National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, and the first question is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. In line with our economic action plan, we remain committed to supporting small businesses through the Business Wales service, which of course offers bilingual advice and support to start and to grow businesses. And, in addition, we are providing help for small businesses to get ready for Brexit, with a dedicated £7.5 million Brexit business resilience package.

Thank you very much for that reply. It is Small Business Saturday this Saturday, and I encourage people in my own constituency to show their support for small businesses in Ynys Môn, and to their local high street this week, but also to make a commitment to do that year round, because small businesses and the high street are so crucially important in terms of the strength of our economy, but they are also socially crucial. Will you commit to implementing the recent recommendations—as we have seen in the report by the Federation of Small Businesses on the future of our towns and in similar reports—that pose a challenge to Government, if truth to be told, to bring a series of policies forward and to operate in a way that proves that the high street, and small businesses more generally, do deserve full priority?

Well, can I thank the Member for his question? I'd agree entirely that it's incumbent upon us all to use small businesses, particularly in the retail sector, in our town centres and on our high streets, as much of the time as we can, and not just at Christmas. But I would encourage people to take advantage of Small Business Saturday and, of course, to promote the day as well in advance.

Now, retail has become one of the four sectors that are part of our new focus on the foundational economy. This is a major step away from the traditional way of economic development work within Welsh Government, as we recognise that a place-based approach to economic development has great advantage for communities across the length and breadth of Wales. Now, there will be an enabling plan for the foundational economy produced in the new year and, of course, there will be recommendations that apply to all four elements of our prioritised work on the foundational economy, which includes care, and it also includes food and drink.

But, with regard to retail, there are specific recommendations, some of which have been captured by the FSB recently in their study, which we are paying close attention to. I think it's fair to say that the future of town centres and the future of high streets will rely on mixed-use, mixed-purpose premises, and also, potentially, a shrinking in many parts of Wales of the size of the high street and the town centre in order to create a vibrant feel. Crucial to all that is ensuring that we have the right opportunities in place for as many redundant shop buildings and as many premises above shops to be utilised for dwellings, because if we had more people living in town centres, there's far more likely to be a vibrant town centre in existence.

The Holyhead infrastructure prospectus, summarising opportunities for jobs, growth and investment on Anglesey, said that there's a need to complete the enabling projects detailed in the report prior to the private sector investment, otherwise opportunities cannot be maximised. Earlier this year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report on enterprise zones stated,

'In Anglesey, the Committee heard that there was a shortage of units for small businesses.'

In your response, you said you'd be seeking advice from the Development Bank of Wales on this. What further action have you been able to take since we debated this in July?

Well, I'm delighted to be able to announce that we have allocated funding for the creation of a new enterprise hub, which will be based at M-SParc. There will also be a spoke from that enterprise hub located in Llangefni. The Member is aware of the enterprise hub that's been operational now for approximately a year in Wrexham. That is aiming to create 100 new businesses, and progress is quite astonishing there. We're hoping that similar success will be recorded at the M-SParc enterprise hub and at the spoke in Llangefni. But there is no doubt that, whether it's for small or medium- or large-sized businesses, there is a great need and huge demand for new, modern space for businesses to start up in and to grow in, and that's why we're looking, as part of the regional work that's now taking place, again at a move away from sectors towards place-based regional economic development. We're looking at regional plans that can identify opportunities to bring redundant buildings back into use, and also opportunities to develop new space—not just office but also industrial and retail space—where there is obvious demand. 

I'm sure the Member will appreciate that the highway code is not devolved and it is, of course, still the responsibility of the UK Government. But my officials do meet regularly with the Department for Transport's officials on road safety and active travel matters, and they'll look to work with them on their review of the highway code.

The UK Government announced in October that it is going to review the highway code guidance on how road users should behave in relation to cyclists and pedestrians. And it's going to highlight the dangers of close passing and encourage people to adopt the Dutch reach—a method of opening a car door with the hand furthest from the handle, to force drivers to look over their shoulders for passing traffic. I think these are very welcome developments. So, what can the Welsh Government do to help highlight these guidelines, which I think would be easy to adopt, as long as people know about them and do follow them? And what can the Welsh Government do to raise awareness about these with people in Wales?

I think Julie Morgan raises a really important point. Although I consider myself something of a competent cyclist, one of the things that I worry about most when I'm cycling in an urban environment, or indeed when I'm running where there are no pavements, is the possibility that somebody will open a car door, particularly when I'm cycling. And this is something of a constant concern. Now, if I'm feeling that as a competent cyclist, I imagine that the concern is even more intense for a beginner. And, so, I have to say I'm very impressed by the number of responses to the consultation that is taking place. I believe that there are more than 14,000 responses to the consultation, which followed the call for evidence from the Department for Transport, and what is called the 'Dutch reach', I think, has been raised by a significant number of people. I'd be keen to see the Dutch reach approach adopted within the highway code, but I'm also keen to look at other areas to improve cyclists' safety on the roads, including, for example, Operation Snap that has been exercised by police forces in Wales. They were the first to pioneer a new approach to processing dashcam recordings of dangerous driving, which includes dangerous passing, and what it enables them to do, through management on an all-Wales basis, is to advise drivers when they are not driving safely and also to penalise them when they are proven to be driving unsafely or when they are not paying due attention, or due regard, to cyclists on the roads. 

So, I think the Dutch reach is another component, and another, if you like, weapon in our armoury in improving road safety, particularly for cyclists. And, given that we are soon to invest record sums in active travel, I think an intervention through the highway code of this form would complement our financial and investment interventions. 

There are concerns, Cabinet Secretary, that electric vehicles could cause more accidents on our roads due to being so quiet. Do you think there is a need for a revision in the highway code in this area?

I think there possibly is a need for revision, and I think manufacturers themselves are rightly looking at ways, because of the lack of sound, of course—and a lot of pedestrians, particularly pedestrians who will perhaps be using their phones, inappropriately it has to be said, because we should all pay due attention to what's happening around us when we're walking on the roadside—. Manufacturers are taking the issue seriously of the lack of noise emitted from electric vehicles, and, working through the Wales Automotive Forum, I'm keen to make sure that, as we see the number of electric vehicles rolled out on Welsh roads, they're rolled out in a way that ensures that passenger and pedestrian safety is maximised, and that includes, of course, cyclists. 

The Minister for culture is not here to answer the question that was expected to be asked at this point, so I will reorder them temporarily and ask Rhun ap Iorwerth to ask his question to the Cabinet Secretary. 

Diolch yn fawr.

I'm sure you don't need me to update you on the situation on the railways in Wales this morning, but I'll run through some of the latest problems of Transport for Wales lines: Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury trains cancelled again; Blaenau Ffestiniog to Llandudno, all trains replaced by a bus; Wrexham Central to Bidston, services affected; Swansea services to Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard disrupted; continued reduced services on Cardiff-Valleys lines, and so on. It's not acceptable. The first words on the statement on the front page of the Transport for Wales rail website today is, 'We apologise'. We still haven't heard that from Government. Would you like to take that opportunity now?

Well, TfW, as the managing and operator partner for Welsh Government, would like to apologise, but I think it also needs to be recognised that, in a very short space of time, Transport for Wales have worked incredibly hard to bring a number of trains back into use. Normally, we operate at about 80 per cent of the entire fleet. There are 127 trains in the fleet, so normally we'd be operating at around about 105, with the remaining trains in for servicing and maintenance. I can tell the Member that, as of this morning, the number was up to 96. We're therefore operating at around about 76 per cent. It will return to normal—back to the 80 per cent—within a few weeks, but I think it should also be noted that the cause of this problem—and I do appreciate passengers' patience during this difficult time—is that we inherited a fleet of trains that have been very poorly maintained, which we did not have full and proper access to ahead of inheriting them, and that, along with Storm Callum, and taking over the franchise in the autumn period, presented huge challenges for Transport for Wales and the operator and the delivery partner.

We're also looking into the reasons why this issue affected Wales—the Wales and borders network—more than other parts of the UK. What we have found, and I think I said this in the Chamber last week, is that none of the rolling stock—none of the trains—on our franchise are operating with wheel-slide protection. This is significant because trains across the rest of the UK have been operating with that protection. What we have now learnt is that, potentially, the problems were worsened in Wales because in the absence of wheel-slide protection and as a consequence of a decision taken in 2016—and this is across the UK—to stop applying sand to rails, it meant that the traction on Welsh rail lines has been worse this autumn. So, that's been another significant contributing factor.

I met this morning with Sir Peter Hendy, the chair of Network Rail, and I also met, again, for the third time, with the chief executive officer of Transport for Wales. I received the latest update on services, and, as I say, there have been improvements—significant improvements—in the space of a week, with more than 10 per cent of the trains now having been brought back into use, but this remains a very challenging period due to the dreadful underinvestment in our rail network over the past 15 years.

Thank you very much, and we've heard that explanation and we know that there are problems with the trains. Let me ask you this question, though: as a partner in the delivery of rail services in Wales, when Arriva Trains Wales was the franchise holder, did Welsh Government take its eye off the ball in terms of not gauging and not monitoring properly the state of rail in Wales, if it's as bad as you now say it is?

Can I just, again, for the purpose of clarity, outline that there were very few—? First of all, the standards of the delivery of the services were too low, because the contract that was agreed 15 years ago was not fit for purpose, and so, essentially, Arriva Trains Wales had a lower bar to get over. We had no levers at our disposal, no powers and no way of compelling Arriva Trains Wales to up the bar to improve the standard of service, and that includes maintenance. So, in particular in the period leading up to the transfer of the franchise, there was no commercial incentive for Arriva Trains Wales to invest in maintenance over and above what was essential through law. If I can put it this way, it’s a bit like when you buy a used car. You buy a used car knowing that the previous owner may not have maintained it as well as you would have liked them to. And so, what you do is inspect it, and you will factor into it the possibility of having to get new brakes or new tyres, but you inspect it.

The problem with the transfer of the franchise was that Transport for Wales were not given full and proper access to the entire fleet to be able to gauge the condition of it. However, what they did do was make sure that there were enough wheel sets in place. This is part and parcel of the problem right now. The wheel sets were flattened as a consequence of the lack of traction. So, they ordered a sufficient number of wheel sets, but it still takes time to take the trains off the rails and apply the new wheel sets to them.

You do provide these reasons, and I'm no rail engineer, so I can't question those details. What I can question though is: what monitoring, what scrutiny, was going on of what Arriva was doing when it was holding the franchise in Wales by Welsh Government? Will you be pursuing Arriva, for example, for the state of the trains as they were left to you as Transport for Wales? And, listen, I want Transport for Wales Rail to succeed. We all want a better rail service for Wales. But can you answer this question: were you ready for the transfer?

We were ready for the transfer as much as we could be ready. But I must press again the point that the contract that's been operating for the last 15 years was a dreadful contract, with a very low base and a very low bar for them to get over. We have improved the contract considerably this time around. Let me put it this way as well: had we not proceeded with the new franchise agreement, we would have had an extension to the Arriva Trains Wales agreement, so there wouldn't have been the commitment to £800 million of new rolling stock, of new trains; there wouldn't have been the commitment of £200 million to station improvements; we wouldn't be getting new trains in the next few years, and we wouldn't be seeing the Pacers removed next year; we wouldn't be seeing a huge increase in capacity in the coming years as well. Instead, what we would have had is that very low bar applied from the 2003 agreement.

Monitoring did take place, and Arriva Trains Wales, based on the performance matrix, was reaching an acceptable standard, but that standard, in our view, was too low. And I'm on record time and time again saying that that contract dating back to 2003 was not fit for purpose. And now we are seeing the consequences of it. But, equally—equally—through the plans that are put in place, Transport for Wales, the operator and development partner, are addressing them at incredible speed, working 24/7 to make sure that as many trains get back on the rails as possible.

The Minister for culture is now in the Chamber to answer the question by David Melding. I'm sure he will want to apologise to David Melding for being late in being here to answer the question. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. What is the Welsh Government doing to increase sport participation for children in deprived areas in Wales?

I'm very grateful for that question, and I do apologise that I was not here earlier. We are working with Sport Wales as our main agency to ensure that priority is given, both for areas of deprivation and also for age groups where there is a lack of engagement with physical activity. The issue of lack of engagement in physical activity applies throughout the age cycle, regrettably. Some 32 per cent of people in Wales are inactive, and what we are trying to do is work through, with the sports council, and indeed with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, to ensure that the national curriculum and the new development in the curriculum lead to a greater level of physical activity throughout life.

Can I thank the Minister for that answer? And can I also commend the work of Sport Wales, and the report that was published last week, which at least is looking at the right areas? But it did find that the levels of participation amongst the most deprived children were actually down on where they were last year, and the gap between them and children from wealthier areas—that gap has increased to 13 per cent. And, as we know, even moderate physical activity has been shown to improve a child's skill at maths, reading, improves their memory and well-being. So, these really are key areas. And I just wonder, in response to Sport Wales, what will you be doing, in particular working with local authorities, to ensure that over the next 18 months or so we can see a reversal in the fall in participation rates and a closing of that gap between those children from the most and the least affluent areas?

Thank you for that further question. This relates, of course, to the Government's more general approach towards issues of obesity and of healthy living. And we are looking to trying to establish within the school experience of young people an understanding that participation in physical activity and in the choice of sports activities in school is the foundation stone for a healthy lifestyle. We are now—. In our work with Sport Wales, we are now being enabled to receive more detailed responses to the effect of our policy, but I am fully aware, and have discussed this with the chief medical officer, that we have, in the younger age group, in primary school, a cohort where we must tackle this issue. But I will certainly report back to the Assembly when we have more information on this point.

I agree with you, Minister, that we need higher participation rates, but I am concerned about that gap that's affecting those from the most deprived communities in particular, and I do think it is an issue for all departments of Government under your direction and co-ordination to look at, because it does need a comprehensive approach—and you've already mentioned health education; it also affects local government and access to safe playing areas—and I just wonder if the Welsh Government might not follow its excellent practice, I think, with the Andrews report, in looking at a particular area—there, culture and heritage—from the point of view of how it can help reduce poverty levels. We do need, I think, to have this type of force to ensure that children that need the most encouragement in terms of their nurture and ability to do well at school through active play and participation in sport—that's the key measure into whether we're successful in our general approach to these issues in, obviously, trying to increase participation in sport for all.

We are, indeed, implementing the report on the impact of poverty on participation and the work of Baroness Andrews, and she is assisting us and supporting us in implementing that report, and I'm hopeful that we will have evidence that this implementation is going to be effective, which I will, of course, bring back to the Chamber. Thank you.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I was unable to question the First Minister in Plenary yesterday due to time restraints, so perhaps I can use this opportunity to question you along the same lines. Why is there a reluctance to disclose the cost of attracting Aston Martin Lagonda to Wales? 

Can I first of all thank the Member, and all opposition spokespeople, for more than two years of consistent and robust challenge? These are the last oral Assembly questions before a new Government is formed, and I know none of the three people who could determine my fate are here today. I imagine they would all remain poker-faced right now, but thank you for your questions and for offering such excellent challenge over the past two and a half years.

I can say to the Member that the reason that we have to maintain the confidence of investors is to ensure that we go on creating as many high-quality jobs as possible and we work with companies to reveal as much information as possible about the support that we're able to offer them, but often it's the case that, due to commercial confidentiality, we're not able to reveal every detail. 

Well, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that rather obscure answer. I, for one, will say that I hope you remain in your position after next week, but I'm sure that many in this house and further afield in Wales would say that it would be difficult to put a price on attracting such an iconic motor manufacturer to Wales. Perhaps I'd go as far as to say you would be justified in spending a king's ransom on such an acquisition. So, again, I ask: why this reluctance to give us the figures?

Again, it's because of the need to maintain investor confidence, and, if we weren't able to utilise non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality clauses, we would, potentially, lose out on investment opportunities, and it may well be that we wouldn't have been able to attract Aston Martin, who were—. Aston Martin carry incredible kudos, and, as a result of us being able to secure the new manufacturing facility in Wales with the DBX and the Lagondas, we've been able to further enhance our reputation as a global centre of excellence for the automotive industry, and that, in turn, during these very difficult times, is very important in order to maintain the best possible prospects for other facilities, for example, at Ford and at Toyota. So, we'll make no apologies for working as closely as possible with businesses in landing huge investment opportunities for Wales and in providing invaluable work for hundreds upon hundreds of skilled Welsh workers.

Well, Cabinet Secretary, I feel I may be echoing some of your sentiments there, but, Cabinet Secretary, is it not time to silence your critics and point out that bringing Aston Martin to Wales opens up the possibility of attracting other iconic names and high-profile companies to invest in Wales? These are the companies that can help bring long-term quality jobs and wealth to the country. Later today, we debate the Economic, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report on selling Wales to the world. What better way is there to reinforce Wales's credentials as an outward-looking progressive country than to have such a prestigious company locate here? So, will you take my advice, Cabinet Minister, which is, quite simply, publish and be damned?

Thank you. I will take that advice; I think it's absolutely essential that we promote Wales alongside key flag carriers of the economy. Aston Martin is an obvious one; we could include with that the likes of Airbus, we could include QinetiQ and Raytheon, and many other excellent businesses that showcase advanced manufacturing in the best possible way. There are other businesses in the creative industries and financial and professional services sectors, and many other sectors, that are exemplars around the world. And, equally, there are some incredible home-grown success stories alongside these; the likes of Admiral and Moneypenny really have attracted huge attention around the world and allow Wales to hold its head up high with pride. I would say to those people who have not welcomed the investment by Aston Martin in Wales that perhaps they should show more pride in the outcomes of this Welsh Government. They may not like the Welsh Government, but at least we land the jobs that keep people in employment.

Yes. Businesses in Wales are actively encouraged to take up the real living wage through our economic contract and the code of practice for ethical employment in supply chains.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Supporting the real living wage campaign will help tackle low pay, counter the growth of indebtedness and use of food banks and support of fair work economy. It makes economic sense and it's the hallmark of a caring, compassionate and fair society. So, how can the Welsh Government further support more employers in the private sector to become real living wage employers?

It is a fact that more equal countries are happier countries and more contented countries, and, within the workplace, where people are well paid, it's proven that productivity levels are higher. Now, I'm keen to look at the work of the Fair Work Commission, particularly in regard to the economic contract that is now in place. I am looking keenly at the work of the Fair Work Commission because it's my hope that they will recognise that, alongside the incorporation of the real living wage, there is also a role for businesses to deal with the gender pay gap in order to drive a greater degree of equality within the workplace. So, I'll be looking at the work of the Fair Work Commission with a view to implementing their recommendations through the economic contract. But I'm also keen to make sure that the code of practice that I mentioned in my answer is taken up by as many employees as possible, and the recommendations within that code of practice are executed by as many employers as possible, and that includes the utilisation of the living wage.

A number of councils in Wales at the moment place no requirement on the private companies with whom they contract to pay the so-called living wage, but then 15 of the 22 of those councils don't commit to pay their own employees the living wage either. Earlier this—. Well, actually, I suppose I can understand why—because of the local government settlement, they probably couldn't afford to, even if they wanted to. Earlier this month, the Living Wage Foundation said that they did want to see local authorities, as well as other sectors, commit to the real living wage. So, I wonder if you can tell us if you've had any conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for local government about whether there's a way for local government perhaps to lead on this, or are you speaking as well to private companies with whom Government doesn't contract but are big enough to include these social obligation clauses, so that they perhaps can do this?

