National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Neil Hamilton.

Yes. In 2017, the unemployment rate in Mid and West Wales was 4 per cent below the Welsh and UK averages. 

I thank the First Minister for that reply. He will know that the Swansea travel-to-work area includes large parts of Carmarthenshire and, therefore, the announcement by Amazon recently that they were creating 2,000 jobs for the Christmas trade will be very welcome. But less welcome is the fact that they're doing a lot of their recruitment through a company called the Central European Recruitment and Contract Services Ltd, and that's basically to bus in people from Hungary rather than from Carmarthenshire. One of my constituents has contacted me to say that she'd been contacted by this company, wanting to know if she had residential rooms for rent that could be hot-bedded in three shifts for these workers. Doesn't this tend to undermine the purpose of the grants that Amazon received from the Welsh Government for their warehousing facility in Swansea?

Well, those grants would have been given some years ago, certainly before my time as First Minister, but I am interested in looking further at what he has raised. If he could write to me with further details, I will, of course, investigate for him.

First Minister, unemployment in mid Wales is very low, but gross value added per head lags behind cities like Cardiff and Swansea, and there is a significant gap when it comes to the average salaries of those in rural mid Wales. Now, a potential growth deal for mid Wales is one of the ways to ensure that we foster the right skills and training for businesses to thrive. As part of a potential growth deal, do you agree with me that a university-status facility within Powys could provide the stimulus needed to ensure that mid Wales has the right mix of skills for the future in order to bring about higher salaries and deliver a more prosperous economy in mid Wales?

It's an interesting suggestion. There is a university in Aberystwyth, of course. It's not in Powys, I understand, which many of us will know, but he makes the point specifically about Powys. That will be a matter for discussion between, I suspect, Coleg Powys as the further education provider and any particular university. He's right to say that the way to drive GVA up is through investment in skills. We know productivity is a problem in the UK and in Wales. We know that the more skills people have, the more productive they become, the more they can put into their own pockets in terms of their income. So, if there were such a proposal to be made, it would be something, I think, which would be helpful to the local economy. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Well, one thing that would transform the economy of west Wales would be to see a tidal lagoon being allowed in Swansea bay, in terms of employment, skills and in transforming the way that we deal with energy in Wales, and also creating pathways for young people so that they can stay in west Wales and stay in our Welsh communities too. Wednesday is, realistically, perhaps the last opportunity for the Westminster Government to give the green light to this project. Have you contacted them recently? I know you have done so in the past, but are you still putting pressure on the Westminster Government to make this announcement on Wednesday in the budget that the tidal lagoon should proceed, and that there should be an agreement on the way that it’s going to be paid for and how it will benefit the Welsh economy?

We have, a number of times. I raised this personally with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—about three weeks ago, now, when I met her—telling her how vital the lagoon was and how important it was not only to the economy of the bay, but much more broadly than that. We have kept the pressure on. This is now a challenge for the Secretary of State, in order to reflect that he has sufficient influence to ensure that this project goes ahead for the benefit of the local economy and that of west Wales.

'Taking Wales Forward' commits the Welsh Government to making Wales a dementia-friendly nation through developing and implementing a new national dementia plan. We hope to have that agreed with stakeholders by Christmas, with a view to publishing it as soon as possible in the new year. 

Thank you. Last month, I was really proud to present Griffithstown Primary School with their dementia friendly award, the first school in Gwent, and one of the very first schools in Wales to receive the award. Every single class in the school has taken part in the initiative from reception to year 6, with older pupils also visiting patients at County Hospital and participating in an innovative scheme called 'Shimmer my Zimmer', where they decorated and personalised Zimmer frames so that people with dementia could recognise their Zimmer and use it more often. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating Griffithstown Primary School on the fantastic achievement of receiving this award, and also on the brilliant inter-generational work they are pioneering, which we know can make such a huge difference to the lives of people living with dementia?

Very much so, very much so. I think it's incredible the innovation that's been shown, in ways that most people wouldn't think of, to help people with dementia. I think it's hugely important as well that that—it's not a phrase perhaps that I'd generally use—inter-generational understanding is promoted, where young people do understand what the effects of dementia are, how they can help people with dementia, and, of course, to be able to understand what families and individuals face as challenges if somebody is diagnosed with dementia. I think it's a fantastic idea, fantastic concept, and I very much congratulate the school.

First Minister, as well as Wales ageing as a nation, the trends are quite different within different parts of Wales, and the Valleys, for example, have a much greater demographic ageing trend than the nation as a whole. Are you confident, First Minister, that our provision of dementia services is sufficiently decentralised, and also that the resourcing of it is sufficiently aimed at those areas where the ageing trend is most severe?

Yes, I am. If there is any difficulty in that regard, I would expect that of course to be a part of the discussions that have taken place with stakeholders over the dementia action plan, and I'd expect that to be reflected in the plan if that was identified as a challenge. What I can say is we have been working with the task and finish group, for example, which has been working with the Alzheimer's Society, with the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project, and the Older Person's Commissioner as well. And our plan is informed by the responses that have been received by that task and finish group. As I said, we hope to be in a position where we can agree the plan by the end of this year, with a view to publishing it as soon as possible at the beginning of next year.

First Minister, the one issue that comes up time and again when I speak to the families of those who have dementia is the problem in Wales of having a specific contact worker for families who want someone to turn to whenever they would wish to do that. Now, having that kind of pledge and ensuring that such a worker is available would allow Wales to be innovative in the care that it provides to people with dementia and their families. Does the First Minister share my view that this should be a part of the final strategy, and is he confident that that will be part of the strategy?

Well, this is something that will have to be considered as part of the consultation that has taken place. May I say that the plan itself will be built on the basis of acknowledging the fact that people suffering with dementia have rights, and, therefore, in what way can we ensure that those rights are respected? This will have been part of the discussion that has taken place to date, and it will be part of the discussion on the plan itself. May I also say that the plan itself will also be considered by an action group in order to ensure that the plan works in the way that it should?

First Minister, according to Health in Wales, dementia affects over 42,000 people in Wales alone, and it's estimated that, in just a few short years, this could increase by at least a third. It is therefore vital that Wales becomes a dementia-friendly nation as soon as possible, to ensure that those living with this terrible condition, and their families, are supported at every stage. First Minister, what is your Government doing to increase public awareness about dementia and how to reduce the risk of developing this devastating condition?

Well, at the heart of our approach is the need to ensure that people can remain as independent as possible for as long as possible. That means working with organisations to promote dementia-friendly environments. We've seen an example from my colleague, Lynne Neagle, of how that can be done with schools. And it is hugely important that people understand that dementia is not something that affects everybody in the same way and at the same rate. And so we know that people's needs will change over time, and it's hugely important that people understand that. And as part of promoting a dementia-friendly Wales, increasing people's understanding of the condition is obviously an important part of that.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In the next week, we're expecting a vote to convene a session of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, regarding allegations of bullying in the Welsh Government and whether or not this Assembly has been misled. You've denied that you received allegations of bullying specifically, but you also said that any issues raised with you were dealt with. If you didn't deal with issues of bullying, can you tell us what issues were dealt with and how you dealt with them? 

Yes. Well, Members will, I hope, understand that if I seem to choose my words carefully, or appear over lawyerly in my answers, it's not to be evasive; it's because these are extraordinary times, these are awful times. It's a moment in our political life that's full of hurt and anger. People are grieving and the last thing I want to do is to make matters worse. But I do understand the need for questions and scrutiny, and I have no difficulty with that. 

Let me set out as best I can what my explanation is for the perceived discrepancies, as people see them, between the answer in November 2014 and the answers I've subsequently given on the issues of bullying. I am aware of the comments that have been made in the press. All I can say about those comments is that, in relation to them, no specific accusation of bullying was ever presented to me, either formally or informally, no evidence was given to me, nor was that word 'bullying' ever used in that way. But if you want me to be clear about what the issues were, I can say people were sometimes unhappy with the way things happened. Were there competing priorities and complaints of that nature? Of course there were. Did people sometimes feel others were more favoured? Of course they did. That happens in any organisation. And in politics, where these matters are felt even more intensely than in most other places and people are very passionate about what they believe in, then that will be the situation. At the heart of our democracy is the notion of competition. There'll always be tension, and everyone in this Chamber will recognise that, particularly my fellow party leaders. I will continue to deal with those tensions in as fair a way as possible, and, regardless of our political differences in here, I hope that when people look at my political record they see somebody who has always tried to be fair. But I do reiterate the point and the offer I made over the past two weeks, that if people think there have been incidents of bullying, either historic or current, then my door is open. If they prefer not to approach me, they can, of course, approach the Permanent Secretary.   

First Minister, this is your opportunity to clarify the situation. It looks as though you've given two contradictory answers: you say that no allegations were received, but also that there were issues and that you did deal with them. I'll ask you again: what were the issues that were raised with you, and how did you deal with them? 

Well, sometimes, as I said, people were unhappy with the way things happened, people felt that others were more favoured, but that happens in any organisation. I dealt with them as and when they arose. When you're dealing with a Cabinet, you have people who are very talented, you have people who feel very strongly about what they are promoting, and, of course, it's hugely impossible to reconcile differences when they arise. If you ask me the question, 'Is it the case that Cabinets are always harmonious, where everybody agrees all the time?' No, and it would be unrealistic to say otherwise. When those issues arose, I dealt with them. 

You're not answering the question, First Minister, I'm afraid. There were specific allegations about bullying, which you have denied, yet you've said that there were issues and you did deal with them. Now, you haven't explained to us what those issues were, how they were dealt with or whether or not there were, for example, reports produced. Will you now give us the clarity that this Assembly deserves, explain to us what issues were raised with you back in 2014 and what exactly you did to deal with those issues? If they weren't issues of bullying, that's fair enough. What were they then? Please clarify this now. 

They were issues of competing priorities, of people feeling that some people were listened to more than others and people feeling that they want to see you as First Minister to explain their position. These are all normal processes of Cabinet and Government. It would be very odd if any Cabinet was in place where nobody ever disagreed. It would be very odd if a Cabinet was in place where people were in a position where they didn't feel that they wanted to make their views known in a particular way, and, as First Minister, that's the way that I always dealt with Government. If we look at what we did, as a Government, we delivered all our manifesto promises in the years up to 2016 and we are continuing to deliver them now. So, yes, there are always tensions in any Cabinet and surely any party leader will recognise that. What's hugely important is that those tensions don't get in the way of good governance, and they haven't got in the way of good governance, as the people of Wales have seen. 

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. 

First Minister, I'm grateful for the way that you've engaged with the questions so far this afternoon—a stark contrast to the way you engaged last Wednesday with the question that I put to you in the topical questions. But there is this issue where there are two narratives running here. There is the narrative that you acknowledge—and, again, I was grateful for your acknowledging that in First Minister's questions last week—that you did have issues raised with you back in November 2014, and you dealt with those issues. And then there is the issue of the written question that Darren Millar put down and the difference in the answer that said that there hadn't been any issues at that time. Now, can you understand how people can get confused by those two answers? Were issues of bullying raised specifically with you in October/November 2014, and did you deal with them?  

As I've already said—well, I'll just repeat what I said, just to make it clear again. I said I'm aware of the comments that have been made in the press. All I can say about those comments is that no specific allegation of bullying was ever presented to me in relation to those comments, either formally or informally. No evidence was given to me, nor was that word 'bullying' ever used in that way. I can't go beyond what I've said, once again, just to reiterate what I said earlier on. 

I'm still lacking an understanding of how difficult it is to answer this question. I've put it quite reasonably to you: were allegations of bullying put to you? Because that seems to be the assertion that has been put by two senior figures from your Government at the time—and others, I might add. It is not unreasonable for us to ask the questions of you as First Minister, because the accusations are levelled at your office and, indeed, your role as First Minister. And so, can you be crystal clear in confirming whether—and I don't particularly—? I appreciate you've got the written notes in front of you, but I think most people would remember if specific allegations around bullying were levelled and put to them to be dealt with. So, I'm just trying to get crystal clear in my own mind: were allegations related to bullying put to you in the time frame that has been identified by your former senior special adviser, and your former Cabinet Minister, Leighton Andrews?  

Well, I think I've just answered the question. There were no specific accusations of bullying. They were not presented to me formally or informally by them. The word was not even used in that way. I don't think I can go beyond the answer that I've given. 

Okay. There's going to be a motion tomorrow—next week, sorry—put before the Assembly to have an investigation into this. People will have listened to the answers you have given. I think the two opportunities I gave you were pretty straightforward—'Yes' or 'No' answers, as such. You chose not to give the 'Yes' or 'No' answer. Is it the case that you will be supporting the motion that will come before the Assembly next week to allow detailed scrutiny of this particular interest? There is huge public interest in this particular matter. There are conflicting stories and narratives running here. It is not unreasonable to want to get to the bottom of this, and if we can't get to the bottom of it in this particular institution, then what on earth is the point of this institution? So, can I ask you, First Minister: will you be supporting that motion that comes before the Assembly next Wednesday? 

There are a number of ways in which this issue can be dealt with. We reserve our position in terms of the vote next week until we've studied carefully, of course, the breadth of the terms of reference of that motion. But nevertheless, I do accept that this is an issue that will need further scrutiny. I'm not afraid of that scrutiny, and I think it's a question of finding out what is the most effective way of that scrutiny being exercised, and that is something I'm not afraid of. 

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I hope that the First Minister will feel that he owes the Assembly a duty of candour on this issue, but clearly we're going to get no further on it today and we'll have to wait for the debate next week to see whether we can make progress, so I would like to turn to another issue.

The First Minister said recently that he would like to see air passenger duty devolved to Wales so that he could abolish it for long-haul flights, and I welcome the First Minister to the ranks of tax cutters and tax abolishers in the Assembly. It makes a change from all the other taxes that he wants to introduce. But this is, of course, in a way a form of tax avoidance that he's in favour of, because it will give Welsh airports a small but significant advantage over airports on the other side of the border in England that will still have air passenger duty applying to them. So, can the First Minister explain to me how it is that he can reconcile his views on air passenger duty with his other views that the tax system should not be used for tax competition within the United Kingdom or, indeed, with other countries? 

Because there already is tax competition. Scotland already controls air passenger duty and there is an element of devolution of air passenger duty in Northern Ireland. It does not make sense to me, then, that Wales is denied the same advantages as those elsewhere in the UK. We've presented evidence to the UK Government that makes it clear that this is no threat to Bristol; we don't see it that way. This is about developing in particular long-haul flights from Cardiff, and we believe Cardiff is in a very good position to be able to do that and, by dint of that, developing other airports, regional airports around Wales, that are able to link in to Cardiff as a hub. The UK Government have dismissed, we understand, that evidence without ever offering any evidence of their own.

I hope the First Minister doesn't misunderstand me. I'm strongly in favour of what he proposes and very much in favour of the devolution of taxes to Wales so that we can cut them or abolish them and then give us an advantage over other parts of the United Kingdom, which compensates for the historical disadvantages that we have to fight against.

What I am interested in here are the inconsistencies in the Labour Party's positions generally. The purpose of air passenger duty, when it was introduced, was to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore abolishing it doesn't really seem to fit in with the other enthusiasms of the Labour Party in relation to the protection of the environment. So, how does the abolition of air passenger duty on long haul flights—how can it be reconciled with the Labour Party's views on green energy and the need to cut carbon emissions? 

It's quite simple. There are many, many people, not just from south Wales but from the south-west of England, who are presently travelling to Heathrow to fly on long-haul flights. If they travel a shorter distance, their own carbon footprint is lower. So, it does make sense then to put people in a position where they're not driving so far, where they are not increasing their own carbon footprint by giving them the option of being able to fly closer to home.

The First Minister knows that's pure sophistry. There is another aspect to this as well that's worth consideration, because he will have seen that Monsieur Barnier, in his latest pronunciamento about Britain's future trading relationships with Europe, said a couple of days ago:

'There will be no ambitious partnership without common ground in fair competition, state aid, tax dumping'.

Well, of course, tax dumping is the way that French politicians in particular refer to tax competition between nations, and they're very much against it. The whole trend of the European Union is to harmonise taxes so that there is no possibility of doing what the Irish have done in relation to corporation tax, giving them a significant advantage, which has been of great benefit to their economy.

So, does the First Minister not see that leaving the EU does give us the freedoms that we in Wales could use, if we use them imaginatively, to increase the output of the Welsh economy and the tax base and therefore provide the Welsh Government with more money to provide the other good public services that we want?

Well, that is a naive approach because, as he knows full well, if we are looking to export to markets and those markets feel that we have unfair tax competition they will impose tariffs against us. So, it's not as if the UK has a free hand in all of this. The UK is a medium-sized country, and it's not in a position of dictating terms of trade to others.

I refer him to what Aston Martin said only last week—that a hard Brexit would cause them to stop manufacturing cars. Now, these are not my words; these are words of a company that will soon be a significant employer in Wales, and I suspect we'll see more of that, which is why we need to understand where the UK Government is and we need to see the UK Government's plan and that needs to be soon, because if we're not in a position, I believe, where businesses can see that there is a way forward by the new year, then we will start seeing, I fear, announcements that will be negative as far as the economy of Britain is concerned.

House building in Wales is a key priority for this Government, reflected by our ambitious 20,000 affordable homes target. Statistics show an increasing trend in the number of new homes being completed, which we will continue to support with our successful programmes, including the social housing grant.

Thank you very much for that answer, Minister. Last year, the Home Builders Federation stated that poor planning and the higher costs associated with building homes in Wales have compromised investment. Now, house builders express concern that the lack of detail over the potential new tax on vacant development land could further discourage larger developers from investing in Wales. Does the First Minister agree that increasing the burden of tax and regulation on house builders will not increase the supply of new homes that Wales desperately needs at this moment? Thank you.

Well, if he's talking about the sprinklers, can I remind him that his own party didn't oppose the introduction of the sprinklers legislation? Of course, we always seem to look to strike a balance between what is appropriate regulation and then, of course—[Interruption.] He was in a different party at the time—the Member is correct—so I'll have to revise the point that I made. He supported the sprinklers regulation, I believe, on that basis.

