsh Government to the Welsh Yemeni community. That's to help with the real struggle, knowing what family members in Yemen are going through. I hope you can all sign it and that we can take some positive action to solve this man-made disaster.

The next item on the agenda is motions to elect Members to the committees for Plaid Cymru. In accordance with Standing Orders 12.24 and 12.40, I propose that the motions to elect Members to those committees are grouped for debate and voting. Therefore, I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move the motion—Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Motion formally moved. 

Diolch. The proposal is to agree those motions. Does any Member object? No?—[Interruption.] I've heard the word 'object'—[Interruption.] No, no. I'm sorry, I've heard the word 'object'. Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, I did hear it and I thought—. Anyway, there we go. 

So, a motion to elect a member of UKIP to a committee, and again I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally—Neil Hamilton.

Formally. 

Formally. Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.]—[Interruption.] Right, okay then. We defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report on its inquiry into 'Low Carbon Housing: the Challenge'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open today's debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee's report on the challenges of meeting our need for low-carbon housing. I would like to thank all the current and previous members of the committee who contributed to our inquiry, the clerking team, the Research Service and those who gave evidence to us.

Our report addresses the reasons why we need energy-efficient homes, the costs of having inefficient housing and the steps needed to get us to where we need to be to meet our commitment on reducing emissions. Why do we need change? There are many reasons why we should improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock. The most pressing is the need to deliver on our legal obligations to eliminate fuel poverty and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The Welsh Government is required to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Challenging targets need challenging solutions. Reducing the amount of energy we use in our homes will substantially accelerate progress towards these goals. Achieving these targets will require a considerable ramping up of ambition and must span the whole of Wales’s policy levers.

Our primary recommendation is that the Welsh Government should bring forward a 10-year low-carbon strategy, including milestones and targets in six key areas, including retrofit, new build and planning. I will focus on three of those key areas today.

First, retrofit. The houses built in the twentieth century will, by 2050, probably massively outnumber those built in the twenty-first century, and those built in the nineteenth century, in many parts of Wales, will outnumber those built in the twenty-first century. So, obviously, we need to retrofit. Inefficient homes result in higher fuel bills and the poorest in our society bear the brunt of this. Too many vulnerable people are paying too much for their heating through no fault of their own.

The Welsh Government has spent many millions on alleviating fuel poverty through retrofitting heating efficiency measures for the most at risk. Our report commends the efforts to deal with this problem and the announcement of a further £72 million pounds in the Arbed programme to continue the programme. Despite the Government’s efforts, the fuel poverty target has been missed. We heard that retrofitting needs to be done at scale to have any impact on fuel poverty, for instance retrofitting 40,000 houses a year to have a chance of meeting the target by 2050. We have recommended the Welsh Government should aim to deliver, within 10 years, the retrofitting of all houses in fuel poverty in Wales to zero carbon in operation standards.

The second area that I'd like to focus on is new build. Although new build accounts for only 6 per cent of housing, this is something that we have to get right. Today's new builds will still be in use in the twenty-second century. We recommended that the Welsh Government, within the lifetime of our proposed 10-year strategy, should ensure that all new-build houses should be built to zero carbon in operation standards.

There are few large-scale house builders, and there is little incentive to offer more than the minimum standard required by building regulations, but some large-scale builders aren't very keen on putting in roads to adoptable standards, never mind making sure that houses are built to be warm. We were told that changes to building regulations would lead to fewer houses being built in Wales. We’ve all heard that before, haven't we, Deputy Presiding Officer? We were told that about sprinklers. But we were also told, given notice and time, even major house builders will be able to adapt to higher building standards. We believe the Welsh Government should set out a clear timetable to move to zero carbon in operation, so that house builders, the supply chain and the skills providers can prepare. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our recommendation on this.

We were also concerned to hear stakeholders telling us that existing building standards are not being enforced. Clearly, the system is not functioning. The inspection system needs to be far more rigorous and independent. We have called on the Government to introduce a quality mark for energy saving measures in new builds and retrofit technology to increase consumer confidence in low-carbon homes. The inspection and enforcement of this quality mark must be independent and rigorously enforced. It should also place an obligation on the installer to ensure the required performance is delivered or repair or replace the technology. Not, 'This is what you could achieve if everything else worked perfectly.'

Of course, these ambitious retrofit and new-build measures cannot be delivered unless we have access to the right skills at the right time. We found that there's a shortage of appropriately skilled professionals working in the industry. The need to pay for additional labour increases the cost of the necessary technology, which puts off builders from installing it. The industry representatives told us that the biggest barrier to investing in training is the lack of certainty in the market. To invest in training, they need to know that those skills will be used. This is why a clear commitment to a 10-year timetable towards zero carbon in operation standards is so important. It will give the industry the confidence to train the workforce we need to bring our homes into the twenty-first century.

Finally, I would like to turn to the Welsh Government’s response. I haven’t spent much time talking about it so far. It will be very familiar to Members—recommendations are accepted in principle, but we have no idea how they will be delivered in practice. We are told that subjects are being reviewed by groups of advisers or civil servants. Members may be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu. I think of 'agreed in principle' as meaning, 'We're not going to do it, but we don't want to have an argument about not doing it, so we'll accept it in principle so that we've got a positive in there.' I think that, really, and I look at you, Deputy Presiding Officer, we need a system by which things are either accepted, partially accepted, and the parts that are accepted are named, or rejected. I'd much prefer to put recommendations forward that are rejected and I can then argue the case why they shouldn't be. How do you argue against 'agreed in principle'? You've got the 'agreed' in there—I mean, you agree with it in principle as well, so how do you argue that case? It makes life very difficult, and this is not unique to this report and it's not unique to this Cabinet Secretary. So, it's not a personal attack there, it's a fairly common Government response that I think is unacceptable.

Take our key recommendation for a 10-year comprehensive strategy for low-carbon housing. The response says that these matters are already being looked at by an advisory group that will report back in summer 2019.'Factor in the time it'll take the Government to respond, then add the time it'll take to develop an actual deliverable policy and the time needed to consult on it—we are making very little progress on our 10-year programme. I think we're down to five now after that list, if nothing goes wrong. I think it really is important that we do take creating low-carbon housing seriously.

Cabinet Secretary, I speak on behalf of the whole committee—we are frustrated by delays and a lack of progress. Our report contains challenging and ambitious proposals for Wales. We hope that in your response you will show the same ambition as we've shown in actually trying to get low-carbon housing for Wales.

It's a pleasure to follow our excellent Chairman. I say 'our' excellent Chairman—I've now left the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, but I did enjoy my time on it, and I thought this was a particularly important report, and a fitting one with which to end my time on the committee.

Housing is a key area for carbon reduction, and if we're to meet our ambitious targets to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, they're going to be at the heart of any strategy. But ambitious as those targets—well, they certainly were when they were made—the latest scientific evidence suggests we may have to go further and more quickly. The speed with which global warming is now happening is profoundly disconcerting.

I share Mike's annoyance, really, with this system of responding to reports and saying 'accept in principle'. Now, I thought that the Permanent Secretary had already made a commitment that the Welsh Government would not be making this sort of response; it would be doing just what Mike Hedges said: accept, reject, or accept partially. I do wonder, Deputy Presiding Officer, if the Welsh Government were asked, 'What's your view about the 10 commandments?', they'd say, 'Accept in principle'. [Laughter.] Well, you know, this doesn't really get us very far. These are imperatives, that's why we have reports, and we do need clear policy responses. I very much agree with what the Chair of the committee said, that when we report after exhaustive evidence, very carefully considered, supported by an outstanding secretariat, and the attention, obviously, of the Members under the leadership of the Chair, I really do think that that constitutes the firmest evidence you're going to get on these matters. So, I think we do need more punch in terms of the response.

I was particularly disappointed by the Welsh Government's qualified acceptance of recommendation 1. We do urgently need a 10-year strategy, and you're saying you're going to await the report of the decarbonisation of homes advisory group and their report, but are you going to have a strategy then? At least tell us that, if you are waiting for that group to report. What we said is that you needed a strategy, and I think that that is a fairly direct recommendation to which we could have a 'yes' or 'no'.

If I move to recommendation 3—again accepted in principle—and that is really about quality assurance, I accept the Government realised that that is really important. But let's remember that the best systems won't deliver if they are installed badly, and we did find evidence that this has been happening. And also, if we're trying to get people particularly paying from their own means for retrofitting—and it can cost, I think, on average £15,000 a property—we've got to be able to reassure people that they're going to get a quality product. So, I note that it's the UK Government that has responsibility for the new quality mark for retrofitting products, but I do want to know what the Welsh Government is going to do to ensure the effective use of that charter mark in its own programmes. I think that is something you can answer now.

Recommendation 6 has been rejected and this emphasises the need, in the focus on retrofitting, on those who are in the able-to-pay and low-income home owners category. This is really such an important part of the market, because these are the people we really need to attract if we can get that bulk to move over and install retrofitting. They're going to be outside public programmes, usually, they're not in social housing, and they're going to have to bear the cost of the retrofitting. We may be able to aid them in certain ways with attractive mortgage products or loans or whatever, but it is really a very important area and I think the Welsh Government has to give a lead.

On recommendation 7, I think, again, a point made by our Chair: we need to ensure there's a talented, skilled workforce there. But I found that response to our report particularly complacent, because unless we know we're going to have a strategy and the scale at which we will be retrofitting, we can't possibly hope to train the number of people we will want to be qualified for this important construction work.

Finally, on recommendation 13, which is rejected, I think it's lucid to say that you don't think direct tax incentives are appropriate for the able-to-pay and low-income house owner sector, but then I think we need to have a better indicator of what alternatives you're going to use. You can't just say, 'There's international evidence that grant mechanisms and communications strategies are better.' What are you going to do? That's what we want to know. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

As a brand-new member of this committee who wasn't fortunate enough to be party to a lot of the evidence received, I did thoroughly enjoy reading the report, and I did read, as well, the Government's responses to the recommendations. It's clear we are still facing significant challenges in meeting our climate change commitments here in Wales, and a reduction in emissions of 80 per cent by 2050 will require bold and decisive long-term action by the Welsh Government, and making housing a central plank of achieving that in terms of making our houses more energy efficient is going to be one of the key elements in achieving that, albeit a very difficult one, clearly, because of the age of our housing stock—it's one of the oldest in Europe, and the report rightly demands an ambitious vision from the Welsh Government. The scale and pace of delivering highly energy-efficient homes needs to be urgently increased, or, of course, we'll fail to meet the challenges that we face. And some of these messages I'll be expanding upon in our later debate on climate change.

I would like to align myself to the comments made by the Chair and David Melding about this tendency to accept in principle. It was clearly a feature in the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report, 'Mind over matter'. In that instance, of course, the Ministers and Cabinet Secretaries were sent back to look at some of that again. And you're right to refer to a letter from the Permanent Secretary, David Melding, but the letter was explicitly in relation to the Public Accounts Committee, and I'm just wondering—I think it's got to a point now where we really need to consider whether this is actually extended to all committees, or at least that there's a process in place to sit down and look at all of this.

Anyway, the Welsh Government really needs to drastically upscale its home energy efficiency programmes in order to tackle not only climate change issues but, of course, as we know, fuel poverty, and to take advantage of those jobs that will be created as well. I'd like to see us put in place a target around reducing energy demand, and even aggregating that down to a localised level so that we can actually encourage more local ownership of what needs to be done, and making global ambition something that people in individual communities can relate to and can feel that they actually can contribute positively towards achieving.

Around 23 per cent of households in Wales live in fuel poverty, and we estimate around 1,800 excess winter deaths every year, of which, in 2016-17, around 540 could be attributed to cold homes. Now, that tells its own story as well. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has used Swansea bay city region as a case study of how that region could meet its projected energy demands entirely from renewable resources by 2035. It found significant scope for opportunities in meeting that challenge. For example, 200,000 homes—that's 60 per cent of domestic properties in that region—would need to adopt energy efficiency measures to meet the 2035 goal. Now, that as well, of course, would ensure that each home would save between £350 and £420 a year on their annual energy bill. Now, we as a party have said that we'd launch a national energy efficiency programme to help keep homes warmer, bring down energy bills, create jobs and help the environment in a multibillion-pound investment programme over two decades.

Before I run out of time, I don't want to let the second recommendation go, which refers to Part L of the building regulations. In the last Assembly, when I was the party spokesperson on this issue at that time, the Welsh Government went out to consultation on improving energy efficiency, and they had two options in the consultation. One was for a 40 per cent improvement; the other was for a 25 per cent improvement. They held the consultation, and they plumped for an 8 per cent level. Now, that was a hugely missed opportunity, in my view, for Wales to be ahead of the game, to gain first-mover advantage in a journey, of course, where we all have to achieve a certain level by a certain point in time, so there was never an issue as to whether we wanted to move in that direction, and it's good to see people who voted against that at the time now being much more enthused about this, and I'm glad that the Government is moving in that direction. Although, more generally, given that the clock is beating me, I have to say I am rather disappointed by the modesty of the Welsh Government's response. It doesn't really represent the urgency that we need, or indeed the ambition that we have a right to expect.

Thanks to the committee Chairman for bringing today's debate. Mike Hedges raised the issue of how much regulation we need in this part of the housing market, and of course we have to be careful not to overregulate, but I think he made a good case that we need a certain level of regulation to deal with the issue of old houses and their lack of energy efficiency. So, low-carbon housing is one way in which we can do that. Retrofitting is going to be a necessary part of the programme, as Mike Hedges pointed out, and we do need quality assurance, if we're going to bring in a retrofitting programme, to avoid problems that we've had in the past with cowboy contractors entering the market, as we saw with cavity wall insulation. So, we do have to be careful that we don't repeat mistakes that have been made in the past. 

Training is an issue. As Mike pointed out, we did have people that were involved in the inquiry raising issues about training. Now, new skills will be needed in the production of low-carbon homes in the future, because the sorts of skills that you need to build these are not traditional construction skills. Further education colleges could offer these kinds of courses. We heard evidence from witnesses stating this. But, of course, we need to know that there will be a market for these skills going forward, and we need to have some assurances that there will be, therefore, some kind of Government aid for the low-carbon housing schemes. Planning issues also arose in the inquiry. There was an issue raised about retrofitted walls in particular, because we were told that retrofitted walls, under a strict interpretation of planning rules—. They're not supposed to require planning permission, but we were told it's amazing how often planning inspectors decide that retrofitted walls do need planning consent, and it was suggested that this may be part of a system of local councils, who are allowed to charge their own planning fees, deciding to charge people for different things that, strictly speaking, they didn't need to be charged for, in order to raise extra revenue for their own cash-strapped local authority. I don't know how real an issue that is, but it was raised by a couple of people, so it's probably worthy of investigation, that.