Suzy Davies raises a really important point, and that is the role of the public sector in driving a greater degree of inclusive growth in our economy. I've spoken with colleagues right across Government about adopting the economic contract and extending it to other areas of service of Government activity, but also to the public sector, so it's my hope that, as we extend the economic contract, we include within it local authorities, potentially health boards, national sponsored bodies and arm's-length bodies, so that as many businesses as possible in the supply chain are able to gain opportunities from the public sector, where the public sector are paying the real living wage and, therefore, driving up salary levels. I think it's essential that the message we give to the private sector is matched by the message we give to the public sector. And so the application of the economic contract across the public and the private sectors is something that I think is highly desirable.

Of course, Cabinet Secretary, you have a great role in terms of what the public sector does. The airport that this Government bought five years ago is still paying people below the real living wage. We're talking about 100 or so security staff who have a great deal of responsibility if they are to do their job diligently. Are you embarrassed by the fact that these staff are not set to get the real living wage until April 2019—six years after the airport was bought by your Labour Government? And, can you guarantee that when this pay lift is belatedly brought in, Cardiff Airport will be certified by the Living Wage Foundation? Further to that, when will you be in a position to announce that all workers under the remit of this Assembly—those directly employed, those contracted out, those working for Assembly-sponsored public bodies—are earning the real living wage?

I'm not sure whether the Member took the time to write to the chair or chief executive of the airport regarding this matter, and I know that I offered Members as well an opportunity to meet with the chair and chief executive, and a number of Members behind me did just that. I think it's excellent that the airport is moving to become a real living wage employer by the start of the next financial year. I think it's an essential move to demonstrate that, again, right across the public and private sectors, we are trying to drive greater degrees of inclusive growth. I make no apologies for the incredible success of the airport. However, I think it's absolutely right that that success is shared more equally across the employment base at the airport, and so I'm delighted that it's moving to become a living wage employer.

Business Wales is working collaboratively with stakeholders, including the Development Bank of Wales and Social Business Wales to support businesses with succession planning.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We know that the economy of Wales is marked by having a small number of very large anchor firms and a very large number of micro firms, but a missing middle—too few medium-sized firms. And small firms that tend to grow often cash out and the ownership leaves Wales. We're now seeing in Llanelli the difference between a grounded local firm and a rootless global firm, and indeed, the difference that grounded local management can make. A decision by the German family firm Schaeffler to close its Llanelli factory is not a first. They tried to close it in the early 2000s, but then a strong local management, committed to the area, fought back and developed new products that saved the plant. This time, the local management were not rooted in the area, and we are now seeing the consequences, with 214 families this Christmas facing an uncertain future. So, would the Cabinet Secretary update us on how the Development Bank of Wales is planning to grow a base of medium-sized Welsh firms, and what steps can be taken to support the local workforce in Llanelli in the current circumstances?

Can I thank Lee Waters for his question? The company that the Member refers to was in contact with me today. I spoke to the plant manager and I'm keen to speak to the CEO in Germany. It's my belief that the Development Bank of Wales has a huge role to play in ensuring that as many of the, if you like, missing middle remain in Wales and in the hands of Welsh people—. I think there are many people who have said that we need to move to the German model of retaining particularly medium-sized enterprises in Welsh hands.

Whilst I'd urge Members not to make the mistake that de Tocqueville warned us of many, many years ago, which is that you shouldn't try to transplant a culture from one country to another, what we should do is look at the different behaviours and attitudes towards business ownership where, in the UK, I'm afraid there has been a cash-in-and-check-out attitude, once a business reaches a certain size, whereas in other European countries such as Germany, there is an attitude of long-term growth and long-term commitment within a family or within a co-operative. Whilst we can't transplant that attitude and that culture, what we can do is learn from the Germans and others how we can apply a greater degree of long-term planning and commitment to the businesses that people feel so passionately about when they're growing but which they then wish to depart from once they reach a certain size.

So, the Development Bank of Wales is going to be an important component in ensuring that as many businesses in Wales remain in Welsh hands as possible, and there is already—I'm pleased to say—a management succession fund, which amounts to £15 million. This is money that has been allocated to the bank by the Welsh Government, and the development bank are also currently seeking £10 million from Welsh pension funds to swell that particular investment pot.

But it has to be said that the development bank alone can't take responsibility for increasing the number of Welsh businesses that remain headquartered here; it's also for the Government itself, which is why one of the five calls to action within the new economic action plan concerns the headquartering of businesses in Wales. And it's also why Business Wales itself is promoting the fund and ensuring that as many businesses as possible and as many business leaders as possible are able to integrate business funding and support in order to identify and support succession deals—wherever and whenever they may apply.

If we make it harder for people in Wales to sell their businesses to people from outside Wales—or 'cash out', as I think it was referred to—isn't there a danger that that, in turn, would discourage people from building their businesses in Wales in the first place?

I'm not necessarily advocating that we make it harder for a business to be sold. My concern is the attitude towards business growth, which is very different here in the UK compared to economies such as Germany and Denmark, where there is an attitude amongst many business leaders and business owners that crosses generations, rather than simply crossing five-year plans. I think what's essential is that businesses are given the right financial support and the right management support in order to plan for succession. That's precisely what Business Wales and the development bank, between the two, are trying to do.

Well, we are introducing a range of improvements to services at Pontyclun, including a reduction in journey times, new four-car trains and an increase in Sunday service frequency. We continue to work with Transport for Wales to consider extending the metro, including to Pontyclun—subject, of course, to funding and a strong business case.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for meeting with me, with Huw Irranca-Davies, local Members of Parliament and the Rhondda Cynon Taf council leader, Andrew Morgan, to discuss those services from Pontyclun to Cardiff. And, of course, these impact very significantly on the public who wish to access public transport rather than taking to the road. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, the scale of housing development in Pencoed and in that part of Taff-Ely means that the demand for train services at Pontyclun is not only large, but is going to increase significantly.

The first key issue is that trains are only two carriages long, and I'd be grateful for your thoughts on how this could be addressed as part of the plan to replace rolling stock. Secondly, the frequency of trains is largely determined by the crossing at Pencoed, which is closed for up to 40 minutes every hour. A new overpass at Pencoed would mean that the crossing need not close, facilitating a significant increase in train frequency. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary would give his thoughts on the viability of these solutions.

Well, can I thank Mick Antoniw for his question and also thank him for the opportunity to speak with him directly regarding the two issues that he raised in his question? I'm pleased to say that during the conversation I had with Sir Peter Hendy, the chair of Network Rail, this morning, the Pencoed crossing featured quite heavily in our discussions, and we have committed to work together to find a solution to this particular issue, utilising not just Network Rail resource, but also the local transport fund, which I think will be crucial in finding a solution there.

Now, in terms of the capacity on the two-carriage trains, I'm really pleased to be able to tell the Member that, with the roll-out of four-car trains by the end of 2022—and let's remember these are going to be new trains—the number of seats available on the trains will rise from 120 to 204, increasing quite considerably the capacity on that particular service.

I join the Member for Pontypridd in highlighting the Pontyclun station as a real pressure point, especially with developments that have gone on in recent years—but developments we know will be happening in the future. Over the last week, I have literally been bombarded by constituents in that area who have had a particularly poor experience of the service that's on offer to them, with trains overshooting the platform, an inability for conductors to collect fares on the train itself, and when they get to Cardiff Central station, only one hatch open to make payments to progress their journeys. Now, part of these faults don't depend on the weather; they just depend on good management, Cabinet Secretary. We've heard the reasoning behind some of the problems that have been affecting the network more generally, but what confidence can you give me as an elected Member to go back to my constituents and say that these very basic levels of staff being at stations to monitor the arrival and departure of trains, and, in particular, serviced areas within the stations to make payments, will be staffed fully, so that people can have that positive experience, not just in 2022 but here in 2018? 

I'm pleased to be able to say that, as a consequence of the agreement that we reached with KeolisAmey, we're going to be increasing employment by 600. That's quite a significant figure. We're also going to be rolling out cashless ticketing machines at all stations across the Wales and borders franchise area, and we'll also further recognise the challenges faced at the moment with the particular station that the Member highlighted in his question. But, every single station will receive investment and will be upgraded as a consequence of the £200 million that we'll be investing in stations across Wales and borders routes.

Yes. I am delighted that we recently agreed the hundredth economic contract. It's only been in place for six months and this—[Inaudible.] 

The Office for National Statistics has reported that the average full-time female employee earns 8.6 per cent less than the average male employee. In light of Equal Pay Day 2018 on 10 November and the recent call by the Electoral Reform Society Cymru and groups such as the Women's Equality Network, Chwarae Teg, BAWSO, Llamau to close the political gender gap and publish diversity data, is there an opportunity to use the economic contract to help address the gender pay gap?

There is no doubt in my mind that many employers could adopt the economic contract and provide their employees with a better working environment and opportunities to progress through the workplace and up through various jobs and roles and earn more remuneration as a consequence. Now, the gender pay difference on an hourly full-time basis is 7.3 per cent in Wales and 8.6 per cent across the UK as a whole. Between 2011 and 2018, the gender pay difference in Wales decreased from 9.2 per cent to that 7.3 per cent—so, a welcome move in the right direction over the last seven years. However, I'm afraid that still more work needs to be done, and I think that the role of the Fair Work Commission will be crucial in this regard, in informing how we use the economic contract as the vehicle to drive responsible employer behaviours. Of course, equal pay for men and women is a responsible approach that businesses should adopt. 

Cabinet Secretary, how many businesses in Wales has the Welsh Government engaged with directly in relation to the new economic contract, and can I ask: how much does the Welsh Government intend to lend small and medium-sized enterprises as a direct result of the new economic contract?

Well, the Member will know from my evidence session at his committee just recently that the consolidated economy futures fund has been established. That's now in operation. We've awarded a significant number of businesses support. Those include small and micro-sized businesses. The new economic contract is being promoted first and foremost in the initial stages to businesses that are seeking financial support from Government. But, I'm able to say—and I'm delighted to be able to inform the Member—that we are hearing of a number of businesses that are not seeking financial support now applying and successfully signing the economic contract. That shows, I think, that Wales actually does have a huge number of businesses that act responsibly and want to drive inclusive growth as a priority for our country.

Yes. Storm Callum, autumn conditions and the poor quality of the rolling stock that we inherited from Arriva Trains Wales have impacted on Transport for Wales’s operational start. Transport for Wales has, as I have already said, implemented a recovery plan, and passengers are beginning to see the consequential service improvements, which will continue over the next few weeks.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I've listened carefully to the Government's statement on Transport for Wales and recognise the difficulties of the transition. Yesterday, the Leader of the House and Chief Whip indicated that Transport for Wales is looking to introduce something similar to Transport for London's Oyster card—something that I welcome. This sounds like a real win for commuters. What will the timetable be for introducing this system, and, more importantly, how is this going to be communicated with the public, and are there any quick wins that you can tell the public and this Chamber about?

Well, I'm pleased to be able to say that this is an objective of ours for the first five years before we get to the five-year point review. It's my view that the Oyster card in London has been a great success, but, of course, we're now able to use our bank cards on the London underground rather than having to buy an Oyster card; so, again demonstrating that technology has moved on still further. I'd like to be in a position by 2023 where the vast majority of people in Wales and on the English side of the Wales and borders franchise area are utilising cashless payment systems, so that it becomes more cost-effective and so that we can drive down the number of people who use our services without paying for tickets.

Yes. New rolling stock will be introduced to the rail line serving the communities of Torfaen from 2022. Once the new rolling stock is introduced, the number of services serving the communities of Torfaen will, I'm pleased to say, increase to two trains per hour.

Thank you, that is very encouraging. As I'm sure you're aware, there are major issues in terms of the frequency of trains calling, particularly in Pontypool, which causes major challenges for commuters who have to drive to Cwmbran to get a train from there. That's despite the fact that the regular Cardiff to Manchester service passes Pontypool by and goes on to Abergavenny. Will you discuss this with Transport for Wales and see what urgent changes can be made to prioritise more stops to Pontypool?

I will do exactly as the Member has requested. Of course, 2022 is some way off, and I recognise the need to provide improved services whenever and wherever possible in the shorter term, so I will endeavour to do just that for my friend and colleague's constituents.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Dai Lloyd.

The law in this matter is quite clear. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 requires applications for planning permission to be publicised by local planning authorities. They are required to maintain a public register of applications, and detailed guidance is contained in the development management manual.

Thank you very much for that response, but, certainly, every Member in this Chamber will have received complaints at some point or another from local residents because they weren’t aware of a planning application introduced to the local authority. By the time they do learn about it, then very often the decision has already been made. Usually, the local authority will have put a notice on a remote lamp post somewhere, and will consider this to be adequate in terms of public consultation. Quite simply, many feel that the legal requirements on local authorities to consult on planning applications are too weak. So, have you had any discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on this issue, and do you believe that additional legal provision is required in order to ensure that appropriate consultation happens, particularly with local residents, in line with the requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

Thank you to the Member for that further question. The legislative framework sets out the minimum requirements and responsibilities of local authorities to advertise. It has to be done close to the area and in a newspaper and, on top of that, flexibility is available for local authorities to expand the advertising that’s done for plans such as these. It’s a responsibility on them to ensure that the types of advertisements are suitable and, as I said earlier, to ensure that there is a public register maintained, so that the public can access and understand what the plans are. Of course, there is an opportunity for anyone who has a complaint in this area against a local authority for not reaching the statutory minimum, or for not ensuring specific or suitable measures—it is open to them, of course, to take up the issue with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and take their complaint through that official process. 

The Government recognises the importance of the legal sector in Wales, not least because a resilient and flourishing sector would underpin any new jurisdictional arrangements that may emerge from the work of the Commission on Justice in Wales. We are looking again at how best to support the sector, and that includes commissioning a piece of advisory work that would be potentially broad ranging. But it's clear that the opportunities and challenges posed by new technologies will play a part in that.

Thank you, Counsel General. I was very grateful to you for attending the round-table I organised recently with law schools and law firms looking at the impact of automation on the legal sector in Wales. It was clear from the discussion we had there were both opportunities and threats: opportunities for the firm, like we heard from Hoowla, who provide software to manage cases and automate work flow, which could certainly free up resources in firms, but also risks for the 30 or so small law firms in my constituency—the fact you can now get a will online for £19.99 clearly poses a significant problem to their business model.

It was striking from the discussion, I thought, that the level of awareness in the legal sector was quite low, and as Richard Susskind, the author, has pointed out, there is still a degree of denial amongst firms that this change is coming and the impact it will have on them. Therefore, the provision of skills and advice would seem to be crucial to allow law firms to adapt, because if they don't adapt, they will die.

I was pleased to be invited by the Member to the legal tech round-table a couple of weeks ago. It was an important opportunity to explore what is a very significant change in the legal professional services sector in Wales. I, myself, as I mentioned that morning, have met with a number of law firms across Wales since becoming Counsel General and I would say that wherever they are in Wales and whatever their practice area, and almost whatever their size, they recognise in a general sense the challenge and also the opportunity to deliver better added value services or more efficient services that technology presents. But there is also, as he in his question identifies, a very significant potential disruption to the business models that many firms, again with a range of sizes and a range of locations, have depended upon to sustain those firms. So, I would support the points he is making in his question, really the need for the sector generally to address this issue and to see not just the threat, but also the opportunity that increased digital technological innovation brings, be that more effective case management or, at the more ambitious end, artificial intelligence—the opportunities that those bring, not just for commercial clients, but also for clients accessing services that hitherto have been funded by legal aid. It's important that these advances are available to all people seeking legal advice and legal representation in Wales.

To date, I have made no representation on behalf of the Welsh Government regarding the legal obligation of local authorities in relation to regional education consortia.

I'm grateful for that answer. You will no doubt be aware that the leader of Neath Port Talbot council, Councillor Rob Jones, has stated that he has taken the decision to withhold paying £40,000 into the Education through Regional Working regional education consortia because he doesn't believe that his council is gaining value for money from the regional service. Now, I'm not going to enter into the merits of that point, but clearly ERW has faced some challenges over the past year or so. Legally, what is your view in terms of Councillor Jones's seemingly unilateral decision to withhold the funding? Is there a legal basis for that? Is it acceptable for council leaders to refuse to contribute to regional bodies? And isn't there a risk here to the Welsh Government's regional agenda, unless frameworks are clear in these types of situations?

I thank the Member for that question. As he will know, local authorities retain their statutory responsibilities and accountability for school performance, and the regional consortia don't change their principal statutory accountability in relation to that, and that underpins their relationships with other local authorities. Regional consortia are, at the end of the day, if you like, joint ventures between local authorities. They're established under the section 102 joint committees and where there are concerns, as some councils may have in relation to consortia, then those concerns are ones that they can bring to bear in their relationships with other local authorities within the particular consortium.

I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education's view is, as I think his question assumes, that there have been considerable gains in the regional model of working and that that represents the best way forward for authorities across Wales. Clearly, as his question identifies, there have been some concerns in relation to some consortia. That has been the subject of Estyn inspection and, across the board, there's been significant improvement. I know that the Cabinet Secretary has made clear her expectations of the management of consortia that, as much as possible, they should lower the spend on administration and focus their spending plans on a school-focused approach, wherever that is possible.

We have drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Justice a number of technical issues that could prevent or deter people from using the Legal Aid Agency’s online system. But the wider problem here is, of course, the hugely detrimental effect on access to justice of the UK Government’s cuts to legal aid.

I thank you for that answer, Counsel General. I ask the question because I've read some very concerning reports detailing how glitches within the system are forcing victims of domestic abuse to attend court on their own. Essentially, the Legal Aid Agency’s client and cost management system is crashing, so solicitors are unable to complete the necessary paperwork to attend hearings alongside their clients. And we do already know that savage cuts to legal aid are one of the many ways that austerity has disproportionately hit women. We know that hundreds of thousands of people are no longer eligible for legal aid, including victims of domestic abuse, who cannot secure injunctions to protect themselves from harm because they can't afford to pay the contributions. So, I will ask, if you haven't already done so, that you make urgent representations to the Ministry of Justice and that they act to fix this issue on behalf of the victims that they and their system are badly letting down.

Well, can I associate myself with the comments the Member makes in her question? We have been making representations to the Ministry of Justice in relation to this point in particular. She will want to know that the data that the Ministry of Justice has made available indicates a dramatic fall in legal aid provision in Wales, with 2,440 fewer civil representations in the last year than in 2011-12—2,440. The fall is particularly pronounced in private family proceedings, which she touches on in her question.

I'm aware of the article that she refers to, and it's part of a pattern of failure in relation to the legal aid online system, which we have identified and communicated to the Ministry of Justice. This includes the system sometimes failing to recognise answers, providing error messages routinely, not providing a full Welsh language service, and perhaps most worryingly of all, it's possible, when looking through a computer history, to spot on the user's page when they have been on the legal aid website, seeking services there, which, for victims of domestic abuse using a shared computer, as she will recognise, could have profound consequences, and let the perpetrator of abuse have advanced warning of the potential for intended legal action.

So, these are significant failings. No-one is suggesting that the online system has no role to play here—she will have heard from my answer to Lee Waters earlier that I think there is significant potential, generally—but it cannot be the case where the UK Government's making deep cuts to legal aid, but it cannot provide a system that is reliable, dependable and secures the privacy and safety of those who are using it.

The case raises an important question about the ability, or otherwise, to revoke article 50, which should be answered, to ensure that a fully informed decision can be taken on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on the future relationship reached between the UK Government and the European Union, or in the catastrophic case of a 'no deal' outcome.