We look to strike a balance between appropriate regulation and encouraging house building. We've done it through the social housing grant. We've made sure that we are not losing council houses through them being sold, to make sure that they're kept in the public housing stock. We've made sure as well, of course, that, through Help to Buy Wales, there are options open for people to buy houses, which they otherwise wouldn't have the option to do. So, we have a good record when it comes to housing, and we are on track to meet our target.

I would argue that it's important that we address housing need far more, in fact, than we address housing demand. And housing need is those people on lowest incomes who aren't even recognised on the demand curve. Local development plans hopelessly fail to address housing need, and instead deliver expensive executive accommodation in areas like Caerphilly, in the south of my constituency. They don't deliver affordable housing. Will the First Minister accept that more needs to be done to deliver affordable housing, and particularly work with local authorities and registered social landlords to deliver affordable housing in the northern reaches of the communities that I represent, and recognise that LDPs, at this point in time, are failing to do that?

LDPs have to be up to date. The difficulty of running a local authority is that if any local authority has a development plan where the five-year housing supply is no longer relevant, they are at risk of speculative housing developments, and it is hugely important that there is a development plan in place. But his point is well made. It is hugely important that there is a proper balance between houses and the availability of housing according to what people can afford. That's why, of course, local authorities can retain the money and build new council homes, following the successful exit of the housing revenue accounts subsidy system, so that local authorities can build council houses again. We have the affordable housing grant, of course, which looks to help people to get accommodation that is affordable to them, and, of course, there's making sure that people don't become homeless in the first place—Supporting People is an example of that. We have to make sure—and we've been successful in doing that—that people don't actually become homeless. But it is right that local authorities should be aware, as they develop their development plans, of the need to secure the right balance of housing; they can't all just be housing at one end of the market—that's true.

For 2017-18, we've allocated £592,102 to local authorities to deliver cycle training to approximately 15,000 people. We'll also be working with the Department for Transport to review the national standards for cycle training over the next few months.

First Minister, it's Road Safety Week this week, and I think we would commend all measures to road safety. We also, in South Wales Central, unfortunately, have to reflect on two fatal accidents in October, and we send our condolences to the families of the victims.

I just wonder if it is now time for a much more integrated and ambitious approach to these matters, along the lines we see in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, where you have 20 mph zones in urban areas in much greater use, clearer designation of off-road and on-road bicycle paths and priority traffic signals in key places. We really need to have a joined-up approach to this important matter.

I agree. One of the incidents he refers to happened not very long before I was travelling along the same road, at the same time, but I didn't see it. It's right to say that great care needs to be taken when cyclists and cars use the same road. It's important that cars, of course, which have a primary responsibility, to my mind, consider the safety of cyclists, and that is something, of course, for all drivers.

That said—and I've said this before in the Chamber—I think it is important that if we're going to encourage more people to cycle, there will always be people who are too nervous to cycle in traffic. There are some who are not, but others will say, 'Well, I would like to cycle more, but I'm not keen on mixing with cars on the road.' That's why it's important, of course, to provide dedicated cycle lanes. How do we do that? We have the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, of course, and the Cabinet Secretary does fund active travel infrastructure through his own schemes and by making funding available to local authorities. The active travel design guidance provides clear standards that infrastructure must meet, and this winter we will be updating the guidance to incorporate emerging best practice. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary will be making an announcement soon on the funding call on the local transport fund for the coming financial year.

I'm delighted to hear that you've mentioned the exemplary design guidance that the Welsh Government issued along with the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, because obviously it's been lauded by the Westminster Government as fit for purpose across Britain. And so we've got this excellent design guidance, but what monitoring has the Welsh Government done of how much attention local authorities are paying to the design guidance when they're delivering the active travel plans that they need to deliver in order to address some of the issues that David Melding's raised around combatting the levels of accidents that happen, particularly at junctions?

Well, local authorities must comply with the law, of course. But as part of the updating of the guidance that will take place, then as part of that guidance we'll have cognisance of what has been happening around Wales in order for the guidance to be strengthened, if it is the case that there are problems in some parts of Wales. The Member is absolutely right to say that we have the Act in place, but it is hugely important that the Act is observed, and there's still a great deal of scope in many of our city and town centres to do more when it comes to cycle lanes particularly, and that is something that we will be considering as part of the updating of the guidance.

There are issues of cyclist safety, as have been raised by the last two Members, and we do need to make steps to encourage safe cycling. Unfortunately, when cyclists come off the road and onto the pavement, they can also become a danger to pedestrians. In Peterborough, the council are currently issuing PSPO notices, which are public space protection orders, to stop dangerous cyclists. One thousand cyclists have been fined in three months. We do have powers to issue PSPOs in Wales as well, so should we encourage Welsh councils to use similar notices to tackle the growing problem of dangerous cycling?

Well, this is something I know that the UK Government is considering. The current law that deals with dangerous cycling is a law that dates back to the furious driving of horses and carts in Victorian times, which has not been updated, although a prosecution was successful, of course, along those lines. I do get concerned. I think, first of all, it's important for us to understand that, just like most drivers, most cyclists are responsible cyclists, who are well-illuminated as well at night. But I've seen cyclists on pavements, I've seen people cycling at night with no lights and they're invisible, frankly. There's literally nothing on them that'll identify them to cars. But they are a minority. So, I think what is hugely important is that we continue to emphasise that for cyclists' own safety, it's massively important that they have lights on at night, they don't wear entirely dark clothing so they can't be seen, for their own safety and of course to enable cars to see them. But we are talking about a small minority of people. There is a duty on car drivers, obviously, to consider the safety of cyclists, but it is important as well that cyclists take steps to ensure that they can be seen.

'Prosperity for All' sets out our commitment to strong and safe communities that protect and support the vulnerable. What we look to do, of course, is to tackle inequality and support vulnerable people, and our draft budget, I believe, demonstrates that very commitment.

Well, thank you. Housing-related support funded through the Supporting People programme and delivered through housing associations and third sector bodies has been improving lives and saving significant sums for statutory sector providers—health boards, local authorities—for many years. In your deal on the draft budget with Plaid Cymru, you agreed that you would ring-fence Supporting People funding for two years—the £124 million. But a letter to local authority chief executives on 24 October revealed that seven local authorities would be given 100 per cent spending flexibility, and the other 15, 15 per cent spending flexibility, across Supporting People and four other non-housing related grants. How do you respond, therefore, to concern that this effectively removes the ring fence in 2018-19, meaning that Supporting People funding is not guaranteed to be protected at 2017-18 levels, and that the lack of a distinct budget line for Supporting People gives no assurances that the funding will be protected to £124 million in 2019-20?

Well, we expect local authorities, of course, to comply with the law, and in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, it is clear that local authorities have a duty to prevent homelessness. By and large, they have performed well in implementing that legislation. Progress has not been as consistent as we would like, and of course we will continue to monitor progress to make sure that the good progress that has been made across Wales continues in the future, due to the fact that Supporting People, of course, has received the funding through the budget agreement that is necessary.

Can I also support the importance of preventative services, but across all of our public services? For example, in Cwm Taf Local Health Board, they've been piloting free health checks funded by Welsh Government for the over-50s and, as a result, are picking up early signals of health problems that allows for cost-effective, preventative actions. Would the First Minister agree that this type of early prevention work is vital to reforming our health and wider public services, as well as ensuring the most effective use of public funds?

Yes, I do. I think it's hugely important that we are able to do that. I hear from the Conservative benches that's not sufficient. Well, I've got to remind them they've had seven years of austerity; they're in no position to criticise when it comes to health, education or housing, or anything else for that matter. If they are so concerned about increasing funding in every single area, which they claim to be every year, then perhaps they could prevail on their colleagues in the UK Government to provide more money, or, indeed, to provide the £1.67 billion equivalent that Northern Ireland have had. They are in no position to complain, given the fact that they've proven so ineffective at lobbying their own colleagues in Westminster.

The focus of our international work is clear: to create a more prosperous and sustainable Wales through increased export and investment while increasing Wales’s influence and international recognition.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He is aware of my view, of course, that there needs to be a new, comprehensive international policy for Wales now that encompasses everything from trade to international development. I believe that there are many lessons we can learn from other sub-state nations. I know he's reluctant to do so at the moment, because of the ongoing uncertainty around our separation from the European Union, but doesn't he agree that, as a first step to a new, comprehensive international policy for Wales, we need to ascertain our country's global reputation? At the moment, one of the leading global brand industries for nations is the Anholt-GfK Nations Brand Index, and they measure the reputation of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK as three different entities. So, will the First Minister seek to have Wales included on that nations global brand index, so that we can have a first step, at least, to ascertaining our global reputation that could then inform a future international policy for our country?

Could I say, first of all, that we're not waiting to see what happens with Brexit in terms of developing, as he would describe it, international policy? One of the things we know we need to do is to increase our staff presence abroad, working with the UK Government to ensure that we can work with them, but I know that we will need to increase our presence in different countries around the world. That work is ongoing, and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about that in the very near future.

He mentions particularly the Anholt-GfK open nation brands index. We have taken part in that survey in the past. It's expensive. The question for us was, 'What does it deliver for us?' It wasn't clear what it delivered for what it cost us, but what I'll do is I'll write to the Member with more details, just to inform him of the reasoning behind that decision and in order for him to understand why that decision was taken and whether there's scope to look at rejoining the index at some point in the future.

First Minister, I just heard your previous response. Do you agree with me that we ought to be looking at appointing trade envoys to boost exports to countries outside of the EU? That will, of course, raise Wales's commercial presence and international profile.

Well, we'll have to trade with any country we can around the world, within reason. But the reality is that most of our export market is the European single market. That can't be replaced overnight. We can't start, for example, suddenly to export dairy produce to the US because of the issues that exist there, nor should we try and ignore our biggest market, which is on our doorstep. That doesn't mean, of course, that we are not proactive in developing markets elsewhere. The middle east is one example. The very fact that, working with the airport, we've established a link to Doha from next year; the fact that we have been working to gain trade, for example, in middle eastern countries. We have, for example, a situation where Welsh lamb is the market leader in the United Arab Emirates, something that I and, indeed, the Presiding Officer worked for in order for that to happen. So, it's not the case that we only focus on Europe, but Europe is our most important market by far, and it's not realistic to think that it can be replaced with anything else, particularly in the short term.

Well, improving the nation’s mental health is one of five priorities specifically included in 'Prosperity for All', and we have committed in our draft budget to provide an additional £40 million for mental health services over the next two years.

First Minister, I'm really glad that supporting innovative ways of delivering mental health services is also a strand of 'Our Valleys, Our Future'. Cwm Taf university health board has the highest number of people taking antidepressants—one in six of the population—and that actually reaches a staggering one in three in the town of Mountain Ash in my constituency of Cynon Valley. I recently met with Valleys Steps, an organisation that I've been championing since I was elected as AM for Cynon Valley. They're carrying out a pilot based on promoting alternatives to medication, but are concerned that funding for the project may not be carried forward. Can the Welsh Government commit to continue funding for this project for an adequate period to enable it to promote non-medication alternatives?

Can I thank the Member for the question? I can say that I do understand that Cwm Taf university health board is working collaboratively with the Valleys Steps programme, and my officials are in discussions with the health board over its ongoing work with the programme. I hope that a resolution can be achieved soon.

First Minister, I was very pleased to hear that the health Cabinet Secretary and the education Secretary announced additional investment for child and adolescent mental health services in schools. I do hope that we'll be seeing some of this benefit in places like Aberdare.

Yes. Of course, every secondary school has a school counsellor, but there is a reluctance amongst some to go and see that counsellor for fear that others will find out. I think that is an issue that—. Well, I'm aware that that's an issue for some teenagers. So, being able to extend the reach of CAMHS beyond its traditional areas to look at preventative work, I think, is hugely important. Given the pressures that teenagers are under—. When I was a teenager, what happened at school didn't follow you home at night; it does now—through social media. I've seen it with my own eyes with my own children, the kind of stuff that is out there on social media. That's why, of course, it's so important that we have in place a system that didn't exist when I was in school, but is needed now for many teenagers, to provide them with the support that they need, both in school and outside.

There are five local development plans that have been adopted in north Wales, and we expect two other authorities—namely Wrexham and Flintshire—to adopt their plans by the year 2020.

Well, it is five years since the Planning Inspectorate insisted, or rather rejected Wrexham’s LDP, and also told Denbighshire and Conwy that there wasn’t sufficient housing in their development plans. That decision was based on the population forecasts of the Government, but now, of course, the census has demonstrated that those projections were erroneous and that we didn’t need to increase the number of houses in those plans. Indeed, the original Wrexham LDP was quite close to the mark in terms of the numbers, but the cost of having to redo the LDP in Wrexham alone has been over £200,000. So, who, in your view, should be compensating Wrexham council for that process and for forcing them to return and rerun a process that was clearly unnecessary, was erroneous and was a complete waste of time?

Well, there is a process that, according to the law, has to be followed. If I remember rightly, it is possible for local authorities to bring their own figures forward as regards housing, if they believe that the target they have been set by the Welsh Government is inaccurate. That was true at one point and I believe that that is still true now. But, of course, Wrexham is now in a position—if I understand the situation properly—where they are targeting 2019 for the adoption of that plan, and it is important that they do adopt the plans.

Llyr is quite right to raise this, because we've got issues in Aberconwy now as a result of your Government's policy as regards technical advice note 1, where planning officers are actually interpreting that TAN 1 has much stronger weightings than any other of the TANs. We've got applications coming forward now on land that's not even in our LDP, making an absolute mockery of Conwy council having deposited its LDP with the Welsh Government. I would ask you, First Minister, will you look at this? Because it really is impacting on our few remaining greenfield sites, and frankly, developers are looking now to be able to land bank, to the detriment of our local communities. We haven't got the health services. We haven't got the education facilities, and there aren't places in the schools. The whole thing is a fiasco, and I would ask you, as your responsibility as the First Minister, to really look at this and perhaps provide this Chamber with some ways forward that you're going to change things as regard the weightings given to TAN 1.

Well, TAN 1 is being looked at at the moment, but, I have to say, these are matters largely for the council. If there are planning applications that are coming forward on land where that land is not allocated for that particular use in the LDP, the council isn't obliged to give planning permission. The councils do have to take responsibility themselves for the decisions that they take, but, however, she did mention TAN 1, and the Minister informs me that TAN 1 is being examined at the moment.

Well, for example, over 1,400 people in Pembrokeshire are signed up to Farming Connect to learn more about improving the profitability, competitiveness and environmental performance of their businesses. Of course, we still urge the United Kingdom Government to ensure that there won't be any barriers to the ability of the farmers of Pembrokeshire to sell in the single market.

One way to support the agricultural industry in Pembrokeshire is not to introduce nitrate vulnerable zones in Wales. Given the importance of this issue and the negative impact that such a policy could have on the agricultural industry, can you give us an update on the Welsh Government plans for nitrate vulnerable zones in Wales? And can you confirm that a statement on this issue will be made to this Chamber, and when will that happen?

There were very many representations made—over 250. They are more detailed than would usually be expected in this situation, and a summary of all those will be published erelong. The review of the NVZ is statutory under the nitrates directive, and, of course, that has to be considered in the context of pollution as well. So, striking the balance is what's vital here. Of course, we want to ensure that the decision that is made ensures that we do strike that balance between reducing pollution and, of course, ensuring that any changes are not excessive in relation to farming.

Finally, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd. Your Cabinet Secretary for finance and local government told the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee yesterday that you were close to agreeing a framework for agriculture as we exit the European Union. Farmers in Pembrokeshire and elsewhere will be very interested in understanding what that framework is, and what that agreement entails. When will we hear those details, rather than just rumours in a committee?

Well, once the framework is agreed, then I will announce it, of course, to the Assembly. But it's no secret what our position as a Government is: namely, first, that the powers should come to the rightful place, namely this Assembly, secondly, that nothing should change without an agreement to change, and, thirdly, that we must ensure that the same amount of money is available to make the payments as at present, and those payments should be made to the Welsh Government in the same way as at present. It wouldn't be right if those payments came to us through the Barnett formula. It would be a huge cut to the budget. So, that's the stance we have taken and, of course, that is the stance that has steered us through these discussions.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item, therefore, is the business statement and announcement. I call on the leader of the house to make the statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. There's one change to this week's business. The Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport will make an oral statement on the future of Cadw immediately after this business statement. Business for the next three weeks is shown in the business statement and announcement found amongst the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

I call for a single statement on the number of pupils being taken out of school to be taught at home who are on the autism spectrum or with other additional learning needs. You might be aware that, last Friday, BBC Wales reported research showing that the number of pupils being taken out of school to be taught at home had doubled in the previous four years, with many of those pupils believed to be on the autistic spectrum. This follows previous revelations that the number of pupils in the school action and school action plus categories being excluded from school on short-term exclusions had doubled, whilst falling for the general school population.

We've heard concern in this context from the Children's Commissioner for Wales, who expressed a concern that some parents had told her they'd been encouraged to home educate because their child might be affecting the school or local authority performance data. We heard from the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales that families with autistic children lodged more appeals about the lack of support their child was receiving in school than those with other learning needs. And we heard from the National Autistic Society Cymru that a lot of parents are finding themselves in positions where they have no option, and the only thing they can do to help their children is to educate them at home, even though they might not feel fully equipped to do that or want to.

Now, I know you're going to tell me, or you might have been going to tell me, that the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, to be debated later, will be addressing this and overhauling the system for supporting learners, but the National Autistic Society Cymru has called for mandatory training in autism awareness in schools, recognising that the very same people in schools who are currently getting it so wrong with these children are likely to be the people who will have a major influence on their individual development plans in the future. I do therefore hope that you will find time for the Welsh Government to provide a statement on this very important piece of work by BBC Wales.