The issue of accepting recommendations in principle: yes, not a very good practice, which seems to be becoming more and more widespread with the Welsh Government. But other Members have— they've made their feelings known on that, and I'm very glad that Mike Hedges did as well, and that he continues to show strong independence of mind as the Chairman of the committee. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the committee's report, which recognises that the delivery of low-carbon housing in Wales offers significant challenges and opportunities. Domestic buildings are responsible for an important proportion of Wales's carbon emissions. However, it is important to understand that reducing emissions can be achieved in many different ways, and a range of solutions will be required, based on house type, tenure, energy performance, demographics, building usage and a range of other factors. The Minister for Housing and Regeneration and I, alongside our ministerial colleagues, are committed to transforming Wales into a thriving country in a low-carbon world.

In July, Cabinet agreed to make decarbonisation a priority area in 'Prosperity for All'. In December, we will ask Members to agree emissions targets for 2020, 2030 and 2040, and our first two carbon budgets. This will provide a clear decarbonisation pathway for Wales. Over the summer, we launched a consultation, seeking stakeholders' views on our approach to decarbonising Wales, and I was very pleased with the response. These responses are currently being analysed and will inform the development of our low-carbon delivery plan, which will be published in March 2019.

Our emissions from the residential sector accounted for 8 per cent of total Welsh emissions in 2016, and emissions from the sector have decreased 25 per cent since the 1990 baseline. We've already committed to the development of a new programme of action that will decarbonise homes in Wales by 80 per cent by 2050. This will have clear milestones and targets. We are currently developing this programme using specifically commissioned independent research to provide a strong evidence base. The decarbonisation of homes advisory group, which is made up of a wide range of external stakeholders, is helping us to develop and then deliver the programme.

At the moment, it is not possible to support the committee's recommendation for a low-carbon housing strategy in full, as it is still unclear what the research and the decarbonisation advisory group will recommend to Ministers. The report is due in the summer of 2019. But, just recently, I spoke at an event organised by Mark Isherwood, and I did commit to certainly being very happy to work at getting that strategy brought forward, and I think the advice that stakeholders gave me at that meeting was that a 10-year strategy would be required.

In the meantime, our innovative housing programme is being used to test low-carbon solutions. In 2018-19, it is open to both social landlords and the private sector. This is important as it encourages the SME sector in housing in Wales to start building again, but in a way that changes their existing practices. Through regional skills partnerships and various programmes of support, the Welsh Government is providing investment in training provision to ensure that the construction sector has the appropriately skilled workforce to deliver its targets for energy-efficient homes. Regional skills partnerships collate and analyse labour market information to provide the Welsh Government with information on existing provision levels against current trends, but they also work with employers and significant development projects to project future skills needs.  

Part L of building regulations is currently being reviewed to increase the energy efficiency of new homes and deliver, as a minimum, nearly zero energy. David Melding referred to a so-called performance gap, but I do believe this review will certainly address that, going forward. I will consider imposing more stringent standards if NZE does not meet our current energy ambitions. As part of the work to deliver the next changes to Part L, we will identify opportunities for future improvements beyond the current review and the timetable for achieving them.

Through our own programmes, we are driving high standards of energy efficiency measures and installation. With the closure of the feed-in tariff expected in March 2019, we will also need to look at how we drive forward reductions in emissions through renewable energy measures in homes. This year, we have awarded and mobilised contracts for the next phase of the Warm Homes programme. Nest and Arbed 3 contracts both stipulate whole-house assessments are undertaken to ensure the right solution is offered. This means we improve home energy efficiency and give people the help they need not to live in fuel poverty. We are making significant investment in this programme, investing £104 million between now and 2021. Our investment will also lever in up to £24 million of EU funding in addition to funding from the UK energy company obligation, and this will enable us to improve up to 25,000 homes.

We already have plans to commission a cost and benefit analysis of retrofitting homes, and that will include households that are in fuel poverty. This will better inform how best we help people out of fuel poverty in the future, whilst supporting our housing decarbonisation objectives. We are also leading the way by demonstrating to mortgage providers ways to incentivise preferential lending rates for low-carbon homes. The industry-led lenders project has provided a formula for affordability assessments that takes into account the energy efficiency of the property and can provide additional borrowing for more efficient homes. We introduced this formula into the Help to Buy—Wales affordability calculator in June this year.

Whilst we recognise the importance of moving towards zero- or low-carbon homes, we do not wish to introduce this into all schemes at present, but rather introduce this type of requirement over a period of time. The Wales stalled sites fund, for example, is designed to bring together a cohort of developing SMEs before we introduce such a requirement. We remain committed to consider all relevant evidence, and should further evidence come forward that supports the case for changes to taxation or policy, the Welsh Government will be happy to re-examine the case. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee, Mike Hedges, to reply to the debate?

Diolch. Can I thank David Melding for his comments this afternoon, for his contribution to the debate, and for his contribution during the committee? I can say that you will be missed in the committee when we discuss housing.

He raises that quality assurance is important. People need to be assured that, if they are buying something, the quality that they've got is such that they are not paying money out like people have done for other things that they've had that were meant to help their homes and didn't.

Older properties are lived in by people who are on low incomes and are low-income house owners. That's by definition. Your five-bedroomed detached houses tend not to be lived in by low-income householders; it’s the two/three-bedroomed terraced houses that are lived in by low-income owner-occupiers, and it’s important that these properties are retrofitted. This is probably the biggest group of people who could benefit in terms of not just fuel poverty, but actually benefit from retrofitting.

Llyr Gruffydd—again, the importance of having a method of reducing carbon, and housing has to be part of it. Scale and pace need increasing—I think that’s something we’ve said about an awful lot of things from our reports from time to time, but it's, I think, if you can sum up an awful lot of things here, moving in the right direction but not quickly enough. I think that's probably—. I don’t think anybody criticised the direction in which the Welsh Government is going. Nobody criticised the fact that the Welsh Government is moving to reduce fuel poverty. They are moving to reduce carbon. I think the concern is, from the committee—and any of the members of the committee can tell me if I’m wrong—it’s not happening fast enough.

New jobs—we’ve talked a lot about the fact, and we’ve had Lee Waters, who is not in here, tell us regularly about the effects of automation, but other jobs will be created. This retrofitting is unlikely to be automated, certainly in the short term. So, it’s really important that we skill people up to do this.

Gareth Bennett came on and talked about that we need skills. We need the colleges to train people, but people will not undertake training, colleges will not undertake courses, unless they know there’s a market and there is an assurance of continuity, that they know—the people going on a training course—that there's going to be 10, 15 years' worth of work to retrofit, rather than in three years’ time there will be a change of policy, a change in direction and their skill will be outdated.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her response. I very much welcome many of the comments she said. And there are many different ways of reducing emissions. I do not see—and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can explain to me—why tenure affects the method of retrofitting. I can understand how the type of property affects it, but I can't understand how a house being privately rented, owner occupied, or owned by a housing association would actually affect the type of retrofitting you needed. Perhaps the Cabinet—I'm quite happy to receive an intervention for that to be explained to me.

Decarbonisation is a priority—and the Cabinet Secretary highlighted reductions. We're going to have milestones and targets to be set; I think that most Members in here would like to know when. Consider more stringent standards—yes, that's the direction we want to move in. Review of Part L—I think that's something that needs to be changed. We all welcome Nest and Arbed 3, and I'm sure that whoever stands here in about five or six years' time will welcome Nest and Arbed 4. But, at some stage, we need to be making progress to such an extent that we don't need Nest and Arbed 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Fuel poverty is a huge problem. I'll finish on this—a story of one of my constituents. She goes to bed at 7 o'clock at night with her daughter. Why? That's the only way they can keep warm. They live in a house that is privately rented, probably because they spend more on keeping cold than most people in here spend on their houses keeping them warm. And I think that that is the problem. We have this level of fuel poverty, and it's the poorest people who are suffering, not just because of the cost of fuel, but because of the type of property they live in—the single glaze with gaps that means that they're doing very well at heating the world, but not such a good job of heating their own houses. Really, fuel poverty has got to be a top priority. I know the Welsh Government wants to reduce it, but we need to be really committed to eliminating it.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 is a debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee report, 'Hitting the Right Note: Inquiry into funding for and access to music education'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion.

Thank you very much. I’m very pleased to open this debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee’s report, 'Hitting the Right Note', on funding for and access to music education. No matter what our backgrounds, our professions or our allegiances, I’m sure that, at some point, we've all drawn great satisfaction and pride from our country’s status as the land of song. The history of Wales is a history steeped in music. But what if that status was about to change?

In an interview with the BBC in December 2016, Dr Owain Arwel Hughes, founder of the Welsh Proms, and a former conductor at the National Youth Orchestra of Wales, explained that cuts to school music services, and a consequent lack of tuition opportunities, were causing what he described as a crisis in Welsh music education. Dr Hughes's concerns were also reflected in the committee's public poll. In the summer of 2016, we asked the public to vote on what our next inquiry should be. Out of the 11 options, funding for and access to music education came top.

The benefits of music education are not only for Wales's culture and heritage. Music education has so many positive impacts on a child’s development. Again and again, we were told by those giving evidence that, by being taught music in their schools, in their formative years, they learned the value of such things as prolonged commitment, patience, and hard work—and discipline. The brass section of many an orchestra across Wales will understand why they need discipline—I don't need to tell them here today. These are qualities that, once acquired, could be used in any number of fields and disciplines.

As a musician myself, who was brought through the music service system, I can testify to the truth of these statements. Through music education, I was afforded amazing opportunities and experiences that enriched my education. They're experiences that I cherish to this day.

Such things as travelling abroad as part of a team and playing some of the world’s most renowned orchestral music, had a very tangible, positive impact on me, in ways that I am still benefiting from today. And I can't listen to Mahler 1 without remembering fond memories of my last national youth orchestra course. As such, I am passionate about ensuring that every child in Wales has the opportunity to seize what was such a valuable part of my own education. The time has come to not paper over the cracks, but to come up with radical solutions in the face of continuous and prolonged cuts to these services, with Wrexham being the latest in a long line of cuts, of local-authority-led cuts in this area.

As I mentioned earlier, this inquiry arose out of a public poll, through which we asked the Welsh public what our next inquiry should be. This was the first time an Assembly committee handed such a decision directly to the people of Wales. I would like to thank all those who took part in what, for us as a committee, was a very worthwhile exercise, so worthwhile, in fact, that we decided to do it again over the summer on a different topic altogether.

There is no doubt in my mind that music services in Wales are facing, or will be facing, a crisis if we don't act now. Unless urgent action is taken, we're looking at further degradation of these vital services. Only recently, in a paper to the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee, the Welsh Local Government Association, summarising the potential impact of the Welsh Government’s draft budget, stated that

'smaller services like music will cease'.

Of course, that is only if they have not ceased already.

Two of the main themes presented throughout the inquiry centred on equality of access and  equality of provision. We were consistently told that the level of services available was heavily dependent on the area in which a pupil lives, with local authorities offering vastly different levels of service. In some areas, the cost of tuition is being passed entirely onto parents, resulting in those pupils from poorer backgrounds being afforded far fewer opportunities than those whose parents can afford it. This situation is entirely unacceptable.

Sufficient funding for these services is clearly a major issue. However, we have heard from the sector that it suffered from a lack of strategic direction—so it's not all about the money—and that this has also contributed to the variable nature of the services on offer. We have, as a result, called on the Government to provide this strategic direction.

So, the central recommendation of our report is that the Welsh Government transfer responsibility for the delivery of music services to an arm's-length national body. What that could look like is, of course, to be debated. While the committee is sympathetic to the principle of local decision making, and that would still need to factor in any of this, the current system, put simply, just does not work. Music services, being non-statutory, are crumbling under the pressure of reduced local authority budgets.

I'm very pleased to see that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation in principle, pending the outcome of a feasibility study. However—and there is a 'however'—giving the final decision on the outcome of this exercise to local authorities, which already have a vested interest in this—as stated in the Cabinet Secretary’s response to us as a committee—is, in my view, not something that we would desire. I believe that it's time for the Government to take hold of this situation centrally to determine the best way forward and to implement it as quickly as possible.

The committee considered other options. We discussed the ring-fencing of funding for music at length, I would say, within local authority budgets, or making the delivery of services a statutory obligation. We came to the conclusion that we wanted to offer different ideas for a solution that would be long-standing for the future. The funding issues are clearly a major concern. Unless funding is addressed, issues such as the variable nature of provision are likely to remain. This is why we have called on the Government to provide the proposed national body with the necessary funding to maintain equality of access and provision on an all-Wales level. Whatever the outcome of the Cabinet Secretary’s feasibility study, we expect any new system to be funded sufficiently and to have dedicated core funding from the Welsh Government.

Another central recommendation of our report is that the Welsh Government take strategic ownership of music services by consulting stakeholders in order to create a national action plan for music.

The absence of such direction has led to inconsistency and complication. Direction is now needed urgently to avoid the further deterioration of the services on offer. This is not to say that the services themselves are the only things affected by the lack of an overarching strategy. The terms and conditions of staff within the sector vary greatly between authorities. This must also be addressed. Consistency in relation to staff terms and conditions would allow for a more collaborative approach to provision, enabling local authorities to co-ordinate services and share resources. Such a strategy could also be used to introduce performance measures and targets in order to ensure equitable standards across Wales. As such, while I am disappointed that this recommendation has been rejected, seemingly, I think, on the basis that our proposed plan did not have the word 'education' in the title, I am pleased that the thrust of the recommendation is being considered within the Cabinet Secretary’s feasibility study. 

However, the Cabinet Secretary put her name to the foreword of the music services' one-year-on report, so, I don't understand why, in her rejection of recommendation 2, the Cabinet Secretary has stated that she does not believe that she should take strategic responsibility for music services, as they fall outside of her portfolio. And, in any case, I think a lot of examples of Ministers taking a strategic lead on things that aren't entirely in their portfolio have already happened within Welsh Government. I know that she herself has made announcements with regard to the endowment and extra money for instruments. So, I think she's led by example in that regard.