Thank you for your answer, Counsel General. As you may be aware, the case was actually heard in the European Court of Justice this week, and we are now awaiting the decision by the ECJ. Have you yet made arrangements with your colleagues in the other nations to have a discussion on the outcome of that case, because, as you highlighted, it does put the legal position on the possibility of revocation of article 50? And considering the mess we're currently in with the UK Government, and the chaos that might ensue in two weeks' time, when it's likely that the vote will be such that they will not get this deal through, will you therefore meet with your colleagues, to look at what possibilities would be existing to extend or revoke article 50 if it comes in favour, so that we can actually keep on negotiating, so that we get a deal that suits Wales and not that suits Theresa May?

Well, the Member is correct—the European Court of Justice heard this reference yesterday morning, in a four-hour hearing, with all 28 justices hearing the matter. It's obviously a very significant point. As it happens, the UK Government's position in that litigation is that this is a hypothetical, because they have no intention of revoking it, and counsel for the EU made the representation that the article 50 process could not be revoked without the agreement of the other 27 members.

He asks about discussions between Governments. As he will appreciate, there is a continuing discussion around the implications of all the legal developments at the moment. I would say that the UK Government would have to think very carefully before taking the step of revoking article 50. The Welsh Government's position has been, and remains, that the focus should be on the form rather than the fact of Brexit. But as we approach what is an incredibly uncertain parliamentary process, and the opportunity in this Chamber of debating and expressing a view on the negotiations and the agreement reached to date, it seems to me important to have as much clarity, and as many fixed points, in that discussion. And therefore I welcome the opportunity for this point to be clarified by the court of justice.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item, therefore, is the topical questions. The first question is to be asked to the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, and the question is from Dai Lloyd.

The Welsh Government supports the proposal to establish a national broadcasting archive at the National Library of Wales. The discussions with the library are ongoing in supporting the planning process. But we do want to ensure that any development is on firm and sustainable foundations, without impacting on any of the current duties of the national library.

Thank you for that response, Minister. But I have to say, it was a matter of disappointment for me to understand last week that you had rejected £1 million for the national library, which would attract, of course, additional money from the Heritage Lottery Fund of about £5 million, with the support of the Welsh Government, to allow the development of a national broadcasting archive for Wales. Is it possible, therefore, to have confirmation on a couple of questions that follow from that? Is there confirmation that there is a commitment of £5 million to the plan from the lottery in May 2017? Is that factually correct—£5 million towards a national project of £9 million to create a national broadcasting archive, including archives from the BBC, ITV, S4C and independent companies? There is a richness of Welsh heritage there in both languages from the twentieth century, and, of course, the emphasis of this plan is the availability and the access for the public. We’re not talking here about tapes stored in some faraway warehouse, or even being destroyed, because that is the threat now.

Now, there is supposed to be a formal request to be submitted in the week beginning 18 December to the HLF. Why have you left it so late to say ‘no’ in terms of the £1 million of capital and that strategic support? Is the Welsh Government, in principle, against establishing a national broadcasting archive for Wales? Can the Government look again at this to see how any concern you have could be worked out, so that that £5 million of HLF funding is not lost for Wales, because that’s the threat now, and that the people of Wales will have access to a real national archive? Because we are talking here about building a nation, and about the memory of a nation—that’s what an archive is. Yesterday, we heard of the importance of establishing national bodies, and there is a real need for a solution to this situation now, otherwise a very valuable archive will be lost forever. How about it, Minister?

There is no question of losing the archive. The archive is the responsibility of the BBC, and the provision for its future is one that the library has expressed an interest in. And, indeed, it is true to say that some preparatory work has been done, and there has been correspondence between myself and the library over a period of a year on this issue, trying to put in place firm foundations for this development. For example, I wasn't content that the current staff of the library would have to be redirected, possibly, to duties related to the archive, which would put at risk the position of the library, and that we had to safeguard the financial situation of the library. And to that end, the £1 million, if I can respond to the question in this way, is still on the table. And I have discussed this issue this morning, as it happens, with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. What I wasn't happy to do was to proceed with this proposal until the library had reviewed its plan in its entirety, and given us an assurance that it was sustainable, and that it wouldn't, in any way, weaken the general provisions and broader provisions of the library.

Can I add my support to Dai Lloyd, in saying how important this project is? And I am indeed relieved that, in principle, the Welsh Government is still committed to it. I do think it's unfortunate that, at this late stage, we've not really heard some of the substance of the main concerns, and I think all the stakeholders now need to get together and make some sort of statement about how this is going to proceed. Whilst we may not lose the BBC part of the archive, other aspects are potentially more fragile—ITV, and even S4C—and also, the BBC one is going to have to be moved somewhere and is not potentially going to be available until many years in the future if we don't see the transfer to Aberystwyth fairly soon.

Clearly, this acquisition complements the work to digitise the newspapers of Wales—a remarkable achievement, and a resource for all people in Wales, and the academic and cultural communities as well. That resource now could be redoubled by the acquisition and the access that people would have to this broadcast archive. It is so important to our national understanding and to our whole concept of Wales and how we reflect on the decisions we've made and the options we have in the future. I really want to see some answers into how this is going to be sorted, because it's a bit disappointing that we're not here celebrating this wonderful project rather than seeing this major hiccup at a late stage. So, get everyone together and the stakeholders to make a clear statement to us all so that we can then scrutinise and add our support to what, undoubtedly, is a hugely important national project.

Let me make this very clear: the discussions with the national library have gone on for a year. The exchange of correspondence has been taking place since I took this position, and I certainly agree with you that this battle should have been resolved long ago, and it would have been if we had a proper response—a timely response—to our concerns at an earlier date from the library, and that is what we're still waiting for. Speaking, as I have been today and yesterday, to officials on this matter, I am very keen that there are serious discussions as to how the concerns that we have as a Government about the viability, both of the project of the national broadcasting archive and also the viability of the library, are properly resolved.

I’m not sure if I should declare an interest here, because so much of my professional career is held in the BBC archives—[Laughter.]—but I do consider your response to this topical question to have been very positive indeed—that this funding is still potentially on the table. Can you give us an assurance that that funding is available to be released now in order to also release that HLF funding in the current window, if the assurances that you’re seeking can be provided in a timely manner by the national library?

Well, there has been a discussion with the HLF and those discussions are ongoing. I’m not in a position to say whether there will be a further extension to the timetable, but I do hope that there will be, which will give us an opportunity to resolve this issue within the next month or two. That is crucial for me, but I must make it entirely clear that I was not content to see any reduction in the provision of the national library as the National Library for Wales. And it’s a question to be asked of the BBC, and I’m not entirely clear of this situation: what’s happening and who is paying for the BBC archive in England, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland? I can’t believe that Ministers within those Governments are going to provide funds for the BBC, which receives significant funds from us all as part of the licence fee, when it is possible to resolve these issues without having additional public expenditure from a restricted budget of the devolved Governments. 

Minister, on your explanation that it has taken a year and we still haven't resolved this issue, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee is going to the national library next Thursday—I wonder if you can give us a brief so that we can come back with some clear answers to these questions so that we can just get on with this; otherwise we're going to lose the lottery funding.

The lottery funding is not going to be lost, if it is possible for the lottery to provide an extension of time, but I can't myself announce anything to that effect this afternoon. I'm glad you're going to the national library and I hope that you will be able to get further answers on this matter. You're welcome to have all the correspondence here between me and the library and any further briefing from officials in my department, in addition to what the research department of the Assembly Commission will be able to give.

Thank you, Minister. The next question to be asked is for the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and the question is to be asked by Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you. The report that refers to the period up to March 2018 makes uncomfortable reading. The chief executive commenced her post in February 2018. I appointed an interim chair on 1 November and also refreshed the board this month with five new members. They are best placed to oversee the improvements needed, to ensure mistakes are not repeated. They have my full confidence.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that answer. We on this side of the Chamber have obviously lost confidence in Natural Resources Wales after a sequence of scandals, disasters and reports that have indicated even staff themselves within the organisation have very little confidence in the senior management. That is something that is highly regrettable given the very important role that Natural Resources Wales fulfils. It was set up some years ago now and should be performing far better.

The Public Accounts Committee report says that much of the actions it looked at defy logic and actually go further than incompetence when you're talking about the tens of millions of pounds that these contracts were involved in in the timber industry. Grant Thornton are undertaking a piece of work at the moment on behalf of Natural Resources Wales. It gets to a point where you really have to start calling time on these things and actually rebooting an organisation so that it can actually focus on what its priorities should be. Do you not think now is that time, even though you've indicated your support for NRW? In its five years, we have stood here time and time again with topical questions and urgent questions, and, from the sector itself, the confidence is just not there to see this organisation through to actually what it was originally intended to do—to be that guardian of the environment. Now is the time to reform it and actually take away the environmental element and put it on its own two feet with the regulation element in a separate body, and to get on with the job of having an environment here in Wales that is a beacon of what we want the rest of the world to follow. 

No, I don't think it's the time. I refer you to my original answer and the work that I've done with NRW. I've just mentioned all the new appointments that have been brought in this year. I think you have to recognise, and you clearly don't in your questioning, the excellent work so many of the staff do. If you think about storm Callum recently, they protected homes, they protected businesses. They deliver our internationally acclaimed projects. So, let's just think about the staff morale, shall we, for a little while, because I think that really needs to be recognised by the Welsh Conservatives. I meet with many members of staff, as does my colleague the Minister for Environment, and I think we need to think about them a little bit more. So, in answer to your question, I do have full confidence in them. I mentioned the new chief executive, I mentioned the new interim chair and I mentioned the new five board members. I do think they're best placed. I don't think there's any support for Natural Resources Wales to be changed.

I welcome the Public Accounts Committee's report. I think it's right that they've scrutinised NRW in the way that they have done. There are issues certainly that need to be addressed, but scrapping the whole organisation is not the answer, as far as I'm concerned. It won't help. With the instability and insecurity ahead with Brexit, the last thing we need is the huge organisational upheaval that would be caused by scrapping this organisation and starting again.

The real issue here, of course, is the issue of capacity. Natural Resources Wales has seen a 35 per cent cut in its funding in real terms since it was established just five years ago. At the very same time, of course, it's seen a huge increase in the duties expected of it from Government, through the well-being of future generations Act, the environment Act, the planning Act, and others. That situation, of course, is wholly unsustainable. The chief executive wrote last month about her concerns that NRW's capital allocation of £800,000 was against an actual requirement of over £5 million.

You're right—we should spare a thought about the staff, because the number of sickness absences reported last year saw a considerable increase. That tells it's own story, does it not, as well? There are good people in NRW and we should be paying testament to the fact that they're doing as well as they are and working so admirably under such difficult conditions. So, my question to you, Cabinet Secretary, is this: on its current trajectory of shrinking budgets and increasing workloads, at what point does Natural Resources Wales grind to a dysfunctional halt?

I think you make a very important point around capacity and their budget. I've obviously been scrutinised this year on the budget and you will see that we are making every effort we can to ensure they receive the funding they have. In the last five years, as NRW have brought the work and the responsibilities of the three previous organisations together, they did have a target of saving £158 million, and they're well on course to deliver even more than that. So, I think it is about balance, and I appreciate that legislation Welsh Government have brought forward has required more from NRW, and those are certainly conversations that I'm having with the interim chair and the chief executive on a monthly basis, along with the Minister for Environment. I don't want them to come to a point where that is the case, and we will make sure that that does not happen. 

I've had the advantage of questioning Clare Pillman, the current chief executive, on the Public Accounts Committee, and I have to say that she did impress me, and she's certainly a vast improvement on her predecessor. But I wonder whether there is an inherent tension between the regulatory role on one hand and the management of the environment role in NRW, and its commercial arm, given the disastrous consequences of their attempts to act in a commercial fashion in recent years. And, whilst I wouldn't necessarily go as far as Andrew R.T. Davies in calling for the whole organisation to be dismantled and put back together again as it was previously, perhaps, is there not an argument for separating out the commercial functions of NRW and having a separate board for that which is quasi-independent, at least, of the main board?

I have certainly had conversations with the chief executive around this, and I don't think that should be done at the current time. You'll be aware that NRW are in the process of recruiting a head of the commercial sector within NRW to see what extra funding they can bring in, and I think that's the right way to be at the moment. But I'm very pleased to hear that you don't think changing the organisation is the right thing. I think it's really unlikely to help us to move forward on the delivery that we need to see. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is the 90-second statement. Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, we celebrated the centenary of the day women were able to stand for Parliament in 1918, and one of the early pioneering women MPs was Edith Picton-Turbervill, featured in Angela John's book, Rocking The Boat: Welsh Women who Championed Equality 1840-1990.

A family plaque for Edith Picton-Turbervill is featured in Ewenny priory in my constituency, where she lived, but it doesn't mention the fact that she was a Labour MP for the Wrekin. In January 1919, Edith, from a staunchly Conservative family, joined the Labour Party. She declared that the Labour Party does its thinking in human terms. She was elected to the Wrekin in 1929, having unsuccessfully stood twice for Parliament in Islington. 

Angela John describes Edith as an able debater, unafraid of asking difficult questions. Most of her speeches concerned the plight of the poorer woman and her children. She was a passionate advocate of women priests and wore a cassock in Parliament, preaching several times in a chapel near Ewenny on the spiritual aspect of the women's movement. She claimed she'd heard better speeches made at meetings of the Mother's Union than many in the House. 

Her great parliamentary achievement came in 1931, when she took a private Member's Bill outlawing the hanging of pregnant women through Parliament. As Angela John describes, her Bill provided that a woman should have the opportunity to state that she was pregnant before the death sentence was pronounced and, if her statement proved correct, this sentence could not then be given. Her first reading of the Bill produced silence in the Chamber. It was unopposed, backed by the Government and became law. 

Edith Picton-Turbervill was inspirational and I pay homage to her here today. 

Thank you.

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Economy, Infrastrucutre and Skills Committee report 'Selling Wales to the World', and I call on the Chair of that committee to move the motion—Russell George.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to move the motion in my name. 

We are, of course, living in changing times as we define our relationship with the rest of Europe and seek new links with emerging and expanding markets. Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, the First Minister announced that he had made it his intention to prioritise the Welsh Government and sell Wales to the world like never before. So, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee launched an inquiry to explore how the Welsh Government has been selling Wales to the world so far and what selling Wales to the world might look like. We focused on three areas—trade, tourism and skills—and made 14 recommendations on our findings. I won’t go into all 14 today, but I will highlight a few.

The committee’s first recommendation sought to address the lack of accountability for international trade and Brexit implementation. Currently, these responsibilities are shared between the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. There is a clear danger that shared responsibility can sometimes fall between two stools, or three stools in this case. So, the committee recommended that the First Minister, whoever that may be, should create a specific Cabinet post for Brexit and international trade. I was pleased that the Welsh Government was accepting of that recommendation. It's clearly up to the new First Minister to make that post available.  

The committee’s focus on international trade found that, although export performance was strong, there were concerns that some SMEs were being crowded out of overseas roadshows as the slots made available by the Welsh Government are snapped up so quickly. So, it was unclear how ambitious small and medium-sized businesses that were not already on the Government’s radar could get involved. Witnesses asked, 'How could we be sure that we were taking the A team on global trade missions if businesses were selected on a first-come-first-served basis?' I think committee members thought that was a fair question.

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government develops an export growth strategy to prepare companies for international markets and increase the number of companies exporting. The economic action plan prioritises support for companies to export, but I will highlight the need to reach those businesses that are currently unable to secure a place on global trade missions.

The committee considered the Welsh Government’s overseas offices. Witnesses were unable to point to the impact the overseas offices have had on export. In fact, witnesses were unable to even define the role of them. The level of resourcing and personnel varies greatly from office to office, and there appears to be a lack of links between offices and local authorities, which could support each other, of course, in this area of work. Further offices have been opened in the past 12 months and more are planned, although the Cabinet Secretary does report to us that each office is now required to develop a business plan. But those are still not being shared with the wider world at large and, more importantly, key stakeholders. So, I would say to the Cabinet Secretary that publishing the contact details of your offices on a website isn’t enough. If stakeholders are unaware of the remit of the offices and the support they could get from them, why would they get in touch? Maximising the use of these offices will go some way to increasing the value for money that they can deliver, so it’s important that we get clarity on this.

If I move on to tourism, Wales is the most tourism-dependent region of the whole of the UK. The 2013 'Partnership for Growth' strategy recognised the importance of the tourism industry and the need to work together with the private sector and other organisations to develop the industry further. As with the global trade missions I mentioned earlier, witnesses raised concerns that some businesses are being debarred from what they considered to be the Visit Wales family. Businesses felt left out of marketing opportunities and excluded from the brand. So, I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our recommendation to enable Welsh businesses to access that branding, and I welcome the work that had started to bring together a digital hub of guidance, tools and materials for businesses and organisations across Wales to use.

I was also pleased to hear that the Cabinet Secretary will be considering a number of partnership options that are intended to help businesses develop bookable products. We know that bookable products are attractive to overseas visitors and that overseas visitors account for less than 5 per cent of visits but 10 per cent of spending, so it’s important that we are able to compete in that market.

Finally, I will reiterate the committee’s call for air passenger duty to be devolved to Wales. We’re not the first committee or group of politicians to call for this, and I suspect we won’t be the last, but it’s been devolved in Scotland and it should be devolved in Wales. I see that the Welsh Affairs Select Committee has launched an inquiry on this matter, and, of course, I look forward to seeing their conclusions.

Deputy Presiding Officer, overall, the committee’s inquiry uncovered pockets of good practice but they must be better aligned across portfolios and accessible to businesses if Wales is to meet its potential in this area. I look forward to the debate this afternoon.

Firstly—and I speak not as a member of the committee, but as somebody who takes a keen interest in our positioning as a nation—certainly, we welcome the report. It includes very valuable advice going forward, and, of course, what we don't quite know as yet is what Wales's context will be. It looks as if it will be outside the European Union, but, whatever happens next year in terms of our future direction as a country, Wales is going to need a bigger voice than ever.

Russell George, in the introduction to the report, says that:

'It is clear to the Committee that more can be done to sell Wales to the world in a strategic and joined up way. There are pockets of good practice that must be better aligned across portfolios—and accessible to more businesses—if we are to meet our potential in this area'.

In many ways, we can see this as the story of this Government across many portfolio areas: lack of strategic thinking, not enough thinking strategically, not as much joined-up working as we'd like to see, only pockets of good practice here and there. And I think the crisis of Brexit—and it's not too strong a word to use—means that Wales's voice risks being lost, I think, and drowned out, and we really must be doing better, must be thinking more strategically, and I fear that, over two years since the Brexit referendum, the Welsh Government hasn't taken as many steps as I would like—as we would like—to take this as seriously as it should have been.

And in Scotland, I think, we see once again a Government showing what can be done with a strategic vision. For many years, I think the devolved Government there has worked hard to sell a distinct Scottish brand in business and in tourism and so on and to seek out as much influence as possible for their country, in Europe, and, indeed, elsewhere around the world, and this at a time when there seems to be an effort on the part of some, not least the UK Government, of course, to marginalise the Welsh brand, as seen most explicitly, of course, in the Royal Welsh Show, as I've mentioned a number of times, with Welsh produce this summer.

Now, the main recommendation in this report, the top recommendation, is that a specific Minister is created to combine Brexit responsibilities with external affairs, including selling Wales to the world. Scotland has had a similar, actually, Cabinet-level Minister for Europe and External Affairs going back to the dawn of devolution, I think, from the year 2000. It was abolished, then merged with other portfolios, before being resurrected when the SNP came into power in 2007. Europe and external affairs is part of a Cabinet-level position in Scotland, with a junior Minister assisting. Of course, they have more capacity in terms of membership there in Scotland. And I don't think there really is an excuse not to have one now in Wales, given the challenges that we face, and Plaid Cymru has been calling for a Minister to deal with external issues for some time—a specific Minister, of course. It's rolled into the First Minister's responsibilities; we think that there needs to be a stepping up, and the changing context, I think, strengthens the argument for that.