Thank you for that question. I actually saw the programme, which was very interesting indeed, and I've had the chance to speak to a number of groups myself about it. The Cabinet Secretary for Education is in the Chamber, listening to your remarks as well. I will take the opportunity, of course, to say that our very ambitious additional learning needs Bill will, if passed this afternoon, completely overhaul the system for supporting any learner with additional learning needs and introduce duties to secure additional learning provision in schools. Obviously, we continue to be absolutely committed to creating an inclusive education system that works for all our learners, and we're always very open to additional evidence or commentary that shows that some part of the system needs another look at it. But the Cabinet Secretary for Education has heard your remarks and I'm sure she'll take them on board, and, if we do identify any such trends or patterns, or evidence is available, I'm sure she'll be taking those into account in due course.

Last week, a written statement was published by the local government Secretary on the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' implementation plan. That was, of course, due to be an earlier oral statement but, for very proper and understandable reasons, that couldn't take place. But the implementation plan is of such importance, and there are real implications for the Assembly budget and for the economic prospects of the Valleys communities themselves, and I know that many members of the public and many Members here, myself included, have great concerns about the implementation plans. So, I wonder whether you can commit to a debate or an oral statement at the earliest possible opportunity in Government time on the implementation plan.

We all are aware of the really sad circumstances, which are still affecting Government business, and I know the Member has, as have all Members, been very understanding as we've tried to cope with those. Obviously, there are opportunities to question the new Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, who remains in charge of the Valleys brief. I understand the Member's point, but I think there will be opportunities in questions and at other times, and, in fact, during the budget debate, to answer any of the concerns. Of course, the Member can always put those concerns in writing if he continues to have them.

Leader of the house, I chaired a meeting last week attended by the Docks Incinerator Action Group, which has been set up in Barry. At that meeting also was the chair of Natural Resources Wales, Diane McCrea, and her senior officers. At the meeting, the Natural Resources Wales officers said that they were minded to take a draft decision to grant an environmental permit with conditions for the biomass No. 2 incinerator in the heart of Barry, which has met with widespread opposition from the community, cross-party elected representatives, including myself, and statutory bodies. I've called for an extended consultation period of at least eight weeks for the consultation period on this draft decision. Will the Welsh Government provide an update on NRW's decision on this matter?

Thank you for that very important question, Jane Hutt. You always take concerns in your constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan very seriously, and I see that you haven't changed in any regard with regard to this very important decision. We’re not, obviously, going to comment on the application in detail, as it could be something that the Welsh Ministers end up having to make some appeal determination on, but I understand that Natural Resources Wales has made an announcement, as you said, that they’re minded to issue an environmental permit. Before it grants any such licence it must consult on the draft decision document and the draft permit conditions, which would explain the rationale for the determination.

The consultation runs for a minimum of four weeks from late November, and this is another opportunity for people to bring forward any new information that has not been previously considered and to provide further comment on the draft decision. I think that’s the opportunity for constituents and yourself to make those further comments, if necessary.

In addition, the new Minister who’s in charge of NRW is in the Chamber listening, and I’m sure she’s taking account of your remarks.

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement on the alarming increase in fly-tipping in parts of south-east Wales? Last year, a 6 per cent increase in fly-tipping across Wales—however, the increase in Merthyr Tydfil was 15 per cent, and in Newport there were 3,258 incidents of fly-tipping, an increase of 44 per cent. What a staggering figure, Minister, and, worryingly, incidents of asbestos fly-tipping have hit a 10-year high, with Merthyr Tydfil having the highest rate in Wales. That is a real health hazard. May I ask for a statement on this matter urgently, please, which has potentially serious implications for public health in Wales?

Thank you very much for those very important remarks. I do think that fly-tipping is a very important matter. It’s something that local government associations and, indeed, environment Ministers have discussed over some time. There is very good practice across Wales, and I think the way forward is to encourage local government colleagues to share that good practice and spread out that good practice across the piece so that some councils that are experiencing difficulty can learn from that good practice and take it into account when formulating their own policies.

Is it possible to have a statement from the Welsh Government around the research done by University College London that was published in The BMJ last week on relating avoidable deaths with austerity policies? That research was England-based, but looked at the correlation between expenditure and austerity and early deaths. It saw that, in England, whereas early deaths had been falling up until 2010, they have since then completely reversed the position. It demonstrated that, for every £10 drop in spend per head on social care, there were an associated five extra care home deaths per 100,000 of population in England, and altogether they estimate the cost of austerity policies to be 120,000 early deaths. This is a public health crisis, therefore. Austerity is creating a public health crisis on the basis of these England-only figures.

It would be, I think, illuminating for the Assembly to have a Welsh interpretation of these—to have Public Health Wales or the Cabinet Secretary give his take on what these figures mean for the Welsh context, and also the implications for our policy-making decisions here in Wales.

Well, Simon Thomas makes a series of extremely important points. I think in our own constituency work most of us have seen an increase in people who are really seriously struggling with austerity and the related benefits and other polices that have been brought forward by the UK Government. In particular, I remain very concerned about the delays in payment of universal credit and what that will do to people’s ability to feed themselves and heat themselves and so on. I remain very concerned indeed, as I’m sure my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health, who’s listening to your points, is as well. I think it would be an excellent idea to be able to see what the exact position in Wales is. The Cabinet Secretary’s nodding as I’m saying this, so I’m sure we’ll be able to look into that and report back to the Assembly in due course.

Can I take this first formal chance to congratulate the Leader of the House in her new role and wish her well in her work? Can I please request that the Cabinet Secretary for Education bring forward a statement to update the Assembly on the important issue of asbestos in school buildings? We know from representations to the Petitions Committee and also from some related correspondence that the Welsh Government has now formed a working group on the issue and I hope you would agree that we would all now benefit from hearing more about this work as part of our Plenary business.

The cross-party group on asbestos, which I chair, is also keen to ensure that the working group is based upon the principles of social partnership that’s reflected in the work of this Welsh Government, so can I ask that the statement also addresses the membership of the working group, the terms of reference, and the forward work programme?

The Member has taken a keen interest in this—and thank you very much for your kind remarks at the beginning there. My understanding is that the asbestos management in schools working group has decided that a consultation should take place early in 2018 on the revised asbestos management in schools guidance for Wales, and at the end of the consultation period a meeting will be convened with all the key stakeholders, including the union representatives. I'm sure that the Member will be able to take part in that. And I'm sure that once that's happened, the Cabinet Secretary will be very pleased to update the Assembly on the position once the working group and the consultation has had the opportunity to go forward. 

Leader of the Chamber, I'd like to congratulate you as well, to start off.

I'd like a statement about International Men's Day and what the Government in Wales did to recognise it. 

The second point is the legal opinion given to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, published in the Western Mail today, which found that men are being discriminated against in the field of domestic abuse in Wales. I wondered how that is going to inform Government policy, and how you would recognise the discrimination. For example, men are automatically treated as perpetrators when they present as victims. This is found to be discriminatory and unlawful now, and it's happening in Cardiff. I could name organisations here, but I won't at this stage. So, what is the Government going to do about this discrimination that men face in the area of domestic abuse? Thirty five per cent of all victims are male nowadays. 

Thank you for those kind remarks at the beginning. Actually, I've taken over responsibility for the equalities brief. Members will understand that a number of matters have occurred recently that meant I haven't been able to get to grips with that as fast as possible. As soon as I have, I will, of course, be answering questions on the floor of the house, and I will be bringing forward my own take on some of the issues the Member raises. 

Leader of the house, can I call for a statement from the Minister for lifelong learning on celebrating success in the Welsh colleges sector? No doubt everybody in the Chamber will want to extend their congratulations to students and staff at Coleg Cambria, who last week won awards in the WorldSkills UK awards. Many of them have also represented the UK overseas in Abu Dhabi at last month's world finals—Ethan Davies and Joe Massey were successful in picking up awards there. Just this college alone in Wales has managed to secure 10 medals and amassed the second highest overall provider score in the UK for the third successive year on the trot, and 13 of their learners have been selected in the long squad to compete at WorldSkills 2019 in Kazan in Russia. Not only that, but Rona Griffiths, one of the members of staff at the college, also beat off 77 other competitors to win the WorldSkills UK hero award for 2017. This is tremendous success, but not everybody's aware of it, and we ought to mark this sort of success and celebrate it more prominently here in the National Assembly and elsewhere. So, it would be good to have a round-up, if you like, on at least an annual basis, of this sort of success in the Welsh further education sector so that we can mark it more prominently as an Assembly. 

The Member makes a series of extremely good points. He will know that in my previous position, I was always very keen to celebrate Wales's success, and a little bit frustrated at our inability to get the prominence in the media and so on that I thought our incredible success in skills shows and in skills performance merited. The new Minister is sitting listening to you; I'm sure she'll be as enthusiastic as I am to ensure that we have the right levels of celebration. The college you mention has done extremely well. Other colleges across Wales have also done extremely well. In my previous role, I had the privilege and pleasure to meet many of the competitors in skills competitions and a finer set of young women and men you wouldn't care to meet anywhere. And it was with a little pang that I left that part of my old portfolio behind because it was a pleasure and a privilege to have been able to witness some of the skills competitions in action, and, indeed, to see some of the splendid work done in the FE colleges. So, the new Minister has listened to your remarks. I'm sure she'll want to take a celebratory event forward, and we look forward to hearing what it is in due course. 

On Friday, I visited the new research base for the British Heart Foundation funded research in Swansea University medical school, which I know the leader of the house knows very well. Sadly, it moved from Cardiff University, but it's obviously doing extremely well in Swansea University. And I learnt that what they are doing there is actually groundbreaking research, and the only place in the world that is actually doing it—looking into early-onset heart arrhythmia suffered by children, and looking generally at the huge problem of heart disease that there is in the population in Wales as a whole. So, when can we have a statement, or a debate—something to catalogue the outstanding scientific achievements that there are in Wales, and especially what is happening in Swansea medical school?

Well, thank you very much for that question. It gives me the opportunity to say, of course, that I'm delighted that the centre is doing so well in Swansea University, which, Llywydd, I should say is in the heart of my own constituency, in case Members aren't aware. Research across Wales, actually, is punching well above its weight, and we should be very proud of the significant work done in this particular area, by both the British Heart Foundation and by the cardiovascular research team at Swansea University. I think maintaining such partnerships, and our investment in research delivery in health settings, is a really important factor in Wales's ability to punch well above its weight in this regard. Again, in my previous role, myself and the Cabinet Secretary for health had numerous discussions about how we might optimise the results of research findings into actual treatments, and into advances in Wales in particular areas, including cardiovascular heart disease. There are a whole series of specialities that arise from some of the cutting-edge research that you saw, which I would urge other Members to go and have a look at if they haven't had a chance, because it is extremely impressive. I think, once the new ministerial portfolios have bedded in, there will be an opportunity to have some sort of debate or statement on the floor of this house around research and its inter-relationship with health. And I'll be sure to make sure that both Ministers take forward this research and visit the facility as soon as possible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary—the leader of the house.

And that brings us to our next item, which is a statement by the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport on the future of Cadw. Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It is a particular pleasure for me to make my first statement—hopefully not the last—as Minister, on the future of Cadw.

Earlier this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport provided an update on the recommendations of the steering group report, 'Historic Wales—A roadmap towards Success, Resilience and Sustainability for the Heritage of Wales'. The report included a specific recommendation relating to the future governance of Cadw, and that a business case should be taken forward to identify the best options. The business case was received at the end of September, it was presented by the Cabinet Secretary to his Cabinet colleagues in October, and I am happy to implement the Cabinet decision, and to accept its core recommendation that Cadw should remain part of Government.

In the business case, consideration was carefully given to the steering group recommendations that Cadw should become a charitable body or an executive agency outside of Welsh Government. Having considered this carefully, and measured this against the status quo, and undertaking an in-depth analysis of the functions of Cadw and the drivers for change, it was seen that the arguments in favour and against Cadw being inside Government were relatively evenly balanced. However, in the current climate of financial challenges, in terms of legislative time and in issues of HR related to creating a new organisation, we had to look too at the fact that Cadw had been very successful in terms of increasing its income levels within Government, and contributing towards innovative legislation and policy development. One other key issue is the additional costs of creating a separate body. Also, by remaining within Government, Cadw could have made a greater contribution to our central goal of 'Prosperity for All'.

And so, whilst there are potential benefits having been identified of moving the organisation to a more arms-length status, I want to emphasise how exceptionally well Cadw has performed, particularly over recent years within Government—commercial performance driven by major improvements to the Cadw visitor experience. I've had wonderful experiences myself, particularly in north Wales with the work done at our castles. The year 2016-17 was the most successful in Cadw's history, with £6.6 million in generated in income. Following on from this, early indications of visitor figures for this year suggest that Cadw is on course for another successful year. Cadw has run several successful marketing campaigns and has won awards, which encourage visitors to the historic sites in the care of Welsh Government. Cadw has achieved this and has delivered groundbreaking legislation in terms of engagement with the public, and has brought about social and economic benefits for the people of Wales.  

Therefore, in examining the case for retaining Cadw within Government, the business case recommended a series of business improvements that will be an important way of addressing issues identified by previous reviews, in terms of staff and stakeholders. Therefore, this will enable Cadw to function better whilst responding to the issues raised in recent reviews and including the need to generate further income and to work more effectively within public sector governance requirements.

I want see Cadw's success continuing, and these improvements will provide greater clarity for all by ensuring that key strategic decisions will remain with us as Welsh Ministers and the day-to-day operations with officials. It also allows for better planning and provides flexibility on recruitment within budgets. Cadw will also continue to be an active member in its own right in the strategic partnership for the heritage sector. This partnership is taking forward a number of collaborative activities allowing our national heritage organisations to share expertise and become more effective, resilient and commercially astute in the challenging financial climate that we face. The new arrangements for Cadw, in my view, will allow it to build on its current success and maximise the contribution of the partnership and the wider heritage and prosperity of Wales. Thank you very much. 

Can I start by welcoming the Minister to his new post? I confidently predict great political success ahead for you. But you will need all your skills, because you are now perhaps having to reflect on a decision that, in April, you perhaps had indicated wouldn't be the eventual direction the Government is taking, in that you seemed very sympathetic to Cadw being placed outside Government. I do understand that you've now had a business case and obviously the examination of that case is material. But the challenges of Government are indeed formidable and I do wish you well with them. 

In April, the Cabinet Secretary said that in reviewing Cadw's structure, his, and I quote,  

'aim is to allow the organisation as much freedom and flexibility to enable it to fully realise its commercial potential'. 

I do now wonder how will this commercial potential be realised. We know obviously the funding situation is challenging and there is a funding freeze for the next two years. So, is this decision going to in any way inhibit some of the commercial potential that was previously identified by the steering group's report that did recommend moving Cadw outside Government? I think this is a very important question: is the decision now taken by the Welsh Government an expedient and temporary one? Because the wording of the statement I think is very cautious. I do wonder if this is the final say that will be had on Cadw's future. 

The Cabinet Secretary in April did say that other models were worthy of consideration, notably 'internal realignment'—I quote him—or Welsh Government sponsored bodies. So, presumably, internal realignment now will actively take place. I'd like some more information on that if possible, and, in the future, if, as I suspect, the current decision may not be permanent, whether some form of Welsh Government sponsored body is likely to be considered.

I would also like to know where we stand with the development of strategic partnerships for the heritage sector. Are some initiatives and developments now off the agenda because Cadw is to remain in Government? Most people did think there would be more flexibility for these partnerships and a lead role that Cadw was meant to take if it was outside Government. Now it won't be, and are there going to be more restrictions than we might have otherwise anticipated?

And finally, on a slightly separate matter, what progress is being made with the cultural skills strategy, and is it still on course to be in place by October 2018? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much for your kind congratulations and for your seven subsequent questions. When I was undertaking a previous role in this Assembly, I took the view that Ministers generally would have done very well to answer two and a half. So, I will try, if I can, to respond to what you've said.

What we are looking for in Government and what we are hoping and confident that Cadw will achieve is a way of delivering a public service in the very distinct and tourist-related and attractive field of heritage and major heritage buildings, and a way of doing business within Government that would be innovative and progressive. 

The performance of Cadw, which I alluded to in terms of the enthusiasm of its staff and the income that has been generated already, indicates that that basis is there. Now, this is not necessarily a model that could apply even across the whole of the Ministry of heritage and culture, but I hope we will be able to look to developing this model further, following the success of the Cadw model.

Therefore, past reference to what discussions happened and the views that some of us may have taken at that time is not necessarily relevant to where we are now. No decision in Government, or possibly in life, can be said to be final, but as far as I'm concerned with this particular decision, this decision will give Cadw security from now on in. It is not my intention to further review the position of Cadw.

I intend, through this Assembly and through the period of this Government, if I still have responsibility, or whatever happens here—I am trying to indicate that this is what we expect of Cadw: to respond to the new framework we have given them. I do believe that the business case and all that came out of the discussion of the business case and the commercial potential will prove beneficial.

I must say that the officials who lead Cadw within Government have impressed me with their willingness to innovate. I'm equally impressed by the willingness of the staff of Cadw and the trade unions involved in Cadw to co-operate with these reorganisations that may be necessary, and I do think that we will then deliver further results in terms of the income that is generated.

Thank you for the statement. The news doesn’t come as a shock—to some of us at least—because you did allude to this at the Welsh language committee last week. It is all-important that our national cultural organisations are protected, supported and developed. These institutions play a very important role in the life of our nation. Today’s statement states that Cadw will continue as part of the Government, but doesn’t talk about the rest of our cultural and conservation organisations. You do refer to them in talking about the role of Cadw in the strategic partnership for the heritage sector, but it would be useful to have your confirmation or otherwise as regards any reorganisation or merger of any cultural or conservation organisations. That is, will Cadw, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales, the national library and the national museums continue as separate organisations? That is, has your predecessor's idea of Historic Wales now gone? Of course, it was a commitment in the Labour manifesto, and it is true to say that it was highly contentious, but does today’s statement signify the beginning of the end of the concept of Historic Wales?