It's clear in the report that we are talking about a plan for music education. So, I think the Cabinet Secretary's rejection of recommendations 2, 6, 8 and 12, which all relate to our proposed national action plan for music, is a tiny, tiny bit pernickety. I suggest that the recommendations have been taken out of context, but I'll be glad to hear what the Cabinet Secretary's analysis is, and I hope we can come to a progressive conclusion.

We have, of course, welcomed the Cabinet Secretary's announcement that each council is to receive an additional £10,000 for the purchasing of musical instruments. A lack of musical instruments was identified during our inquiry, as one issue among many larger issues. But I think each local authority has unique problems and we heard from local music services that we need to take into account current supply, pupil population and the level of deprivation. What Merthyr can do with £10,000 is significantly different to what Cardiff can do with that money.

We welcome the creation of Anthem, Music Fund Wales—a national endowment for music introduced by the Cabinet Secretary, backed by the £1 million Welsh Government investment. This is clearly a step in the right direction, and one that I hope will provide an effective part of a much needed solution to the current crisis, and I'm sure fellow committee members, like myself, will be taking a keen interest in this. 

Since the publication of our report, I'm pleased the Cabinet Secretary has opened a dialogue with me in order to discuss a way forward. And these conversations have been constructive in tone and I'd be encouraged to hear what the Cabinet Secretary has to say here today in relation to that. I do thank many stakeholders who have given the ideas in relation to how we can raise those concerns with the Cabinet Secretary.

I've also written to her officials directly, saying how I would like to see the £2 million of Welsh Government funding announced by the Government in the budget agreement with Plaid Cymru spent. I will not go into detail about that here today, but I would hope that the Cabinet Secretary, either today, or at some point in the near future, could give us some ideas as to her forward working proposals. 

To conclude, if we, as a nation, value our rich musical heritage and would like the benefits of this most valued part of Welsh life to extend long into the future, we must act now to address this crisis.

The value of music to Wales and to those living and learning within our country has long been a powerful asset, one that brings great pride, joy and fulfilment to us and so it must be continued. It's worth a huge amount to our creative industries sector, and I think it must be acknowledged that it does not only affect just one sector of society, it transcends our lives here in Wales and it permeates through every aspect of our lives, whether it is through how we operate now as politicians to how we can enjoy time outside of this place in our local theatres, in our local orchestral opportunities.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say here today and to the Cabinet Secretary's response. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I just take a brief moment to thank everybody on the committee, including my fellow committee members, as were, and members of the clerking team? I really enjoyed my time on CWLC, and, even though I'm delighted to be speaking on education now, I'm going to remember those two and a half years, not just with fondness but for the fact that I learned so much there that's going to be valuable in my new portfolio, and I'll come to that as I make my contribution today. 

This inquiry happened because the people of Wales asked us to do it, and I know it was of particular interest to the Chair, but I didn't realise there was such an appetite for shedding light on what turned out to be a Wales-wide situation until we made this appeal to the Welsh public. And I still think this very innovative way of deciding at least on part of what the committee's work was is very valuable and genuinely worth other policy committees considering. Just with this particular inquiry, the process helped us identify a need for some expert advice, for example, which perhaps you wouldn't have been aware of previously, and that helped us understand that we needed to take another round of evidence, which we did, after we found that matters of importance arose from the original round of evidence gathering. So, very much a moving feast, but a new way of doing things that I think left us all as committee members feeling properly informed before we signed off the recommendations of the report.

I'm just going to focus on a few of the recommendations, beginning with the first two. Really, someone has got to take responsibility for the existence and the success of music services, and we think that it should be the Welsh Government, not least as a result of statutory well-being goals that now affect government as well as other public services. We were interested in a range of delivery models, which I'll come back to, but what we were clear on is that this cannot be left to cash-strapped councils trying to rescue these services themselves—the pressure on funding non-statutory activities in all councils is acute these days—and nor can it depend on the interest of key officials within councils, or indeed within school leadership, for these services to exist at all, it seems to me. It's just not a safe way of securing those services. We were also—I think you mentioned it, Bethan—pretty disappointed that no really significant headway had been made on pretty useful recommendations made by the Government's own task and finish group on music services a couple of years ago.

Now, having said that, I firmly believe that the design of the delivery of music services is a co-productive activity. I don't think that should be down to Welsh Government. It's not for civil servants, and that's actually why I was very happy to support recommendation 1, because I think the Government's role is to set out strategic objectives for music services that, in my view, go beyond the core purpose of music services, which is growing our next generation of musicians. I think by looking at music participation as a tool in achieving a whole range of well-being and education objectives, even beyond the creative learning plan, if needs be—a tool in tackling poverty, for example. We've got the Kay Andrews report. I'm hoping there'll be some work done on that pretty soon to see how delivery's looking against that. But these are all ways of building a need for music services.

So it's not just the core purpose. Music services can do so much more, and other people need to accept that there's a responsibility for ensuring that we maintain those services beyond the core purpose. It means more than one income stream, for a start, and I think there may be some purists out there who think maybe this is a slightly transactional way of looking at music services, but the way I'm looking at it is building on the committee's underlying conclusions that things will fail if we carry on as we are. So, if other policy sectors can start looking at how music can be of value to them—and you did mention some examples, I think, Bethan—then I think its existence becomes more of a political priority. The more people that have a vested interest in it, the better.

I think a national body, albeit one that is very regional and local facing, is the best way to ensure that provision is equitable, that standards are maintained, that all parts of Wales are covered, and of course standards of pay for music service providers. I think a national body's got to be the best place for that, as well as to co-ordinate these alternative income streams. So, if that means beefing up the role of the National Youth Arts Wales, or something separate, I really don't mind, but I think we do need that.

Then just briefly I'll come back to the question of recommendation 4. One size fits all—we don't need it, it's unwelcome. We had fantastic evidence from, I think it was, a co-operative group in Denbighshire. Why should we reinvent the wheel when the music providers themselves are quite capable of designing services that work well?

Just finally I want to say, as an untalented person myself, I rely on others to make music to make me happy, but then so do the lonely, the isolated, those with additional learning needs, communication problems, dementia, those with mental health problems—they rely on music in some cases to help them participate in life, and all of us need it to participate in our national culture. Thank you.

This report has not been hurried. The first evidence session was held in January 2017 and for the time that I was on the committee, those of us who served—and it's significant, when you look at the report, the number of different people who've gone through this particular process; it's involved coming up to a fifth of all Assembly Members. But I think we took our time deliberately, because it was easy to rush to a quick, glib answer to what is a very difficult issue in this age of austerity. I think there was universal agreement that the provision of musical services in schools was both a public good and a cultural right. But with declining resources for local authorities and a duty to provide statutory services, there was no easy way out. And as tempting as it would have been to respond to Owain Arwel Hughes's call of a crisis by simply issuing a report saying this was important and councils should spend more on it, that would be unfair to our colleagues in local government, who are struggling with difficult decisions every week.

So, we did take our time and we set up an expert panel to scrutinise our initial thoughts and work with us, alongside us, to test our emerging ideas, to see if they passed muster. So, I think it's to the committee's credit that it has taken time, though, I have no doubt, it's to the slight exasperation of the stakeholders that it's taken this long to come up with a report.

I must say, I thought the Cabinet Secretary's response was a very encouraging one. I'm not sure if I've misread it, having listened to the characterisation of the Chair of the committee, which I thought was a little churlish. I thought that the response was very constructive and a genuine attempt to try and craft a solution that would last to what is, without doubt, a difficult set of circumstances.

I was very sad to hear recently that the Carmarthenshire Youth Orchestra has been suspended, and I think this a source of pain to all those who have gone through the services, as indeed the committee Chair herself had and as Jeremy Miles, who served on the committee alongside me, had too. There's a real, genuine sense of commitment, I think, of committee members to preserve what is put there.

I was reflecting, reading on the impact of the changing world of work, and of automation and digitisation and the skills that we are teaching to young people, to give them the ability to do the jobs that have not yet been created. And, actually, it's not the importance of coding or programming that is the most important thing. The most important thing is creativity, it's team work, it's empathy, it's human skills. All exactly the sort of things that you get from a musical education. And I was listening on the radio this week to somebody talking about the experience they were given, showing an interest in music, but not an aptitude. By simply showing an interest they were showered with attention and encouragement—the sort of cultural experience that we want to give young people.

So, this agenda is central of the future skills agenda. It's not an add-on, 'Wouldn't it be nice if we had more money to fund local authority services?' Which is why I think the call of the committee to put this at arm's length from local authorities, to take a national lead—. Because we looked at the task and finish group that had been set up under Huw Lewis and we tracked its progress, and little had happened to it. We had very unimpressive evidence from the WLGA. And I sympathise with the dilemma they're under, but they have failed. They have failed in the task of providing leadership on this and I understand why, but that's not good enough. So, I think it's right that the Welsh Government steps in to say this should be done on an all-Wales basis.

I applaud the new models that have been put forward through the endowment from National Youth Arts Wales. I worry for them, having run a charity and tried to get funding from trusts and foundations. It's damn hard. It really is difficult, and London trusts and foundations are not quick to come to the aid of cultural services outside of the metropolis. So, I think it's right that we've set them up, but we mustn't leave them to languish—we must follow it through with support, both in cash terms, but also in aid. I also applaud the musical instrument amnesty that I was very proud to give my daughter's guitar to. I even strummed a little bit before I handed it over.

So, I think the interventions that the Government are already doing are right and are welcome. The direction of travel the committee sets out in the report, I think, is the right one. The importance of this agenda is essential, both in terms of cultural rights, but also in terms of future skills. And I, along with others, will be watching with interest as the Government develops what I thought was an encouraging response. But, inevitably, it's the follow-through that matters. Diolch.

It's wonderful for me to be able to take part in this important debate. As Lee Waters mentioned, around a fifth of this Senedd have been part of this committee as we’ve been discussing this very important subject, and, to be fair, the issue of music in our schools is a fundamental one. That’s what the public in Wales have been telling us, and that’s why we discussed this issue in the first instance, because the people of Wales wanted us to discuss it. I pay tribute to the infectious enthusiasm of the Chair, and her natural musical ability as well, but also her ability to drive this agenda forward. We as a nation are meant to be in love with music—it's the land of song, after all, as Bethan said—but there is a shocking crisis, as Owain Arwel Hughes told us in committee. Owain Arwel Hughes, the founder of the Welsh Proms, famous worldwide, and when he says that there’s a crisis then people do have to sit up and listen.

We had detailed evidence over weeks and months and, yes, we did discuss what was the best way forward. I still remember the debates that we had: were we going to continue with the situation as it was, with funding being scarce and different priorities from different local authorities, and so on, or were we going to be brave and say that we needed an arm’s-length national body that could set priorities? Ultimately, that’s the major recommendation. That’s recommendation No. 1: that we need to develop a national body, an arm’s-length body, because this agenda is more than just teaching music in schools. As Lee Waters mentioned, and Bethan too, it’s part of our natural development as people, as children. We develop discipline, we develop the ability to be part of a team, we develop the ability to work hard sometimes to be able to excel, and to practise time and time again in order to reach the top.

I was only an organist in a chapel, and those alternative skills do allow you to develop so that you don’t have one narrow way of thinking in this world of ours. That’s what a number of our witnesses said. I’m so old now, when I was at school we had music lessons regardless. Everyone had them. You turned up, naturally, for a lesson; music was on the agenda. We enjoyed them and that, of course, developed one’s interest at the time, and there were plenty of opportunities in school to have lessons on the violin—although I wasn’t successful in those. Everyone had the opportunity then. It was a different time. I’m talking about a long time ago.

There is excellent work being done in the voluntary sector. We should talk about this, especially the Urdd Eisteddfod, and the National Eisteddfod itself, but the Urdd as an organisation is working miracles of course, with thousands of children learning all kinds of instruments and also signing in the different choirs and so on, and developing as singers. People like Bryn Terfel always talk about the fact that they excelled partly because of the kind of discipline and opportunities that they received through different eisteddfodau, the Urdd and the National Eisteddfod. We have to develop those natural platforms that we have as a nation because it’s an issue of strength.

When we talk about these issues we forget about the excellent work that’s being done on the ground from the different Urdd organisations and the Urdd nationally, developing the future of our people. Because there is excellent and inspiring activity going on on the ground. Yes, with teachers, inspiring teachers, especially with our orchestras, but to develop that interest in the first instance, an interest in music that is going to help you to develop as a person, so—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Of course.

I agree totally with the things you’ve said, and you’ve mentioned the Urdd and national organisations, and I’d also say there’s local musical organisations such as Gwent Music in my area, partially funded by local authorities, and other organisations like that across Wales that are doing a fantastic amount to really promote music outside of schools.

I agree 100 per cent, but, as Owain Arwel Hughes said, we are facing a crisis because information from the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama states that only 13 per cent of pupils from Wales do apply for a place in our Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama—only 13 per cent. There is a crisis and we do need to get to grips with it. Thank you very much. 

As a member of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, I would like to start by praising the efforts of our Chair, Bethan, and fellow committee members and the clerks for their industrious and important work in producing this report. I'm often asked why do I prioritise so highly the issue of music education, and while I'm not alone, during September 2016, before I served on the committee, the public, as you know, was asked what the committee's priorities should be, and, of course, it topped the poll. That's because the public understands the worth of music education in our schools to our young people—not just for those young people, but for us a country, for us a nation, and for us as a culture.

Like the Chair of our committee, I'm a musician and I thank my colleagues in the corridor at Tŷ Hywel, including Lee Waters and Jack Sargeant, who have been known to comment on my playing, and as a lifelong learner I am still a music student and I promise to reach that right note for them, but more so for my constituents. [Laughter.] And if it matters so much to me personally as an Assembly Member to learn and perfect and play a musical instrument, I cannot tell you how critical it is to me to know that no child in Wales is denied the opportunity to pick up an instrument and have the chance to learn to play it, not based on an ability to pay, but based on an ability to play. 

This is not just about learning an instrument. This is about equality of opportunity for all of our students across Wales, and our identity internationally that we must continue to be, in the words of the report that was commissioned from my office by Professor Carr, 'the land of song'. It cannot be in name only. We have to have that infrastructure underpinning the services that we need in order to deliver for all of our pupils. So, I look forward very much to hearing how the Chair and the Cabinet Secretary are going to work through these recommendations, and I'm particularly gratified that recommendation 13 has been accepted in principle by the Welsh Government, which ensures and seeks to ensure that music services continue to exist, to ensure pupils from all walks of life can potentially reach the level of excellence required for a place in the national ensembles. And as we've already heard, that is increasingly not the case.