We're a little unclear from the Government response to the report whether or not they're accepting the need for the creation of a ministerial-level position for Brexit and international trade or suggesting that we just stick as we are now with the First Minister and other Ministers currently dealing with those issues. Perhaps some clarity on that point, actually, would be useful now. The current set-up, though, as the report notes, isn't joined-up, isn't specific enough, isn't strategic enough, and a separate Minister would be able to also bring real clarity and accountability, which is crucial, of course, to how we approach our external affairs issues as a country. So, that's what the main recommendation is.

I'd like to pick up on the role of overseas offices too. The report was clear in its conclusions that there was a lack of direction and resources for these officers. More focus is needed; better engagement with businesses in Wales and elsewhere is going to be crucial. I note from the Government response that the offices are now required to tailor specific business plans based on the strengths and opportunities in their respective markets. We welcome that, but there's still, I think, a question of resources here and whether we now believe they are able to carry out the need for an expanded role in that new context.

The main takeaway, then, from this report for us is that, as with so many areas of Government, there's a lack of strategic thinking, a lack of leadership. Highlighted is the work that needs to be done across a variety of departments. This, in many ways, is the beginning of a new era for Wales; it's not an era that we would have invented ourselves, but I think we have in this report a series of recommendations that, hopefully, can lay some foundations at the start of that new period in Welsh history.

I'm grateful to get the opportunity to speak in support of this report into selling Wales to the world. It's a crucial area for our country's prosperity and one that is all the more vital as we face the uncertainty of the post-Brexit world. Giving small businesses in my constituency of Cynon Valley, and across Wales, the skills, confidence and opportunity to engage is really, really important. This report clearly shows what more we must do to get it right. I want to focus on what I believe to be six key recommendations in the report.

Firstly, recommendation 2—now, this notes the importance of an export growth strategy that prepares companies for international markets and increases the numbers of companies exporting. I'm glad the Welsh Government has accepted this recommendation, and that, in doing so, it sets out what it's already doing, such as prioritising exports within the economic action plan. It’s especially good to see mention of our food and drink sector. Several companies from my constituency have already benefited from Welsh Government support to take part in prestigious trade fairs. They told me how valuable this has been in building their success. That’s companies like the internationally recognised Penderyn Distillery—which welcomed the First Minister the other week—also Grey Trees brewery, the Authentic Curry Co, and Welsh Hills Bakery, with their specialist gluten-free products. I hope that we can encourage more of our local companies, especially in a post-Brexit Wales, to participate in this way.

Increasing business involvement is also key to recommendation 6. However, this is more about getting them to buy into a strong Welsh brand identity. We know that countries who do well have strong, recognisable branding. And I do share the concerns of other colleagues that have spoken already that our Welsh brand may not quite be as strong as it could be. I also note from our work as a committee the evidence from stakeholders about brand identity needing time to bed in.

I think the work that Visit Wales does around its various themed years is very exciting, but I do wonder if annual shifts of focus are the right way to build brand identity. Perhaps we need to think about a more long-term theming to really build that globally recognised Welsh brand. I look forward to the outcomes of the work to develop a digital brand hub for Welsh businesses and organisations to buy into, and also to the incorporation of a Wales brand into all tourism signage and labelling. Related to this are our recommendations 7 and 8. Now, when we were doing this work in committee, I was really not happy with the lack of Welsh resources on the VisitBritain web pages, and in particular, the lack of bookable products. I’ve checked again this morning, and it's good to see that things are improving and there are now eight Welsh bookable attractions on there. That's more than Northern Ireland, but still less than Scotland, and a tiny fraction of the 153 bookable attractions for England, including London.

It’s a similar picture for trips and tours and sightseeing passes too. I still can't see any direct link between the VisitBritain web page and Visit Wales web page. So, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s evidence that he gave to the committee, and I know that this is something he said he is aware of and he's entered into discussions around. And it's good to see the additional detail set out in the Welsh Government's response to our report, particularly around developing bookable products and strengthening partnerships. It is clear that there is more that needs to be done in this area to give Wales a level playing field.

I also want to fully endorse recommendation 11, on the devolution of air passenger duty. Professor Annette Pritchard, a tourism expert at Cardiff Metropolitan University, made the case to us very powerfully here, as a committee. She told us that failure to devolve APD had suppressed tourism, economic growth, employment prospects and revenue contributions. In addition, it was hampering the ability of Cardiff Airport to expand and operate as a hub for international tourism to Wales. Indeed, modelling submitted to the Welsh Government has estimated that devolution of APD could lead to an additional 658,000 passengers using Cardiff Airport each year by 2025. So, I hope that we can send a strong message that APD should be devolved, and endorse the Cabinet Secretary’s robust reply on this.

I want to close by saying a few words on our first recommendation, and that's the one that calls for a Cabinet-level trade portfolio. While agreeing with this, I also want to applaud the work that Ministers have done in this area to date, in particular the leadership shown by our current First Minister throughout his term of office. A future First Minister may well agree with us that a visible presence focusing on this area is important, but that should not detract from the dedication that our current First Minister and his team have shown to selling Wales. I am happy to endorse this report today.

As the committee Chair pointed out, our inquiry centred on three areas: trade, tourism, skills and training. It must be acknowledged that selling a small country such as Wales on the global market is no easy task. Sadly, our diaspora throughout the world is far smaller than that of either Scotland or Ireland. Consequently, the world's general knowledge of Wales is far less than that of these countries. We are, so to speak, lagging behind these nations. This lack of general knowledge of Wales was witnessed in our recent visit to Brussels, in that the Canadian diplomats and officials we met told us that, until recently, they had little or no knowledge of Wales.

There are, of course, signs that Wales is beginning to gain recognition, particularly from the worldwide sporting events that we have managed to attract—the Ryder Cup and the Champions League are good examples of this. But one has to ask: do they bring a lasting legacy, or is that legacy subsumed by the next venue to hold the event? The Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, is convinced that we are beginning to establish ourselves in an international context in such things as projecting ourselves as the adventure tourism playground of Europe, and I'm sure that this sort of specialisation is the key to obtaining global recognition for Wales. 

The first recommendation in our report is that the Government should create a specific Cabinet post to combine international trade responsibility and Brexit policy implementation. The committee sees this as a key factor in drawing together all the disparate strands in the development of the Wales brand. I'm disappointed that the Government only accepted in principle our fourth recommendation that the Cabinet Secretary should publish a detailed remit for overseas offices and report annually on how each office is delivering against that remit. It must be asked: what other way can we scrutinise their performance and make adjustments and strategies to make them more effective? 

I will end by pointing out that in Y Ddraig Goch, the unique flag, we have a ready-made marketing icon far more recognisable than the Scottish saltire or the Irish tricolour or, dare I say, the cross of St George. We should promote it on everything we produce and wherever we exhibit. Companies pay millions to have such a recognisable symbol; we should exploit it wherever and whenever we can.

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I begin by saying that I very much welcome the committee's report? I'd like to thank Members for their contributions today and their hard work in compiling the report and its recommendations. I really do think that international engagement and delivery is a vital part of our agenda to grow the Welsh economy.

Now, our relationship with the European Union might well be changing, but with two thirds of Welsh exports currently going to the European market, we will do everything possible to maintain a relationship with the European single market that allows companies to maintain free and unfettered access. Now, we have seen an increase in the value of exports in the last few years, and we need to continue that positive momentum. Our continued support for Welsh exporters will help to achieve this goal, and by making this support one of our five calls to action, we will help Welsh businesses to maintain exports to the EU, as well as accessing new markets in North America, the middle east and beyond. And across Government, but particularly with the assistance of my friend and colleague Lesley Griffiths, we are ensuring that companies—large, small and micro-sized companies—have access to trade missions, and it's particularly apparent in trade missions concerning Welsh food and drink, which is becoming increasingly recognised for the high quality of produce and the strong provenance of the goods that we are able to take overseas. 

Now, I'm pleased to be able to say that we are allocating resources from the £7.5 million business resilience fund recently approved through the European transition fund to support campaigns and activities that help companies to establish the traction that they need in new markets, and that positions us, I think, to keep Wales's international profile as a location for investment strong and positive. Our overseas offices are, indeed, vital to this agenda, and they are multifaceted, covering business, culture, education and tourism. We've already embarked upon a strategic expansion of this network, opening, in recent months and in the past few years, new offices in key markets, which include Canada, and Qatar, and Germany, and, of course, France. Over time, these offices will build upon the existing links that are already established in those territories and their respective markets and deliver even greater gains for Wales.

Now, our relationship with our partners in the UK Government's Department for International Trade, and also the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ensures that Welsh companies have access to the full range of support to promote their goods and services overseas, as well as promoting the message that Wales is a great place in which to do business, a great place in which to learn, and a superb place in which to live.

The Wales brand now provides a firm foundation for our work to promote Wales in a wide range of markets across all channels and all sectors. It underpins more than £10 million of marketing spend per annum in the tourism and business sectors. It also is used at prestigious events, such as the UEFA Champions League final, the Ryder Cup and the Volvo Ocean Race. It can be seen at iconic locations across Wales, from the airport to stadia. It's also applied to all our food and drink marketing, and it's a major aspect of our international health recruitment campaigns. It's also worth saying, Dirprwy Lywydd, that it is an internationally renowned, award-winning brand campaign. It's delivering tangible results right across the economy. Tourism marketing alone has delivered an additional spend of around about £350 million a year for the economy, and this has doubled since 2013, and it supports thousands upon thousands of valuable jobs in Wales. It's just one example of how raising our international profile and having a consistent, strong and compelling brand has benefited the people, the economy and the country of Wales.

Tourism is often identified as the flag carrier for the country, and the themed years have been carving, I think, a much stronger and clearer and distinctive proposition for Wales, and this is indeed being noticed. Many awards have been bestowed upon Visit Wales for the thematic years campaign, and it's no doubt one of the most successful branding exercises and campaign exercises in the UK in recent times, but we cannot stop here, and our economic action plan sets out the Welsh Government's commitment to building and maintaining European partnerships in areas of common interest. Seventy-seven per cent—I believe it is—of Welsh food and drink exports alone went to the EU in 2017. Therefore, it's vital that we maintain strong links to this important region despite Brexit. We'll also continue to develop new ways to build and maintain European partnerships through investing in networks and bilateral co-operation with partner countries and regions. From our existing support for exporters in Wales to the work that we undertake with our own overseas network and its partners, all of our international activity demonstrates the Welsh Government's commitment to this crucially important agenda. The relationships that we have built in Europe and beyond have been enhanced by the recent commitment to expand our overseas network, ensuring that the Wales offer to businesses, to tourists, to students is visible and as far-reaching as possible. And, we won't stop here, as we continue to help businesses to explore new markets, to attract overseas students and visitors and create lasting partnerships that will meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Can I just say finally, in reference specifically to recommendation 1, every time a Minister travels abroad, they are subject to a freedom of information request, and, consequently, often criticised for the costs incurred in promoting Wales abroad. So, please, if the new First Minister does create a role for international trade and Brexit, as you have strongly recommended, then please, please recognise that their travel and subsistence costs will be much higher than others in Government. So, please don't call today for this, only to tomorrow condemn such a person for the cost of doing the job right.    

Thank you. Can I now call on Russell George to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Members for taking part in the debate across the Chamber this afternoon? I should also like to thank, of course, the many witnesses who took part in our report—who are mentioned in detail in the report—and representatives of Welsh, UK, European and international businesses, and the cultural and educational organisations that we met with in Brussels as well.

David Rowlands, in his contribution, pointed out our visit to Brussels. It seems a long time ago, doesn't it, David, since we undertook that visit? But, he recalled some of the conversations that we had, and I do remember the conversation with Canadian Government officials, telling us that they had had little contact with Wales before. So, I think that there is a role here for Welsh Government—but not only Welsh Government. I think it's a role for all of us, as an Assembly, in our various committees as well. I think we've all got a responsibility to sell Wales to the world, not just the Government.

I hear the Cabinet Secretary's call, if there is that post created, that we should not be critical if there are expenses incurred by that Cabinet Secretary or that post whilst they travel around the world. I accept that, and you have my assurance that I won't do that. I think it's correct to scrutinise what's achieved from those visits, but I accept what the Cabinet Secretary is saying, and I make a commitment here today that he won't have that from me.

In other parts of the debate, Rhun ap Iorwerth and others correctly pointed out, of course, our call for that new Cabinet post—that loud voice, that joined-up thinking approach that was needed across Government in regard to Brexit and international affairs. We, as a committee, feel that that can be achieved by having that department—that Cabinet post—specifically for international affairs. The Government accepted our recommendation, but clearly it's a matter for the next First Minister, whoever he or she is. But, I accept that, in the response to our report, the Government pointed out that legislation permits only a number of Government positions. We accept that, but, of course, we believe, as a committee, that this is a priority in that regard.

Vikki Howells rehearsed the branding issue actually, which we discussed, in regards to that theme that changes every year, and that question about whether that is good branding. I do remember distinctly the Cabinet Secretary defending that annual theme. But, of course, there's the other side to that debate as well—that annual themes perhaps are not good for branding. So, I'm sure that discussion will continue on as well. I do share David Rowlands's disappointment that the Government only accepted recommendation 4 in principle.

The report looked at, of course, our three areas vital to our economy here in Wales. But, the work doesn't remain static. Wales is changing, and since undertaking that work as a committee, we've also undertaken work on the fourth industrial revolution. And, from our work in that area, it's clear that we just can't stand still and that our work in this area will be a changing feast, if you like, as well.

Can I thank Members for taking part in the debate this afternoon, and can I thank the Government for accepting nearly all of our recommendations?

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

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee report, 'Building Resilience: Inquiry into non-public funding of the arts'. I call on Dai Lloyd to speak to the debate on behalf of the committee—Dai.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Llywydd, and I’m very pleased to open this debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee’s report, ‘Building Resilience’, which discusses non-public funding of the arts.

The arts are an indispensable part of Welsh life. As a nation, we rightly celebrate an enduring and rich history of artistic endeavour and output. We've long had a wealth of talented and passionate individuals who have helped to create a sector that brings wide-ranging benefits to us all. From their economic and practical benefits, to their use in addressing public policy matters, whether that be within the education system or addressing health issues, the arts are an invaluable part of any healthy and prosperous society. And there is wide recognition that participation in the arts promotes community cohesion and reduces social isolation and exclusion.

Despite this, real-terms public funding of the arts has declined substantially in Wales over the past five years. The vast majority of the Welsh Government’s budget allocations for the arts are for the Arts Council of Wales. In the 2017-18 budget, out of the £31.7 million allocated in this area, £31.2 million was allocated to the arts council. However, between 2011-12 and 2017-18, Welsh Government funding of the arts council has declined by 18 per cent in real terms. The arts council’s share of lottery proceeds has also decreased during this period. Additionally, as local authority budgets have tightened in recent years, the funding the arts sector receives from this area has also decreased. To illustrate this, local authority funding of the Arts Portfolio Wales, which comprises the arts organisations receiving annual funding from the arts council, has reduced from £11 million in 2011-12 to £5.1 million in 2016-17.

Given the wide recognition of its benefits, this level of cut is clearly concerning. To mitigate this decrease, the Welsh Government has called on the arts council to reduce the sector’s dependence on public subsidy and for the sector itself to up its game on fundraising.

So, for this inquiry, rather than simply look into the impact of this decline in funding and to call for it to be increased, we decided to look specifically at the Government’s approach, to assess how feasible it is, and to ask whether there are any additional practical steps the sector could take to diversify and increase the funding it receives from non-public sources.

To frame the inquiry, the committee agreed to investigate, first of all, how successful the arts sector in Wales has been in increasing non-public funding; also, how non-public arts funding is shared out across Wales; and whether there are international models of best practice that Wales could emulate.

During our inquiry, it quickly became evident that Wales’s arts sector faces varied and very difficult challenges when it comes to raising funds. Arts organisations in Wales face specific challenges to increasing their incomes, based primarily on their scale and location. In order for Wales’s arts organisations to be successful at reducing their reliance on public funding, the Welsh Government needs to ensure that they are equipped to do so. Arts companies based in Wales face many difficulties that aren’t as prevalent in other areas.

As a result, there are a number of actions we believe the Government needs to take before it can realistically expect the sector to respond effectively to its request for reduced dependence on public subsidy. Without this action, it is difficult to imagine the sector’s output and diversity not being reduced, in line with the reduction of public subsidy.

And because of the small number of large businesses headquartered in Wales, attracting business support is difficult. Nick Capaldi, chief executive of the arts council, explained that business sponsorship is more prevalent in the metropolitan centres and in support of larger, higher profile arts organisations. He added that smaller, community-based organisations in rural areas, for example, are struggling to achieve significant corporate sponsorship.

And raising funding from individuals is also problematic for the arts in Wales. We were told that the comparatively low number of high net worth individuals in Wales makes fundraising from individuals very difficult. Compounding this is the difficulty Chapter Arts Centre noted as the constant challenge of demonstrating the arts as a charitable cause. Arts fundraising consultancy Blue Canary also highlighted this issue. They told us that arts organisations are trailing behind the enterprise and initiative that is being demonstrated in income generation across the wider charitable sector.

The highly competitive market for funding from trusts and foundations was something that was brought to our attention throughout this inquiry. Private foundations in Europe have restricted their grant giving during a prolonged period of low interest rates. When combined with a number of years of public sector cuts, it is easy to understand why this market has become so fiercely competitive, as arts organisations scramble to replace lost public funding. We also heard that trusts and foundations prefer to fund distinct projects rather than replacing lost public sector revenue funding.

That being said, we were also told that, whilst competition for grants is fierce, many of the large London-based trusts still express a desire to invest more in Wales, stating that the number and quality of applications remains low. Those organisations that do succeed tend to be larger, with more capacity to dedicate to funding applications.

In this regard, Chapter Arts Centre stressed the importance of their public funding, explaining that trusts like the reassurance of seeing public support in place. For funders who are not local, this public support is often the first sign that a project has a local need and that it should be funded. I think it’s fair to say that, from the evidence we received, it is clear that as public funding declines, so too does the capacity to seek funding from private sources.

Raising revenue by selling goods and services is obviously another avenue to increase an organisation’s non-public funding. Arts & Business Cymru, who receive public funding to build relationships between arts and business organisations, explained that there has been a sharp increase in the number of companies seeking arts-based training to address staff development needs. Hijinx theatre company are such an organisation that have seized this opportunity. Hijinx now employ their learning-disabled actors to provide training for companies in communicating with vulnerable people. However, there are also companies like Theatr na nÓg, who explained that their remit as a charity is to provide a service that is not of a nature that would ever gain a return on investment by a commercial company.

In the Welsh Government’s culture strategy, 'Light Springs Through the Dark', they have recognised that the arts sector needs to adapt to cope with reduced public funding. The arts council’s resilience programme is one attempt to improve the culture sector’s financial sustainability. However, this programme is only open to the council’s revenue-funded arts organisations. As such, we have recommended that the arts council considers extending this programme to include arts bodies that aren’t already funded by the arts council, and we're pleased that they are taking forward work aimed at addressing this issue.

In our report, we have set out a number of recommendations aimed at addressing the general and, in many cases, very specific difficulties arts organisations in Wales face when attempting to increase their non-public funding. We have called on the Government to continue its financial support for the development of partnerships between businesses and the arts. We have recommended that the Government takes action to raise the profile of the arts as a charitable cause, and to increase awareness of the excellent arts organisations and projects based in Wales.