In addition to safeguarding our conservation and cultural organisations financially, it is important that they are also nurtured. But, I also see that there is a great deal of emphasis in the statement on the financial model for Cadw—a great deal of emphasis—and that begs the question of whether this is just a financial decision on behalf of Welsh Government. So, it would be useful to see the business case that supports this decision. Can you give us a date for when the business case will be published, and on the remit of that report? Is there any consideration given to other conservation and cultural organisations, and do any operational issues apart from the funding of bodies receive consideration? 

You say in your statement that the commercial performance of Cadw has improved significantly and that visitor numbers suggest that Cadw is on the right path. At the Welsh language committee last week, there was confirmation that Cadw admission prices will be increased, but there was no confirmation by how much. In doing that, won’t it undermine some of the work that has been done, as we could perhaps see fewer visitors and therefore militate against the progress that has been made? Thank you.

Thank you very much for those questions. In terms of admission prices, our intention consistently is to retain a balance between open access, as far as possible—and free access to organisations and institutions such as museums—and the right or opportunity of citizens who live near significant monuments—. You will be aware of the situation in Caernarfon, as am I, where admission prices to these buildings are tempered by opportunities for local citizens to access these monuments. I will say more tomorrow, I think, as there is a question tabled on this issue, about reorganising the plan for local residents to have easier access to these buildings and to make that less complex.

No, I have no intention to merge any other national institutions. I want to make that clear. I may have an intention—and not too confidential an intention—to perhaps create, or to give another national institution the opportunity to rename itself as a national institution in a language that can be understood by all, but that is an issue for the institutions themselves. I don’t intend to be interventionist as Minister, but I will be using my position, as will the relevant committees of this Assembly, to scrutinise what these bodies are doing.

Financial considerations don’t drive cultural policy. Cultural policies are decided by issues of culture and, particularly in the case of Cadw, the pleasure we can give to ourselves as citizens and residents to enjoy our heritage, and the inspiration we can draw from them, and the huge interest that is expressed by visitors to Wales in the way in which we safeguard our heritage. That is the driver.

In terms of Historic Wales, Historic Wales is alive and well as a partnership between heritage organisations. Good practice within Cadw, particularly its practice in terms of generating income, will hopefully be an inspiration to other major national institutions that generate far less income than Cadw currently does and where a high proportion of their funding comes directly from the Welsh Government budget. I won't name any names here today, but you will understand what I'm alluding to, and this effort by my predecessor, fair play to him, to actually rattle the cage that has brought us to this position in ensuring a future for Cadw within Government while simultaneously being a business organisation.  

I am delighted to congratulate my old friend upon his assumption of office as a Minister. I've followed his progress through the several parliamentary institutions of which he's been a member over many decades, and I'm pleased that he still has the capacity to surprise us even at this late stage. And, in passing, I can say that I'm pleased that this country seems to be enjoying a kind of geriatric efflorescence. The Liberals are now led by a 74-year-old, I'm the same age as Jeremy Corbyn—69—and others of our vintage are still pulling their weight in politics, and I'm delighted that Dafydd Elis-Thomas is now a member of the Government. 

Cadw performs two functions, of course. It's the state heritage agency on one hand, but it also has another role, which is capable of being commercial, as an operator of heritage visitor attractions. In the evidence that the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales gave to the culture committee, they said that Cadw needs to be free to be more entrepreneurial and commercial, which means that current constraints on recruitment, procurement, budgeting and succession planning all need to be addressed. And I wonder if the Minister can perhaps expand a little on what he said in reply to David Melding about enabling Cadw to take advantage of commercial opportunities but, nevertheless, inside Government, because this is what the recent inquiry has been about. I appreciate that the report says that the argument is finely balanced, but, clearly, Cadw does need to be able to spread its wings and I wonder how they might be able to do this.  

Thank you for your very kind remarks, and I remember with affection your period in Government, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me standing where I am today to refer back to that. But you have indeed understood the function of Cadw very clearly, and this is what we are seeking to ensure develops under our announcement and our proposals today. 

As regards recruitment, if Cadw is in Government, then clearly there will be an opportunity for people who are working within the public services to seek preferment and to seek career development within the organisation. But it will always be essential that the commercial, businesslike approach that we've outlined today is indeed the approach taken by the organisation. What I found in the years when I was involved with other forms of public sector management for the  wonderful, of course Conservative, Government of the 1990s is that it's essential, when you're dealing with institutions, that you have within Government, or at arm's length from Government or part arm's length from Government, people who are able to deal with business and deal with third sector institutions in a way that brings them on board as you develop change, and this is what we'll be seeking to do with Cadw.

Now, clearly, I'm not going to make any comments about how the recruitment structure is organised in detail, because although, as I say, Cadw remains within Government, it will have the flexibility within its development plans and its management structure to enable it to work in a commercial and businesslike way.

Can I also add my congratulations to Dafydd Elis-Thomas on his appointment as a Minister? I'd also like to thank him for the statement he's made and the clarity of the decision to keep Cadw as part of Government. I am, however, disappointed that the opportunity to examine what it is for and what it has achieved in respect of protecting the historic built environment was not taken. 

There are two examples I'll give you from Swansea East. Firstly, a nineteenth century church associated with the Morris family was refused listing by Cadw. However, a 1960s church on the Portmead estate was listed, much to the amazement of my constituents. Maes-y-Gwernen Hall, which was once the home of the renowned tin plate family and produced two MPs, and which also hosted former British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his family, was not only refused listing but is due to be demolished. Derelict Danbert House, which was the home of the son of a tin plate owner, has been listed. Finally, the view that I share that Cadw would prefer to see a listed building fall down than it be altered—. But it appears that, as long as it generates further income then the above does not matter. What I cannot understand is why responsibility for listing buildings cannot be given to local authorities, who know their area.

Thank you, Mike, for your kind remarks. And then you seek to lead me right down into a western bog, I think, somewhere near to your constituency. It is not for Ministers to make decisions about listing. It is not for Ministers to make decisions about what local authorities should do in this area either. I think we need to look for partnerships.

I'm not going to talk about the planning aspects of your question because, clearly, I am not responsible, thank goodness, for planning matters.

But as far as Cadw is concerned, it has been mandated through this decision to work in partnership with those other institutions that are part of Government and, in particular, to work regionally with local government. And that is what we are looking for. It is a way in which marketing plans link the tourist potential as well as the conservation interest with the role of the institution, such as Cadw, to develop further. Therefore, I am going to disappoint you by not expressing a view on matters that are without my portfolio.

Can I also congratulate the new Minister on his post? We've had an excellent working relationship in all sorts of different capacities over the years, and I'm sure that he'll do an excellent job in his new role. As the new Minister will know, I take a keen interest in Wales's heritage and, in particular, its spiritual heritage and faith heritage, and I was really struck by the increase that you referenced in visitor numbers and the commercial success of Cadw in recent years. I wonder to what extent that might be linked to the campaigns that Visit Wales has had on the Sacred Wales theme in recent years.

He will know that one of the fast-growing areas of the tourism market is faith-related tourism, particularly in terms of some of the pilgrim trails that we've got here in Wales, many of which call through and at a number of important Cadw sites. I wonder whether you can tell us whether that is something that you expect Cadw to be able to take advantage of from a commercial perspective in the future?

Can I also just ask about the Cadw annual membership fees? Obviously, there are some reciprocal arrangements that take place with other heritage organisations across the UK, both in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and these give advantages to people who become Cadw members, but I think perhaps one of the great commercially successful organisations that's involved with heritage is, of course, the National Trust, which also has many buildings that it is responsible for here in Wales. I wonder what links the Minister might expect Cadw to develop with the National Trust as a potential partner, so that people can enjoy perhaps shared membership of both organisations in return for their membership fee in order to promote more spending at Cadw sites and to assist in making the organisation more commercially viable.

Again, thank you for your very kind remarks. It is always a pleasure to hear you expound the delights of the heritage, especially of the north, where, as you know, I still spend as much time as I can and continue to do so. In fact, I will be working out of the office in Llandudno Junction this week, and I hope that we can meet there perhaps in future.

But I'm not going to engage with the National Trust. I'm an individual member of the National Trust, as I think I'm still an individual member of Cadw—I shall have to check whether I've paid my dues. But the importance of partnership working, on the ground especially, between our institutions and our commercial, third sector, voluntary—and the National trust is an interesting mix of what is a voluntary organisation, with a voluntary membership, which has a statutory basis. So, all these partnerships are tasked, as far as I'm concerned, with collaboration on the ground in their regions. And as we develop strategies linked with tourism and with the historical and built environment, we need to encourage collaboration that is already taking place.

Now, as regards spiritual matters, I tend to leave that to the archbishops. [Laughter.] However, when I will be attending the enthronement of a new archbishop of the church that I belong to, which, as you know, is the Church in Wales, I will certainly seek an opportunity to make sure that the partnership we have between organisations of all kinds—while at the same time, of course, respecting the disestablished nature of the Church in Wales, and the right of people not to belong to a faith community at all and yet to participate as citizens in Wales—are equally maintained. So, not all the money is going to be directed towards one denomination, I can assure you.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is the debate on tackling substance misuse, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Good afternoon and thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open today's debate and move the motion before us on tackling substance misuse. I'll comment initially about the amendments and then go into my remarks—broadly about where we find ourselves in Wales today.

I'm happy to confirm that we'll support amendment 1 from Plaid Cymru—I'll mention that later on. On amendment 2, we won't be able to support this, because there's a factual disagreement about the assertions made. Actually, the latest data from NHS Wales Informatics Service show that the number of people completing treatment substance free actually increased, not decreased, as the wording sets out—there was an increase from 3,288 in 2015-16 to 3,604 people who completed their treatment substance free in 2016. I do accept that the other elements in the amendment are accurate.

I'm also happy to accept the third amendment put forward by the Conservatives. We agree that residential rehabilitation and in-patient detoxification play an important role in helping people to secure their long-term recovery, albeit these are not alternatives to community-based rehabilitation, which also plays an important part.

Substance misuse itself is, of course, a major health issue that affects individuals, families and communities. As well as the rising concerns that we have over the impact of alcohol misuse, the ever-changing nature of drug misuse presents us with new and changing challenges to both policy makers, commissioners and treatment agencies. This Government continues to invest almost £50 million annually to deliver the commitments in our latest substance misuse delivery plan that runs up to 2018.

Our plan remains rooted in a harm-reduction approach. That is why we recognise substance misuse as a health and care issue and not solely a criminal justice issue. That is why we are happy to accept amendment 1. The Welsh Government's overall aim is to ensure that people in Wales are aware of the dangers and the impact of substance misuse, and to know where they can seek information, help and support if they need it. 

There are considerable challenges associated with the fast-changing picture, supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens. However, we are making real progress. In 2015-16, 83.3 per cent of people who started treatment were seen within 20 working days. In 2016-17, we saw 16,406 people start treatment, and 86.7 per cent of those people were seen within 20 working days—a material increase in the speed of treatment. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those front-line staff who provide those services for that achievement.

We're also seeing improvements in treatment outcomes—77 per cent of people reported a reduction in their substance misuse following treatment in the last year, compared to 69.2 per cent in 2013. Now, whilst these improvements are welcome, our annual report highlights worrying increases in both alcohol and drug-related deaths. And this emphasises how important it is that tackling these issues remains a priority for this Government and our partners, as alcohol and drugs remain a significant cause of death and illness, and, indeed, avoidable death and illness. The data show the rise in alcohol-related deaths in 2016 and that reinforces our need to take action. That is why our Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill is a crucial part of responding to this major public health issue. And that legislation, debated in this place last month, will focus on reducing alcohol consumption amongst hazardous and harmful drinkers. And it will also reduce the negative impact of alcohol misuse on hard-pressed public services, both devolved and non-devolved.

Minimum unit pricing will form part of, and complement, our wider substance misuse work. We are already working to tackle the excessive consumption of alcohol through better education, prevention and treatment services to support the most harmful of drinkers. We'll continue to work with the families, of course, of those who misuse alcohol. And we're also working on a number of areas to tackle the recent increases in drug-related deaths. Part of that is our groundbreaking WEDINOS project, which continues to play a key role in the analysis of a range of drugs. So, testing those new substances enables us to examine the chemical compound of the substance, but then crucially to disseminate widely the risk factors involved when individuals take them, and to date WEDINOS has received over 7,000 samples from across the United Kingdom.

Now, the distribution of naloxone, which is a drug that temporarily reverses the effects of an opiate overdose, has been a key strand in our harm-reduction approach, and we think it was a real and an important factor in the reduction in drug-related deaths between 2011 and 2014 here in Wales. So, we're placing even greater emphasis on our naloxone work to help the upward trend in uptake. In total, over 15,000 kits have been distributed throughout Wales since 2009, with over 1,600 reported uses. So, naloxone is available in every community drug treatment service and in all prisons in Wales. We will continue to work closely with areas in Wales to further expand the presence of naloxone, especially in relation to those who are not currently engaging in treatment, and that's particularly important when we consider that the number of drug-related deaths occur amongst those who have not accessed our substance misuse services.

For example, officials in my department are working closely with Dyfed-Powys Police to commence the distribution of naloxone kits within custody suites. But the complexity of this agenda can be seen when we consider the rise in other substances, such as the image and performance-enhancing drugs, and we know there are major pressures today in terms of society and its view of body image that continue for both men and women. The Welsh Government, working with Sport Wales, Public Health Wales and other partners, held a national symposium earlier this year on the misuse of image and performance-enhancing drugs and its impact on sport and the wider community, and a group has now been established to take forward and consider how to respond to the recommendations of that symposium.

We also continue to support DAN 24/7, our free, bilingual substance misuse helpline, which provides a single point of contact for anyone in Wales wanting further information or help relating to their drug or alcohol issues. And in the last year, DAN 24/7 responded to over 4,000 calls, and the website had over 75,000 hits. So, DAN 24/7 has also formed part of numerous information campaigns over the last three years that have been targeting specific areas of challenge. The most recent campaign—I hope you've seen it in the current and ongoing autumn rugby international series—is the It's Nothing Trivial campaign that focuses on the dangers of mixing alcohol and drugs.

Now, in terms of recovery from substance misuse and reintegration into society, being able to secure employment is hugely significant. That's why I'm delighted that we've secured £11.6 million from the European social fund to run a substance misuse out-of-work peer mentoring service, and the match funding that I have agreed for that service means that, in total, we'll invest £17.3 million in the programme until summer 2020. And that programme aims to help over 14,000 people over 25 who are long-term unemployed or economically inactive to recover from mental ill health and/or substance misuse back into employment, or those age 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training. And in the first year of that programme, over 1,500 participants have enrolled in the service and benefited from it.

We do know that substance misuse is a major cause for people being sick, losing jobs and feeling unable to get in to work. So, this programme joins together some of our key goals around health and employability, and it contributes to our commitment to support people break down the barriers that ill health places upon employment. I hope that's helped outline some of the measures this Government is already taking, but also the open-mindedness and understanding we need to recommit ourselves to this area of work and consider what is most effective and active here in Wales, as we move forward, as I say in an area that is constantly changing and is a constant challenge in each community across the country.

Thank you very much. I have selected the three amendments to the motion and I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Dai.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I shall be, as the DPO has outlined, addressing the Plaid Cymru amendment that specifies that drug and alcohol misuse and substance misuse generally is a public health issue, and not a criminal justice issue.

Now then, I've been a GP for a very long time, and addiction is a constant issue. Some people have had horrendous lives. They have suffered neglect as children, child abuse, sexual abuse. They've been denied love. Sweet little babies in my baby clinic over the years will become increasingly brutalised as they grow up in a terrible existence. No wonder that people want to blot out the pain, find any buzz anywhere, in alcohol and in drugs—legal drugs, illegal drugs, prescribed drugs, non-prescribed drugs—any buzz, anywhere, to escape the cold reality in intolerable conditions, unable to escape the abuse, the hatred and the loathing.

On top of that, tragic accidents and incidents can happen. With no family support or love, all of that heaps hurt on our people. Throw into the mix mental health issues on an increasing scale, with people reacting in an unpredictable manner, with hostility and violence, because they know no other way.

As a health professional in the field, you are presented with enormous challenges that stretch you to the utmost. I pay tribute to all of those working in the field this afternoon. It is extremely demanding and challenging, because we are talking about dealing with people with chaotic lives, with no order whatsoever. They're not able to help themselves, frequently, with overwhelming financial challenges and homelessness and rough sleeping as constant companions to the alcohol and the drug addiction.

And how do we respond as a society? With kindness, tolerance, willingness to help, to explore the underlying issues that led to this current chaos, or does society respond by marginalising such people? 'They are addicts, they have brought it on themselves.' Really? Arresting them—how is that going to help? How about finding out that individual's story, the tragedy, the hurt, the family schisms, the lack of forgiveness, the self-loathing, the self-harm and, yes, the attention-seeking behaviour in people who have seldom had love or attention showered upon them ever in their lives?

There is much excellent work being done. Like Jenny Rathbone, I'm a trustee of the Living Room, Cardiff, an alcohol rehabilitation and drug rehabilitation centre. As well, I know the good work of the Welsh Centre for Action on Dependency and Addiction and others in Swansea, and the Brynawel alcohol rehabilitation unit near Llanharan and many, many more—excellent work in the most trying of circumstances.

But much more needs to be done, has to be done in a public health view, exploring the real issues, counselling, dealing with not just the chemical withdrawal, but with the psychological withdrawal and the social changes that have to happen, and replace the alcohol or the drug with a less destructive coping mechanism for life. Yes, tackling homelessness, finding meaning in life, finding that life is precious, finding that each second can be memorable, forming relationships again, finding belief in oneself—all of these are long-term projects—and treating the mental health issues, not just the short-term chemical-weaning fix with the inevitable relapse.

In that context, how about devolving policing, probation and criminal justice so that the revolving door of reoffending can truly be tackled by the co-ordination and integration of services that are now divided between non-devolved and devolved? The devolved services of health, mental health, drugs and alcohol services, housing, education and training, truly working together with policing and probation and the courts—that would be great.