It is right that all of our pupils, regardless of income, should have the same ability and opportunity to access the right to learn a musical instrument—equality of opportunity for all of our students. We approach a very critical time for music education performance in Wales. We know that we have had too many years of austerity, and it is right now for us to assess and recognise the real impact of the loss of music support services across Wales, that we recognise the inequalities that exist, and that as politicians we come together to provide those solutions. The safeguarding and provision of music education and the music support services are so critical—they provide the beginning, elementary, intermediate, and more advanced ensembles, which deliver those opportunities for those who can't pay—and has to become a national mission that Members of all of our parties, and those of none, can unite behind. I think Bethan, as a Plaid Cymru politician, myself as a Labour politician, and the Cabinet Secretary as a Liberal Democrat, show how we seek agreement across that political divide. I'd also, too, like to thank the contributions from others within the committee.   

But I think the theme today is that it is time to act now for Wales and now for our pupils. This is clearly evidenced in recommendation 1, which calls on the Welsh Government to transfer responsibility for the delivery of the service to an arm's-length national body. Now, there's still a debate around this, and I know that whatever the mechanism, it is heartening that the Welsh Government have accepted this recommendation in principle to fund music support services. I look forward to the Welsh Government reporting back to the committee on the progress of the feasibility exercise, but I wish to score and underscore the fact that it is now that music support services are crumbling as non-statutory services. If they are to remain non-statutory, then we have a responsibility to fund music support services across Wales, whatever that mechanism, and that has to be taken at pace. Thank you.   

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. Before I reply to the points that have been made in the debate and outline the Government's work in this area, I just want to reassure Members across the Chamber that I rarely visit a school where I am not greeted by the musical talents of the pupils in that school—choirs, samba bands, steel bands, violin quartets and a myriad of solo performers. I sometimes joke, if only the Programme for International Student Assessment measured musical talents as well as maths, science, English and reading, then I would sleep easier each time PISA came around.

What I am very pleased to say, though, is that when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have looked at our Creative Learning through the Arts programme, they have described it as 'world-leading' and have used it as an example of good practice to other nations that want to do exactly, Lee, what you talked about: introduce elements of creativity within their curriculum, because they recognise that those are some of the skills that their young people will need in the future, and the OECD recognise that we do this well through our Creative Learning through the Arts programme.

I'd like to thank the committee for the report. As I've stated previously, I share the committee's ambition for the provision of high-quality universal access to music education for all learners in Wales. I also recognise the need to ensure that appropriate routes exist for those learners who wish to develop and enhance their experiences and musical expertise in order to reach their full potential.

I'd like to thank Bethan for acknowledging in the report the numerous steps that we have taken to try and make progress in this area. Now, the recommendations are significant, with far-reaching organisational and financial implications for the music education sector, and as such they do require time and appropriate resources to explore and consider in depth. I would like to point to some of the issues and recommendations raised within the report, therefore.

Recommendation 1, as we have heard from numerous speakers this afternoon, refers to transferring responsibility for the delivery of music services to an arm's-length national body to ensure equitable opportunities to be core funded by the Welsh Government. It is vital that access to music and music education are available for all learners irrespective of their location, their social background and their ability to pay. We are doing all that we can to ensure that barriers to participation are removed. However, to do what is recommended is not that easy, particularly during this period of austerity where budgets are restricted. As we've also heard, the provision of music services is currently the responsibility of local authorities and not of the Welsh Government. So, it's not particularly simple simply to transfer those responsibilities to another body. We have to consider the impact and implications very carefully before we do so. Consequently, I have suggested that we carry out a feasibility study to explore suitable options for the future delivery of music services. As the Chair acknowledged herself, the actual structure, roles and responsibilities of that body need still to be worked through. As a first step, my officials are in the process of setting up a stakeholder consultation meeting with key partners to discuss the scope and terms of reference of that study, and I will of course update the committee as soon as possible on the progress made.

The report also recommends that I take ownership of music services in order to prepare a national action plan for music. However, I personally believe that it's not appropriate for me to take sole strategic responsibility for music services, as these areas are far wider than my portfolio responsibilities for schools alone. As we've just heard from Dai Lloyd, there are many opportunities for young people to pursue music outside compulsory schooling, and of course there are cross-cutting responsibilities with the department of culture here within the Welsh Government. But I do believe that it should be part of the feasibility study, and that feasibility study will look into the consideration of a national plan for music education. Perhaps I should be flattered that the Chair wants me to take over it all. And she says it's because I've done certain things since taking office; well, that will teach me, won't it—[Laughter.]—to stick my head above the parapet and try and get things done? It just means that you'll be asked to do more things.

I will also widen the feasibility study to consider the viability of alternative models of music service delivery. I am aware that there are a number of local authorities that have developed different models, and there is a need to understand demand and the effectiveness of those models. I saw first-hand recently on a trip to Denbighshire the co-operative arrangement that has been put in place there, and received feedback from teachers of schools in that area that actually tell me more children are having access to music and it's actually costing them less. So, these are interesting things that we need to understand and we need to look into further.

I am pleased that many of the recommendations from Huw Lewis's task and finish group on local authority music services have been completed, although I share your frustrations. We have tried to reuse these issues with the Welsh Local Government Association in the meetings I have with them. But I will be providing a full update on the progress from the task and finish group report by the end of this year.

Turning to the comments made in the report regarding the funding of music services, I will be blunt: I also fully accept and acknowledge that there are significant funding challenges, but, believe me, Lee, when you say that you understand the difficulties faced by local authorities when making decisions about where to prioritise those budgets, those are exactly the same conversations that go on here at a Welsh Government level. There are no easy funding solutions to this issue for us as a Government either. In response, though, despite those challenges, I am pleased that we've been able to increase the funding made available to local authorities for the purchase of musical instruments. We have made £1 million funding available per annum for 2018-19 and 2019-20 for music provision, and I'm currently considering proposals on how the money should be allocated. This includes an option of making, perhaps, more funding available to each local authority to purchase yet more instruments. I'm delighted and grateful to the Members in this Chamber who handed over their instruments that were lurking in their cupboards, whether that be Lee Waters's daughter's guitar, my daughter's violin, and I think Lynne Neagle's son was glad to see shot of the instruments that Lynne was able to bring in. But we've also been able to support the purchase of instruments. When I was visiting Denbighshire, I got to see the new piano that has been bought for that particular co-operative as a result of that funding. Working with Bethan, I will determine the best way to allocate this money to ensure that it is used to best effect and that, crucially, it is sustainable, and I hope to make an announcement before the end of this autumn term.

Several of the report's recommendations fall to organisations that operate outside the direct control of the Government, such as National Youth Arts Wales. I cannot respond on behalf of those organisations, but I can confirm that Welsh Government officials are working closely with the Arts Council for Wales and National Youth Arts Wales to ensure that these recommendations are fully explored.

If I move to Anthem, Music Fund Wales, which has been established, a new chair has been appointed, and the appointment will be publicly announced in November. While Anthem will be a stand-alone charitable organisation with no direct links to Government, we, together with other stakeholder organisations, will be working in close partnership with that new body as it develops in the years ahead. So, I can assure you, Lee—we're not going to leave it to drift off on its own. Anthem faces the twin challenges of establishing its own identity and brand while embarking on an ambitious fundraising strategy of raising the capital necessary to enable it to start making a real impact for young musicians by 2021. It's vitally important that this is done, I recognise, without adversely affecting funds that currently support other arts and education provision, but I am confident that this can be achieved. We should stress that music isn't necessarily for everyone, and what we want to ensure is that there are creative and artistic opportunities of all sorts available to our children, depending on what their passion is.

Will you take an intervention, please?

Yes.

Yes, okay, briefly. 

Yes, okay. Do you recognise, then, that with regard to the very many different strands and the very good initiatives that are coming forward, there is a need for a cohesive strategy or plan to be able to draw all of those initiatives under one strategic vision for music education for Wales?

As I said earlier, Rhianon, we will look at the recommendation with regard to the plan as part of the feasibility study. What concerns me is that music education doesn't just happen in isolation within the school setting. We have to look at the opportunities in the round, but that's what the feasibility study will look at. 

To sum up, Deputy Presiding Officer, the committee has set the Welsh Government a real challenge in exploring how best to deal with the issue of music services and music provision, but it is a challenge that I am very happy to accept. It may take some time to fully explore all the potential options available, but we will continue to monitor and evaluate the situation around existing provision in this area as well as taking steps, where we can, to alleviate those pressures. I will provide the committee and fellow Assembly Members with regular updates and progress at key stages.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee, Bethan Sayed, to respond to the debate?

I'm conscious of time, and not having much of it to go through everybody's comments, but thank you to everybody who has taken part. I know that you have been lobbied to attend and to take part in this debate, and you would do it anyway because it's so important. So, thank you very much—and to all the committee members, past and present, who have showed such enthusiasm in this regard.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for all of her comments. It is reassuring to hear that you are putting this at the front of the political agenda, and I guess what I was trying to say about the music in education plans was not to try and be—I don't know what the word was—churlish, but, if the recommendations were refused, obviously as a committee, we need to go through them in fine detail to understand how we can progress them. It's reassuring to hear, therefore, that that's going to be considered within the feasibility study so that we can understand, if it's not going to be directly one responsibility within Government, as per your education Cabinet Secretary role, how that could potentially look by engaging with experts in the field. That's all I think I and others are concerned about—to understand how a plan would work and how we can involve the best people in Wales in relation to making that happen. So, I look forward to hearing, by the end of the year, the task and finish group's recommendations, as well as continuing discussions with regard to the £2 million also.

I think it's really worth emphasising the fact that the OECD have said that, though, about creative learning through the arts, because if we're going to be—. Lots of the comments here have said about how we want to mainstream, how we want to ensure that this is a skills agenda—if we can show to the world that it's being utilised through our education systems, that is one way, if nothing else, to be able to do that. So, I welcome that work as well.

To turn to the other Assembly Members briefly, I know that Suzy Davies—. Thank you—you've left the committee now, but thank you for your valuable input, and I'm sure it will help you as an education portfolio spokesperson. You mentioned the expert advice. That was very, very useful, and I hope that's something that the Welsh Government can consider as part of the feasibility study for the arm's-length body, because without—. We were constantly going back to the music professionals to tell us how they thought our ideas were progressing, and I think that's something I'd like to do in future committee inquiries. And you said as well that it cannot be left to cash-strapped councils to take this on, and I think that's basically why we came to the conclusion that we did. Co-production, of course, is incredibly important, because, of course, we can set the national strategic direction, but it's people who understand on the ground how music services operate that are key here.

Lee Waters, thank you for your contributions as well during the committee. I valued the fact that you said that it was a difficult issue and that we had taken our time to look at this decisively. It wasn't something I thought we should rush through, because, of course, we could have said very popular things to some people, but that would have been very difficult to operate. For example, if we had made it statutory, then what would that have said of other services? That's the controversial issue that we have to face here today. I personally agree with you in relation to the WLGA. They may be talking more progressively now with the Cabinet Secretary, but, when they came in to give evidence, they didn't seem to know what was happening with the recommendations. Perhaps this whole debate has livened them up somewhat; I hope that is what has happened in this regard.

Just briefly on the endowment, just before I finish, I think that it's worth probably mentioning here in this debate that I met with the community foundation. They have a wealth of experience in relation to the endowment funds, and they haven't yet been utilised in relation to Anthem, as far as I understand it, so it might be good to engage with them—if they have that skill base already here in Wales, we should utilise it.

I haven't got any more time; I'm seeing the red system up there. Thank you to Rhianon—I know you are passionate about this area—and to Nick Ramsay and Dr Dai Lloyd, who all took part in this debate this afternoon. It just shows how important this issue is, and I hope that we can see change on the ground so that our families and our children of the future will all be able to take part in music services and they'll have the same stories to tell—some of them not to be told in this room—of their times on various orchestras or dance companies, so that they can show future generations how important this is for them.

Thank you very much to the clerking team as well and to everyone who’s taken part in this important work, and to the people who've turned up here today for this debate. It’s important that the public are a vital part of the work that we do as a committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No, therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on climate change and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Discussing the weather is something that we as Welsh people delight in doing and, of course, 2018 has been of huge pleasure to many people when it comes to the weather. We recall the snow and cold weather at the beginning of the year, the endless rain of the spring, one of the hottest summers on record, and storm Callum in the autumn bringing a month’s worth of rain in two days. Across the world, the story is the same, with increasing examples of extreme weather, among other signs that the climate is changing.

A few weeks ago, a report by the IPCC was published, and this wasn't just another report to make some cheap headlines, but the high point of work that saw input from thousands of climate scientists from across the globe. The message in that report is entirely clear: time is running out. Time is running out to make the changes to our way of life, how we produce and use energy, how we travel around this earth, how we build and warm our homes, how we use our natural resources. Because the trajectory that we’re on in terms of global warming means that unless we change our ways then the implications will be damaging and extreme—not just more flooding, but whole states disappearing underwater because of increases in sea level; not just more drought, but more starvation on an international level; widespread disappearance of species and an environment that is far more challenging to life on this earth.

The conclusion of the report, of course, is that Governments do have to take urgent action on a far-reaching level by 2030 in order to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. There’s no doubt now, in my view, that this is the greatest challenge facing humanity. We all recall the discussion at the UN convention on climate change in Paris in 2015 that we had to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius and that efforts should be made to limit it to 1.5 degrees. What the IPCC report tells us now is that global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Any element of warming beyond that would bring risks of long-term and irreversible changes, with whole ecosystems being lost.

What this report doesn’t do to the same extent, of course, is to outline exactly what each of us needs to achieve in order to deliver the necessary change. It’s a matter for wider society, of course, and we as politicians have a key role in creating that other environment—the policy environment and the funding environment that will facilitate much of the change that needs to be seen.

Our motion today notes that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee here at the Assembly has come to the conclusion that the Government is likely to fail to reach its targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020. The purpose of this motion, therefore, is to call on the Welsh Government to outline what major steps it will take in response to the IPCC report. We of course are taking the opportunity to outline some of the things that we as a party feel should be done—not everything; it falls a long way short of that—as part of the transformation that is required in the face of these climate change challenges. They include, of course, action in terms of energy, transportation, housing, and some of the sectors that contribute most to carbon emissions.

We need to tackle energy from both directions, of course—first of all, we need to reduce the usage of energy and then increase the amount of energy produced from renewable sources. The sustainability committee of the last Assembly, in its report 'A Smarter Energy Future for Wales', called for creating annual targets to reduce the demand for energy, and it’s disappointing that that hasn’t seen a positive response. It also called for more help for people to use energy more efficiently, and I will expand upon that in just a moment.