We’ve included a number of recommendations around the exploitation of international markets. Given the low number of large businesses and high net worth individuals in Wales, it is essential that these markets are recognised and exploited as far as possible. Given the small number and sometimes poor quality of funding applications being submitted, we have also called for the Government to provide a source of expertise to support small arts organisations to improve the number and quality of their applications.

So, in general, we also believe that the Government, as well as the sector, must up its game if it expects arts organisations to prosper with reduced public funding. Simply calling for them to do so is not enough. The call needs to be backed up by an appropriate and sufficient level of tailored and informed support.

In conclusion, although I am pleased to see that the Minister has accepted, at least in principle—and that’s another debate—our 10 recommendations, his response now needs to be accompanied by effective and appropriate action. In many instances, he has said he will be asking officials to work with the arts council to progress work to increase contributions. He’s committed to drawing up an action plan, and for the arts council and Arts & Business Cymru to arrange regional seminars for UK trusts and foundations, and I’m pleased to see these actions. The committee will also be expecting a report on how these efforts have translated into concrete changes for the better.

The committee will be returning to this topic next, and we ask that the Minister prepares an evaluation of the actions he has agreed to undertake in response to each of our recommendations by the spring. The Minister told us that the way the Welsh Government promotes partnership working between arts and business will be reviewed. He told us that he will be stressing to the arts council the need for it to continue to resource this activity, given that pressures on public funding are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. I would like to know what plans are in place to replace this work from April 2019 onwards if the arts council decides that Arts & Business Cymru is not providing value for money. Should their work not continue after April, what exit strategy will be in place? And is there a risk that we will lose vital learning?

Something that was made very clear to us during this inquiry is that Wales’s arts sector has an abundance of talented and passionate individuals. They deserve the support necessary to prosper, and to allow all of us to benefit from their gifts. Thank you.

Can I commend our acting Chair for the alacrity with which he's performed his temporary duties this afternoon? I think it was an excellent summary of our report, and the importance of it, and a great start to this debate.

I think the non-public funding that the arts sector receives is a key sign of its health, or otherwise. And it's important that we focus on this aspect. We all know that, throughout the ages, the great funders of the arts have been the princes of realms, and the princes of the church, and very public sources. Since the second world war, that's turned into the arts council and Government. But the amount that comes in from what we can loosely describe as the private sector, I think is really, really important as a mark of general health.

We do realise that, in Wales, we face some particular challenges. We are not London, but there again most of the United Kingdom isn't London. But an awful lot of the energy and the sponsorship that that generates through the business sector doesn't flow very far from London, and the metropolitan scene that's centred in London can be somewhat stifling sometimes. I think it is part of our work to challenge those sources of finance that are perhaps most comfortable in London to look further afield, not just to Wales—it would benefit them to look across the UK too—but we need to make our case very strongly. So, London is a key source for funding, and I think we should always remember that in our work and in the work we expect the Government to undertake.

We have great success stories as well, like the Welsh National Opera and the Artes Mundi prize. We've really got some of the best connections with the wider business community and sources of sponsorship and really creative programmes. So, I don't think we should suffer any lack of confidence in this respect.

I think one of the key areas the report highlighted in terms of the need for development is greater promotion internationally. The Government here can play a great part and the report mentioned trade missions, cultural exchanges. And can I just add that I've often thought that the projection that we give to the Mabinogion could be much greater? There are some success stories there as well, but it’s one of the great canons of world literature and in terms of the importance of the cultural development of Europe, it really is key. I've quoted John Updike several times in terms of what importance he placed on the Mabinogion, and he was a great champion in his time, in North America.

I do believe, as the acting Chair said, that fundraising expertise needs to be radically strengthened. I think the sector needs to co-operate to develop, perhaps with Welsh Government, that sort of muscle so that we can see the opportunities and we can present very coherent packages when we're making applications to funders. I think that, sometimes, we don't co-operate enough. We think that all the players out there, who might seek funding, will need their own fundraising officer. I'm not sure that’s necessarily the best way to approach it. There needs to be a more co-ordinated approach, and that can really then give you much greater strength in the capacity that you develop. Of course, the future of Arts & Business Cymru is very important in terms of the work that they've done to promote links between arts and businesses, and what will happen next year, as the Chair said, is very important.

I also think that we should remember the place of the experimental in art. Again, that’s another key sign of its success. That area is unlikely to receive very much or at least consistent non-public funding. So, we don't want to overlook that as well in our enthusiasm for other streams of finance. The approach we need is one that allows for a whole range of art to get a level of funding that it deserves so that it adds to our national life. So, public funding will still clearly be crucial.

I just would like to conclude: it was mentioned in the last debate actually that the Welsh diaspora is there. I think sometimes, because we don't see it as big as Ireland or even as Scotland—. But look at Scotland: they've done a lot of work in this area. I think that we should also tap in and perhaps define the Welsh diaspora as also including those who live in London, but also internationally. Again, there are many people there who, if asked, I'm sure would like to invest in our arts scene. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

I'd like to thank the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee for their report and to thank the clerks for helping with the inquiry. The inquiry into the funding of the arts predates my membership of the committee, so, unfortunately, I was unable to interact with the witnesses, but I would also like to thank them for providing robust evidence.

There are those who believe that, in a time with so many competing calls on dwindling public funds, public funding for the arts is an unaffordable luxury, but I am not one of them. As our committee Chair rightly highlights, the arts illuminate and enrich our lives. They are an indispensable part of our society, and they bring wide-ranging benefits to us all.

The amount we spend on the arts equates to just 0.17 per cent of the Welsh budget, yet the arts not only play a vital role in our economy, but also help put Wales on the map. According to the Welsh Government's own figures, we have over 5,300 creative businesses in Wales, which generate over £2.1 billion in annual turnover, and give employment to over 49,000 people. The arts are a major tourist draw, representing 32 per cent of all visits to the UK and 42 per cent of all inbound tourism-related expenditure, to say nothing of the enrichment they deliver to our well-being, which is incalculable.

Over the last decade, public funding for the arts has been cut by over 10 per cent, and the Welsh Government have indicated that greater cuts are to come by asking the sector to reduce its reliance on public funds. However, as the committee discovered, doing so would be very difficult for arts organisations. Unfortunately, we don't have a great philanthropic tradition in this country, simply because The Sunday Times rich list isn't littered with Welsh sons and daughters and we can't rely on the largesse of billionaires. We have to find other means of supplementing the funds of Welsh arts organisations.

The committee considered a range of options, and its 10 recommendations are aimed at maximising the opportunities for alternative sources of funding. One thing is clear, the arts in Wales must continue to receive public funding and in order to reduce their reliance on that funding need some Government support. I am pleased that the Minister accepts, at least in principle, all the committee’s recommendations. 

In relation to recommendation 8, I am pleased that the Minister recognises how hard it is for small arts organisations to employ specialist fundraisers and therefore attract donors. The Minister says he will ask the Arts Council of Wales to look sympathetically at extending its resilience programme, and to encourage arts and businesses to promote options by which smaller organisations might share the services and expertise of a professional fundraiser. I would ask the Minister to go further. We shouldn't be asking or encouraging; these services have to be provided, so we should be directing and requiring. Access to a shared pool of professional fundraisers is essential if we are to decrease arts organisations' reliance on public funds. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. 

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Dafydd Elis-Thomas?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I start by thanking the committee members for their work? It's been a pleasure to co-operate with them. They have drawn attention to the financial challenges facing the arts sector in light of the undeniable pressure on the budgets of local authorities, as well as the recent reductions in the income from the National Lottery. We recognise these challenges and the Government continues to be entirely committed to funding the arts with public funds. We also acknowledge that it's unlikely that there will be a substantial increase in this funding for some years to come, and therefore it is crucial that we jointly consider all possible means of assisting the sector to increase its income.  

Of the 10 recommendations made in the report, I am pleased to have accepted or accepted in principle, the eight that are relevant to the Welsh Government. The report asks Welsh Government to continue to provide financial support in order to encourage businesses and the arts to work in partnership, and to consider whether additional funding is required in order to assist the arts sector in attracting more funding from business. At the moment, we fund this work through the arts council and through our support grant funding. The support is mainly available through the arts council itself, as Dai Lloyd mentioned in opening this debate, as well as from Arts & Business Cymru, which is supported by the council to provide specific services. 

We do discuss with the arts council how we can combine this support. It has been noted that the council will continue to extend its resilience programme—or 'gwytnwch' in Welsh if you prefer. This programme does provide business support as well as governance support to key arts organisations to meet their individual needs. We are also eager to assist Arts & Business Cymru to continue the work to encourage corporate sponsorship and to encourage more people to become involved with the arts in all ways possible. I have asked officials to arrange partnerships where some of the core funding of Arts & Business Cymru will be based on the level of additional investment they secure for the broader arts sector. But we are still verifying that proposal at the moment. But I think that the concept of giving encouragement to Arts & Business Cymru and to reward them for their success in achieving funding is a very useful principle, and I very much hope that we will be able to retain funds in next year's budget specifically for that.

The report also asked us to raise awareness of Welsh arts institutions and the investment that trusts and foundations across the UK make in those organisations. We have tackled this in a number of different ways. We have asked the arts council to take the strategic lead. They have already held two days of meetings in London with representatives of major foundations within the UK, and these days have been so popular that they will lead to further events in Wales too.

In addition to that, Arts & Business Cymru has been organising a symposium to give face-to-face advice to arts organisations on how best to make successful applications for funding. In the most recent symposium, there were four trusts from London who had contacted Arts & Business Cymru in order to arrange similar events themselves. I will also be contacting the main trusts and foundations throughout the UK to ask for their support in taking this recommendation forward, and will invite others who are specialists in introducing successful bids and applications to the various trusts and foundations to share their experiences more broadly too.

The report also asks us to develop a strategy to assist the arts sector to develop international markets, to commission research, in order to earmark those markets that have the greatest potential for expansion, and to ensure that the cultural element is prominent in overseas trade missions. We warmly welcome this. Following a change in our relationship with the European Union, Wales must develop a new story to convey our international work, along with the European Union, of course. That follows the vision statement that we received in ‘Light Springs through the Dark’, and the emphasis on how important it is that people take an interest in culture in order to clearly demonstrate that we are a contemporary, outward-looking nation, and a nation that people should visit in terms of tourism, and where people can do business.

In July, while speaking to an international arts forum in Cardiff, I had an opportunity to challenge the key agencies, including the British Council in Wales, the arts council and the books council, as well as museums and galleries Wales, to work with us within Welsh Government in order to tackle this intention to improve cultural and economic outputs in our international activities. The response to that has been extremely positive, and there will be a further meeting soon to develop this work. 

As the committee emphasised, having specialist information on fundraising is crucial, particularly for smaller arts organisations. In this regard, it’s important to remind any arts company or any arts business that the support that we provide through Business Wales is available to them too. These services are available to smaller arts organisations to assist them with marketing, to take advantage of intellectual property and so on and so forth. But we do accept that more specialist assistance is needed in some aspects of fundraising, and the arts council once again is tackling this issue. And the council will soon announce plans to help smaller organisations to develop and to fundraise, particularly for those not in receipt of core funding within the arts council’s plans.

The Arts Council for Wales has also provided lottery funding to Arts & Business Cymru in order to develop a programme of creative interns to train new professionals in fundraising. They will also be supporting bursaries in the National Arts Fundraising School, and the council has also created a briefing pack on fundraising for the first time. This work will be developed and the materials will be available soon.

And finally, I come to my favourite, yet to be fully established body, which is Creative Wales, Cymru Greadigol, and the committee has quite rightly asked us to explain the objectives and how Creative Wales, Cymru Greadigol, will be established. It will be established as an internal agency within Welsh Government, corresponding, but not following the exact model in terms of its internal arrangements, to Cadw and Visit Wales. We are currently appointing members to an advisory board, and this new agency will be expected to work in close partnership with the arts council, and the council welcomes that, of course.

We believe that Creative Wales, Cymru Greadigol, will be an organisation that will be able to develop the economic potential more fully in the creative sector. And I do hope that that responds to the valuable recommendations made by the committee. Thank you.

I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. And thank you to everyone who has contributed to this important debate, and first of all to David Melding for his kind words and also for outlining the history, of course, because we are talking here about a number of challenges in this field of fundraising for the benefit of the arts. And, of course, I’m very pleased to hear about the Mabinogion—it’s not every day that we talk about the Mabinogion here in the Chamber—one of the masterpieces in Europe, certainly, in terms of literature. I’m very pleased that David also recognises that, and makes the wider point that London isn’t Wales in terms of fundraising, but also that we should have the confidence to go to London and to pursue those funds, and to have the confidence not just to go to London, but to go internationally to seek those connections with the Welsh diaspora, which was part of the debate that we heard in the previous debate. Mark is on his feet.

The great Mabinogion include the first known Arthurian romances in Welsh, critically written before Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his false accounts for the Norman courts. Do you agree that we should be reclaiming those stories for Wales? 

Absolutely, but some of us have never lost them, so if you go far enough back—[Laughter.]

So, thank you very much, David, and, indeed, to Mark, and also to Caroline, who put forward a strong argument for the wider value of the arts and also the key contribution in terms of tourism. And also, I’m very pleased to note in the Minister’s response, to be fair, that he did answer our questions—questions that we put forward. The Minister also told us about the challenges that we face and also stated clearly that he continues to be committed to funding the arts in terms of public funding, and, of course, confirmed this resilience programme is to continue. We also welcome the news with regard to Creative Wales, Cymru Greadigol as well. I'm also grateful for the positive response to our recommendations. It has been a means, through this debate and report, of raising awareness of the importance of the arts. I'm very pleased to talk about the work that the Welsh Government is doing behind the scenes. It's not always given the publicity that it deserves, but it is supporting those people who make those successful funding bids.

To close, we have a whole host of talented and passionate individuals working in the arts here in Wales, and we have a whole host of Welsh people worldwide as well as in this country who have sufficient goodwill to want to support them in this regard. So, it’s a matter of bringing the two together. With strong leadership from the Welsh Government in this area, we do expect to see transformation in terms of funding and developing the resilience for the arts here in Wales. Thank you very much.

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

Which brings us to item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on the M4 corridor decision, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. I won’t speak for too long today, because the point that we have made by presenting this motion is quite simple. We will have opportunities to discuss the case for and against the M4 black route over the next few weeks and months. For the record, I will note my own view and my party’s view on the proposals that are being discussed and that have been subject to a public inquiry recently.

We do recognise and realise that there is work to be done to make the road system in the south-east of Wales more resilient and that there is room to make great investment in doing that, but we have yet to be convinced that going for the black route, as it is described, or a new route for the M4 to the south of Newport, is the way to deliver that. There are financial arguments for that. Why commit so much funding for one road, when there are alternatives? There are strong environmental arguments against that. We will hear more about that from Llyr Gruffydd a little later.

We believe that we could be more innovative and bring a twenty-first century solution to the problem that we are facing, rather than a solution that has its roots—let's be honest—in the 1970s and 1980s. We believe that we could move more swiftly towards resolving this problem taking that approach, but, along with that, we believe that what also needs to be done is to strengthen the public transport system in order to take people off the roads in the first place. So, for the record, that's where we stand on the M4.

But this debate isn't about that issue. There will be a vote held in this place at some point on the future of this proposal, where it's expected that the Members of our national Senedd’s vote will be binding. And if this Assembly says 'no' to the black route, then there is an expectation that 'no' should mean 'no'. But there is an important step to be taken before then by the Welsh Government. It’s the Welsh Government who will look at the conclusions of the public inquiry and will make a decision as to whether they wish to proceed or not.

The Welsh First Minister will make that call, but there is a context that will change very soon. There will be a change in the governance landscape of Wales, and one of the three candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party is here in the Chamber today. One of the three will become the new First Minister of Wales within a matter of weeks. Our simple point today is that the decision should be left to the new First Minister as to whether we proceed or not, because we believe that the decision is so significant that the decision should be owned by whoever becomes the new First Minister of Wales.

We don't believe that it’s acceptable for either the current First Minister to take the blame for doing something unpopular and then to disappear off the scene, or to take ownership of this as some means of leaving a personal legacy. No, there is too much at stake—

Will the Member give way?

—here, and it should be a decision taken by the person who replaces the current First Minister.

Yes, I will take an intervention.

Here, the motion refers to the decision as to whether to go ahead, but aren't there two distinct decisions here: (1) whether to make these Orders and give planning permission, where the current First Minister has been careful not to prejudice himself and is well-placed to do that, and then, second, a decision whether to prioritise and spend the money and actually commence construction, which Welsh Government will take after? Isn't that a sensible division?

You're absolutely right, that is the process that is followed and, in a way, what we are saying is that we want that decision on whether to sign those statutory Orders to be taken by an incoming First Minister, because that's what instigates and kicks off that process, which then leads to a vote here on whether we think it's something that should be prioritised to release that money that is held currently in reserves, waiting to be triggered. We believe that trigger should be pulled by the new First Minister. There is so much at stake for the future of spending in Wales, the environment in Wales, future generations in Wales; let's see ownership of that decision by the new, incoming First Minister of Wales. 

Of course, we need a solution to the M4 congestion issue—that's an issue that no doubt will be supported by every Member across the Chamber—but what we are waiting for is, of course, the full details of the public inquiry. And we as AMs across this Chamber need to see that report, and I'd say it's essential that the Government publishes the findings and conclusions of the public inquiry so that we and stakeholders are able to digest and scrutinise that consultation and the conclusions of that inquiry report. 

I won't be a lone AM in this Chamber in having a large e-mail postbag, especially over the last week, with views from all different sectors, and those views, of course, have all got to be balanced. But I do believe that the Welsh Government has dragged its feet on this issue. There have been 20 years of discussions and consultations, and no practical solution has been delivered. We have had the public inquiry, the inquiry has now presented its findings to the Welsh Government, so I'm disappointed that we, as AMs here, haven't had the chance to scrutinise those findings either.

And it does look like, as well, that we've had contradictory information as well on this issue. We've had the leader of the house, in answering First Minister's questions last week and in previous times as well, give us one position, we've had the economy and transport Minister providing evidence to the environment committee last week that appears to tell us something different, and the First Minister something else. So, what I do hope will come out of this debate when the Cabinet Secretary, or the leader of the house, perhaps, responds to this debate this afternoon, is again that clarity on the position and the timetable of the decision-making process. I think it's absolutely clear that we have that.

But I understand the motion that's put forward today; I'm willing to listen to the debate before we make any conclusion on this side about how that should be—which way we'll vote ourselves. We have constantly said a decision needs to be made as soon as possible. So, I don't want to see that put off, but I accept absolutely—

Will you just take an intervention—

Yes.

—just to make that point? I think it's not a matter of seeking to build in additional delays into a process that's already taken a long time, whichever side of the debate you're on; we're talking about weeks here before a decision will be taken. 

Yes, and I absolutely accept that position. We are talking a matter of weeks and, of course, the new First Minister—I see the argument for the new First Minister taking the final decision. I do see that argument as well, and I appreciate what you're saying. 

For the record, my postbag is full of people who don't want to see the destruction of the Gwent levels, which some of them are describing as the equivalent of the Amazon basin. So, that is certainly a particular concern of many, many of my constituents.