How about being innovative on top of that, as well, by piloting safe-injection harm-reduction centres, with medics like myself injecting clean heroin in a clinical environment, with gradually decreasing doses and clean needles to prevent blood-borne viruses spreading? That's innovative for you. It works in other countries, stops people dying, truly tackling addiction as a public health issue. Leave your prejudices behind. Yet, still, the hurt goes on. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark. 

I move amendment 2, which regrets that the 2017 annual report for the Welsh Government's 10-year substance misuse strategy, 'Working Together to Reduce Harm', shows that there has been an increase in both alcohol-related and drug-related deaths in Wales. Whilst this report also claims good progress on providing quicker treatment, our amendment 2 also quotes Welsh Government statistics showing that the number of people completing treatment substance free has fallen—in fact, down in April to June on the previous quarter to the lowest level for a year—and that fewer people are starting treatment within 20 days since their referral than two years previously. Cases closed as a result of death in April to June was the highest on record; alcohol-specific deaths in Wales rose 7 per cent in 2016—the highest number since 2012; alcohol-related deaths rose 9 per cent—the highest number since 2008. It is therefore concerning that the total number assessed by specialist substance misuse providers fell by 5 per cent and that the total number starting treatment was down 4.6 per cent. Hospital admissions relating to the use of illicit drugs rose by 3.8 per cent after 2015-16, and drug misuse deaths in Wales rose 14.3 per cent in 2015 to the highest recorded levels since comparable records began in 1993.

Our amendment 3 calls on the Welsh Government to increase capacity in tier 4 in-patient detoxification and residential rehabilitation services, recognising that this is not an alternative to recovery-focused services within the community. I say that, having been championing the recovery model here since the days when Welsh Government still prioritised medical management and maintenance treatments over recovery for addicts. In a recent exchange of correspondence with the previous public health Minister regarding tier 4 in-patient detoxification and residential rehabilitation, she stated that more recovery-focused services have reduced the need for residential rehabilitation services. In reality, they should complement each other. In an equivalent debate almost a decade ago here, I referred to the loss of Welsh beds that they have in one detoxification unit in Wrexham, and to the independent review of detoxification and residential treatment in north Wales, commissioned by the then Minister, who anticipated that this would endorse a switch to detoxification in the community. Having been buried, this report was leaked to me and made public. It found that the whole service, including in-patient beds, was underfunded. When I put this to that Minister, she would not accept it.

A further independent review, looking at substance misuse tier 4 treatment services in Wales, was also buried, leaked to me and made public. It identified numerous reports of people reoffending so as to be able to be detoxed in prison, and of hospital admissions because of the unavailability of in-patient detoxification and residential rehabilitation. It called for a substantial increase in capacity and for the development of three drug and alcohol detoxification and rehabilitation units across Wales, working with third sector providers. A further report in 2010 reinforced this message, and the then Welsh Government stated that it was taking forward work on development of the three units. Instead, it is understood that the Welsh Government residential detoxification cuts a decade ago remain in place, and that the number of rehab places in Wales has significantly reduced over the last six years. 

In October, the Minister told me she had been advised that a decline in the demand for residential rehabilitation places was primarily due to the eligibility criteria being strengthened in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. However, as NICE guideline 115 states,

'the more severe and less socially stable fare better in inpatient'.

The sector tells me that numbers are down because there are fewer residential rehabilitation places in Wales, and people are being moved into the community without evidence of need. Regarding the Welsh Government's substance misuse residential rehabilitation framework, Wales has only seven places at Ty'n Rodyn in Bangor and approximately 20 at Brynawel near Cardiff, the latter including alcohol-related brain damage.

Since the framework commenced, only eight of 24 referrals to Ty'n Rodyn from within Wales arrived through the framework. Regarding joined-up health and social care, Brynawel is continually seeing the negative consequences of funding disputes between local authorities and health boards. Meanwhile, residential rehabilitation placements outside Wales last year went to three organisations on the framework and six organisations outside it.

Yes, the potential of community-based treatments for dependent drug users and drinkers with relatively less-complex needs must be maximised, but we also need investment in tier 4 interventions, their integration with the other tiers of alcohol and drug treatment, and enhanced links between them and community based services, aftercare and wraparound services. To do otherwise will cost more lives and more money.

I wonder if I could begin by raising some concerns in terms of capital funds' availability, because I know that there are concerns that limitations to capital may result in offices closing and the unavailability of staff to provide a service in particular areas. For example, when leases expire, if there isn't sufficient capital to obtain premises and, indeed, equipment, then there may be a concentration of service provision in particular geographical areas, such as Newport, for example, which is already a focal point for delivery of services for a wider area. But there are concerns that, if that increases, then the level of service provision and the numbers attending service providers in Newport will get to the level where it creates greater concern than already exists in terms of the perceived problems, at least, that too many people trying to access those services in a fairly narrow geographical area creates. So, I wonder if there might be some reassurance in terms of capital funding and the avoidance of those problems.

There was also a concern that changes to homelessness legislation mean that prison leavers no longer have the sort of priority for accommodation that they once had, which has resulted in an increase in homelessness and rough-sleeping. Amongst those prison leavers are those with substance abuse issues. I know that some of the service providers are concerned that that change has resulted in an increase in the problems that people with those substance misuse problems experience—and, by extension, service providers experience.

I also, Dirprwy Lywydd, wanted to talk a little bit about and ask some questions on Alcohol Concern Cymru's advice on good parenting, particularly around alcohol issues, some of which was addressed in the recent Alcohol Awareness Week, and there are fact sheets that are helpful. It seems to me that a lot of parents, as I think Alcohol Concern Cymru reinforce, have a view that it's sensible to introduce their children to alcohol in a responsible way, within a family setting, and that this often happens in continental Europe, for example, having a glass of wine with a meal, and that that's a good way of introducing children to alcohol, rather than them finding out about it, as it were, experiencing it outside the home and perhaps overindulging. But the advice, I think, is that it's actually beneficial if children are completely alcohol free, certainly before the age of 15, and that, if they are introduced to it after the age of 14, for example, then it should be in a very restricted way. Also, there is, I guess, an obvious issue in terms of parents as role models. Parents have to be very careful about how often they indulge in alcohol in front of their children, and be very careful not to overindulge, because I think there's a lot of evidence that, if they fail to guard against those dangers of being a negative role model in these terms, then it does lead to heavy drinking in adolescence, or a greater propensity to heavy drinking in adolescence from their children.

So, those are just some of the issues. Obviously, there's a range of very important issues around parenting and good parenting to avoid alcohol abuse issues and substance misuse issues generally in the future, and we are increasingly about prevention. I just wonder if we could hear a little bit about what the Welsh Government is doing to raise awareness and get positive parenting in place.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I was at the Newport food festival, which increasingly is a very important event and growing in strength and profile. They had an alcohol-free beer stall, which was very popular, and had a range of different beers, several different beers, which were alcohol free, and, obviously, they were using that to also promote some good messages around avoiding over-indulgence. But they tell me that they're not aware of any Welsh brewers producing alcohol-free beer, although there is a good market for it and that's likely to increase in the future. I wonder whether the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary might be able to offer a few comments as far as that's concerned. 

When it comes to tackling the impact of problematic substance use on human health, there remains little to celebrate. The Government motion today notes, and I quote, 

'the progress being made in tackling the harms associated with substance misuse.'

But the report actually demonstrates the opposite of progress. The data suggests that a social catastrophe has emerged in our country in recent years, and I don't use that term lightly. A few weeks ago, I raised with the First Minister the fact that drug-related deaths had reached a record high of 168 in 2015. The report that we're debating today shows that, in 2016, drug-related deaths reached a new record of 192. Alcohol-related deaths have also increased to 504, as noted in the amendment in the name of Paul Davies. And these statistics reinforce, I'm sure, what many of us are hearing from drugs organisations, charities, our police and crime commissioners, and from my former colleagues in the probation service. Add it to the homelessness crisis, which, of course, is linked to austerity and benefit reform, and we've got a situation that is creating a harrowing cost to our society, to our public services, to our communities and to human life. 

Many of the drug and alcohol-related deaths are of people who are street homeless. We have the powers over homelessness, of course, but we have to be clear that some of the policy levers needed to fully solve the problematic substance use problem are not yet devolved. The word 'yet' is important here. We need to have the attitude that the powers to address problematic substance use are needed in Wales, and that holding those powers at Westminster is time-limited. This Assembly and the Welsh Government is responsible for public health, for homelessness prevention, and for some aspects of community safety. For as long as justice, welfare and social security powers are held back at Westminster, a fully joined-up approach will be impossible. 

We haven't always had a forward-thinking attitude from the current Welsh Government on the devolution of justice, social security and related fields. But I believe that there is potential to change that. And we must change that, because these figures paint a stark and harrowing picture. Now, I support the Plaid Cymru amendment today—well, I suppose I would, wouldn't I, but because it's a matter of principle that substance use is a public health issue and not a criminal justice issue, and I'm glad that the Government is prepared to support that too. But we need to go further. We need the powers over the criminal justice system to reform drug policies. One thing, for example, that I'd like to see is for people with multiple sclerosis and other conditions to able to legally use cannabis, but we can't do that because we don't have the powers. But, even without the powers over criminal justice, we could still have an impact on reducing the numbers of deaths from drug use if public health solutions were implemented. One of those solutions is being advocated by Arfon Jones, the north Wales police and crime commissioner, who's become one of the most progressive voices on justice policy in Wales. He's earned respect from right across the political spectrum for his stance on treating people who have problems with illegal drugs as humans and not as criminals. 

Only a few years ago, this standpoint was seen as extreme and radical, but now it's becoming accepted in countries right across Europe. Arfon has proposed that suitably located, safe injecting facilities could reduce drug deaths, drug-related crime, and public drug use. This approach has been implemented in Switzerland, combined with other public health measures, and it has reduced drug-related deaths. In Portugal, decriminalisation of some drugs, combined with prevention and treatment programmes, has had a similar effect. Last year, there were fewer drug deaths in Portugal, a country of more than 10 million people, than in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, with a population of less than 1 million people.

Just as public health measures are seen as the way of reducing harm from alcohol, they should also be used to reduce the harm from drugs. And it's worth noting here that not everyone who drinks alcohol will develop a problem, and the same goes with drugs. And that has to be a starting point, so that we can focus on reducing harm from problematic use.

Let's not look back in years to come and regret more lives, more heartbroken families, because of short-sighted and ineffective drug policies. Let's forge a new, bold approach to this problem in Wales—let's start with saving lives.

I'd like to thank the Welsh Government for bringing forward this important debate today.

Substance misuse ruins lives—not only the life of the person using the substance but the family unit as a whole all suffer. There is no winner in these circumstances, unless the person receives the help that is needed. During my time working in a prison, I can assure you I saw so many different individuals—individuals who had shown promise in their earlier lives—wrecked as a result of what has gone on, of what they've taken. And why their lives have taken such a downward spiral nobody can really know, but what prompted them to feel that their life was so negative is something that does need to be looked into before people are imprisoned.

Last year, in Wales, 192 people died from misuse of illegal drugs, over 11,000 drug-related offences were committed, and nearly 24,000 people were referred to substance misuse services.

Wales is unique in the UK in having a unified substance misuse strategy that tackles drug and alcohol misuse, and the Welsh Government have committed £50 million a year to reduce the misuse of substances at a population level. To a certain extent, the strategy is working. There has been a reduction in the numbers taking illicit drugs and abusing alcohol. However, the number of hospital admissions due to substance misuse are increasing, as are substance misuse deaths.

Hospital admissions related to alcohol misuse have fallen by over 6 per cent over the last five years, yet admissions related to illicit drugs rose by nearly 4 per cent in the past year. In older people, this rose by over 15 per cent.

The current strategy is not reducing substance misuse deaths. In the past year, we saw an 8.9 per cent increase in the number of alcohol-related deaths, and a 13.8 per cent increase in drug-related deaths, the highest level since 1993. The level is much higher than in England.

The Office for National Statistics age-standardised mortality rate for deaths related to drug misuse show that, in England, there were 44.1 deaths per 1 million of the population, while the mortality rate for drug misuse in Wales continued to increase, from 58.3 deaths per 1 million population in 2015, to 66.9 deaths per cent deaths per 1 million in 2016, with Wales now having a higher rate of deaths from drug misuse than eight of the regions of England. This coincides with a huge increase in the misuse of synthetic cannabinoids. Last year, there was nearly a 50 per cent increase in the number of young people being admitted to hospital as a result of cannabinoid misuse.

Welsh hospitals are seeing an average of three people per day admitted as a result of using synthetic cannabinoids such as Spice. My own local health board has taken the drastic measure of giving patients high on Spice a general anaesthetic in order to prevent them biting and kicking staff. These drugs are a growing menace in our communities, towns and cities and we have to improve public education about the harms associated with such drugs.

But, unfortunately, it is not only illicit drugs that cause harm. There are growing numbers of people becoming addicted to and abusing prescription and over the counter medication. Last year, there was an increase in the number of people dying as a result of taking paracetamol, fentanyl and oxycodone. The UK’s leading rehabilitation provider reports that they are treating more people for abusing prescription medication than they do for heroin. One of the main factors contributing to this is believed to be access to pain management clinics. In Wales, there has been a large increase in the number of people waiting for pain management. In the last five years the numbers waiting longer than 36 weeks have risen by a staggering 1,500 per cent. In north Wales patients are having to wait around 72 weeks. This is simply deplorable. The Welsh Government needs to take immediate action to reduce waiting times for pain management in order to reduce dependence on strong painkillers and the associated harms that come from long-term use.

The substance misuse strategy has been reviewed and the Welsh Government is due to receive the final report next month. I hope the Welsh Government see this as an opportunity to tweak this strategy. I look forward to seeing an updated strategy that addresses the numbers of deaths as a result of substance misuse and tackles the new challenges facing us. Diolch yn fawr.

I don't think I'll ever forget the first time I met a 10-year old who was obviously drunk. His breath smelt strongly of alcohol and his behaviour indicated that he—. His risk taking and cockiness was a clear sign of his inebriation. I don't think that minimum alcohol pricing is going to be of assistance to a child like this, because they're never going to be able to actually buy the alcohol themselves, but it does tell you about how, in some households, the level of supervision is so poor that they're not in a position to prevent their child from getting this drunk. Obviously, in many cases, their parents are also addicted to alcohol or drugs and that poses huge questions for any child who finds themself living in a household like that. So, therefore, I just want to point out that it is of concern and we should all be concerned that over 400 referrals last year were for 10 to 14-year-olds.  

I very much welcome the work of the SchoolBeat by the community support officers in schools. We know that alcohol is everywhere, particularly at this time of year, and we obviously have to educate children on how we manage our relationship with alcohol, particularly at this time of the year when alcohol is absolutely everywhere and people are being widely encouraged to abuse alcohol—and well over the guidelines of 14 units—and the fact that throughout the year there are far too many people consuming abusive levels of alcohol and this is reflected in the cancer and liver disease statistics that the health service has to deal with. 

I suppose that one of the concerns I wanted to raise today is the fact that youth workers in my constituency are reporting that young people are much more inclined at the moment to be using drugs rather than alcohol, and, particularly, the consumption of Spice—these synthetic cannabinoids—is a considerable cause for concern, because the cocktail of amphetamines and other substances that drug dealers cook up in their back kitchens, both to increase their profits and to hook a new generation of addicts, must be extremely difficult to track. It's extremely disturbing to see young people in a state of collapse in the city centre of Cardiff and this has been recently well-documented in the local media. One Cardiff user reported that spice had taken over their life: 'It's like heroin; you just lose a grip on reality.'

A Cardiff drug dealer told WalesOnline that, working in Adamsdown or the city centre, they could make £300 an hour. So, you can see the difficulties that the police are working with to try and control this problem. Unfortunately, this, obviously, is reflected in the nearly 50 per cent increase in cannabinoid-related admissions to hospital over the last four years. I strongly applaud the operation of WEDINOS, which is constantly testing the new psychoactive substances, because, clearly, we cannot protect people unless we know what it is they are taking, and we need to be constantly ahead of the game that drug dealers are up to.

Clearly, it's more complicated as a picture than just young people who are desperate to drown their sorrows. As Dai Lloyd has already said, I'm a trustee and director of the Living Room in Cardiff. Addiction isn't just an affliction of the desperately poor. Many Living Room clients are people who are holding down responsible jobs; they're doctors, they're vicars and other professionals who find the emotional demands of the job are encouraging them to use drugs or alcohol as a release from the pressures and the burden of the job that they're carrying.

I absolutely applaud the meticulous and persistent work that needs to go on for anybody who is working in treatment services. I note that there are 15 per cent of people who do not attend before a treatment has started, or people fall out of it before treatment has begun following assessment. That is because people are terrified of having to deal with the demons in their lives that have led them into this addiction in the first place. But I think the report is very clear on the challenges ahead, and it's a complex and very difficult problem.

Thank you. And finally, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by fully endorsing all the sentiments expressed so eloquently by Dai Lloyd earlier on? As a sitting magistrate for 13 years, I saw the devastating effect that drugs and alcohol can have on individuals' lives and, very often, those individuals came from chaotic backgrounds and really did not have the sort of start in life that most of us enjoyed. Therefore, as a magistrate, and with the other magistrates, we always sought to have interventions that were not criminalising these people, if possible. But we were frustrated by the fact that, if we gave something like drug rehabilitation orders, they would not come into effect for something like four months, by which time, of course, the people had probably committed further crimes during that period of time. So, I fully endorse everything that Dai Lloyd said earlier on.

I want to turn now, if I can—. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will know that Brynawel House in Llanharan is one of only two residential rehabilitation facilities in Wales, the other being Ty'n Rodyn in Bangor, both of which were talked about earlier by Mark Isherwood. Brynawel offers life-changing treatment for those struggling with alcohol dependency, even dealing with those with alcohol-related brain damage. Their unique treatment techniques have been recognised by many local authorities outside Wales, and yet it appears to be badly neglected by local authorities here in Wales, to the extent that there's a very real possibility that Brynawel may actually close.