I've talked in this Chamber before, of course, of how Plaid Cymru wants to see the establishment of a national energy company for Wales that would assist in our aim of ensuring that as much energy as is consumed in Wales is produced from renewable sources by 2035. That's ambitious but it’s also achievable. Other nations are moving far more quickly than us on this agenda. Germany, for example, has committed that by 2050 it will ensure that 80 per cent of all its energy will come from renewable sources, and, more than that, that, by the same year, it cuts the use of energy in buildings by 80 per cent, and creates millions of jobs, and adds to its GDP. It's a transformational programme that shows the way forward for many of us. It’s also worth looking at how somewhere like Uruguay, which has a population similar to Wales, has managed to ensure, in a period of less than 10 years, that 95 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources—of course reducing its carbon footprint, but also reducing bills for its people simultaneously. So, they have shown that, with vision and determined leadership, it’s possible to make significant and swift progress towards a low-carbon economy.

I strongly believe in placing the community at the heart of energy policy. I’ve spoken many times of the need to move away from the hub-and-spoke model of producing energy in large power stations that are centralised and then transferring that across the country via an old grid that is ineffective and expensive. We need to move to a model of local grids, which are smarter, with the energy being produced closer to where its consumed—in the community by the community—and networks that are more efficient, often more resilient, less damaging to the landscape, which is something that is regularly discussed in this Chamber, and also cheaper in terms of maintenance costs.

Producing renewable energy is one thing, but, as I mentioned earlier, we also need to reduce our use of energy, and that is at the heart of the task facing us. With homes in the UK spending 80 per cent of their energy costs on heating rooms and water in the home, then improving efficiency standards in new housing and improving the efficiency of our existing housing stock by retrofitting is crucially important. I did expand upon this in a previous debate, so I won’t rehearse those points. But whilst plans such as Arbed and Nest do contribute, certainly, to this task, they are relatively small contributions. Certainly, they don’t get anywhere near the scale of the challenge facing us and the level of investment required, if truth be told. That’s why, of course, as I explained earlier, there has been a commitment in the Plaid Cymru manifesto to invest billions of pounds over two decades to meet that challenge through a national infrastructure commission for Wales. That’s the level of ambition we need.

The motion refers to a fracking ban. I remember, in a previous stint as Plaid spokesperson on this subject, in a video message, saying that two things had to happen in order to achieve a real ban on fracking: first of all, that the power should be devolved to allow us to take that decision, and, secondly, that this Assembly desired that to happen. Well, those things are now in place, and despite a moratorium that wasn’t a moratorium—and I will say that whilst I have breath; I know that the Government disagrees, but it wasn’t a moratorium—it’s good to see the Government now moving, hopefully, in the direction of a real fracking ban.

Transport is another important area in the battle to reduce carbon emissions, and if there is one iconic case that will be a litmus test for this Government then it’s the decision on the black route for the M4. One of my fellow Members will expand on this in a few moments' time, but proceeding with the black route would mean more vehicles on the road and less likelihood that Wales will meet its climate change targets. We had confirmation just yesterday from the leader of the house that the vote will be a binding vote. What many people on the Government backbenches want to know, I assume, is whether that will be a free vote, or an un-whipped vote, because a decision by this Assembly not to proceed with the black route and to invest in alternative options would be a clear statement that we are entirely serious about Wales’s role in tackling emissions and climate change. And that’s also the message that would be sent by clause 6 of our motion, namely that the Welsh Government, the National Assembly for Wales and other public organisations in Wales would be part of the global movement to disinvest in fossil fuels. That would be a sign of the joint responsibility that we all have in tackling climate change.

And I will conclude for the time being just by making one final point. In the past, people have linked reducing carbon emissions with somehow having to limit growth and productivity—that it’s a barrier to the growth of business. Well, consider this statistic: in the period that Britain has reduced emissions by 40 per cent, productivity and growth have increased 70 per cent. That shows clearly that we can disengage growth from emissions. One doesn’t have to go hand in hand with the other anymore as it did in the past.

The OECD has stated that taking action on climate change will be a boost to economic growth, not only in avoiding the impacts of climate change, and there will be significant cost to those impacts, but also in investing in clean, efficient, innovative, new technologies, and if you think of the retrofitting of homes as one example: creating jobs and economic savings on the one hand; creating social benefits on the other by tackling fuel poverty; and creating clear environmental benefits by reducing emissions. Innovation and technology will assist us in going further and further in years to come as new developments hasten that process.

Therefore, whilst climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity today, a challenge that brings serious threats, in order not to finish on too negative a note, we do have to bear in mind that tackling climate change brings opportunity too, not just the clear environmental opportunities, but also economic and social opportunities too. But what this motion questions, if truth be told, is: to what extent are we willing to face that challenge and to what extent are we willing to grasp those opportunities? The message is clear from the IPCC. We are not passing that test at the moment. Wales has to raise its game or it’s our children who will pay the price.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move formally amendments 1 and 4, tabled in the name of Julie James?

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 2, tabled in his own name.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. My amendment is very simple. This Assembly for Wales:

'Opposes the use of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.'

I put the amendment forward because I wanted to give every Member of this Assembly a vote for or against nuclear power. I also want the public to be able to hold each one of us for account on nuclear power. I've always been anti-nuclear, but the Hinkley nuclear mud campaign has made me into an anti-nuclear activist now.

With my sovereignist hat on, I would say that Wylfa B is unaffordable for a future sovereign Wales. I was pleased last week to welcome Japan Friends of the Earth here, and I was lucky enough to meet and speak to a person from Fukushima. They could not understand why Wales is accepting nuclear energy technology from Hitachi in Japan. They spoke of the mass evacuation from Fukushima on the day of the accident, and pointed out that it would be impossible for 80,000 people to be evacuated from Ynys Môn with just two bridges. So, the question is: if Wylfa B goes ahead, what would be the evacuation plan if the unthinkable happened? The reality is there could be no evacuation for most people.

On television on Monday night, one of the candidates to be Labour leader admitted that there would be a risk with developing a new nuclear power station on Anglesey. But he said that we shouldn't talk about that risk when, actually, we really need to. The waste from nuclear power also poses huge problems for our future generations, and nuclear power also poses health risks at the present time. 

In 2003, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection commissioned research that found that people living within 5 km of German nuclear reactors suffered a 1.61 increased ratio for all cancers, and an increased ratio of 2.19 in leukaemia amongst all children. Now, Members here should be aware of the leukaemia cluster around Hinkley Point, with the evidence provided by Professor Barnham. Well, in Germany, the Government shut down eight nuclear reactors and are phasing out all nuclear reactors by 2022. 

Nuclear is not environmentally friendly. There is a much higher carbon cost than for renewables, but the cost is front-loaded. In addition, the Oxford Research Group predicts that by 2050, each nuclear power station will generate as much carbon as gas-powered stations, as the grade of available uranium ore decreases. Now, we have great natural resources in Wales: wind, water, a coastline. Nuclear power is a distraction from what we should be doing, and that is developing renewable energy. The sovereign Parliament of Iceland legislated to use their natural resources to produce energy. And a future sovereign Welsh parliament could do the same. Wales could be fully sustainable with renewable energy, and it’s the people of Wales who should decide energy policy in this country.

To go back to the main point, my amendment states that this Assembly for Wales:

'Opposes the use of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.'

What do you think?

Thank you. Can I call on David Melding to move this amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I do move amendment 3 in the name of Darren Millar. And can I thank Plaid Cymru, and Llyr Gruffydd in particular, for tabling today’s motion? I think it is a very important debate, and we’ve heard, in fairness, two very passionate contributions. And it’s hardly surprising, given the challenges that we now know we face from indisputable scientific evidence. The UK Committee on Climate Change has observed that progress remains a long way short of the Welsh Government’s existing targets to reduce emission levels to 40 per cent below their 1990 level by 2020. And, there are reasons for this; it’s not something we can just beat the Government with, and Wales has a heavy burden from its former industrial past, and we still have a very high share of the heavy industry that remains in the United Kingdom. But this isn’t a get-out-of-jail card or free pass either. So, I think we need to ensure that this debate brings a bit of energy, if I can use that word, and doesn’t just become lacklustre, but we come and present our own alternatives where we think the Government is falling short, and that’s what I intend to do this afternoon.

There is much in the Plaid motion that I could agree with. Points 1 to 4 cause me no difficulty, but I don’t agree with everything that’s in point 5. I’m sure this doesn’t surprise you, hence our amendment. If I can just look at some specifics, on the M4, I think we do need to wait for the inquiry report on what route should be chosen, if we do want a massive road scheme there. And, this is quite rightly a contestable area, and we should have a very thorough debate on this. But it might be justified, and we certainly need to hold an open mind on it.

In terms of nuclear, this is obviously Neil’s amendment rather than Plaid’s motion. We don’t believe you can just say nuclear is not part of the mix. We think it is, because it’s needed particularly in its back-up role for sustainable renewable sources to be there, because they do fluctuate and we need that sort of constant back-up for 20 per cent or so, in the foreseeable future, anyway, until we get a better means of delivering that. So, for that reason, we do not support your amendment.

Then, on fracking, we acknowledge that there are justified scientific and technical concerns that clearly would need to be addressed before any scheme could go ahead. I have to say there is some danger of us being deflected from the drive to renewables by seeing cleaner fossil fuels. That again has to be faced—it's a real challenge—but I wouldn't remove it entirely from the mix. Some of you may have attended Swansea University's meeting, held here in the Senedd last month, which did look at waterless fracking and its benefits, and, indeed, I think Helen Mary Jones sponsored that event, though more in a previous role, if I can be discreet in describing it as such. So, let's just not say absolutely 'no'. Let's act on the evidence. That's what we're urging people to do, surely, in terms of climate change.

So, we would argue for a broad range of measures to rapidly reduce our carbon footprint, and some of the things we've emphasised we've packaged in our strategy for urban renewal, 'Liveable Cities', and, indeed, that constitutes the bulk of our amendment 3, because we do believe we need to make very rapid progress. We've heard that we've had global warming so far of one degree, and that if we do nothing we're going to have warming of over three degrees. As Martin Wolf says in today's Financial Times—and it is something when some of the best journalism is from the leading business paper—he just says: what will our descendants think? Well, they're likely to think along the lines of what we think about our ancestors who calmly sat back and did nothing about slavery. It will be seen in that sort of moral dimension, so we really have to get a move on and act quickly.

One of the things that we would like to see is Cardiff becoming the first city in the UK to be carbon neutral. A variety of European cities are pushing for this, and some hope to achieve it as early as 2025. So that's one specific. We would increase—

Would you take an intervention?

If I have time. I realise the Deputy Presiding Officer is much more indulgent than I ever was in these matters.

Yes, go on. Very quickly. [Laughter.] That makes sure that you will now.

You've made a great case for renewable energy, so do you therefore regret the removal of the feed-in tariff that the Conservatives brought in when they first took office?

What I note is that renewable energy is now becoming the market preference, and that is absolutely what we should be aiming for, and that is what these incentives were made to achieve.

I was going to finish with the point that we need more woodland and forests, including a strategy for 20 per cent urban canopy cover, and active travel, again, has to be a key element—active travel involving us all individually. That's a big part of the commitment. But despite not being able to fully support Plaid's motion, I do think that the push behind it for a powerful political consensus in Wales to help us radically reduce climate change is most welcome.

I think one of the biggest problems around the M4 relief road is how the Welsh Government can possibly square it with its ambition to achieve 43 per cent reduction in vehicle carbon emissions by 2030. If it goes ahead with the M4 relief road it would increase the number of vehicles by something like 42,000 vehicles a day. So, I do not understand how we could possibly achieve our climate change obligations and our targets in that respect if we were to go ahead with the M4 relief road. It might temporarily reduce congestion around Newport once it was built—they'd have to put up with an awful lot of congestion in the meanwhile—but it would massively increase the congestion in both Cardiff and further down the M4. I don't see how anyone can justify increasing congestion in Cardiff when we already have nine schools and several unnamed nurseries with illegal levels of air pollution, and we all know that there are very considerable health indications that are not good, particularly for young lungs. So, I very much feel that the M4 relief road, which was first mooted in 1991, is a twentieth-century solution that simply does not fit with the twenty-first century problems that we now face. It was mooted at a time when we were simply not as aware as we now are of the very serious and rapid change in our climate, and so I think we have to think again on that one.

I won't be supporting amendment 2. Nuclear policy is not devolved, so it doesn't hugely matter what the Assembly's position on it is, because this is decided by the UK Government. I, clearly, think that we should be using—. I disagree with David Melding on this, that we should be using nuclear as a back-up for renewables. I feel that gas ought to be playing that role, as a back-up, and I'm somewhat disturbed that gas is being burnt at the levels it is being burnt, because it is, obviously, a finite resource, and we should be using it more judiciously than we are at the moment. 

I pay a lot of regard to amendment 3. I think that there's a huge amount of attraction in the proposals that have been drafted by David Melding, and David Melding's ambition for our capital city as the first carbon-neutral capital city in the UK. The idea of installing air pollution monitors in all our schools and nurseries is one that I feel that the Welsh Government should be reaching out to and embracing.

I, absolutely, am committed to the idea of a 20 per cent urban tree canopy by 2030, because, obviously, that is one of the ways in which we can tackle the dreadful air pollution we've got. And, clearly, we should be incentivising people to put green roofs in any new construction or any new development, or any replacement roof. But, in order not to make the chief whip anxious, I'm afraid I won't be able to support amendment 3. But I, nevertheless, feel that we, collectively, ought to be reaching out to the excellent ideas that David Melding has proposed.

I think amendment 4 obviously indicates a lot of potential ideas, but these are ideas we should have been getting on with for some time now. The fact that we still only have the Part L revision of the building regulations in consultation, and people are continuing to build all these homes that are not connected with public transport, do not have active travel paths built into them, do not even have bus routes built into them. The Lisvane development and the old Llanedeyrn development on the edge of my constituency are cases in point, where it's going to massively increase the amount of congestion in my constituency. And, at the same time, we have Cardiff council considering closing alleyways, which are excellent places for people to cycle and walk, away from very busy, congested roads. This seems to be entirely the wrong direction of travel.

So, I would like to see some really chunky proposals for dealing with the congestion around Newport through much better public transport, and those are the sorts of things I want to see from our Government.