However, I completely agree with the motion. We need to ensure that the new Government has options available because, looking back, it's five years since Mark Barry's report, 'A Metro for Wales’ Capital City Region' made the case for a step change in regional public transport connectivity and the adoption of an integrated city region economic transport and land use plan. We are a very long way from that, and we have ignored the fact that, two years later, the Cardiff capital region board's 'Powering the Welsh Economy' pointed out that an integrated transport system, aligned with land use planning, could be a catalyst for economic change across the region. And at the heart of this aspiration, they say, is the metro vision for a modern, high-quality, multimodal integrated public transport network. Hurrah. I completely agree with that. And we have to acknowledge that it is simply unsustainable to have 100,000 people commuting into Cardiff and Newport by car for both climate change and public health reasons. This is simply something that hasn't been properly considered in the inquiry. Given that it costs exactly the same per kilometre to build a rail line as a motorway and yet the rail line can carry between eight and 20 times more people, that, in my view, is where the investment needs to go, in line with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—inspirational legislation created by Carl Sargeant.

Now, we've just heard the pleas from the Member for Torfaen—I'm sorry she's not here at the moment. But earlier on she was talking about the need to have trains stopping in Pontypool so that people could commute by train to their jobs, and I absolutely agree with that. We simply aren't going to distribute growth across the region unless we have that connectivity. If I want to start a new business, I'm much more likely to want to locate it in Pontypool than in Cardiff, simply because the rents are going to be cheaper. We've had this very expensive public inquiry going on for months about 14 miles of road, and this has meant, sadly, policy paralysis and not nearly enough attention paid to the public transport infrastructure that this region needs.

So, I want to see a lot more work being done by the Government, old and new, coming in as a matter of urgency on the public transport options, which were absent from the public inquiry. For example, how can we use the four lines running east of Cardiff Central? Two of them have to be dedicated to the so-called high-speed lines to London and elsewhere. We can have a debate about that, but the other two lines are not being appropriately deployed to provide many more train services running to and from the east of Cardiff for local traffic, and I want to understand why that is, because there are four lines and we're not using them. So—

Will the Member give way?

Okay.

Does she recognise the new station at Llanwern, with the proposed new private station near St Mellons, but also with campaigns for stations, such as at Magor and Undy—if we have several new stations on that line, then that would make a very strong case for an additional type of stopping service beyond the high-speed services we currently have?

I don't disagree with Mark Reckless. I'm sure that's one of the possible options, but obviously there are other places that need to be served. This isn't quite the place for examining the detail. But one of the important things we've learned recently, since Transport for Wales took over the Arriva contract, is that James Price has assured us that the Keolis contract is flexible enough to be able to adapt to changing targets. So, this is very good; we can change the spec for the contract without incurring penalties. So, this is really important. So, instead of assuming that the congestion around Newport can be magicked away by building more roads—it would be a first if that was the case—the Government needs to do some serious work on the public transport solutions to the congestion problems that Newport undoubtedly faces. In particular, I want to know in the short term how long it takes to get a fleet of electric or hydrogen buses purchased and up and running. That is the fastest solution while we fix the rail lines and get more trains on the tracks.

I admire the Member for Cardiff Central for her independence of mind, and I frequently agree with what she says. There is a serious argument about which is the best solution to the problems that we all know about. I stood for election, as did my colleagues, in support of the blue route rather than the black route, although I did say about two years ago that the black route would be better than no route. We can't go on endlessly in limbo as we have been for the last 20 years. But this is undoubtedly going to be the biggest capital spending decision that has been made since devolution 20 years ago, and I think that the importance of it does require, as Rhun ap Iorwerth said in his opening speech, that the decision should be owned by the new First Minister. I know that there's collective responsibility, of course, and all members of the Cabinet who are involved in taking this decision, ultimately, who survive the reshuffle, will, therefore, be able to be made accountable. But I do think that as a matter of practice it should be the new Cabinet, under the leadership of the new First Minister, that ought to take this decision, especially as we're not talking of—Rhun ap Iorwerth said just a few moments ago—immense delay. It's just a couple of weeks before the new First Minister is in place. There can surely be no argument for rushing this in the course of the next few hours, in effect, given that we've been waiting for it for such an immense length of time.

It is a decision on which, I think, party lines may become blurred, and a good thing too, in my opinion. We should take into account the variety of different interests that have contributed, and are still contributing, as we know from our postbags, each and every one of us, to the decision that has to be made. So, it does seem to me that there's an unanswerable case for what Rhun ap Iorwerth set out and is set out in this motion, and I shall be supporting it today.

The principle of accountability in politics is an important one, of course, and it’s clearer in some situations than others these days. Too often, over the past two years, we have seen politicians not only making promises when they’re not in a situation to achieve those or fulfil those promises—I’m talking about Brexit, by the way, if you’re not sure—but we also see Ministers, and First or Prime Ministers indeed, making decisions that are going to have far-reaching consequences for those that they’re accountable to before stepping aside, without facing the results of their decisions, without having to justify the decisions, and without being accountable for those decisions. That’s an important principle that, in a very different context, is visible here, especially when we’re talking about such a major decision, especially when it’s a decision that is being taken so close to the end of the period of one First Minister in office, and the beginning of the period of the next First Minister. And I’m looking forward to Adam Price taking his place in the frontbenches over there.   

We've heard, of course, about the scale of the decision to be taken: the single largest investment decision that this Government, or any Government since the dawn of devolution, has taken. But, of course, if that decision is made by the current First Minister, then it won't be him that'll be in a position to be held to account for it or to have to justify it and its wide-ranging consequences. Of course, it won't be the present First Minister who will be held accountable when the building starts and when the unique protected landscape of the Gwent levels is damaged, the ancient woodland, the nationally designated nature conservation sites. It won't be the present First Minister who will be held to account when future generations face the adverse effects resulting from the increased carbon emissions, making it, of course, more difficult for the Government to meet its own emission reduction targets. It won't be the present First Minister's capital budget that will be limited, or whose entire borrowing powers will have been used. It's not the present First Minister who will have to explain to communities in other parts of Wales, consequently, why they won't get the fair share of capital investment that they were hoping for. Now, all of that will fall, of course, on the next First Minister. And who knows? The next First Minister may well have different priorities. Instead of spending the £1.4 billion on 14 miles of tarmac, he or she may decide to use that money to realise phases 2 and 3 of the metro—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, okay, very briefly. 

Why do you think it's only going to cost £1.4 billion?

Wow. I don't, and I'm glad that you reminded me of that. [Laughter.] Look at what else we could achieve if it transpires to be much higher than that. We could build the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and I know there'd be one person here who'd be supportive of that; we could bring all homes in Wales up to a required energy efficiency standard; we could electrify 175 miles of train lines in Wales.

Now, these are the projects that, according to the future generations commissioner, could be built using the money for the M4, and I commend the future generations commissioner's report, 'Transport fit for Future Generations', which raises fundamental questions. It highlights that there are limitations to the modelling undertaken by the Welsh Government. The black route would exacerbate many of the societal and environmental challenges facing Wales, and the black route is weak on the criteria set out in the well-being of future generations Act. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the black route is incompatible with the well-being of future generations Act. We were told that the Act is world leading, and I'm happy to believe that, but it's only world-leading legislation when it leads to world-leading change, and this is very much business as usual. For me, it's a litmus test as to whether the Government takes seriously its duties under the well-being of future generations Act, and I very much hope that the decision will be left to the incoming First Minister.

I think the motion before us is fairly uncontroversial; I think it's a matter of fact that the decision will be made by the next First Minister. In the budget, the decision to sign the Orders is primarily a procedural one, and as I understand it, without signing the Orders, the public inquiry report won't be able to be published. So, I hope that there's a unanimous vote here this afternoon in favour of the motion.

Rather than dwelling on that, I just want to address some of the longer term issues I think we, as a National Assembly, need to start thinking about ahead of that budget vote. It's been stated that my party said in our manifesto that we would build a new motorway around Newport, and, of course, at that time, the cost was around £700 million. In fact, the First Minister told this Chamber that it would be way under £1 billion. The public inquiry was told that had gone up to £1.4 billion—it had doubled. We now understand that it's gone up to £1.7 billion. Now, there's no way I'd think that this scheme's going to come out anywhere under £2 billion. Two thousand million pounds for 12 miles of road that is set to produce average journey-time savings of between two and a half and five minutes. Now, that seems to me a completely disproportionate investment for those levels of benefits. And as that cost has changed, we need to reflect on the cost benefit of this scheme.

The road sponsors—and, let's call a spade a spade, this has been pushed by industry, by the Confederation of British Industry, their lobbying organisation, who have a material interest in seeing this scheme succeed. Why wouldn't they? They're going to get £2 billion of public money going through the company books. They're quoting the official Welsh Government scheme benefit of a £2 billion return on investment. That's £2 billion in, £2 billion out. Now, that doesn't seem to me a terribly high return on investment.

But let's challenge that figure because that figure is never challenged. The media doesn't do it, we don't do it; we simply repeat and accept the logic of a £2 billion return on investment. How do they get that figure? The figure is built on sand; it's built on what are called notional time savings—not even real time savings—notional time savings. So, they say, if you take the number of people using that road, and they save between two and a half and five minutes on a journey, and they monetise that, they say that extra five minutes—let's be generous—will produce five minutes of extra productivity for the economy. They then multiply that by 30 years, so they come up with this fantastical figure of hundreds of thousands of people gaining an extra five minutes, and in that five minutes, they are going to produce these wonderful returns for the economy. Now, I don't know about you, if I get to my mate in Bristol's house five minutes sooner, that's not going to produce a return for the economy.

So, this figure just does not make sense, and it's done over 30 years. They are retrospectively concocting an economic formula to justify the conclusion they came to in the first place. And it's interesting, back in 2011, the M4 corridor enhancement measures report was published, which proposed a number of measures to improve the section from Magor to Castleton. Nothing's been done with it; nothing has been done on that report and how to bring about change on that road because all the highway engineers are transfixed on getting this large career-defining project on their books. So, we need to be far more sceptical about these figures. The cost, we know, has more than doubled, it's approaching being trebled. The benefits are not what they are sold as, and I think we need to be robust in reflecting on the commitments given, especially post Brexit, when resource is going to be much more scarce, and whether or not that is the best way to make Wales more resilient to the economic shocks coming our way. If any of us were given a £2 billion cheque to spend to make Wales better, how many of us would honestly spend it on 12 miles of road to save five minutes on the average journey?

I'd just like to make a final point about Newport, because there is a problem in Newport, and I have great sympathy with my friend and colleague the Assembly Member for Newport West, who makes the case for addressing this. The problem with Newport is that Newport is a car-dependent city. The figures are stark. In Newport, half the proportion of people walk to work that do in Cardiff—50 per cent fewer people in Newport walk to work than in Cardiff; 135 per cent of people in Newport drive to work compared to Cardiff—about a third of the number, as I say, in Newport drive to work, compared to Cardiff. The number of carbon dioxide emissions in Newport are 25 per cent higher than they are in Cardiff. Newport is a car-dependent city. The Conservative council ripped up the bus lanes, and the current council have not succeeded in giving any money for active travel measures.

As has been mentioned, the future generations commissioner has published some detailed work on what can be done in practical terms to improve sustainable transport measures in Newport. There is a problem in Newport. There's a problem on the M4—40 per cent of the traffic on the M4 is local journeys, it's Newport people driving from one bit of Newport to the other, and we need to address that, we need to help Newport, Newport council needs to help Newport. What doesn't help Newport or all of Wales is blowing £2 billion on a piece of road that's going to fill up almost as quickly as it's built.

I've only got a few additional comments to add to the very thorough explanations given by my colleague Lee Waters. I'll be supporting the motion today, because it makes absolute sense and the decision will be taken in the early part of next year. But, I think, in addition, there are obviously environmental issues, and there are issues of affordability. But for me, when we come to take that decision, it's really going to be about what sort of Wales we want: what is our vision for the future? Do we want to invest as a society, for a generation, all our capital resources in cars, lorries, congestion and pollution, or do we really want to invest—

Can I come in there?

Yes, certainly.

I just wonder, given the number of Labour Members for whom their vision of Wales does not include building an M4 relief road, why did you put that in your manifesto.

We had a manifesto that was not to build a particular route, but was to build a route that would deal with the congestion issue. We also have in our manifesto a whole series of commitments in terms of the metro and integrated transport, and my friend Lee Waters also makes a very valid point in terms of the affordability issue of something that started off at several hundred million to something that now has massively increased.

I think it is perfectly right that we do have to have a solution in terms of Newport, and we have to look very closely at what that is. I think my view is that building a 12-mile stretch of motorway at this particular cost is not actually a solution to anything in the long term. I mean, the fact of the matter is that you don't deal with obesity by buying a bigger pair of trousers [Laughter.]. We have to start looking at realistic alternatives. The most important thing, I think, is how committed to an integrated public transport system—. And I think that is where the debate is going to come. It's going to be about vision, it's going to be about our belief in and reinforcement of the future generations Act and of our environmental legislation. So, when we come to this matter early next year, it's going to be about our vision, it's going to be about the sort of society we want and it's also going to be about a modern future transport system, and whether that is the priority that we really want to invest in, or do we want to look at the old solutions—to throw money at it and actually achieve no solution whatsoever?

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd very much like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward the debate today and thank Members for their very considered contributions. I'll say at the outset that the Government will be supporting Plaid Cymru's motion today. 

Plaid argue in their motion very clearly that the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed M4 corridor around a Newport project should be left to the new First Minister appointed in December 2018, subject to the findings of the local public inquiry. Should the statutory Orders be made, it will be for a new First Minister and her or his Cabinet to ultimately make a decision to enter into the construction contract that would enable the scheme to proceed. However, it is important that the current process concerning the statutory Orders is allowed to run its course, and, accordingly, it's the intention of the current First Minister, Carwyn Jones, on behalf of the Welsh Ministers, to make a decision on those statutory Orders if at all possible during this Assembly term, on the basis of recommendations made in the inspector's report.

Obviously, the First Minister has not yet seen the inspector's report, we are waiting on the advice from the officials, including legal advice, to go with that report in order to enable him to make that decision. On making that decision, the inspector's report will immediately be published. And, just to be really clear, because I know that we've had clarity issues across this, we've queried what 'immediately' means in a legal context in this way, and, effectively, the report will be appended to the decision notice that makes the Orders, or doesn't make the Orders—one way or the other—because obviously you can go either way with that decision. After that's happened, we will schedule a debate and a vote in the Assembly in Government time, if we are able to do that within the time frame of this particular Government. As I've said, the decision to enter into a binding construction contract for the delivery of the scheme, should the Orders be made, would be a matter to be taken forward by the new First Minister and her or his Cabinet in the new year.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government officials who received the independent inspector's report, following the public inquiry, are in the process of preparing detailed advice for the First Minister on the basis of those recommendations. That advice, which includes the complex legal advice, will inform a decision under the relevant legislation as to whether or not to make the statutory Orders. This is an executive decision for Ministers under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that needs to be based on the content of a detailed report produced by a planning inspector following a lengthy public inquiry. There is no legal role within that decision-making process for the legislature. However, once the statutory Order decision-making process is complete, we will bring forward the debate in Government time so the Assembly can express its own view on the project.

Will the leader of the house give way?

Yes, of course.

Given the length of this report and the complexity of the issue, while of course he needs legal advice and he needs other people who will advise and read the report, wouldn't it make sense for the First Minister to have the report now and to have more time and opportunity to read it, to properly give consideration over a necessary period to what decision he then makes?

No, our advice is that it should come with the advice together, so that the First Minister can regard it as a whole, and clearly this isn't something that's going to take a few hours to read. It will take an appropriate length of time for him to be able to go through that—whatever that length of time is. So, Llywydd, you can see that the time for that decision is running out. But nevertheless, if this First Minister is able to do that, then we think he should do that. If he's not able to do it, then he's not able to do it and it will of course go across to the next First Minister, whoever she or he is.

Obviously, there is—. And I'm grateful for the information to date that the leader of the house has put on the record, but given that there is a leadership contest going on at the moment in Labour, and this has been a topic for discussion, the current First Minister has been very careful not to prejudice himself, and I don't think any one of the candidates has prejudiced themselves deliberately, but in the cut and thrust of that discussion, they've expressed opinions. Has the Welsh Government sought advice as to whether the incoming First Minister, if this decision isn't taken, would be able to take that decision, given the debate that's gone on in the current leadership campaign?

I'm not aware that such advice has been sought or taken. I'm sure it would be, though, if we found ourselves in that position. As far as I'm aware, the candidates—. Well, certainly one of them hasn't made an announcement of that sort. That would be a matter for the lawyers to decide, and we'd have to take appropriate advice if that happens.

But, as I say, it's a complex process. There are very distinct legal parameters for what can and can't be taken into account when you undertake the statutory process. This is a process that will be subject to appeal and judicial review, almost certainly, and therefore the lawyers are very keen that the exact provisions—what is relevant, what is not relevant, what should be taken into account or should not be taken into account—are set out for the First Minister in making the decision and in reading the report.

As I say, at this point in time, it is still possible that that would happen with this First Minister and that we would schedule a debate for next week. As soon as I'm aware of whether that is or isn't possible, then obviously, Llywydd, I will be letting you know, as we discussed in Business Committee, and also business managers across the Chamber know. That is the intention at the moment. As I say, the complexity of the process means that we have to be very contained about the way that we do it.

However, if it is not possible for this First Minister to make that process—. And I'd just like to say, for the record, that the First Minister remains the First Minister until he resigns and isn't the First Minister; his powers don't diminish in some scale over that time. He retains all the powers of the First Minister right up until the second he resigns. So, just to be clear, legally, there is no diminution of power as that goes ahead. But if that is not possible, then I will be recommending to the next Government and the new First Minister, as outgoing leader of the house, that that Government should honour the commitment to bring forward a debate in Government time for the Assembly to have its say. I fully expect that the incoming Government will do so, and the reason I expect that, Llywydd, is that this is not an easy issue. The choices before us, as many Members have set out, are very hard indeed. The M4 is no ordinary project, and there have been many voices expressing strong views on both sides of the argument.

In setting out these steps today, I believe the Welsh Government has balanced some important processes and principles, and the Welsh Government needs to follow the formal legal process in relation to deciding whether to make the statutory Orders for the project. The Assembly will then express its view on the project. That view will, of course, be known by the next Government if it finds itself in the position of making decisions on whether to implement the scheme by entering into the construction contract. Many Members today have set out parameters by which they think that decision might be made. We therefore support the Plaid motion today on the basis that it acknowledges that, if the statutory Orders are made, it is still within the prerogative of the future Government to determine whether it should enter into a contract for the scheme to be constructed within the parameters of all of the things mentioned by all Members who have contributed to the debate today. Diolch.  

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much for all of the contributions to this short debate this afternoon. I think it's been a very useful debate. It's been about timing. I think it was inevitable that we would move on to areas of the pros and cons of the black route, and some very strong points were made by Jenny Rathbone and Lee Waters and others that I would agree with—that we are barking up the wrong tree here in terms of the approach that has been taken in developing the black route, and what that says about our lack of innovation in dealing with a major transport challenge that we have in Wales.

Some technical points have been made about the process that we will follow. Let me just make it clear in my mind. I think we need that pause to take a breath around this time around the changing of a First Minister. I do not believe that we should be having that debate here in the Assembly next week. I think that should happen in the early days of a new First Minister. As I outlined—and the point has been supported by others—this is about ownership of this programme for a new M4, or not, by a new First Minister and, as was rightly pointed out, his or her Government—his or her Cabinet. I believe that we are, in effect, asking for a delay—a slight delay—in order that we hopefully can move quicker towards a more innovative solution for the transport challenges of south-east Wales and that M4 corridor, which, as I expressed earlier, we certainly recognise do exist.