In fact, Merthyr Tydfil local authority, for instance, has not referred one patient to Brynawel in the last five years. This is despite the fact that each council can access the £1 million ring-fenced by the Welsh Government for residential care treatment. One of my constituents told me that she had begged Merthyr council to admit her husband to residential care, but was told unequivocally that Merthyr borough council did not refer alcohol abusers for this type of treatment. This appears to be a stance that many local authorities are adopting given the lack of take-up of the facilities offered by Brynawel. Surely, with statistics showing that other interventions are having limited success, it is incumbent on local authorities to explore every type of intervention, including residential treatment. I call upon the Minister to explore the reasons for local authorities’ reluctance to use residential treatment as one of the tools to treat alcohol and drug abuse, particularly where other interventions have failed. 

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Members for a constructive and considered debate on tackling substance misuse. As was noted both in my opening remarks and by most Members who spoke, this is an ever-changing landscape, which makes our work very challenging. As Jenny Rathbone said, this is a complex and difficult problem, so there isn’t a simple answer that is glaringly obvious and staring us in the face. There’s something about understanding the nature of the challenge we face and the scale of it as well, and in my remarks I’ll try to respond to some of the points that each speaker made, but forgive me if I don’t get round to dealing with all of the points that every single person made.

I’ll start with Mark Isherwood and the point about inpatient services, tier 4 services, and in particular points about tier 4 services and detox as well. There was a particular view of history that Mark set out as to where we have been and where we are. On some of the comments made about the range of treatments at Brynawel—in particular David Rowlands mentioned that—I’m happy to say that Brynawel is not just for people in my colleague the Member for Ogmore’s constituency, but serves people in a wide area of places. The outlook for Brynawel has improved, and it has come about because there’s been real engagement between Brynawel and the Welsh Government, both in funding the alcohol-related brain damage pilot—there’s more to be done on that—but also in conversations not just around the framework for tier 4 services, but actually the practical relationship between commissioners and Brynawel as the service provider, understanding the range of services Brynawel can offer, and that commissioners can place there as well. I think there is, at last, a growing understanding of the services that are potentially available. As I say, on the inpatient detoxification front, I think there is more work to be done on understanding where is the most appropriate place for somebody to receive that service, because some people currently receive that service in a hospital setting, and that may not be the right place for them.

I’ll try to deal with the substantive points made by both Dai Lloyd and Leanne Wood, not just about the numbers of drug and alcohol-related deaths, but also the potential for some of the solutions. Actually, on some of this, we don’t disagree. The police and crime commissioners, for example, all unanimously agree that policing should be devolved, but it’s a matter of when, not if, from their point of view. We don’t fully share the view that Leanne Wood expressed. I’m not about to try and change Welsh Government policy on the future of devolution and all those areas of powers. But there is still something in our understanding of how we balance what we’re able to do and then to judge the value of that. I mentioned the role of naloxone and the fact that the kits have been used on more than 1,600 occasions. That, I think, does show that where that overdose has taken place and it has been deployed, you can honestly say that person was unlikely to have been there had that not happened.

So, there is something about understanding the effectiveness of what we are already doing, but also the scale of the challenge that we face. There’s a difficult debate for us to have, but an honest one to be had, to be taken seriously, as it is a really serious issue, about supervised injection or ingestion facilities. I think this is really difficult, largely because of the current law that exists in England and Wales. There is disagreement between police and crime commissioners, but chief constables themselves all have a real degree of caution about this in Wales. There’s something here about understanding the law and how it’s enforced, and to have a safe injecting area you’d need to actually have an agreement with the police about how they would and would not enforce the law, and that’s difficult. You’d be asking those police forces not to enforce the law around that area.

In particular, there's the challenge that then exists with the community as well—because all and any of us who have facilities in our constituency, whether they’re needle exchanges or other services, know that there’s almost always a large degree of suspicion. Also, people see the damage that drugs do, not just to individuals and their families, but to a wider community. And there's an understanding that wherever any treatment place is likely to be, you’re likely to have a community campaign, partly driven by fear, indifference, and frankly some of the less charitable elements of the human character, as well as people who are rather more concerned about whether that will become a magnet for the selling of drugs as well. So, there's an understanding about those parts, but also I'm genuinely concerned about the future of healthcare professionals, because if we ask them to supervise what is currently an unlawful activity, then I think there's a risk about their own future registration. I think there is a proper debate to be had and a review of evidence.

I hope it's helpful for those who are advocates of this as a solution that, for all of my concerns and caution about where we are now, the expert review group that advises the Welsh Government is looking at evidence, not just internationally, to build on heath board trips to the areas that Leanne Wood has mentioned, but also Denmark as well, and looking at the current evidence around what may or may not be happening in Durham, to give us further advice on the effectiveness of what is provided, but also what we can do here in Wales as well. As I say, this is a serious debate to be taken seriously, because potentially there is a way, if we can find it, to save even more lives. 

Dealing with some of the points John Griffiths raised about capital use and appropriate facilities, there's been real concern between myself and the then Minister for public health, as she then was, on the way in which capital is used, but also the return that we find on that and the security of the public investment we make in facilities, to make sure that they continue to be available for that purpose as well. We've had some concerns about the way that we haven't been properly protected in the past, but I think we're in a better place now to make sure that capital is wisely invested.

I recognise the points that both you and Jenny Rathbone made about parenting and role-model behaviour on a range of fronts. What is actually encouraging between the points yourself and Jenny Rathbone made is that, on alcohol at least, we are seeing lower rates of alcohol misuse by younger people. There is still a hardened element to that, but, overall, young people are more likely not to drink or not to drink to excess. I think there is something about the understanding of why we're taking forward minimum unit pricing, because that is part of our approach. But we should not pretend that that in itself resolves all ills, because it won't. There really is something about the education and the knowledge that we equip people with to make their choices, and that gives me some encouragement about the as yet unresolved issues around substance misuse in its broader sense, and in drug use, and in particular the points that Caroline Jones made about and cannabinoid use and new psychoactive substances.

There is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the dangers that those substances present to users and people around them, and it's for us to try and find a way through that to try and equip people to again make those wiser and more informed choices. Because that lies at the heart of our approach—how we equip people to make choices and how we maintain the harm-reduction approach that we have. I hope that Members will support the motion and either support the Government in its amendments or, in any event, support the final motion before us at the end of today's business.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is the Official Statistics (Wales) Order 2017 and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to introduce the Official Statistics (Wales) Order 2017.

The power for the Welsh Ministers to make the Order before the Assembly this afternoon is contained in section 6(1)(b) of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. Section 65(7) of that Act makes it clear that the Welsh Ministers may not make the Order without approval by the Assembly. The purpose of the Order is to enable statistics produced or to be produced by the bodies listed to be designated as official statistics. Doing so means these statistics will then become subject to monitoring and reporting by the UK Statistics Authority. 

This Order-making power was first exercised by the Welsh Ministers in 2013 when five bodies were listed. This time, the Order is broader in scope and names an additional 14 bodies ranging across different sectors. Some of them have come into existence since 2013, when the original Order was made. All 14 bodies have agreed to be named in the Order. It is not our expectation, Dirprwy Lywydd, that all the bodies listed will publish official statistics immediately. The Order enables them to publish data as official statistics when they consider it appropriate and they have the robust arrangements in place to do so. 

Official statistics provide a window on our society, inform decision making and enable the public to hold Government to account. This Order ensures greater consistency in the publication of statistics and a demonstration here in Wales of the Office for Statistics Regulation's principles of trustworthiness, quality and value across a wider range of public authorities. I hope the Assembly will support the Order this afternoon.

Thank you. Steffan Lewis.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking the Cabinet Secretary, first of all, for allowing me to receive a helpful technical brief on these Orders in the past week.

I only have a few questions this afternoon. Under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, it is a requirement for public health bodies to produce an annual report that shows their progress according to their local well-being plans. Even though the future generations commissioner has been included under this Order, local authorities haven’t been included, but they are responsible for the statistics. So, how is the Government going to ensure that the statistics contained in these reports conform to the standard of being independent and robust, as outlined in this Order? And does the Welsh Government have any plans for the future to ensure that local authorities, which publish these statistics, will also comply with this code of practice with regard to official statistics?

Of course, the other matter of importance is the decision to exit the European Union, and this will have an impact on the statistics available—for example, the health figures, the agriculture figures and those regarding the economy. For example, it is only the European Union that gathers GDP data on the regional level or sub-member state level, and it is important that these figures continue to be gathered following our exit from the EU. But also, given that we will have to design new regional schemes and strategies—and I understand that there will be a statement forthcoming from the Government—there's an opportunity to here for us to look again at the statistics with regard to the regions in Wales to ensure that they do genuinely represent genuine wealth. So, how does the Government intend to ensure that these statistics are available and are gathered and published following our exit from the European Union? And is there an intention to reconsider realigning these statistical regions to ensure that any analysis of data that is made for public policy is done on the basis of meaningful regions?

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I see that health boards aren’t included under this Order either, and yet the Velindre NHS Trust has been included. Now, it is a policy by the majority of parties within the Assembly that all patients the length and breadth of Wales should be able to receive meaningful statistics. Over the past year, figures have shown that the Government has failed to achieve this, but the response of the Government is that the data that is collected by the health boards is insufficient and not good enough, and that health bodies aren’t certain what the definition of, for example, a key worker is, or aren’t gathering the data at all. So, that’s an example of the need to bring all of the health boards under the auspices of this Order in future to ensure that there is statistical consistency the length and breadth of the nation. Do you agree that this will be a way forward, and are you open to including all of the health boards under the Order in future to ensure a high standard of data available for everyone in the nation?

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to reply to that debate. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to Steffan Lewis for those questions. To start with his third question—we have placed the ambulance trust and Velindre trust in the Order because they have pan-Wales responsibilities. The ambulance trust is a national body, and Velindre is responsible for the shared services sector that provides services pan-Wales. So, they prepare figures and data at that level. We haven’t included the health boards because they aren’t operating on the same level. But just to be clear, the Order isn’t the end of the road. It is a step forward. We have included more public bodies within the Order, and, of course, we are open to considering including more in future.

There is one point in relation to Steffan Lewis’s first point on local authorities. In Scotland and in England, they haven’t included local authorities in the kind of system that we are discussing today. We have included, for the first time, the local government data unit, which is responsible for gathering data from local authorities and publishing things at a national level. Therefore, that is a step forward. But we are open to having discussions with local authorities and to keep open the possibility of including them in a future Order.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, if we could just turn to the point on the European Union.

What I can say here is that, of course, this is an issue of more than Welsh significance, and that there is a regular dialogue taking place between the chief statisticians of the devolved administrations and the national statistician to make sure that leaving the European Union doesn't result in a diminution in the ability to provide information from Welsh citizens in the post-Brexit era. There are benefits of harmonisation that are provided by EU statistical frameworks, which all parts of the United Kingdom observe, and this contributes to the usefulness and the transparency of statistics right across the UK. The national statistician and the chief statisticians are very seized of this issue, and the points that Steffan Lewis raised we can make sure are fed into those ongoing discussions. 

So, just to summarise, Dirprwy Lywydd, the points that Steffan Lewis has raised I think are best responded to in this way, but this Order represents a significant step forward in relation to the Order that was in front of the Assembly in 2013. It's not the end of the journey by any means. I know that there are ambitions to continue to develop the way we do things in this area, and further bodies may well be added in the future. I don't think there is a reason for not supporting the Order, as it is in front of the Assembly today, to make sure we capture the advances that it includes, and I hope that Members will be willing to do that.  

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is the motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. And I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move the motion—Rebecca Evans. 

Formally moved. 

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to proceed to voting time. Okay, thank you. 

We move to voting time, and I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth—sorry, I should have said this is the tackling substance misuse debate. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 33, 12 abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed. 

I call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 21, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, amendment 2 falls. 

I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 45, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 37, eight abstentions, none against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

Before we move to the debate on Stage 3 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, I now propose to suspend the proceedings for 15 minutes. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene, and I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please. Thank you.

I call Assembly Members to order. We've reached the debate on Stage 3 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to advice and information. Amendment 1 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Darren Millar to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 1 and will seek to speak to that amendment, along with all of the other amendments in this group that have been tabled in my name. But before I do, I just want to put on record my thanks to both the Cabinet Secretary and the previous portfolio holder for the additional learning needs portfolio, for the very positive engagement that they have afforded to me and my office during the passage of this important legislation through the Assembly to date. It's been very refreshing, I have to say, to have been able to engage on a genuine and cross-party basis to shape, amend and improve this Bill, and I've greatly appreciated the discussions that I've had with both them individually and their offices and officials.

I also want to put on record, at the start of this debate, my thanks to the clerks, to the researchers and legal advisers of the Children, Young People and Education Committee for the support that they've also provided in drafting the amendments that I tabled for debate today. Their advice has also been invaluable.

The purpose of amendment 1 is to ensure that the additional learning needs code, which Welsh Ministers must prepare to ensure the delivery of the new additional learning needs system that this legislation will introduce, is accessible to children and young people. All too often in the past, Governments in all parts of the UK have been guilty of producing documents that are there to support the delivery of services to children, yet they are in formats that are impossible for children and young people themselves to understand and are often indigestible to everyone but a handful of experts.

As the National Deaf Children's Society have rightly pointed out, the current draft of the new code of practice is clearly written for professionals. It's important that families are also well informed of the individual development plan process, whether this be through an accessible code for both professionals and families, or through a separate family-friendly version of the code of practice.

If passed, my amendment 1 will ensure that the code will be available in a format that children and young people can understand. It will enable them to understand and appreciate their rights and to ensure that they are fulfilled by those with duties and responsibilities under this important piece of legislation.

My amendment 4 seeks to amend section 7 of the Bill, which relates to advice and information. Section 7 requires that local authorities must make arrangements to provide people with information and advice to people about additional learning needs, and the system that operates to cater for them.

At Stage 1, the Children, Young People and Education Committee heard a great deal of evidence that expressed concern that, unlike the requirements for disagreement resolution and advocacy services, there was no actual requirement for information and advice from local authorities to be independent. It was clear from the debate at Stage 2 in committee that the Welsh Government agrees with the view that this advice should be independent, because, of course, during that debate, the then Minister made it clear that there's an expectation that local authorities should provide, and I quote, 'objective and impartial' information and advice. 

So, my amendment 4 seeks to insert those very words, taken from the mouth of the then Minister, onto the face of the Bill to make it clear to local authorities that this is not just an expectation; it's also a duty. I do note that the Cabinet Secretary has tabled an alternative amendment, which, effectively, will have the same impact—amendment 28—and I look forward to hearing what she has to say about that.

Turning, then, to amendment 5, this amendment seeks to deliver on recommendations 29 and 30 from the Stage 1 committee report, which wanted information and advice about the availability of advocacy services to be made available to children and young people at all of the key stages of the additional learning needs process, and at key transitions in their education, such as moving schools. Given that amendment 5 fulfils these recommendations, which were supported by the committee on a cross-party basis, I very much hope that they'll also be supported today.

Finally, with regard to amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15, the Bill, as it currently is written, will require schools, further education institutions and local authorities to undertake an additional learning needs assessment when it appears that a young person has got additional learning needs, and if a need is identified, then they will also be required to prepare and maintain an individual development plan for that young person.

However, there are expectations from these requirements. One of them is that these duties should not apply—. There are exceptions, I should say, rather, from these requirements, one of which is that these duties do not apply if a young person does not consent to them being fulfilled. The problem with the Bill as drafted is that there's no requirement to actually inform a young person about the consequences of withholding consent. Whilst this issue was not discussed at any length during either Stages 1 or 2 of the legislation, I am concerned that, unless the Bill is amended, young people could withhold consent without fully realising the potential impact of such a decision on their learning opportunities and their prospects. This is particularly important, I think, given that many of these young people will be vulnerable learners, so those who turn down an IDP must do so on the basis of informed choice and not because they've been inappropriately persuaded to refuse consent, which is, I'm afraid, a possibility with the Bill as drafted.

So, that's why I've tabled those remaining amendments, which seek to protect vulnerable young people from the potential of abuse of these exceptions, by ensuring that they are informed of the significance and the implications of their decision prior to deciding whether to withhold consent. So, I very much hope that Members will support all of these amendments, and I look forward to hearing the debate.

May I also endorse the thanks expressed already to the Cabinet Secretary and certainly to the former Minister for the constructive way he and his officials have worked with many of us on this particular Bill? That was done, of course, with the support of committee officials and a broad range of stakeholders, who have certainly brought a great deal of support to us as Members and have enhanced the debate around this Bill as it makes its progress through this Assembly.

I am happy to support all the amendments in this group, and formally support amendments 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 for the reasons already outlined. Ensuring that the code is accessible and that any advice is objective and impartial and is available throughout a young person’s educational career, particularly at key stages, is entirely central to the integrity of this Bill and to the success of the legislation and, indeed, the broader package of reforms. Therefore, I would encourage Members to support all amendments.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. May I start also, like Darren Millar, by taking a brief moment to thank all of those involved in getting the Bill to this point? In particular, I'd like to thank the previous Minister. I know delivery of the Bill and the transformation programme was a priority for him. I would also like to thank the Assembly committee involved in scrutinising the Bill, and all the partners and stakeholders engaged in the development of both the Bill and the wider transformation programme. We are, I believe, in a strong position and a strong place as a result of this partnership approach, and I look forward to continuing the work to deliver an improved system for our most vulnerable learners, so that they are supported to meet their full potential. And I believe that there is a consensus that will form in this area that is long overdue.

Turning back to the group of amendments, the Government does not support the majority of amendments in this group. That is either because they are inappropriate or unnecessary due to existing provisions within the Bill, or because the Government has tabled an alternative amendment dealing with the same issue.