There are several paths that I could pursue this afternoon. The comments that Llyr Gruffydd made about the economic opportunities that would come from developing green industries and investing in retrofitting energy saving equipment in homes, and so on, is something that appeals to me, and is something that I spoke about when I had the economic role in the previous Assembly, but what I want to focus on, if I may, is transport specifically.

The climate change committee at the Assembly said recently that the Welsh Government faces a specific challenge here that stems from a number of major emitters of carbon dioxide in Wales. According to the committee: 

'There is therefore a need to maximise the impact of interventions to reduce emissions in other areas, such as transport'.

And it also mentions housing. That is, getting to grips with transport emissions is something that we can do here in the devolved world that we have, so we need to ensure that we push this to the maximum in terms of the potential that we have before us. Transport in 2014 accounted for 12.77 per cent of the total emissions in Wales, but over 21 per cent of the emissions within devolved competence. That is, the things that we can do something about, and transport is one of those things.

A report from the Institute of Welsh Affairs on decarbonisation of transport in Wales states that Wales is more dependent on the car than any other nation or region in the United Kingdom. That states clearly that we do have to do something about this and we do have to seek that modal change. We do talk a lot about it, but we are not making enough progress on it in terms of getting to grips with the problem that we are trying to tackle—in the most fundamental way, getting people out of their cars and onto their bikes or on foot. We have an active travel Act, but we’re not seeing the investment going in to support that legislation that we should be seeing. We see that around £10 per head per year is spent by the Welsh Government on active transport, whereas the Assembly’s economy committee has recommended expenditure between £17 and £20 per annum. Yes, people need to be persuaded to change their own culture in terms of the way that they travel from A to B, but let us give them that nudge through investing in infrastructure that makes that so much easier. We only have to look at the new Nextbike system in Cardiff. There’s been investment that’s gone into that and people are using those bikes, and I’m one of them. There is a sense here in Cardiff that there is a genuine feeling of change towards active travel and this needs to happen across Wales, not just in our capital city.

And we do have to move people onto the buses. The same report that I referred to earlier by the Institute of Wales Affairs states that bus services in Wales have been in significant decline over the long term. We do have to overturn that trend. We know where we need to invest in the railways. It’s of course a great disappointment that the UK Government hasn't invested and has only invested in electrification in the south. It’s appalling that electrification in the north isn’t on the agenda at all. We should be talking seriously, all of us, as we are doing in Plaid Cymru, about making that rail connection along the west of Wales—not just from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth, but from Aberystwyth through to Bangor. Yes, we need to open the railway across Anglesey. These projects are all there, we just need the ambition to pursue them. We were talking about this in questions earlier on: if you consider the £100 billion that’s being spent on HS2 in England, just imagine what we could do with a very small proportion of that total.

I’ll refer quickly to the M4. We agree that it would be a waste and would actually attract people to use their cars more. That’s what the black route would do. Yes, we do need a solution for the south-east, but we need to be clever and smarter in the way that we tackle that puzzle around the Brynglas tunnels.

Briefly, the attributes you ascribe to the black route can also be applied to the blue route, which you support. Would you be willing to reconsider your position on that?

What I said—I haven't readdressed this since taking the brief back, but what I've said in the past, and I’ll say it again, is we need to look at other potential answers to that quandary that we have in the south-east, including possibly something based on the blue route. I'm not aligned to the blue route as the gospel for resolving the issue that we do have. What I want to see more than anything is a shift of people onto public transport, but I do recognise that there is an issue to do with roads, too.

And also let me just, if I can, in finishing, say that we have to admit that, especially in rural Wales, the car will always be very, very important for individuals and families. That’s why I spend so much time and put as much effort as I can into promoting electric vehicles. That’s why we won £2 million in funding through discussions on the budget to kick-start investment in a charging network throughout Wales. So let’s make that shift and invest in hydrogen, too. I guess I haven't got time to take an intervention—

No, not a second intervention when the clock is red. Sorry. You carry on.

I'm sorry, I would have.

Let's be creative and let's use all tools at our disposal to make sure that we do our bit in Wales to tackle climate change.

A simple answer to Neil McEvoy: nuclear fission, no, nuclear fusion, yes. And I think that I still support us making further progress on turning hydrogen via nuclear fusion into energy.

But I really fully support the fracking ban in Wales. We can take climate change seriously and attempt to stop the world’s temperature increase, or we can support fracking. We can't do both. Fracking: you drill down into the earth, a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside; you send water, sand and chemicals into the rock at high pressure, and you can either do it vertically or horizontally. 

In a world short of clean water, is fracking a good idea? In the US, the United States Environmental Protection Agency found a median of 14 chemicals for each sample it took. The most common were methanol, hydrochloric acid and hydro-treated light petroleum distillates. Water contamination has been one of the biggest environmental concerns, and where some of the most best known incidents have occurred. An investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2016 that, in some cases, fracking had harmed drinking water supplies. Is that a risk we are prepared to take? 

Earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing have been another big concern. While the two earthquakes in 2011 that led to the UK’s fracking moratorium were both ranked minor on the Richter scale, the US has experienced much stronger ones. Oklahoma experts have reported a thousand years’ worth of quakes in two years because of fracking there. Is this a risk we want to take with the people of Wales and with our country? They've got a situation in Rebecca Evans's constituency where people have been considering fracking in that area. My constituents, as well as hers, are very much opposed to fracking taking place there. And if I don't want it to take place in my constituency or near my constituency, I don't want it to take place at or near anybody else's.    

On the M4 black route, I am a convincible sceptic. Is it serendipity that where on the M4 there are lots of junction close together and two lanes, we have traffic jams? Why is there a traffic problem on the M4 around Newport? I was once told by a Welsh Government Minister—not the Minister who will be replying—that it was because a lot of vehicles were using the road. Whilst that simplistic statement is obviously correct, what we really need to know is where they are moving between, why they are using the M4, and whether there are other alternatives in both mode of travel and route that can be used. Why do people, like myself, travelling west of Neath, coming from the west midlands and from the north of England, go all the way down to the M4 and turn right, rather than going across the Heads of the Valleys road? Is it because our sat navs send us that way? That in itself is a problem. You could reduce the number of people using the M4 if you had alternative routes, and people aren't using alternative routes. These are questions that need answering.

On the blue route, it will not work. Traffic does not generally leave a motorway for a distributor road. What can be done to reduce traffic at key times on the M4 around Newport? Can improved signage of other routes help? Will creating a new road create more traffic? This is without looking at the environmental damage and the cost of building it. We've seen the M25, which was a brilliant idea and which was going to take all the traffic problems around the south-east of England and put a stop to them. Well, I'm not quite sure that's actually worked. I think the M25 is often described as a very large car park.  

The value of a road is calculated by the time saved that is considered to be productive. For many people, including myself, if I leave 10 minutes later in the morning and go home 10 minutes earlier at night, all it achieves is 10 minutes extra in bed and 10 minutes longer reading the newspaper or watching television. Both are very good for me as an individual, but I'm not sure that either are productive for our economy.  

My view on retrofitting housing I went through in great detail. I think, really, strengthening building regulations to achieve the objective of near-zero-energy buildings. As I said in great detail earlier, most houses that people will be living in in 2050 are built now. In some areas, there will be more people in nineteenth century housing than twenty-first century houses, so we've got to retrofit. A report published by the Technology Strategy Board looked at the results of the Retrofit for the Future competition, which was co-ordinated by the board and facilitated the retrofit of more than 100 houses across the UK. The aim was to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for each property involved in the programme, and to promote collaboration between housing providers, designers, contractors and researchers, while at the same time helping to stimulate new business opportunities to retrofit the market.

I think we really do need to have a co-ordinated approach, and one of the most important things is whether we can cut down on carbon emissions, and that means we have to travel less by car, and we also have to have housing that gives out zero carbon or very close to zero carbon. 

Nobody has spoken today about the costs implied for ordinary people of the measures that will be necessary to attempt to reach the targets that are implied in the IPCC report. We know that, in 2015-16, environmental levies, as part of the Government's anti-climate change policies, amounted to nearly £5 billion, and, for 2017-18, that rose as high as £11 billion, and this is forecast to rise to nearly £14 billion by 2022, which will add over £200 a year to the average power bill. This will impact, of course, most heavily upon those who are most vulnerable—the poor, those who are on low incomes. So, we have to be really sure that what we're doing in going down this road is going to produce the results that are required, and that's what I want to take on first of all, because this report is predicated on the assumption that we can succeed in reducing the likely increases in temperature to 1.5 degrees and that the way of achieving that is by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But if we look at the evidence of observations in the last 100 years, we can see that there's no obvious connection between rises in carbon dioxide levels and what's happening in the atmosphere on temperature.

Between 1850 and 2010, the average global temperature, as far as we can measure it, has increased by 0.8 of a degree centigrade, and if we look at various periods in the last 100 years, we'll see that there isn't any correlation at all between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. Between 1900 and 1940, the temperature globally rose rapidly, but there was only a modest rise in carbon dioxide. Then, from 1940 to 1970, the temperature actually dropped slightly, but there was a strong growth of carbon dioxide. Between 1970 and 1990, temperature and carbon dioxide rose strongly together. And between 1995 and 2015, the temperature has plateaued, and yet there's been record carbon dioxide growth. Nobody has been able to explain the pause. And the reason they can't explain it is that all the climate models on which this report is based are just that: they're models based on speculation about past temperatures and also on speculation about what might happen in the future in certain circumstances on the basis of inadequate information, information we couldn't in any event accumulate. 

The data itself is unreliable, first of all for the very obvious reason that 71 per cent of the planet's surface is water, where there are no temperature measurement facilities, and then much of the land surface as well is inaccessible. We've only had reliable satellite data since 1978—

Will you take an intervention?

Well—yes, all right.

I just feel that I have to intervene because you break the last century up into 10-year, 15-year blocks. Isn't is clear that what's happening here is a trend that has been quite clear for the past 50 or 60 years? And you talk about the oceans: ocean warming is a central part of the evidence that we are seeing, proving that climate change is happening and that it's having a disastrous and detrimental effect on the world around us.

No, I fundamentally disagree with that. I'm just actually reading you figures from the climatic research institute, which is not a collection of global warming sceptics; in fact, they're quite the opposite. So, the data that I'm quoting at you is from those who support your viewpoint, but there is no obvious correlation in the figures between what's happening in the atmosphere on carbon dioxide and what's happening in global temperature as far as we can—. We don't understand, actually, the full impact of the oceans, which are three quarters of the world's surface, on the climate. We don't understand fully the impact of the sun, which is actually where all warming comes from, and there's a great deal that we don't understand. The first principle of science is to understand your own limitations and what you don't know rather than what you do.

Jenny Rathbone started her speech by talking of carbon dioxide in effect as a pollutant. But of course carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it's not like other gases, like sulphur dioxide. Of course, we all want to see clean air, but carbon dioxide is essential for the growth of plants. So, as a result of the increases that we've seen in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent years, there is a very substantial part of the planet that previously couldn't grow crops that is now capable of growing crops. We're actually seeing a greening of the planet. Water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere: 95 per cent of it, in fact. And so we don't really understand the full impact of that on possible—[Interruption.] I'm not sure that I've got time to give way a second time, I'm sorry, because, otherwise, I—

It's up to you. It's entirely up to you. If you want to, you can, but if you don't—no. That's fine. You can move on. 

The key point here is that man-made carbon dioxide is actually only 3 per cent of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, we're talking about infinitesimally small numbers here. The UK contributes 2 per cent of man-made carbon dioxide worldwide. That carbon dioxide itself contributes only 3 per cent of global carbon dioxide, which itself contributes only 5 per cent of the greenhouse gas effect. We're talking about minute fractions of 1 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, even if we were able to implement all the measures that are mentioned in the IPCC report, the chances of it having any measurable effect on temperature are vanishingly small. So, the principal message that I want to convey today is that even if there were to be the connection that is thought by those who take a different view between global temperature rises and carbon dioxide, the costs of achieving what you want to do are ruinous and actually the effects will be negligible. 

If we listen to the far-right climate change deniers, we will be failing future generations. There's absolutely no doubt about that. Climate change is the biggest threat facing this planet, and it's an absolute shocker that people are prepared to deny that.

Back in 2011, I produced ‘A Greenprint for the Valleys’. Now, this is a programme to regenerate our forgotten and let-down communities by ensuring that they have an economic future with co-operative work that can lead to sustainable outcomes. Had we implemented the proposals in the greenprint, then we would be so much closer to getting where we need to be in terms of a sustainable economy. And let's be clear here: properly dealing with climate change doesn't mean tinkering around the edges. That's not going to do anything. We've been doing that now for years. What we need is nothing short of a transformational change. We need to change the very basis of what our economy is for. It is not for the corporates or the elites or the global powers. It should be shaped in a way that delivers for people, and it should ensure that we protect and safeguard the planet on which we live, and we should live within our ecological means. But as Raymond Williams says in the opening of the greenprint, 

'An economic policy which would begin from real people in real places, and which would be designed to sustain their continuing life, requires a big shift in our thinking'.

In fact, it requires such a big shift in our thinking that we haven't managed to do it yet, but do it we must. We must have an economic plan that has sustainable development and not unsustainable growth at its centre, utilising Wales's abundant natural resources to transition to an economy that is no longer dependant on fossil fuels. 

So, what could we be doing to make a real difference? There are things that we can all do as individuals: we can fly less, we can eat less meat, we can ride our bikes more, but we need more societal and governmental action too. We could do so much more to incentivise renewable energy generation through small-scale co-operatives or social enterprises. The Institute of Welsh Affairs found that £4.6 billion of investment in renewable electricity generation, plus £1.2 billion in domestic energy efficiency, could create some 4,500 jobs during a 15-year investment period. We could do this through a national energy company, and we could also be looking at local authority pension funds as a source for such investment. Welsh local government pension funds are currently investing over £1 billion in climate-wrecking fossil fuels. This makes no sense and it has to stop.