So, I hope that people will see today's vote and today's discussion for what they are: a signal of this Parliament's wish that the incoming new First Minister applies the utmost clarity to consideration of what is in our best interests as a nation when it comes to that decision on the new M4. I'm grateful for the signals that this motion will be supported this afternoon, and I look forward now to seeing the new Government and the new First Minister saying, 'This is our decision—a decision that we are not willing to take, or that we are willing to take, and face the consequences upon it.'

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings us to item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate on direct farm payments. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s my pleasure to move this motion in the name of Plaid Cymru.

The Government, of course, recently published a consultation document, 'Brexit and our land’, that outlines how the Government will support land management and agriculture in the period that we are facing—the post-Brexit period. The Government’s intention is to scrap basic payments to farmers and to base their support in future on making bids to two new programmes. I would argue, as the agricultural unions have argued, that there aren't two cornerstones for any future proposal, but there should be three. Yes, productivity, which is reflected in the element of economic resilience in what the Government is proposing. Yes, environmental interests, biodiversity, flood management, and so on—these public goods that are also recognised in an element of what is proposed by Government. But that third element which is missing, of course, is an element that provides stability and assurance to Welsh farmers in such an unstable and uncertain environment, and that, of course, could be provided through a basic payment. So, in the midst of the Brexit maelstrom, at the very time that the farmers of Wales really need the stability and certainty that these basic payments provide, Labour intends to take it away from them. 

Brexit has placed agriculture on a cliff edge, and by scrapping the basic payment the Welsh Government is taking away that safety net that our family farms currently have. When the Scottish Government is committed to retaining the basic payment, when Northern Ireland is also likely to retain the basic payment, when farmers throughout the European Union will not only retain the basic payment, but will move increasingly in that direction, Wales is going in the other direction and, to all intents and purposes, is dancing to Michael Gove’s tune.

If you look at the UK Agriculture Bill, what you will have, of course, in the section for Wales is a cut and paste from the proposals that the Conservatives are bringing forward for England. That Bill, by the way, was tabled before the consultation on 'Brexit and our land' was completed. The legislation was tabled before the consultation here had been completed. What does that tell us about how meaningful that process was? 

The situation of having extreme price volatility continues to impact heavily on farm businesses. It impacts profitability, of course, but also future investment decisions, and weather events—and, you know, we've seen plenty of those with the wet winter and the dry summer this year—animal and plant disease, geopolitical strife, these are all factors that have a bearing on production costs and marketplace returns, and a stability measure of baseline support is essential to counter some of these impacts. But, of course, the Government's proposals are leaving our farmers exposed to all of these forces, without the protection being afforded to our competitors, some of whom are within the UK and, of course, others across the EU. As I said, Welsh farmers are standing on a Brexit cliff edge and the Welsh Government is taking away the safety net that we have beneath them.

As well as removing that safety net, under the Welsh Government's proposals, funding will be open to all land managers, rather than applying just to active farmers. This will siphon investment away from farming families, and that money we know, when it's invested, every pound generates a return of £7 for the wider rural economy, but now, of course, we could see banking institutions, pension funds and inactive farmers who make no contribution to the local economy or the local community benefiting from Labour's proposals. Plaid Cymru believes that any new system post Brexit should direct support to active farmers, rather than rewarding land ownership itself. [Interruption.] Very briefly, then, please. I'm happy to take the intervention.

Thank you for taking the intervention. In terms of defining active farmers, are we talking about the people who currently own land but it's actually farmed actively by the tenants?

Well, in essence, it's the people taking the financial risk; it's the people in the front line who are doing the farming and not people being rewarded just because they happen to own that land.

My concerns as well around the way the Welsh Government has presided over this process were heightened during the budget scrutiny that we had with the Cabinet Secretary a few weeks ago. I asked whether there were budget allocations for the modelling that we're constantly told will happen to show that this is a valid approach. 'Not specifically', was the answer, and I'm reading from the transcript here. I asked then about whether the piloting that's required will be funded from the budget. Well, 'We haven't got any specified' budget, and I quote,

'so we will need to find that money',

I was told then. The Cabinet Secretary added:

'There is obviously some scope within our current budget...but I don't know how much we are going to need'.

Where's the plan? Where's the plan? I mean, where's your organised and planned approach to what is going to be the biggest change in agricultural support since the second world war? And you don't know.

But you do know, of course, that we need the modelling. Your predecessor undertook extensive modelling before we started discussing options, so that that discussion came from an informed position. We know that we need the piloting—you've said it yourself—for this never-before-tried approach. And the advisory service needs to be ramped up substantially in order to support those who might be struggling with this transition. And whether the Government has the capacity to manage and deliver change of this scale and this magnitude remains to be seen. Do you have enough civil servants to process what could be tens of thousands of applications for these schemes? No wonder you picked a start date a year down the line, because, clearly, there are so many questions that remain to be answered. So, any confidence that the farming community had in your Government's proposals and in your handling of this process have been ebbing away week after week after week, throughout the consultation period, since the consultation period, and it was clear for all to see and to hear at the winter show this week.

So, the time has come for this Government to face the reality and to acknowledge that it needs now to take a step back and to look again at including a basic payment as part of its proposals for any future scheme. We can all here today start by supporting Plaid Cymru's motion.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Formally.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and formally move the amendment in the name of Darren Millar.

I think one thing we could do by starting this debate is thank the many thousands of farmers the length and breadth of Wales for the tremendous job that they do in looking after the countryside, whether that's on the mountain, whether it's on the lowland, or everything in between. Because Wales is renowned for its natural environment, and we have much to praise and sing about, to say what a positive contribution the tens of thousands of farmers have made over recent decades. That was evident to everyone at the Royal Welsh winter fair, and indeed the Royal Welsh summer show, where the greatness of the food and agri sector is on display for all to see. We're talking of an industry in Wales that supports a £7 billion turnover and tens of thousands of jobs. But one thing that cannot be underestimated is that, despite the money that has come in from the common agricultural policy, there has been a diminishing number of people being able to make a sustainable living off the land, and an increasing reliance on the volume of money that goes from CAP just to keep businesses afloat—80, 90 per cent of returns show that that is the turnover of many agricultural businesses the length and breadth of Wales. When it comes to the processing sector here in Wales, regrettably, much of the primary produce that we produce on our land actually ends up going over into other parts of the United Kingdom, or indeed over to Europe. Surely, if we are to retain value and drive up wealth here in Wales, this opportunity to devise a new system of support, a new system of efficiency within the sector, has to be grasped with both arms so that we can create an industry that does allow young people to come into the industry. At the moment, the average age of a farmer is 62 here in Wales, and increasingly we're seeing fewer and fewer opportunities for young farmers to come into the industry, despite—Llyr and I were in a question and answer session on Monday, and the back of the room was packed out with young faces, boys and girls, looking to create an opportunity in this great primary industry that has served our country so well. But we cannot turn our back on the opportunity to craft something that is distinctive here in Wales, that above all does offer the core support that the rural economy and the wider rural economy require by that support going into agriculture. My biggest worry when it comes to the 'Brexit and our land' consultation is that, actually, when the Minister or Cabinet Secretary in that consultation refers to 'land managers', we are fundamentally changing the equation in the way that that money will be distributed to recipients who traditionally have not received money out of the rural development fund, or indeed direct support to agriculture, and, above all, organisations that don't necessarily need the support that that money would offer them to actually undertake the projects that would be available under various Government schemes.

As the opener in the debate today touched upon, the lack of modelling around many of the proposals in 'Brexit and our land' is a deep concern, because, surely, to actually put proposals into a document to be considered, we do have to understand whether those proposals would fly, and whether they would be able to be implemented in a relatively short period of time. When you look at some of the proposals in there, you're actually looking at going from a recipient base of about 16,000 recipients to potentially 40,000 or 45,000 recipients. That is a hell of a diminishing pool of resource that's going to spread far further amongst people who, as I said, traditionally have not accessed that scheme, and, above all, maybe be able to deliver many of the projects that they've historically delivered without that support. And so, I do think that the Cabinet Secretary does, when she's considering her consultation responses—and I presume that consideration will limit her response this afternoon, because it is right that, obviously, the 12,000 people who have engaged in this exercise have all put their various ideas on the table—give full consideration to those proposals. But we can rally around what we believe are the core principles of the rural economy, and one of the core principles of the rural economy is a vibrant and diverse agricultural sector, promoting young people coming into the industry, providing that primary product of food and conservation. Because conservation is a really important consideration when we're looking at what our land can achieve here in Wales. And I do believe that instead of looking at this, as the opener of the debate talked about, as a cliff edge to walk off, it is an opportunity, a door to walk through, that, as the amendment talks of, does introduce greater productivity into the industry, does reverse the decline in the number of active farmers within Wales and, above all, re-energises a sector that is desperately in need of a rebalancing of the way it attracts greater returns from the marketplace and more of the return of the marketplace is returned to the farm gate, rather than left in the hands of the processors and retailers.

And so, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon. I hope that the amendment does find support, because I think it complements the motion that is before us. I look forward to the Chamber supporting the amendment. 

Well, I'm going to satisfy Andrew R.T. Davies by saying that we will support the motion and the amendments. And I agree with everything that's been said by Llyr Gruffydd and also by Andrew R.T. Davies.

I've always seen Brexit as an opportunity for Welsh agriculture. There is a challenge, obviously—any major change of this kind is bound to be a challenge, but looking at the medium to the long term, I think that Welsh farming can benefit very significantly from Brexit, because it does enable us to put together our own tailor-made policy for Wales. And Wales is very different from other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly from England, in the farming sector, and I've pointed out previously in questions to the agriculture Secretary—whatever she's now called—that the common agricultural policy means more to farmers in Wales than it does in England, because it can make up to 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, whereas the average in England is only 55 per cent. And 85 per cent of farm subsidies that are currently paid in Wales are under pillar 1 rather than pillar 2, so that proves the importance of the question of stability to which Llyr Gruffydd referred in his opening speech. Given that the basic payment scheme is so overwhelmingly important to Welsh farmers, moving from reliance upon that to some other policy should take us, I think, a considerable period of time. If you've got 85 per cent of your money being spent at the moment in the form of a basic payment, I wonder about some of the schemes that the Cabinet Secretary has in mind—what they might contain to replace it. There is no doubt that there's a great deal of uncertainty in the farming sector that's created by the Government's announcement on top of the Brexit shambles, which has been created by Theresa May. Given that—[Interruption.] I had no hand in Theresa May's decisions whatsoever, unfortunately, otherwise we wouldn't, perhaps, now be having so many debates. I've been perfectly consistent in my view since I joined the Anti-Common Market League in 1967. So, this is something that has been a thread that has gone throughout my entire life.

But to return to the motion, this is particularly important—the stability for those who farm in less favoured areas, and 80 per cent of the uplands of Wales are less favoured areas, and 84 per cent of those holdings depend upon cattle and sheep, and that is essential to preserve the landscape and to promote biodiversity. So, I can see that the resilience schemes and the public goods schemes can march together in this area, but the sums of money that are involved for each individual farmer are significant and the schemes need to be well designed.

So, I think the Cabinet Secretary is moving in the right direction, but I'm concerned about the speed with which this is going to be implemented. Generally speaking, basic payment schemes feed through into land values rather than into farm incomes. That is a major flaw in them, so I think it is right to move away from basic payments. But where you've got upland farms and others that are marginal and can never be made properly commercial without some kind of public support, I do believe we need to have some specific scheme designed to meet their needs. Otherwise, we do risk not just businesses going out of production but also the environmental consequences that would flow from that, which would be disastrous. Wilding on the hills I think is a major problem that we need to reverse. Anything that might inadvertently contribute to greater wilding on the hills I think is to be opposed. 

Farmers work very hard for very little return in terms of income. I think the average farm income is about £23,000 a year. So, the basic payment is an absolutely vital element in keeping people on the land producing food and all the other consequences that flow from that. So, I would just plead with the Cabinet Secretary not to move too fast in the direction of basic payment support and moving to more environmentally based schemes, although I do think that she's moving in the right direction. What we have to do also, of course, is to take advantage of the opportunities that Brexit brings. If there is no deal, or, more correctly, if we leave the EU on World Trade Organization terms, there are going to be massive tariffs on trade between Britain and the EU. And given that we're only about two thirds self-sufficient in food production in the United Kingdom, this is a massive opportunity for import substitution, and that's good news I think for British farmers and for Welsh farmers in particular.

There is no doubt that the agricultural industry and family farms face the greatest challenge in at least a generation due to Brexit and the uncertainty that it brings. I don't think you would have found many people at the winter fair earlier this week who were seeing this as the opportunity that some Members in this Chamber would like us to see, though one must of course remain optimistic. 

It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the importance of the farming sector to Wales. It underpins a food and drink supply chain worth over £6 billion. It employs 17 per cent of the national workforce, 220,000 people all told, with 58,000 working full or part-time on farm holdings, making agriculture a much more important part of the Welsh economy than it is in the economy of England. Farmers manage 80 per cent of the land in Wales, including 600,000 hectares of environmentally designated areas. Farming businesses play a crucial role in providing public access to the countryside in Wales, with 16,000 miles of footpaths, 3,000 miles of bridleways and 460,000 acres of open access land—all farmed.

Thirty-three per cent of the population of Wales lives in our rural communities, and crucially almost 30 per cent of the people employed in agriculture are Welsh speakers, the highest proportion, far and away, of any industry in our country. Agriculture provides the bedrock of the economy for a large proportion of the communities where Welsh is still a natural community language. The consequences of getting our post-Brexit support for farming—if we do end up with a post Brexit, and I live in hope—the consequences of getting that support wrong could be grave. We are of course not disputing in this part of the Chamber the benefits of using some of the support paid to farming businesses to deliver specific direct public goods, including environmental goods, animal welfare, access benefits—I'd also urge that those benefits should include looking, of course, at that support for Welsh as a community language and how important agriculture is in that regard. 

There are opportunities to be provided and welcomed from the economic resilience scheme, but we do not believe that, at this time of grave uncertainty, it is right to remove the safety net from farming families. We need a secure network of family farms to deliver the public goods that the Welsh Government says that it wants to see, and that we all want to see. We need a secure network of family farms to provide a basis for a secure and prosperous rural economy across Wales, and we need a secure network of family farms to help ensure a future for Welsh as a community language. 

Of course, the consultation is now closed and the Minister and her officials will be looking at the results, and this is an opportunity for the Cabinet Secretary to reflect and potentially to reconsider. I know that she was at the winter fair on Monday, and she will have heard, as did Llyr Gruffydd and I, the scale of the anxiety being expressed by people from rural communities across Wales—that anxiety, of course, compounded by short-term problems to do with the very difficult climatic conditions we've had, as Llyr Gruffydd mentioned. We urge the Cabinet Secretary today to really think about that anxiety, to think about what it is doing to family farms, to think about the level of concern and to agree, when she responds to the consultation, to retain an element of basic payment in any future farm support scheme.

Agriculture in Wales is not like agriculture in England. Our farms are much more important to our economy and to our communities. The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have accepted this, and that of course is why they retain an element of basic payment in their support for their farming industries. And, of course, their farming industries are much more like the farming industrial pattern here in Wales: small family farms. We don't have many oversubsidised barley barons here in Wales, and they don't have them in Scotland and Northern Ireland either.

Our industry is much more like the industry of those two countries than it is the industry in England. I still don't understand why the current proposed support scheme for Wales is basically a cut and paste from the English scheme. I've known the Cabinet Secretary for many years, and I can't imagine there are many things upon which she agrees with Michael Gove, so why on earth does she agree with Michael Gove about this? A bit of consistency is required here. The farming industries in England and Wales are so different. 

Llywydd, there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind in the face of the evidence or changing one's mind in the face of meaningful and valid representations. I really hope that the Cabinet Secretary will listen to the voices of rural communities—it doesn't matter, Llywydd, whether she listens to us, but it does matter whether she listens to them and those speaking for them—and to look to Scotland or Northern Ireland if she needs a model; we would like to see a made-in-Wales model, of course. And we urge her to provide our farmers with a bit more security going forward in the form of basic payments. This is really an opportunity for her to do the right thing. 

It is clear that the common agricultural policy is responsible for 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, and £274 million a year in direct payments, so it is hugely important to get the succession and the transition right after Brexit, and that is why the Welsh Government has repeatedly petitioned the UK Government to match current levels of EU funding. That is what the 'leave' campaign promised, after all, including MPs who now sit in the Cabinet, or is that another promise that got lost at the depot? But let's park that bus for now, because this debate is about where and how, and to what extent, that money should be spent post Brexit.

It's clear to me that the guiding principles must be that public money must deliver public good. And it's equally clear to me that the current system could do better to achieve that test as far as the environmental goods are concerned. For example, in 2016, the 'State of Nature 2016' report showed that 52 per cent of monitored farmland species have declined since the 1970s, that soil quality across all habitats, apart from woodland, has deteriorated, and 63 per cent of all freshwater bodies are not achieving 'good' status. And, last year, we saw record levels of pollution, and I've raised that in this Chamber time and time again, that we're seeing increasing levels of ammonia from agriculture, and that is affecting air quality. 

Now, I want to be clear here, because I'm not suggesting for one single moment that all farmers are polluters, but there are issues in the farming practices and the money that is being received compounding this. So, the fact is that the CAP has created an inherently unfair system that does benefit one group of land managers and excludes others. Even within food production, there are blatant anomalies, and horticulture is ineligible for support, and that's just one example. So, what we want to see moving forward is that we reverse some of the figures that I have just quoted, that we do equally support and we are mindful to support the needs of the smallholding, which have been mentioned here repeatedly, that we do prevent intensive farming, because that could be a consequence of a changing system, and that we do protect the needs of the hill farms, and I agree with a lot that's been said here this morning.

So, I do ask the Cabinet Secretary if the Welsh Government will pursue proposals for a new land management programme in that vein. And I hope that we can have some agreement that the system should be open to all land managers but that there is a clear system underneath that that does achieve the aims that are hoped for. I do recognise what has been said here this afternoon, of course, that we don't dilute what could potentially be a shrinking pot so that we don't end up having the outcomes that we are hoping for. And, ultimately, one of those outcomes will be the need to produce food efficiently but at the same time we do need to develop new income streams that protect and maintain our natural heritage.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. The UK will leave the common agricultural policy when we leave the EU, and I have been clear on many occasions before, during and since our 'Brexit and our land' consultation, as has the First Minister, that the basic payment scheme is not the right way to support farmers after Brexit. It is a period of great uncertainty, and we all agree that Welsh farmers need support to respond to the challenges of Brexit. This is the only way to keep farmers on the land and protect our communities. Direct payments are too blunt a tool to develop a productive and competitive agriculture sector. They do not incentivise improvements in productivity, nor do they allow farmers the flexibility to respond to volatility. There is no link whatsoever between BPS and productivity, farmers' effort or on-the-ground outcomes. We must support farmers in a better way.

The problems experienced by farmers this year as a result of the wet winter and dry, hot summer demonstrate a lack of resilience across the industry and the need for more targeted support than the BPS can provide. During the summer, the farming unions had to turn once more to Welsh Government for additional support for their members. The BPS is simply not adequately addressing volatility in the way some commentators would have us believe. This is why we are proposing transition to more targeted schemes, with two distinct schemes outlined in our consultation. The proposed schemes will provide a meaningful income stream for delivering public goods, environmental goods that will never go away, and they will provide targeted investment to drive improvements in productivity and flexibility, making farm businesses more resilient. Crucially, this will help farmers adapt their business to cope with a range of potential trading environments in a way direct payments would not, and I can assure Members that the 12,000 responses we have received are currently being analysed in great detail.