The objective of Government amendment 28 is the same as Darren Millar's amendment 4 in its principle, but the approach that we have taken is different. The Government's amendment places a duty on local authorities when making arrangements for advice and information to have regard to the principle that it must be provided in an impartial manner. This means a local authority will have to consider not just what information and advice it is providing, but how it is providing that information and advice. Whilst the objective of Darren's amendment 4 is similar, it is my opinion that the wording doesn't work particularly well in a legislative context. Firstly, the terms 'impartial' and 'objective' mean much the same thing in this context, so there's nothing to be gained by using both words. Also, the application of either term in the context of information is inappropriate. Information should simply be an expression of fact, but what is crucially important is that information is selected and presented in an impartial way, and the Government amendment provides for this.

Turning to the advice element of the duty, the Bill is already clear that it must be impartial. Section 6, together with section 7, requires the local authority, in making arrangements to provide information and advice, to have regard to the importance of children, their parents, and young people being provided with the information and support necessary to enable them to have full participation in decisions. I'm satisfied that the approach the Government has taken in amendment 28 is more appropriate, and I would urge Members to support this amendment rather than amendment 4 in the name of Darren Millar.

Turning to Darren's other amendments, I cannot support amendment 1, which proposes that the code must be accessible to children. Let me be absolutely clear: the code is a legal document intended for practitioners. Its audience is not and should not be children and young people. The Bill is clear that the code will provide guidance to and impose requirements on persons exercising functions under the Bill. By its nature, it will be a technical document setting out much of the detail of the statutory ALN system. It will also be a form of subordinate legislation requiring approval by this Assembly. It's not appropriate, therefore, for it to be written in child-friendly language as the amendment seems to be suggesting.

However, nevertheless, local authorities, as part of their duty to make arrangements to provide information and advice about ALN, will ensure that children and young people are provided with information about the ALN system covered by the code. This information must be provided in ways that are appropriate to the age and the level of understanding of that audience. Furthermore, as part of the transformation programme, the Welsh Government will ensure that information to assist children to understand the system, as outlined by the code, will be reproduced in an accessible and child-friendly way.

I'm afraid I can also not support Darren's amendment 5. I agree that children and young people should be provided with information and advice about advocacy services on each occasion that they might need access to these services. Section 7 of the Bill already requires local authorities and governing bodies to make arrangements to provide information and advice about the ALN system. As part of this, a local authority must take reasonable steps to make known its arrangements about avoidance and resolution of disagreements and independent advocacy services.

Section 4(5) of the Bill allows the code to include mandatory requirements on these issues, and the code will be used to set out the various points at which information about advocacy services must—and I repeat, must—be provided to children and young people. This will apply especially when notifications of decisions are being made. The draft code already includes material on this, including template notification letters to be used following key decisions. This will be considered further as we continue to develop the code—a full consultation on which will happen in the new year. Therefore, the Bill and code already deal comprehensively with the point that is proposed in the amendment. So, amendment 5 is not required, and I would urge Members to reject it.

Finally, whilst I fully appreciate and agree that we need to make sure that young people are able to make informed decisions, I'm afraid I cannot support Darren's amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15. The Bill, together with the code provisions, already provides for this. Post-16 education is not compulsory. At the end of compulsory schooling, young people take decisions about their education: where they study, what they study, and how they study. That is why the Bill enables young people, where they have the capacity to do so, to decide whether they want decisions to be taken about whether or not they have ALN and whether or not they have an IDP.

I fully agree with Darren that young people who may be entitled to an IDP should be provided with all the appropriate information and support to enable them to fully comprehend the implications if they decide to withhold consent in this process. Section 6 of the Bill already covers the point. It requires those exercising functions under the Bill to have regard to the importance of the young person participating as fully as possible in decisions, and to the importance of young people being provided with the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions. The Bill also requires local authorities to make arrangements for providing information and advice about ALN, and it enables the code to impose requirements in respect of such arrangements and in relation to decisions about ALN and the preparation of IDPs. These existing provisions make Darren's amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 unnecessary, and I would urge Members to oppose them on that basis. 

To respond to the debate, I call on Darren Millar.

Off to a blazing start, Llywydd—off to a blazing start. [Laughter.] Can I thank Llyr Huws Gruffydd for his support for all of the amendments that I've tabled in this group? And can I start on an area of agreement, Cabinet Secretary, if I can? And that is that, given that amendment 28 achieves precisely the policy aim of amendment 4, I'm more than happy not to move my amendment 4 and to support amendment 28 instead. Both you and I agree on one thing, and that is that we must make sure that there's independent advice and that that is not tainted in any way by local authorities in a way that does a disservice to the children and young people that we want this Bill to support and to help. In terms of an accessible version of the code, you set out very clearly that that code is there for professionals, not for children and young people; it's for the use of professionals. But the reality is that, if we want people to know what their rights are, if we want people to be able to access the support that they should be entitled to, then people have to be able to understand the whole of the system in its entirety, and sometimes that might mean that they want access to more of the detail, not just the information and advice leaflets, for example, that might be available from a local authority. So, I'm afraid I will still be wishing to move amendment 4 and to put that to the vote, because I think it is an important principle. I know that you agree that information should be available, but I do think that having an accessible version of the code is one way of making sure that that information is readily available to children and young people in a national format, available across the whole of the country. Because let's not forget: at the moment, as it stands, each individual local education authority will be able to produce different versions of the code—of the information and advice literature that they might want to distribute, rather—and that, I think, will take away, perhaps, some of the levelling that can by done by having a national, accessible version of the code for children and young people.

I'm also a little disappointed that you've rejected recommendation 5 on key transitions and making sure that people are prompted with the fact that there is an additional learning needs system at those key transitions, because, of course, as I said earlier, this was a recommendation of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. We studied the code in detail, we heard evidence from a range of stakeholders, and they were very clear that they felt that it was worth reminding people, at those key transitions—and not just at the point of key decisions, which is the phrase that you used—that there are support services available, particularly advocacy services, should they require them. Now, that could be someone moving from one area to another; it could mean someone moving up a school within an existing local authority area; it could mean people progressing from primary to secondary or secondary on to a further education institution. And I think it is important, actually, to make sure that people are reminded of the availability of information on the additional learning system that we will hopefully have as a result of this important legislation at those key points of transition.

I also note that you're going to encourage people to reject amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15. You've quite rightly agreed with my policy objective here, and that is that people are fully informed prior to making a choice to not give consent to have either an assessment or to receive any additional learning needs support. But I'm afraid my reading of sections 6 and 7 doesn't give me the same confident assurances that you have. It talks, yes, about giving people information, but doesn't necessarily say anything about specific information at the time that that young person is choosing not to consent. So, the Bill, as it's currently written, does potentially allow some abuse of those clauses, and that's why I've sought to improve them by inserting the words that that person must have

'been informed of the significance and implications of their decision'

prior to that point of not giving their consent. So, I still want to move those as well, and I very much hope that Members will agree with the arguments I've put forward.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The next group is group 2. This group relates to due regard to United Nations conventions. Amendment 26 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. There has never been any dispute about our collective support for the principles of both conventions. The commitment to advancing the rights of children, young people and those with a disability is a priority I know that we all share. The Bill is drafted with children’s rights at its very core. The legal duties it contains already safeguard and promote the rights of disabled children and young people, and do so in a significant and comprehensive way.

The Government position was, and remains, that the Bill embodies the principles of the conventions and delivers a new legal framework that is truly rights-based. What has been in question during scrutiny of this Bill is whether general due-regard duties are necessary, appropriate or add value. I have given considerable thought to this issue, as has the previous Minister, during the passage of the Bill. I have reflected heavily on the strength of feeling from all sides of the Chamber, and we have responded to the views of the Children, Young People and Education Committee in particular.

In line with the former Minister’s commitment during Stage 2 scrutiny, the Government has tabled amendments to bring legislative life to the principles of the conventions. I consider that these amendments will allow us to strike a better balance and, hopefully, avoid the unintended consequences that we have been concerned about, and that, primarily, is swamping teachers in red tape.

The Government will be supporting Darren Millar’s amendments 2 and 3, but on the basis that the Government’s amendments to these amendments are also passed. We have thought carefully about the amendments tabled by Darren Millar, and I welcome the steps the Member has taken to seek to develop the amendments since Stage 2, with the duties now applying to relevant bodies rather than at an individual level. This is important, but doesn’t go far enough to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences. I have, therefore, tabled amendments to Darren’s amendments.

There are eight substantive amendments and seven additional drafting amendments, which apply only to the Welsh text. In particular, amendments 2E, 2F, 3D and 3E are all concerned with what the duties mean. Amendments 2E and 3D are to make clear that specific consideration of the conventions is not required on each occasion that a function is exercised. So, the duties would not apply directly to individual decisions regarding individual learners, minimising the bureaucracy risks that I have been concerned about. Amendments 2F and 3E enable the code to make provision about what is required by relevant bodies to discharge the duties, and that those due-regard duties, including the exception for specific consideration, are to be interpreted in accordance with the code. The intention is to make sure that the duties to have regard to the conventions will be something that is weaved into the fabric of strategic decision making by local authorities and health boards, rather than a task to be completed each time a decision is made by schools, further education institutions and individual teachers and support staff.

Amendment 26 will allow the code to make different provisions for different purposes. Amendments 2G and 3F remove school and FEI governing bodies from the list of bodies required to have due regard to the conventions. The view of the Government is that the duty should only apply to those organisations with a more strategic role in ensuring that the arrangements for children and young people with ALN are sufficient and this should happen at a strategic level. Local authorities and health boards operate on this scale and have the structure in place to more effectively carry out these duties, and the impact on front-line staff supporting children and young people in terms of increased bureaucracy is likely to be minimised.

Finally, amendment 25 amends the Bill's overview, giving prominent reference to the important new duties to have regard to the conventions introduced by Darren's amendments. It means that the Bill is clear, up front, about the importance of both conventions in the operation of the new ALN system.

As I've already said, amendments 2A to 2D and 3A to 3C are changes to the Welsh language version of Darren's amendments. All in all, I trust that Members will see that Darren's amendments 2 and 3, as amended by the amendments tabled in my name, strike an appropriate balance between the obvious desire to see prominent and explicit reference to the UN conventions made on the face of the Bill and have them considered whilst not unduly overburdening front-line practitioners, and I would urge Members in the Chamber today to support the Government's amendments within this group.

I rise to speak to amendments 2 and 3, which have been tabled in my name, and all of the other amendments in this group. As the Minister has said, my amendments 2 and 3 are a direct response to calls by the Children, Young People and Education Committee for a due-regard duty in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be on the face of the Bill and seek to give effect to recommendations 31 and 32 in the Stage 1 committee report.

That recommendation was very clear: it recommended that all relevant bodies exercising functions under the new additional learning needs system must have due regard to both of those UN conventions. Now, both the Cabinet Secretary and I were members of the National Assembly when it considered the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure back in 2011, which placed a clear duty on Welsh Ministers, and Welsh Ministers alone at that time, to have due regard to the UNCRC. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation; it's one that all political parties in this National Assembly supported, but that Measure, and the due-regard principle that it established, did not extend to any other body or any individuals until it was extended by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, which, again, the Cabinet Secretary and I spent some time considering. And, of course, at that time, that Act was amended to require anyone, including individuals on the front line, exercising functions under that Act—from Ministers right through to those front-line individuals—to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and many other UN conventions and declarations as well, when undertaking their practice.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary says there's never been any dispute about having these UN principles at the heart of this legislation, but, of course, there was significant opposition and resistance initially from the previous portfolio holder to suggestions that—

No, there wasn't.

There was, to suggestions that—[Interruption.] If you'll allow me to finish, and then I'll be happy to take an intervention. There was significant opposition to having these amendments go forward during Stage 1. These amendments were proposed by the children's commissioner and a range of other stakeholders, and there was resistance at that point to allowing any amendments on this to go forward. And the Minister contended, in the same way that the Cabinet Secretary has today, that there was no need to slavishly repeat these duties on the face of the Bill, that, in doing so, it would create these problems to front-line staff and put institutions at risk of litigation. But, of course, those fears are completely unfounded. There has not been a single legal problem as a result of the duties to have due regard to UN conventions being included on the face of the social services and well-being Act, for example—not a single legal case has been brought. Now, while these amendments that I've tabled today fall short of the provisions of those in that Act, I am confident that, if they're allowed to proceed, they will ensure that the rights-based approach that we have rightly adopted here in Wales will be reinforced, and they will also result in changes to practice on the ground, which is why I'm very grateful to the Welsh Government for its belated conversion, if you like, towards the cause of needing to see this legislation amended to embed references to the UN conventions onto the face of the Bill.

That said, I'm concerned, and I'm concerned about two of the Welsh Government's amendments in particular. While most of them seek to make minor drafting amendments to the drafting of amendments 2 and 3, I'm afraid that some of the others are troubling. Amendments 2G and 3F in particular I'm afraid I cannot recommend to this Assembly to support, because they seek to remove the duty to have due regard to the UN conventions from the governing bodies of maintained schools and the governing bodies of further education institutions—two bodies with massively significant roles to play in the delivery of the new additional learning needs system that this Bill seeks to implement. To remove due-regard duties from schools and colleges in this way I think is rather extraordinary. 

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has argued that schools and colleges are not of a sufficient scale and size to ensure that those organisations can be familiar with the UN conventions and have the resources to be able to ensure that they have a due regard to them in the same way that larger organisations like a local education authority or the NHS is able to. But the reality is that schools are already familiar with the rights-based agenda. They're already charged with promoting awareness of children's rights, in particular amongst children and young people in our schools across the country. And in addition to that, our further education colleges are very large, multi-million-pound organisations that are already required to comply with and implement very complex pieces of legislation, and they do so successfully on a daily basis. They've got more than sufficient capacity to ensure that their duties to have due regard to UN conventions are fulfilled.

As I said earlier, the social services and well-being Act already expects and has an expectation that front-line social workers and other individuals who are delivering services on a day-to-day basis have due regard to the UN conventions and principles, so why shouldn't we expect teachers and anybody else delivering some sort of function under this Act, and especially governing bodies of schools and further education colleges, to do likewise?

So, I will be supporting the other amendments that have been tabled in this group by the Minister, including amendments 2E and 3D, which give an opportunity for a proportionate approach to having a due regard for the purposes of this Act. I think that they are sensible, but I am afraid I cannot support the other amendments that have been tabled, amendments 2G and 3F, and I would encourage all Assembly Members to reject them.

I’m formally supporting a number of amendments in this group. The most crucial of those, as we have already gathered now, are amendments 2 and 3, which place a duty on relative bodies to have due regard to the UN conventions on the rights of children and people with disabilities.

Now, as we have already heard, this is a debate that’s been very lively as this Bill has proceeded through the Assembly, but the committee has been clear in its report at the end of Stage 1 on the need to ensure a due regard on public bodies and for that to be placed on the face of the Bill. The children’s commissioner has been very consistent and strong in her evidence on that, and most of the stakeholders who have given us evidence as this Bill has developed have been of a like mind.

We have heard of the precedent set in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and there’s no doubting that, of course. But, the Government has previously expressed concerns about the risk of litigation against relative bodies on the basis of institutional arrangements to demonstrate how they give regard to these conventions. But, as we’ve heard, there have been no similar challenges in the context of the social services and well-being Act. The Cabinet Secretary referred to the risk that teachers would be swamped in bureaucracy. I don’t think people have been swamped in bureaucracy in the context of the social services and well-being Act. So, why should that be the case in this context? As Barnardo’s Cymru reminds us, the Government can’t just select which rights to defend and promote and when they choose to do that. They must consistently be included, and that should be done with equality.

The only question for me here—the broader question—is why we should include these duties in all individual Bills. The previous Minister’s comments referred to why this has to be done slavishly at every turn, and it does identify a weakness in the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011. Although that Measure was an important milestone in implementing the UNCRC, the duty to have due regard to the convention refers directly to Welsh Ministers alone.

It would be timely, in my view—and, indeed, it is about time—for us to have a post-legislative scrutiny process on that Measure, and then, if required through legislation, to put that situation right, so that we don’t have to rehearse these kinds of amendments every time a relevant Bill is brought forward. That’s a debate for another day, perhaps, but I do think it’s important that the point is made.

I won’t be supporting amendments 2G and 3F in the name of the Government because that would exempt governing bodies and FE institutions from giving due regard to the conventions, undermining the intentions of much of the amendments in this group.

I just wanted to make a brief contribution in this group of amendments, but before I do that I would like to take this opportunity just to place on record my heartfelt thanks to the clerking team and the research team for the Children, Young People and Education Committee, who have done an absolutely fantastic job of work on what has been a complex and long-awaited piece of legislation.

As the Cabinet Secretary has said, placing the due-regard duty to the UNCRC has been an issue that the committee has felt very strongly about throughout this process. For me, that was about sending a very clear and unequivocal message to those implementing this legislation that children's rights are at the heart of this new law.

That said, I am really pleased that there has been some movement. I welcome the concession that was made by your predecessor in Stage 2 of this legislation and the fact that Government amendments have been brought forward today, which obviously I will be supporting. I would have preferred that the amendments had gone further, I'll be absolutely frank about that, but I think it is progress that we've made.

The Welsh Government and this Assembly have been lauded throughout the world for their approach to children's rights, but I think we have to be absolutely clear that we cannot rest on our laurels on this issue and that we have to be pushing forward on an ongoing basis to make sure that children's rights are mainstreamed. And as Darren Millar has said, there's a great deal of excellent work going on in schools and colleges on this even as we speak. 