I want to conclude my contribution this afternoon by flagging up the problems with fracking. The Welsh Government has the power to ban fracking in Wales, and it's Plaid Cymru's view that it should ban fracking as soon as possible. We heard just earlier this week of a seismic event with a magnitude of 0.4 on the Richter scale detected near Blackpool where Cuadrilla is fracking for gas in shale rock. I am yet to be convinced about other forms of fracking, because we have to move beyond our fossil fuel addiction. So, the precautionary principle should be upheld to prevent the risk that fracking would pose to Wales. And I very much hope that if nothing else, this Government will act to prevent fracking and not see the offer of jobs or bungs from the fracking companies as an excuse to allow it to go ahead. For too long, our desperation for jobs or funding has led us to accept less than desirable projects and this can't be allowed to happen with fracking. If we are serious about tackling climate change, and if we are to heed the warnings in the latest IPCC report that Llyr Gruffydd and others have referenced, then we have to change the way that we look at jobs and our economy so that we don't keep accepting short-term gain that risks longer term pain. 

I think it's clear that the planet is in peril, Dirprwy Lywydd, and the overwhelming opinion of science and scientists on these matters makes that clear. That's why the IPCC have said that climate change is happening earlier and more rapidly than expected and that we have 12 years left to halt this dangerous climate change and that Governments must take immediate, radical steps to prevent it. In that sort of context, I'm very pleased that Welsh Government has requested that the climate change committee reviews emissions in Wales to make sure that we're playing our part in limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, because the urgency of the situation demands that.

So, there is much that we can do as a Government, Dirprwy Lywydd, and that we can do as individuals and that organisations can do, and it's a challenge to all of us, isn't it? It isn't just a challenge to Welsh Government, it's a challenge to all Assembly Members, political parties and independents here today. For example, if we looked at agricultural support post Brexit, there are some difficult issues for political parties. We know that there's a need, in terms of land management and agricultural support, to put the environment at the forefront to a much greater extent than has happened hitherto, as we move forward, and that will create difficulties for political parties, I think, in terms of the lobbying that they receive and some of the constituencies that they represent. So, there will be a need for brave decisions as far as those matters are concerned.

Obviously, there are difficult decisions for Welsh Government, and one that I'd like to highlight, which has already been highlighted here today, is transport, because transport is a very significant part of the overall picture. We know that it's perfectly possible to have a much more integrated transport system than we have here in Wales because many other countries have managed that. Obviously, we won't get there overnight, but with the metro, for example, that's one example of how we can make important and significant progress, and hopefully do that within that 12-year timespan that the IPCC flag up. So, we could put more resource into the metro than is currently planned, and we could build it more quickly if, for example, we made a decision to put the resource that's currently earmarked for the M4 relief road into the metro system instead. I would very much support that. We saw the report by the commissioner for future generations making some extremely important points. We await the inquiry report, but we will have difficult decisions to make—all of us and Welsh Government—quite quickly on that very important matter. I think that will demonstrate how serious we are about taking bold, radical and effective steps to deal with the challenges of climate change. 

I would like to see active travel prioritised to a greater extent as a very important part of the cultural shift that we need to make around transport to get people walking and cycling more. I would like to see us make 20 mph the default speed limit right across Wales, with the ability for local authorities, then, to take forward traffic orders for 30 mph on those inner urban roads as an exception rather than the rule. That lends itself to more cycling and walking in those areas and would, again, be a part of that approach to integrated transport, and part of the cultural change that we need.

Also, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to agree that I think Cardiff, as our capital city, has a responsibility to set a really good example, as cities are doing elsewhere. I think Cardiff is on that journey. It has many more 20 mph areas now. It has a lot more cycling, and, indeed, walking. It has the bike scheme, and I know it is considering radical steps when it comes to reducing the number of vehicle journeys on the roads in Cardiff, and I hope very much that we'll see those radical steps in place before long. So, it's perfectly possible to meet these challenges, Dirprwy Lywydd, but it is a major challenge to Welsh Government, to all of us, to our local authorities, to our capital city, to every organisation and individual in our country.

There are days when I find politics fairly frustrating, and often, on those days, I wonder what I will do on the day when I am no longer sitting in this place, and I quite like the idea of teaching. I think today's debate and the motion before us would make a very good case study in what is wrong with the way we do politics, because I look at Plaid Cymru's motion and there's nothing in it I disagree with, and yet, this afternoon, I'll be voting against it, and I'll be condemned by the line of people on Twitter who have been lined up, which is presumably why Plaid Cymru have tabled this motion today, to try and trip us up. They'll condemn me for not doing what I believe to be the case. [Interruption.] Well, Llyr Huws Gruffydd says that's not the way they work; yesterday, Llyr—[Interruption.] Yesterday, I attended the rally on a second vote on the EU referendum. Now, along with many people in this Chamber, I signed up to the cross-party letter calling for a second referendum. This Assembly passed a motion a few weeks back where one of the options was a second referendum. Yesterday, there was a perfectly good rally with speakers from across all parties in favour of a second referendum. I stood there and I listened to the leader of Plaid Cymru make political points about how Labour AMs haven't supported a referendum, when we all stood there together, in common cause, to try and get progressive politics off the ground. And here we go—[Interruption.] Here we go—[Interruption.] Here we go again. And I find it really frustrating that we're spending time trying to trip each other up. So, Neil McEvoy is trying to trip up Plaid Cymru, presumably for when they let him back in, so he can put his marker down as being anti-nuclear. Plaid are trying to trip up—. Neil Hamilton, Duw a'n helpo—where do we start there? I was reading, Neil—listening to your arguments you've put many times—. I was reading that in 1984 you voted against banning leaded petrol, because you said there was no evidence it was harmful and there would be jobs lost in your constituency. And, you know, you've been consistently wrong. You were wrong on leaded petrol, you were wrong on apartheid, you're wrong on climate change, you're wrong on Europe. So, please—interesting as it is to have you here as a sort of Madame Tussauds figure to remind us of the ghastliness of some of the arguments of the past, there's no time for this today. This is serious stuff. I give a damn about this. This is serious stuff.

Will you take an intervention?

I won't, David. I just want to develop an argument. There is common cause across all parties here. This is an argument that—David Melding said future generations will not forgive us lightly for not acting seriously. Instead of tripping each other up and scoring political points—. Many of the points in the motion, as I say, I agree with, and I do hope that the new Welsh Government in the new year will take forward a number of them. But, on the M4, there's a good reason why I'm not going to be voting with the Plaid motion on the M4 this afternoon, even though I agree with it: because there is going to be a substantive vote on it. Like the leader of the house said yesterday, there will be a substantive vote before Christmas. There will be a vote on the budget. That is the time to nail our colours to the mast on the M4, and all you could do today, by making a symbolic gesture, which I'll be criticised for, no doubt, is—. There are delicate discussions going on, and what is the point in false martyrdom today, when actually there are serious battles to be fought? [Interruption.] No, Rhun, I'm not going to give way; I won't. There are serious battles to be fought, and matters of principle about the future of our country and giving meaning to this agenda. And that's what—[Interruption.] And that's what—[Interruption.] And that is what we should be focusing on, not trying to—[Interruption.] Rhun is determined to intervene, and therefore I shall give way.

Thank you for taking an intervention. In that classroom of yours that you describe, where you will be giving this lecture, will you be instructing or emphasising to those pupils that sticking with your principles is quite important, that if there is a vote in front of you that you agree with, you should, as a matter of principle, decide to vote for it?

I think—[Interruption.] The irony of that, given the debate within Plaid Cymru on nuclear, is not lost on me. But, let me say, what I would be saying to the classroom is that these things are not black and white, that you have to pick your moments and fight your battles. I'll take no lectures from Plaid Cymru on the record on climate change. I led the campaign to create an active travel Act. I set up the project in the IWA that is now doing ground-breaking work on setting out a map for renewable energy. Working across parties, I have been a key advocate here for the last two and a half years on the black route. So, I'll take no lectures from anybody on that side about sticking to principles. But there's a moment in politics when you strike and when you act. Now is not that moment. Now is the moment for others to pick each other's eyes out and score points, and I despair of it.    

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased Plaid Cymru have brought forward this debate, following the publication of the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change. I absolutely agree with Llyr Huws Gruffydd, in his opening remarks, that climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity.

Our environment Act requires Welsh Ministers to ensure that emissions in Wales are at least 80 per cent below the 1990 baseline by 2050. One of the Government's amendments recognises the challenges of decarbonisation, given our economic profile. Over the past two and a half years, our focus has been on establishing a regulatory and policy framework to meet our statutory commitment, based on significant stakeholder engagement and advice from our statutory advisers.

Our approach to climate change must be informed by scientific knowledge, so I welcome the IPCC report. It is the best assessment of all existing knowledge on the subject, critically assessing thousands of studies from across the world. I've written to the UK Government to approve a joint commission for advice from our statutory advisers, the UK Committee on Climate Change, on the implications of the evidence. The report will be published before the end of March next year.

In December, I will be asking the Assembly to agree the interim targets and first two carbon budgets for Wales. These are consistent with the advice from the UKCCC, and they will set the context for delivering the actions that we need to take as a Government. There is much cross-party consensus on this agenda and the actions that need to be taken, and this is encouraging for us as a society. I agree with much of the sentiment in the motion by Plaid Cymru. However, I cannot support the motion, as to do so would predetermine decisions, particularly around the M4 and petroleum extraction, which need to follow due process.

Decarbonising our power sector is particularly challenging, and we need a mix of generation sources and technologies to enable us to adapt. The Welsh Government believes that nuclear is a part of the mix in terms of generating significant low-carbon energy, and this is why we oppose amendment 2 from Neil McEvoy. However, since coming into this role, I've set an ambitious target of generating 70 per cent of Wales's energy consumption from renewable sources. Renewables generated enough electricity to meet 43 per cent of consumption in Wales in 2016, and indications are that this has risen further, to 48 per cent, in 2017. We also set targets around community and local ownership to ensure that we capture the benefits for Wales from the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

Our first low-carbon delivery plan, which will be published in March, will set out the actions, policies and proposals that we will be taking to reduce emissions and support low-carbon growth across a range of sectors, including transport, buildings and land use. We are already undertaking a range of actions in these areas, and therefore while I am encouraged that the Conservatives are thinking along similar lines, I cannot support their amendment 3, and would like to bring forward a Government amendment that recognises the significant actions to date.

We are already making good progress. For example, the emissions reduction targets I am proposing for Wales are more ambitious than our counterparts across the UK, and close to the maximum that is technically feasible for Wales. We've put decarbonisation at the front and centre of Welsh Government policy, including it as one of our six cross-cutting priorities in the national strategy. It's also a central pillar within our economic action plan for Wales. I've set out my ambition for a carbon neutral public sector in Wales. In support of this, we committed £28 million of zero-interest capital loans in 2017-18, adding to the £27 million in the previous two years. This investment will realise savings of £183 million for the public sector over the life of the installed technologies and also reduce carbon emissions by 820,000 tonnes.

In Welsh Government’s 'Taking Wales Forward', we make clear our opposition to fracking. And we now have the powers around fracking, and, over the summer, I held a public consultation on petroleum extraction in Wales, which set out not only a policy to oppose fracking, but also proposed that there should be no new petroleum licensing in Wales. We believe the further development of new petroleum sources runs counter to the ambitions identified in the well-being goals and our commitment to a low-carbon future. And, following the consultation, I will be making a statement by the end of this term confirming our position.

We’ve recently announced plans for a new £5 billion rail service, which will lead to a 25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions on the Wales and borders network, and plans to develop a new Wales transport strategy that can support an integrated, multimodal and low-carbon transport network across Wales.

Since 2011, we’ve invested more than £240 million in the Welsh Government Warm Homes programme, which includes Nest and Arbed, improving the energy efficiency of more than 45,000 homes, and agreed further investment of £104 million for the period 2017 to 2021. I’m reviewing Part L of building regulation standards to increase the required energy efficiency of new homes. Whilst one of the aims is to deliver as a minimum nearly zero energy—required by the EU directive—I will consider imposing more stringent standards to meet our ambitions.

The disinvestment debate can be a powerful way of engaging individuals, investment funds, and wider society on this issue. Fund managers need to think carefully about what they are investing in, in terms of integrity, risk of ongoing investment in fossil fuel sectors, and potentially missed opportunities from not investing in low-carbon sectors. The global direction is now very clear. It is crucial that we continue to drive momentum in this important area, and I would welcome all of your support in helping facilitate the changes required across Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate?

Well, diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm not sure whether I enjoyed or I hated that experience, actually; it veered from one emotion to the other, from the consensus that David Melding was talking about, to something very different from Lee Waters. But, there we are, such is life. I don't think this place is boring if these are the kinds of debates that we have, but there we are.

There are too many speakers for me to pick up on each of them, and I did overshoot slightly in my opening remarks in terms of time, but I would say that I agree with a lot of what Members here have said. I think that David Melding is perfectly right, actually, to say that people will look back at the way we are actually dealing with this in not a dissimilar way to how people consider slavery. You know, I'm constantly reminded by a certain friend of mine that, in years to come, people will never understand why we use clean water to flush our toilets. You know, that's the kind of thing that, in years to come, people will really question.

And, Rhun, thank you for your contribution as well. My father, actually, was on that very last journey the train made from Aberystwyth to Carmarthen, and I'm determined that he's going to be on the very first one that the new service provides, hopefully in the not too distant future. And the £100 billion on HS2 and what we could do with that—I mean, what is the Welsh word for 'mindblowing'? I was trying to think—really, but what we could be doing with our share of that.

I think I have to respond to some of Lee's comments, and I'm never sure, sometimes, whether he is serious or whether he's making mischief, but I'll take what he said. You said that there's a moment when you strike and there's a moment when you act. Well, there's a moment where we as an opposition party are expected to lay a motion before this Assembly as well. And this is it, you know—this is it. So, apologies if I've upset you—well, at least I feel I should apologise. Making it out to be some sort of big conspiracy to get at you maybe is a bit rich, I'd have to say, but there we are, that's it.

I will address a couple of the amendments in the very short time that I have left—or all the amendments in the very short time that I have left.

The first amendment from the Government—we won’t be supporting amendment 1 because it’s an attempt to rewrite some history. It’s a simple statement, noting the conclusions of one of this Assembly’s committees, namely that the Government is likely to miss its targets on carbon emissions by 2020. We don’t need to fear that. That is, if that is likely to be the case, well, we have to front up to it, if I can use that term. [Laughter.]

Now, in terms of the Conservative amendment, I would agree with much of its content, but, as has been anticipated, because you delete much of what we say we'd like to happen, we won’t be able to support it.

On the second amendment, I’m not opposed to the amendment, but Plaid Cymru is clear at a national level that we oppose new nuclear power stations and there are several valid reasons to do that, but I don’t think that this is necessarily the strongest reason. This isn’t the example—. We only need to look at how some prominent environmentalists such as Monbiot have been grappling with this question to recognise that there is no specific consensus on this issue. But certainly it is something that deserves consideration and broader discussion.