Those who seek to take the easy option and merely promote the status quo overlook the fact that Welsh farmers rely on taxpayers' support for an average of 81 per cent of their farm business income. I and many farmers I talk to want to be much more ambitious than slavishly ploughing on with an approach that clearly has not worked. And Neil Hamilton in his contribution—apart from the irony that he completely missed—seems to think that this is an achievement. Well, I don't, and the farmers who I talk to agree with me.

We will not be supporting the original motion. Turning to the amendments, I support the Conservatives' amendment. Scheme design will reflect the unique context in Wales. Proposed schemes will help the Welsh farming sector grow stronger, become more sustainable and increase public goods for all the citizens of Wales. In the original motion, I note Plaid Cymru's reference to active farmers, and I absolutely want funding to go to people actively delivering the outcomes we seek. BPS is not linked to these outcomes, productivity or their effort, as I've said, and I don't see how we can agree that this is fair to active farmers. And I do not think we should be putting the current active farmer test on a pedestal. We need to do much better, and we want a system where the people who do the work and take the risk get the benefit. In the consultation, I invited views on action to ensure tenants can access new schemes, and I'm committed to continuing to explore how to support all Welsh farmers.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that changes to payments will not be implemented without further consultation and old schemes will not be removed until new schemes are ready. And, as part of this commitment I announced on Monday, BPS will remain unchanged in 2020, providing farmers with some certainty in an uncertain time. To assist with the proposed transition to more targeted schemes, it's my intention to extend many existing Glastir contracts for a limited period, subject to agreement by the European Commission. This approach will maintain environmental outcomes during the interim period and deliver a seamless transition between the existing agri-environment schemes and the public goods schemes of the future. Following this, I propose a phased multi-year transition, ensuring farmers have enough time to adapt to the new approach. This will help farmers prepare their businesses to thrive in a post-Brexit trading environment.

If I could just pick up a couple of comments made by Members, just to say to Llyr Huws Gruffydd— he knows very well that we will be having our own Welsh agricultural policy. However, in order to pay basic payment schemes, before we have that piece of legislation, I need those temporary powers from the UK Agriculture Bill. You knew that very well. So, that was one of the reasons that we had to look at transitionary powers. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to pay farmers anything. 

Andrew R.T. Davies talked about young people, and I think, if you look back over the last two and a half years, I've done a great deal of work with young people. I'm meeting NFU's Next Generation tomorrow again. If you look at the schemes I've brought in, I've had a specific—. I've made it my priority around encouraging young people into agriculture. 

Helen Mary Jones, I certainly don't agree with everything Michael Gove does, and, if you look, this is not a cut and paste. Our scheme has far more emphasis on food production, for instance, than England. So, I know Brexit brings great ambiguity. It does allow us to develop a bespoke support system to harness the value of Welsh land and achieve a prosperous, resilient agriculture sector in Wales, which I'm sure we all want to see. Diolch. 

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate. 

Diolch. Time is short, so I'll just pick up on one or two points made. You talk, Cabinet Secretary, of the lack of resilience to the weather. There may be something in that; there's always room for improvement. But, of course, the nature of farming means that you're always susceptible to weather events no matter how resilient your business is. Is that measuring stick one that you use in relation to the homes and the businesses that were flooded following storm Callum as well, because they're not as resilient, maybe, as they could be? If you could devise a way of making controlling the weather a public good, then I'd be with you all the way in terms of funding some of these schemes, and, of course, climate change will make these weather events even more extreme. So, are you raising the bar year after year after year? So, you know, I think we can throw these lines out, but, really, they have to be much more meaningful than that, I believe.

In terms of the amendments, very, very briefly, we won't be supporting the Government's amendment, because, clearly, it deletes our whole motion, which isn't the approach I usually support in terms of Plaid Cymru motions. You have announced, of course, a year's delay in introducing the changes, but, of course, you haven't announced a change in direction. So, as far as I'm concerned, as welcome as the delay is, I would much rather that you take the step back and reconsider your approach, as I suggested in my opening remarks. 

And, as for the Conservative amendment, you seem to be blaming a lot on CAP. Clearly, CAP isn't perfect, but I wouldn't like to imagine what the situation would be without CAP, where more than half our businesses have depended upon it. And there seems to be a suggestion that the world will be much better off following Brexit. Now, I know your view, of course, around that, and all of the analysis—[Interruption.] No. No, I won't, I've only got two minutes. All the analysis that I've seen from the London School of Economics yesterday and the Treasury today suggests that we're very much going to be worse off as a result of Brexit. 

I will conclude just by referring to and thanking Helen Mary Jones for her contribution. She’s quite right in saying that we need a stable network of family farms in order to deliver the economic, environmental, social, cultural and linguistic outputs that we all want to see, but we therefore need an element of basic payment in order to maintain that stability, and I would urge everyone here today to support the Plaid Cymru motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

And that brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to the vote.

And that vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on direct farm payments. I call for a vote on the motion unamended tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 21, one abstention, 27 against, and, therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1, therefore. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2. I call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, one abstention, six against. Amendment 2 is agreed.

Now, a vote on the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 21 against. And, therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

Which brings us to our final item of business, the short debate. If those who are leaving could do so swiftly and quietly, we will move on to the short debate on Swansea parkway: the next steps for the Swansea bay city region, and I call Suzy Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and everyone else.

It's always pleasing to start a debate with agreement, Cabinet Secretary, and on this occasion, it's a common interest in the success of the Swansea bay city deal. It may say 'Swansea' in the title, but the opportunities for Neath Port Talbot, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire's local authority areas are just as exciting. We're talking about almost 10,000 new jobs and £2 billion economic uplift for the area. So, what's not to like? It's not as if we are short of home-grown innovative ideas, but we don't have the best record of commercialising them to benefit the many, and this is a chance to show that we can.

Confidence is key to the success of the deal and a component of confidence in this context is the ability to convince multinational investors, as well as those within Wales, that the region is easy to get to and easy to get around. Some of us were surprised when physical connectivity featured not at all in the plans for the deal, and I hope that the fact that Mike Hedges and I, and others, keep raising this will ensure that this missing link is not lost from your line of sight.

Professor Mark Barry has, of course, produced an initial scoping idea for a south Wales metro—a South Wales West metro, I should say. It's not perfect, in my view, and Rob Stewart, the leader of Swansea council, confirmed, in a meeting with AMs about the city deal, that the professor's ideas were just a starting point. But its very existence at all underlines the point that, while world-leading digital connectivity is a core aim of the deal, and essential for its longevity, people will still need to walk, cycle, drive, catch buses, trains, trams in order to participate in the deal—directly as the workforce and indirectly as beneficiaries of increased wealth generated in the region. To be confident in the region's agility, investors need to be confident in its mobility. And I suspect, Cabinet Secretary, that you may want to raise electrification in your response to this debate—by all means do. But I'd really like us to think about the future that we can do something about, and a future that acknowledges that careful decisions about transport can be about successful regeneration and not just about faster trains.

The city deal includes 11 projects focusing on manufacturing, energy, life science and well-being and economic acceleration, as well as its core drive for digital—global domination is how I like to think about it. But I do want to focus on what could, and should, be the twelfth, and that is a Swansea parkway station. Unlike electrification, which is a huge investment designed to speed up journeys, a parkway is every bit as much about regenerating this large site in Felindre, which has failed to attract much interest since the tinplate works went; it's just as much about that as improving connectivity around the region as well as improving mobility within Swansea and the peninsula.

A Swansea parkway, appropriately located to the north of the city, means that people can travel more swiftly east-west within the region and to the east of the region, as well as helping to maintain that all-important land-bridge between Ireland and the rest of the UK and then on to the European Union.

All that alone saves time for travellers who don’t need to go into Swansea itself. It also allays fears about the future of Neath station thrown up by Professor Barry’s schematic. It will also allow residents from parts of Swansea, Gower, Neath Port Talbot and even further afield a more convenient option of using the train to get into the city centre than currently exists, avoiding congestion and particulate pollution in a part of the country that is badly affected by both. This all dovetails strategically into work that Welsh Government is already doing regarding local train stations in Swansea, on which I am more than happy to let Mike Hedges have more than a minute if he wants to, and of course, Chair, if you would be happy to let him do that.

I did my own research on a parkway earlier this year. Of the residents I wrote out to in the north Swansea area, 89 per cent of respondents said that the Swansea bay city deal should include an offer on transport. This is something it doesn't have at present, of course. and when I asked what factors would make them use a Swansea parkway station, 77 per cent of them said avoiding city centre traffic and congestion was a big reason for them using a parkway station. That was followed closely, though, by a parkway to the north of Swansea being more conveniently located for some of them personally than the current stations, which, of course, include: Swansea High Street, Neath, Port Talbot itself, Briton Ferry, Skewen, Llansamlet, and Llanelli.

But a Swansea parkway can do more than just allow residents to gain quick and convenient access to new and existing jobs, because it can also, if done correctly of course, help improve air quality, which has become such a priority for us here in this Chamber. Almost half the residents told me that they would consider using a Swansea parkway if it was supported by bus and active travel networks, demonstrating that a Swansea parkway can play its part in encouraging commuters to ditch their cars altogether if it's done it the right way in the right place.

Thanks to the work of Sustrans and local organisations, we have an integrated sustainable transport network map for Neath Port Talbot and Swansea already, allowing residents and visitors to travel easily from one local authority area to the other. Work to incorporate a Swansea parkway into this would only benefit the region in terms of encouraging people to think differently about how they get from place to place as well as improving the flow of that movement.

The former tinplate works at Felindre just north of Swansea has received millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to develop it into Parc Felindre business park. The land is in public ownership, as you know, some is in the hands of the local authority and some in the hands of Welsh Government, but, over time, as we've heard, this has prompted very little interest until recently and precious little financial return. I’ve raised this before, and you have been pressed on it in recent months, more than once, by Dr Dai Lloyd, so you know what the situation is. We’re looking at around 200 hectares of land situated 7.5 km from the city centre, with a dedicated junction to the M4, and with potential for a railhead facility. That's on Swansea city council's own website confirming that. It is a strategic employment site of regional significance, size and location. And, of course, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which employs almost 6,000 people from across the travel-to-work area, most of them women, including at higher grades, is just across the road.

The vision for Felindre is for a high-level strategic business park serving south Wales. That is good. We do not want a retail park there. But it’s also adjacent to other publicly owned land of the same size, more or less, and that's earmarked for housing and 20 per cent of which would be for affordable housing, which would be good news for the threatened school at Craigcefnparc, but less attractive than at first sight because of its remoteness from the city centre. A parkway on the doorstep would solve that problem for 200 hectare-worth of housing.

After years of Welsh Government spending money in an attempt to try and attract tenants to the site, we are just now starting to see some interest. The international parcel delivery firm DPD announced their wish to move to the site and bring 130 new jobs to the area. Now, that is welcome, of course it is, but it is not exactly the beginning of an economic furnace sparked by the city deal. The leader of Swansea council is now claiming that there is significant interest from business in the site, and I really hope that he is right as then it’s less of a question about which comes first: investment from businesses in new jobs, or the infrastructure to support them. Myself, I think, either way, a parkway would help people reach those new jobs from within the city and outside in a way that doesn't clog up the motorway junctions to the north and west of Swansea, and certainly doesn't clog the main arterial routes in and out of that particular area. We all know what the M4 is like first thing in the morning, don't we, gentlemen?

Other parts of Wales have already seen significant investment in Wales from private businesses, thanks to work by both our Governments. In Deeside, Toyota announced they'll be building their new Auris and securing 3,000 jobs there. CAF are building trains in Newport, investing £30 million and creating 300 jobs. Aon are opening a new financial services office in Cardiff later this year. There's a whole string of these, but my constituents really want a piece of that action, through the council’s own plans for the city, the city deal itself and the work done by both our Governments. Residents have already said that they like the idea. Investors will expect easy accessibility to the city region. And I think a Swansea parkway is the missing selling point.

It would show investors that the Swansea bay city deal has a fully joined-up approach that would allow the research and innovation taking place across the region, at those 11 project sites, to be fully capitalised upon by businesses big and small. It would allow residents from across the region to start or end their journeys easily and quickly without adding to the congestion, while, at the same time, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality at all the hot points, if you like. Part of the answer to that, of course, is what Mike Hedges is likely to be talking about in a few minutes, and the decision on investment in a Swansea parkway, of course, is ultimately one for the UK Government, but it needs support from Welsh Government, I think, to create—what can I say? Well, let's create that confidence that I was speaking about earlier on in the presentation. To have a joint understanding between Governments on where that investment is needed and how it can be supported, I think, is crucial to the Swansea bay city deal reaching its full potential.

Now, in March this year, Cabinet Secretary, you told the Assembly—and I'm quoting—that

'Welsh Government is making numerous demands of UK Government in terms of improvement of passenger services, and improvements to journey times'. 

Quite rightly. A Swansea parkway could be the answer to some of the things that you’re looking for. In May, you added that a Swansea parkway

'should be taken forward at pace.'

And I would like to think that you remain of that view. I hope, with those comments in mind, you are able to confirm that Welsh Government will be joining my constituents, and, I hope, other AMs, in the push for the Swansea parkway station that the city region needs. Because, let's just think of the gain, if you continue to let the train take the strain. Thank you.

First of all, can I thank Suzy Davies for giving me a minute in this debate? I want to make two interrelated points. The first is that we need bus-rail interchanges at all rail stations, and the buses need to come and leave at the right times. Far too often, the buses go at a different time to the trains, and that means that it becomes less convenient to use a bus to get to the railway station. Once somebody has undertaken part of their journey by car, especially if they've come—. In my case, if I were to use my car to come by train to here, I'd either drive for 20 minutes in the wrong direction, or, I'd drive for 20 minutes until I get to Port Talbot, which is just under half my journey—about 40 per cent of my journey. It doesn't seem worthwhile changing the mode of transport when you've travelled that far. So, I think it's important that we have bus-rail interchanges and that we make it convenient for people.

The second point is about having a strategy to move people by rail between local places. This is reverse Beeching. For those who don't know what Beeching did, he got rid of all the branch lines because the main lines were making a profit, without realising that the people coming on the branch lines were getting on the main line, so all of a sudden, the main line's not making a profit either. I want to reverse that.

And also, we've got a lot of what used to be old stations. I know I mention Landore often, but you've got a lot of stations the trains go through at the moment—stations that exist. I know they need refurbishing, but they exist. I think we need to look at more of these. I'm going to drift into Jeremy Miles's area now, because there are some in Neath, as well, which exist on the main line. They could just be reopened. There will be some cost in the refurbishment, but they can be reopened. We need to get people out of their cars, but let's not do it when people getting out of their cars is inconveniencing them. We're asking them to do something for the environment that is going to hurt them. I want to ask people to do things for the environment that benefit them as well, because they're more likely to do it.

As I've said many times, we need a strategy for public transport in the Swansea bay city region. Can I just make two very brief points? One is: I think it's very important that Neath station does stay on the main line and it doesn't get left off. And, of course, a Swansea parkway—the Welsh Development Agency planned it from the 1990s. So, it's not new, but the fact it's not new doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate. Ken Skates.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. Can I thank Suzy Davies for bringing forward this short debate today, and also thank Mike Hedges for his contribution to an important matter for many people in the Swansea bay area? I have no doubt that the vision is clear and the partners want to work together to deliver the Swansea bay city region, with the city deal that is associated so closely with it.

That collaborative approach to regional working is already achieving results, and an example of this is, of course, the Parc Felindre business park. It's a high-quality strategic employment site for the Swansea bay city region, exactly as Suzy Davies identified it. It provides fully infrastructured land for developers and for occupiers alike. In the absence of sufficient private sector investment in new sites, Parc Felindre has been jointly developed by the Welsh Government and Swansea council to attract high-quality employment opportunities to the area. It's actively being marketed, and our joint venture partners, Swansea council, are now in advanced negotiations to bring a significant first development to the site. A planning application has been submitted for 800 dwellings that will include affordable housing and all of the associated community facilities that you should expect.

The Welsh Government is also working closely with Swansea city council to enable regeneration of the city centre and its surroundings into a distinctive, vibrant, high-tech and green twenty-first century digital and leisure destination—highly attractive to innovation, to business, to tourists, to students and to inward investors as well.

As has been made clear in this debate today, integrated transport—Mike mentioned it at the outset of his speech; Suzy also mentioned it—integrated transport links are vital to achieving that economic growth vision. That's why we allocated £115,000 to Swansea city council last year to lead on the development of the vision of a south-west Wales metro. We provided a further £700,000 for a more detailed business case this financial year via the local transport fund. Swansea council are themselves co-ordinating work in partnership with the other city region local authorities in south-west Wales, and it's vitally important that the work is based on sound evidence to ensure that the solution delivers on the future transport needs of the region.

The metro concept is a multimodal approach focusing on public transport. It includes, of course, buses and trains that operate so that one meets the other at regular points and on time, and, of course, it includes active travel. While the funding of rail infrastructure is still a reserved matter, the work will review opportunities to extend the rail network to meet the future need.

I recently met with the Secretary of State for Wales and also with the leader of the council to discuss the proposal for a new station at Felindre. Following that meeting, I asked officials to commission a high-level analysis of the economic impacts of building a new rail station in the vicinity, which also included the impact to Swansea city centre. I think it's an important point to make, in taking forward an evidenced plan for a Swansea parkway station, that we should not undermine or destabilise the important longer term plan that the council and the Welsh Government are collaborating on to breathe new life into the city centre itself. I've discussed this issue, as I say, with the Secretary of State for Wales, and the leader of Swansea council, Rob Stewart, and I've asked my officials and Transport for Wales to ensure that these concerns about city centre growth are reflected in the commissioned study. So, a proposal that becomes part of a wider metro development for the region is, at this stage, something that I would prefer to see.

I think it's important, obviously, that we follow Welsh Government Welsh transport appraisal guidance processes to determine what are the best solutions for the region. And, in following the Welsh Government's WelTAG process, we'll be taking forward proposals based on sound evidence and proposals that will also fulfil our obligations under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

These examples all share one theme—transport, economic development in the region—and that theme is collaboration with our partners and with our stakeholders. It's my view that we are working in tandem now to deliver together towards a shared vision based on sound evidence, to grow our economy and to provide a better Wales for our future generations.

Our new regionally focused model of economic development has been designed to enable successful regional economies that exploit their distinctive strengths and opportunities. And I think every good example of regional economic development has a mechanism that facilitates joined-up thinking and also joined-up delivery. And it's not just about prioritising structures over outcomes, but recognising the interdependencies between the two and ensuring that we have the right structures and mechanisms in place to deliver the outcomes that we want to see.

Acting Presiding Officer, we have also reflected upon what stakeholders have told us about our current ways of working, how they'd like to see us operate in the future in a way that better engages them in the work that we do, and that's why the creation of the three regional units and the chief regional officers is so important. I think we'd be selling ourselves short if we treated the production of regional plans as merely a drafting exercise. They must add value and not complexity, and this is something that has been raised with me, and I've given assurance about to various local authorities across Wales, including those in the Swansea bay city region. And it means considering dependencies with wider strategic investments. Investments such as, yes, growth deals, the south-west Wales metro, public transport hubs, and the regeneration of our high streets, not just in the Swansea city region, but in Wales as a whole. But I am confident that, with the city deal initiatives, with UK Government and Welsh Government working together on transport interventions that make a difference to the economy and the people of the Swansea bay area, we will be able to further fuel economic growth in that particular region.

Thank you. So, that brings today's proceedings to a close.