In terms of the final amendment, the Government’s amendment, which again would delete all of our suggestions, the aim of this motion is not to outline what is happening but to outline what more needs to be done.

Passing this amendment from the Labour Government would make it a rather self-congratulatory motion, just listing what the Welsh Government is currently doing, and that, of course, would be in stark contrast to the central message of the IPCC report. The question isn't, 'What are we currently doing?' The question is, 'What are we going to do to go over and above what's currently happening?' Because if we don't, if we carry on as we are, as the IPCC report tells us, we will fail on climate change, and the implications of that are clear to almost all of us. I have to say, after Neil Hamilton's contribution, I might be reassessing my assertion, which I made in my speech, that the biggest threat to mankind is climate change, because I'm just wondering now whether, actually, the biggest threat to mankind is those who are climate change deniers.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting until voting time.

We are now moving to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting. Right, okay.

We now move to vote on the motions to elect Members to committees for Plaid Cymru. So, I call for a vote on the motions tabled in the name of Elin Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 47, no abstentions, three against. Therefore, the motions are agreed.

We now move to vote for a motion to elect a Member to a committee by UKIP, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Elin Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 13, three abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, that motion is not agreed.

Can I ask you a question?

No, not while we're voting.

I need to. It's a very important question. Is my vote coming through, because it's not displayed on the screen?

Yes, it is. Sorry. Rest assured, I have made sure your vote is counted. All right, that's fine. That's a clarification. That's fine.

We now move to vote, then, on the Plaid Cymru debate on climate change, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 11, one abstention, 38 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, 28, 12 abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Neil McEvoy. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, one, eight abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be de-selected. And I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 10, four abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, 28, 12 abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion, 37, three abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

If Members are leaving the Chamber, can you do so quickly and quietly, please?

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Bethan Sayed to speak on a topic she has chosen—Bethan.

Thank you. I decided to bring this debate forward this week because I've been considering the wider question of the quality and plurality of the Welsh media since being elected in 2007. In 2017, I said to my party conference that, quite often, the problem in Wales wasn't fake news but no news. I said it because it reflected what I and many others perceived to be such a scarcity of media in Wales, particularly when it comes to politics and current affairs. The lack of a wider established media—with national news in Wales essentially being dominated by three organisations, with, let's be fair, variations of quality and scale on occasion—means that there is a dangerous vacuum that could be filled by those with an agenda to mislead.

First, let's talk about the background to this. Of course, this first became a phenomenon in 2016, however, I would argue that this became an understandable and identifiable issue much further back. Fox News in the United States started deliberately misleading and presenting news that they called 'fair and balanced' in a way that is anything but a long time ago. In the year 2000, a constant campaign against Vice-President Gore of misinformation, including repeated claims, misleading ones, that he invented the internet, helped contribute to defeat.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, the channel lost all sense of balance or even the facade of impartiality in their coverage of that Iraq war, with one reporter declaring, 'Am I biased? You're damned right I am.' Here, of course, we're long used to tabloids and have become used to needing to take some stories with the proverbial grain of salt. We know, on occasion, that tabloids misrepresent and even outright resort to falsehoods and smears to further a political agenda.

What worries me, and should worry everybody, is the vacuum that is being filled online with sources. Many people simply do not know the veracity of the source, they have no idea what they're sharing is from an illegitimate, bot-like website and assume that what they are reading is the truth. I'd like to give you two poignant examples—one manipulation from the left and one from the right of politics. I chose both because I won't discriminate here. If the right makes mistakes or makes fake stories to fulfil an agenda, it's wrong, it's bad. And if the left do the same, it is likewise wrong. It is an attack on the truth and an attempt to confuse and mislead people.

This is a passage from what is claimed is former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, on immigration, and I quote:

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.'

This a hoax, of course, it's actually excerpts from an editorial by a US conservative congressman. The point of such a blatant hoax is to help legitimise views such as this by associating them with a world leader. These words, attributed to Gillard, were shared hundreds of thousands of times.

My second example is a photo, apparently of the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in 2017. The aim was to prevent a pipeline being built across Native American lands—I nearly said ‘naked’, then, but that would have been another story altogether—threatening their environment and water supplies. Some activists clearly decided that it would be good to inflate the size of the protests and accuse the media of covering them up. What they did was stand in an actual photograph of the Standing Rock protest with a photo of the Woodstock festival in 1969 in New York state—thousands of miles and 48 years out of place. Again, the rationale for the action is clear: how do we confuse people so that they don’t understand what the true nature of a particular moment in time is? Not just bend the truth, not just exaggerate, but lie. The bigger and more brass-necked the lie is, apparently, the further it seems to be able to travel. It’s a truly sorry state of affairs, not to mention a very worrying one.

There is a need for an escalated and more urgent public debate regarding this whole issue, and we must focus on some potential solutions. Firstly, we have to make room and help facilitate a renewal in local press and news. Hyperlocals, supported at first by Government, if necessary, can potentially provide an effective and trusted alternative, and help people back into a habit of recognising a trusted news source. We already know that local news is trusted far more than any other type of news, and social media news is trusted far less. Fifty-nine per cent of people surveyed for the 2018 Edelman trust barometer said they were unsure what they see in the media is true and about what isn’t, while nearly seven in 10 said they worry about fake news being used as a weapon. Only one in four British people trust news that they see on social media, whilst trust in local news is three times greater than Facebook.

As part of the budget deal with Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party, we came to an agreement to supply £200,000 in seed money to hyperlocals; an important first step. It’s part of having an honest discussion here in Wales, so lacking in a pluralistic media, about whether we see news and current affairs as crucial to our civic life. Do we see news and the media as just another commercial entity, or something vital to the health of our democracy and society? Do we dare to begin having a wider discussion on whether we begin to offer wider funding for journalism and independent media, particularly on a local level? This is something that’s done in other countries as a matter of discourse. It isn’t completely out of the realms of acceptability, and it may well need to be necessary.

We in Plaid Cymru have also called for a long time for the devolution of broadcasting powers and other regulatory mechanisms surrounding the media. If those powers were here, we could consider solutions right for the country where there is a lack of a competitive pluralistic news media environment. So, perhaps a charter to supply Welsh versions of newspapers, perhaps a closer step to a more competitive media environment. Hopefully, one day, we could get all broadcasters to stop placing items such as NHS stories from England at the top of their UK news agenda. It’s the kind of thing that I also class as misleading news, but in this country it seems to be accepted.

I believe this would start to fill the vacuum in Wales before fake news, on a Welsh level, was able to move in. However, in broader terms, there is a major global problem. The solutions to tackling it are not easy, even though we can be heartened by the knowledge that so many people do not necessarily believe what they see online. The challenge is also to alleviate confusion online so that more people can more clearly identify what is fake and what is real, what is objective and fair journalistic analysis and what is a hack piece written with an agenda behind it. It’s also crucial that we separate real journalists and decent political commentators from influencers who peddle a fantasy of lies.

The challenge was summed up in November last year, when the Daily Mail referenced a 10-day-old tweet, with no evidence, of a lorry crashing into pedestrians and gunshots around Oxford Circus in London. The resulting article, again with no evidence, was then referenced by the so-called Tommy Robinson, who tweeted,

How long before we find out that today’s attack in Oxford Circus was by a Muslim?

So, there is a need to ascertain who is genuine and a real influencer and/or a journalist and who is not. We also have to start really calling out the standards of tabloids’ news sources and those with a specific political allegiance. When there is a falsehood, it should be up to us as politicians, regardless of our position on the political spectrum, to call it out for the good of democracy. 

But there must be more robust procedures in place, using and promoting our existing watchdogs to do their jobs, and to be able to do it more effectively. We should be promoting those with good journalism degrees and industry accreditation. We should be using and promoting the Independent Press Standards Organisation as a wider standard bearer, and promoting it as a place to complain about misleading sources. This needs to be part of a wider education programme surrounding trusted and verifiable sites and news sources, encouraging the use of fact-checkers, broadening understanding, for example.

I would hope, too, that we can encourage the use and more consumption of news in general this way. I understand that we live in a time dominated by social media, but we're also in a time dominated in many respects by a vastly changing world. It would be good to use this opportunity to encourage even greater participation.

So, I've brought this debate here today because we need to keep the focus on what is a growing menace. We know that foreign actors are using these strategies to undermine elections and swing public debate. Even though most people don't necessarily believe what they read on Facebook or other social media networks, the stories being peddled, the memes, the comments from bots, are all part of a general environment of confusion and gaslighting, all designed to make us question the value of news and question what we believe, to force us to consider whether institutions we've trusted forever, our whole lives, are bringing us the skilled analysis and coverage. This is something that really, really worries me in that regard.

There is a final point to make. This also has to include politicians. This terrible phenomenon has become widespread, in part because politicians have helped to foster it. Some politicians have expertly and, at times, crudely, set large sections of the public against trusted journalists, and onto untrusted sources that share their agenda, whether it's Trump in the USA, Orbán in Hungary or President Duterte in the Philippines. Politicians and political systems have to recognise themselves when they are crossing the line into the bounds of misleading and lies, and check themselves for the good of our democracy.

To finish, I'd like to play a short clip now from my brother, Ciaran Jenkins, who is an investigative journalist for Channel 4. He's done various amounts of reporting on this in the Philippines and also in parts of Europe, where there are young boys who are actually making a living in poverty-stricken states to ensure that they can perpetuate the idea of fake news. So, I'd like to finish with that and to give us food for thought as to how we can stop fake news growing here in Wales.

Well, I call on the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport to reply to the debate—Dafydd Elis-Thomas—and perhaps to the film as well.

May I in the first instance thank Bethan Sayed for introducing such a philosophical topic, which gives me an opportunity to continue with the seminar, possibly? Because, clearly, as a Government, our powers in relation to the media are limited by the legislation surrounding devolution. I don't want to rehearse the issues over the devolution of broadcasting, but in my view the reason for not arguing for devolution of broadcasting is that we would then be talking about seeking control that would possibly be very limited or even fake control over one platform, whilst I think it's important to look—as we've been encouraged to do by Bethan Sayed in this debate—at the fundamental questions surrounding citizenship and participation, which relate to this whole question.

The media in any society are a means to have discourse and debate, and where that media is controlled by a minority of any kind—be that a powerful minority by virtue of the structure of the organisations controlling the media, or as in the example that we saw, towards the end there, of people who were involved with criminality by using and buying people to undermine opinions—then these trends are trends that, in my view, can only be dealt with practically by us as a Government by trying to undermine them. And that is by increasing the emphasis on constructive education on the media and in terms of social understanding of the nature of mass media.

Many years ago, I taught in this area, and I think that we have lost that fundamental emphasis very often, namely that we don't educate the population sufficiently on how to read the mass media. The emphasis is not in our schools or in our courses or perhaps even in places such as this place, where we discuss politics. Perhaps we don't discuss the fact that understanding relies on the ability of the individual and any specific group that one is part of to be able to analyse what is being said.

And therefore I have to say that I find it very difficult as a former part-time philosopher to respond to a debate where one can talk about 'the truth' or 'the reality' or 'the events', because as they were reported, as they occurred. Because, to me, every event is analysed and interpreted. Therefore, what we need to help to create is an active population that can analyse intellectually, that feel as soon they hear any statement, about any event, that the next question that should arise is: well, what really happened? Not that one can find the truth or identify the truth, because the person who is receiving the message wasn't involved in the event and wasn't witness to it in that sense, but that one actually develops an intellectual understanding and curiosity. I think that's central to this.

Therefore, what I will take from this debate is the need for us, as a Government—and this is an issue not just in terms of culture or the media, but particularly in terms of the curriculum and education—that we do seek to find out how we can use the new curriculum for Wales so that our children and young people will be citizens who have an understanding of ethics and can evaluate and use evidence and can become critical citizens, because the only truth in my view—and I’ve used that word myself now—but the only effective way, I should say, to respond to any fake news is by analysing what an event is and what is one’s understanding of that event.

The weakness of the term 'fake news' is that it suggests that there is such a thing as true news. All news is a description of an incident or an event, therefore we have to develop that understanding to see through what happened and to be critical in our understanding of it. Understanding democratic responsibilities and rights means that we have to understand that prejudice is commonplace in society, and that we must also be able to analyse our own prejudice. Did you want to intervene? 

I have a great deal of interest in what the Minister is saying. Accepting of course that there is such a thing as different versions of the truth, does he accept that in this case, of course, the difference is that people are deliberately manipulating the information and conveying information that they know isn’t true or genuine?

Yes, well, one could argue that much of the mass media has been doing that over many years. I don’t think that one can rely on analysing the motives of an individual, but one can analyse the motives of an institution and an organisation and the need to respond to that motive by creating a critical community.

So, we need to raise awareness that every message conveyed on any medium is a message that people, on receiving it, should question. I think that’s crucial to what I'm trying to develop.

Secondly, detailed training is required in the discipline of news gathering for citizens, particularly young citizens, so that people understand the nature of the process of generating news, creating the message, and conveying news, to understand what the meaning of the principles of dealing with information are and that that should be clear and should encourage a greater understanding.

I recall one story that perhaps I shouldn't repeat, but I do feel like repeating it this afternoon. I was part of a debate many years ago with someone who worked for a broadcasting corporation in Wales, and I was seeking to make the argument that there wasn’t enough Welsh news, and the response of the journalist to me was—and the discussion was in English:

'Don't you talk to me about news, boy. News is what comes down from London on the wire.'

Now then, we have to have a clearer understanding than that of the nature of generating news and analysing news; we must share the ability to be creative and critical among our young people; and then consider the question of whether we need to strengthen regulation. But, the priority that I will seek to take forward, following a previous discussion on the budget two years ago, is that we should seek a way of developing journalistic practice at a local level and at a hyperlocal level. And, I think the importance of expenditure on that and the importance of developing creativity through the new national curriculum are two ways by which we, as a Government, can have an influence here.

I don't have a great opinion of what the UK Government is doing in this area at the moment, where a review has been established, but we will follow developments there, of course, in case they do come up with anything constructive. But what I would like to see is whether the culture committee would be interested in returning to this particular point as part of its activities over the next few months so that we can continue with the discussion. Having said that, I am grateful to Bethan Sayed for placing an international emphasis, centrally, on our activities as an Assembly, because we are not just an Assembly for Wales, but an Assembly for Wales in the world.

Thank you very much. That brings today's proceedings to a close.