But I hope that if we take forward this legislation today in the way that has been suggested, there will be the opportunity for us to do further work on this in the committee and, when we come to scrutinise the code, that we can look again at how we can see that implementation actually delivered at the coalface.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I assure Members that I've listened very carefully to what has been said in previous committee discussions on this subject, and indeed comments here today? There is no doubt that we all agree that the rights of children and disabled persons, as set out in the UN conventions, are fundamentally important. I would remind Members that the rights of children and young people, including those of disabled children and young people, are already incorporated into the legal duties in the Bill. Indeed, I would argue they are at the very core of this piece of legislation. Let me be also absolutely clear: nobody has suggested that any aspect of this Bill is incompatible with those conventions. If professionals and practitioners are complying with their duties under this Bill, then they will be complying with the principles and the intentions of the conventions. Now, I appreciate that there is a wish to ensure that the rights set out in the conventions are given specific prominence, and that's why the Government has tabled its amendments today. Amendment 25 in particular includes direct reference to this in the overview of the legislation—as I said, placing it front and centre at the beginning of the legislation.

However, I would, once again, say that I do not want to see teachers, support staff and others having to deal with more red tape—red tape that potentially takes them away from the crucial task they have of teaching and learning. We must avoid teachers, schools—[Interruption.] If you could bear with me. We must avoid teachers, schools and governing bodies having to evidence that they have taken the conventions into account in their individual interactions with all children and young people with additional learning needs. And, Darren, quite rightly, you and Llyr, you hold my feet to the fire continually on the issue of teacher workload and bureaucracy. You constantly challenge me in this Chamber, quite rightly, about what this Government is doing and what I am doing to reduce teacher workload and bureaucracy that takes away from teaching and learning. And whilst I absolutely understand that your intentions are honourable ones, I am truly fearful that the unintended consequences of what has been proposed here today will mean that individual practitioners on a daily basis will have to record somehow, and to demonstrate, should there be a legal challenge, that they have taken the UN convention into account while carrying out these duties. If they do that properly, that will be a bureaucratic burden. If they don't, we reduce the conventions to a simple tick-box exercise. Sorry, Darren. 

I just wanted to ask why you feel—if that is the argument you're presenting—why you feel it's appropriate that people in local education authorities should have that burden, as you describe it, and people in the NHS should have that burden to demonstrate compliance with the UN conventions, but you don't feel that it's appropriate for those people who are working directly at the front line with those children—people who are already teaching and educating those children about their rights.

Well, of course they are, and I understand that. And if they're carrying out their duties under the terms of this, then they will have those rights front and centre. I am prepared, in listening to the concerns that were expressed during the debate and in the committee, to look at those organisations that have that strategic overview of services that are being developed. Therefore, I do feel it is appropriate that both local authorities and health authorities that have strategic oversight for these provisions, and are of a sufficient size and scale, can and should have due regard. 

Because let me say, Darren, whilst I do accept the point that you've made that some schools and some FEIs are large organisations, the point is they're not all large organisations. You and I both have a passion for small and rural schools. Let's be clear: some of those small and rural schools have two or three teachers within them. We know that they are already concerned about how they will cope with implementing this legislation, and we will have to support them heavily in doing so. I don't want to make it harder for those small and rural schools to survive and not be taken away from teaching and learning. 

This Bill proposes to cut red tape and create this smoother, less adversarial system than we have at the moment. Excluding governing bodies from the due-regard duties will maintain the streamlining approach that this Bill seeks to underpin. Children will still be treated in a convention-compliant way because the Bill incorporates the principles of the convention into its duties.

Now, Lynne Neagle is absolutely right, Presiding Officer; there is still more work to do in this area, and I will be doing that as we work on the code, for example, and through the IDP process. My officials will work with the children's commissioner's office, as well as opposition Members and the committee, so that we can get this right. Presiding Officer, with that, I would urge Members to support the Government amendments and oppose those already outlined. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 26 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next group is group 3. This group of amendments relates to consequential and minor drafting amendments. Amendment 27 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Kirsty Williams.

Presiding Officer, as you rightly say, this group of amendments all fall within the category of minor and consequential. Amendments 27 and 32 essentially tidy up the Bill in light of the Stage 2 amendments. Amendment 27 removes section 5(6), which is no longer needed since the Assembly procedure for the code was changed at Stage 2 from draft negative to affirmative. Amendment 32 simply updates the cross-reference further to amendments made at Stage 2. Amendments 44, 45 and 49 remove requirements for the Secretary of State's agreement to the making of regulations by Welsh Ministers—hurrah—[Laughter.]—sorry, that's not very Government-like, is it, really, but old prejudices are hard to leave behind—specifically in respect of existing regulation-making powers relating to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, under the Education Act 1996, and equivalent powers in relation to the education tribunal set out in this Bill. These amendments are in accordance with agreements that have been reached with the UK Government. Amendments 48, 50 and 51 are consequential on these amendments. Finally, amendments 52 and 53 are consequential amendments to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Equality Act 2010 arising from this Bill. Amendment 52 removes a redundant reference from Schedule 6 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, whilst amendment 53 makes the law on rights of appeal to the upper tribunal from the educational tribunal in relation to disability discrimination claims more transparent. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 

We have no speakers on these amendments. I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary doesn't want to reply, so the question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 27 is agreed to.

Darren Millar, amendment 2.

Yes. 

Before disposing of amendment 2, we will dispose of the amendments to it. Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2A.

Yes. 

The question is that amendment 2A be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2A is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2B.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 2B be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2B is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2C.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 2C be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2C is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2D.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 2D be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2D is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2E.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 2E be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2E is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 2F.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 2F be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2F is agreed.

Amendment 2G (Kirsty Williams) moved.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 2G be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 2G. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, no abstentions, 17 against, therefore the amendment is agreed.

The question is that amendment 2 as amended be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 3.

I do. 

Before disposing of amendment 3, we will first dispose of the amendments to it. Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3A.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 3A be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3A is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3B.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 3B be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3B is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3C.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 3C be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3C is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3D.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 3D be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3D is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3E.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 3E be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3E is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 3F.

Move.

The question is that amendment 3F be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

The question is that amendment 3, as amended, be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 4.

Formally—no.

Withdrawn, please.

Amendment 4 is not moved. Therefore, Darren Millar, amendment 5. 

Formally.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 28. 

I move. 

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 28 is agreed.

The next group of amendments is group 4, and this group relates to preparing and maintaining individual development plans. Amendment 54 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Darren Millar to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Darren Millar.

Diolch Llywydd. I move amendment 54 and I wish to speak to it along with amendment 61, which is also tabled in my name, and also make some references to amendments 56, 57 and 58, all of which I support, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 54 seeks to amend the Bill so that it will require the individual development plans for each learner with additional learning needs to contain information about transport arrangements that may be required as a result of those needs. During Stage 1, the Children, Young People and Education Committee heard evidence that the current support system often overlooks the transport needs of learners requiring support. Stakeholders told the committee that they believe that the transport requirements of learners should be considered as part of individual development plans.

The National Union of Teachers gave an example of a student with autism who might have difficulties with bus timetables and handling money. This may mean that alternative transport needs have to be arranged for pupils in those sorts of situations. Diabetes UK raised similar concerns, as did the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. They believe that the risk of acute complications from some conditions mean that standard school transport may not be appropriate for all individuals, particularly for longer home-to-school journeys.

The Anaphylaxis Campaign confirmed that similar travel issues could be faced by young people suffering from anaphylaxis. They said that they'd been in contact with parents who'd had to take their children out of school because of inadequate home-to-school transport provision. Epilepsy charities also expressed similar concerns.

So, amendment 54 seeks to address those concerns by ensuring that the school transport arrangements required as a result of individual learning needs are actually included within individual development plans. This will ensure that they're not an afterthought by decision makers in schools and local authorities but that they're properly considered as part of the plan.

In addition, including transport arrangements in individual development plans will allow them to become the subject of tribunal rulings when disagreements arise. This will further focus the minds of decision makers in local authorities, schools and further education institutions to ensure that transport arrangements are not overlooked. There's nothing like a potential tribunal ruling to ensure that transport arrangements receive the proper focus from decision makers.

Now, I understand that a review of the Welsh Government's guidance on home-to-school transport is currently under way. This is a very welcome review because we all know that our constituency postbags have, from time to time, been filled with concerns about the way that that guidance is sometimes interpreted by local authorities. But I'm afraid that, even with that guidance being under review, it does not address the fundamental concerns of stakeholders in the same way that my amendment will. 

It's only by requiring individual development plans to contain information on transport, including to further education institutions, and by making them subject to tribunal rulings that there will be any hope, I believe, of dealing with this issue once and for all.

Moving on then to amendment 61, this is an amendment that seeks to ensure that guidance is issued to schools and colleges regarding the provision of additional learning needs support prior to the preparation of individual development plans. Now, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that needs are met while people are waiting for, perhaps, formal assessments for an individual development plan. Now, we know that one of the problems with the current system is that, very often, it takes a long time for people to get a package of support that is appropriate to meet their needs. And that could still be the case, on occasions, in terms of trying to get formal arrangements in place when negotiating with the national health service, local education authorities and others to arrange for a package of support for individuals, even under the new system.

So, amendment 61 is designed to address the potential hole that people can fall through while those arrangements are being made, so that interim provision, effectively, can be put in place. So, I do hope that Members will feel that they're able to support both amendments 54 and 61.

I said earlier that I want to put on record my support for the amendments that have been tabled by Llyr Gruffydd. These, of course, are amendments that seek to ensure that schools, colleges and local authorities consider rather than simply decide whether to provide additional learning provision through the medium of Welsh. There are other amendments that have been tabled further on that we'll be debating, which also complement these three amendments. But, as part of that broader package, I think it's absolutely essential that we strengthen the Welsh-language provisions in this piece of legislation to ensure that people realise the opportunities that they ought to have to receive services from public service providers through the medium of Welsh. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

I have three amendments in this group—amendments 56, 57 and 58. I’m grateful to Darren Millar for his formal support to those amendments.

As the Bill stands, of course, the governing body or local authority decides whether additional learning provision should be made to a child or young person through the medium of Welsh or not, and then notes that in the IDP. Now, it’s not a matter for authorities to decide upon, in my view. This should be a matter of the language of choice for the individual. Therefore, the process should start with the child or young person deciding whether provision should be offered to them through the medium of Welsh.

Many Members, I’m sure, will have received correspondence supporting these amendments from a number of organisations, including UCAC, RhAG, Mudiad  Meithrin, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, CYDAG and Mudiadau Dathlu’r Gymraeg. Now, the former Minister, at Stage 2, accepted that this needed to be reviewed, and I’m pleased that we had an opportunity to do that, and I would encourage Members to support these amendments.

To come to the issue of transport, I formally support amendment 54. The Stage 1 committee report on this Bill called on the Government to consider how transport arrangements could be taken into account for those with additional learning needs, and how that could be included in the IDP. An amendment similar to this fell at Stage 2, but although the Cabinet Secretary has explained her rationale and her intention in her recent letter to the committee last week, I believe that this needs to be on the face of the Bill in order to ensure action in this area and, as we heard earlier, that it shouldn’t be some sort of afterthought, but that it is given attention and consideration, which this important issue, which has such an impact on the access of children with additional learning needs to education, deserves. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps I could begin with Darren's amendment 54, which attempts, as we've heard, to make information about transport arrangements a required element of all IDPs. The amendment represents a disproportionate approach, giving transport prominence in IDPs over other types of support that children and young people with ALN might need.  

The aim of the amendment is inappropriate, because transport is not an additional learning provision. Many learners with ALN have no specific transport requirements, and the inclusion of transport needs in the IDP would not give rise to a duty to secure that provision. 

Depending on the circumstances of the child or young person, the IDP may need to include a wide variety of other information besides additional learning provision, including information about transport arrangements. But it is not appropriate to list all, or just some of this on the face of the Bill. Listing just information about transport would be disproportionate. Indeed, I'm sure Members would agree, the vast majority of children and young people with ALN will have no specific transport needs, so making transport arrangements a required element of the plan is disproportionate. There would simply be, in the vast majority of cases, nothing to say, and this would just be another tick-box exercise created in the education system.

During Stage 2 proceedings, the then Minister committed to consider further the position of transport as regards the new ALN system, indicating he'd bring forward an amendment if existing powers were insufficient to give appropriate guidance under the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 and in the ALN code. I wrote, as we have heard, to the Children, Young People and Education Committee last week to outline our conclusions following these considerations. And in that letter, I committed the Government to two specific actions. Firstly, to make the necessary revisions to the learner travel guidance and to include, within the ALN code, an appropriate degree of guidance on the place of transport considerations within IDPs, including the process of producing them. Specific guidance on these issues will help ensure their proper consideration by delivery partners in a way that is part of, and not separate to, the wider considerations and processes of the new ALN system. Under the Bill's provisions, Members will have an opportunity to influence the content of the code. A public consultation and Assembly scrutiny in relation to the code will be undertaken during the course of next year. Revisions made to the learner travel guidance in relation to ALN will also be subject prior to consultation, because I recognise some of the case issues that have been highlighted by Darren and by Llyr.

The second commitment I made was in relation to post-implementation review of the Act. I want to include within this specific consideration of transport issues. This will enable us to check the operation of the transport elements of the new system, and consider any issues in the round and decide on any appropriate further action at that time. As I said, I fully recognise the importance of transport issues within the current SEN system and the future ALN system, but putting this requirement on the face of the Bill is not appropriate, and therefore I would urge Members to reject amendment 54.

Moving on, Presiding Officer, I'm very happy to support Llyr Gruffydd's amendments 56, 57 and 58, and I'm very grateful to Llyr for tabling those today. I consider they represent a strengthening of the way in which the Bill addresses the position of Welsh language provision. The amendments would ensure the duty to consider whether provision should be in Welsh is continuous, and not confined to the stage when the body is preparing the IDP. Specifically, the duty to consider provision in Welsh would continue to apply whilst the body is maintaining an IDP and when the local authority is reconsidering a school IDP. We have reflected at length on the operation of the Welsh language provisions in the Bill, and I think these amendments represent a useful improvement, and I would urge Members to support amendments 56, 57 and 58.

I'm also very happy to support Darren Millar's amendment 61. Subsection 2 of section 43 is already drafted with a view to ensuring children and young people at schools and FEIs have their additional learning needs met, so far as reasonable, whilst an IDP is being prepared. A fundamental element of the policy behind the Bill is that interventions happen at the earliest point possible. We want to move away from what sometimes occurs in the current system, with children and young people having to wait for statutory assessments or diagnosis before support is put in place. Section 43 is designed to address this and it was, and remains, our intention to supplement it with guidance in the code in any event. So, as amendment 61 will require that guidance on this matter is included in the code, I'm very happy to support it, and I would urge other Members to do so likewise.

I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Can I thank the Minister for her very reasonable response to the amendments that have been tabled? And on the basis of the assurances that she's provided about the transport provision, and knowing how passionately she feels that we must make sure that we sort out some of the issues that we've had in the past in relation to home-to-school transport for children and young people with additional learning needs, I am hoping to be able to withdraw amendment 54, on the basis of the assurance that this will be a issue that is addressed in the code and that it will be featured in the post-implementation review of the Act.

Llyr Gruffydd is absolutely right in terms of the Welsh language amendments. Learner choice should be at the heart of the decision-making process around whether to provide services through the medium of Welsh, and these amendments will require greater consideration of learner choice by providers when looking at packages of support. So, I'm very pleased to hear that the Government is also accepting his amendments.

I also welcome, Cabinet Secretary, your response to my amendment 61 in relation to that interim period, if you like, prior to individual development plans being completed, because it is a problem that we've got with the current SEN system that many a young person and many a pupil have fallen through and, hopefully, it will seek to address that. So, I welcome your support and I trust that Members will support the amendments. 

Amendment 54 is withdrawn. It has actually been moved, and, therefore, are there any Members who wish for it to be voted upon? That not being the case, it is not voted upon.

Darren Millar, amendment 6.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 7.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to another electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 56.

I move.

The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 56 is agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 8.

Yes.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The next group is group 5, and this group relates to entitlement to individual development plans. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 29, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Government amendments 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 47 all relate to local authority decision on whether it is necessary to prepare or maintain an IDP. These are the decisions in section 12 on whether it is necessary to prepare and maintain a plan for a young person who is not in a school or further education institution in Wales; section 29 on whether it is no longer necessary to maintain a plan for a young person; and section 38 on whether it will be necessary for a plan to be maintained for a detained person, including a detained child, when the person is released.

The Bill currently provides for all these decisions to be taken in accordance with regulations. Amendments 29, 31, 33 and 35 bring those regulation powers together into one new section, which sets out the various matters that may be provided for in regulations. Amendment 47 makes a consequential adjustment to section 91, retaining the affirmative procedure for such regulations.

Decisions on whether a plan is necessary will, in many cases, relate to young people whose needs are such that they require specialist, often residential, post-16 placements. But they will also relate to young people and detained children whose circumstances are quite different and varied. It is important that the power is appropriate to deal fairly with the wide range of likely situations in which decisions must be taken about whether a plan is necessary, and the amendments ensure that that is the case.

If I could turn to other amendments in the group that have been tabled by opposition Members. I'm afraid to say that I do not support Darren Millar's amendment 13. The ALN system is intended to apply to children and young people, with young people defined as a person over compulsory school age but under 25. The Bill already provides for a significantly extended age range compared to those with statutory rights and protections under the current system. The Bill takes a reasonable and clear approach for the circumstances in which a learner with an IDP becomes 25. It requires local authorities and FEI governing bodies to continue to maintain the IDP until the end of the academic year during which the person reaches the age of 25. Amendment 13 seems, in effect, to provide for an indefinite extension in this regard, though only for learners in FEIs in Wales. It provides no upper age limit as to when a person might have an IDP, as it would seem to hinge on the length of the course the young person commences when under the age of 25 and when the person finishes it. This would extend the duties placed on FEIs and local authorities in a way that has not been discussed with these organisations nor costed.

The support for these learners could potentially be very expensive. Its inclusion in the Bill in this way at this late stage is not something that I could support. The new system is zero to 25, and the arrangements provided in the Bill are appropriate and reasonable in this context. To conclude, therefore, Presiding Officer, I urge Members to support the amendments tabled in my name, and to oppose amendment 13.

I want to put on record, first of all, my support for the Government amendments. They are sensible amendments, and I intend to support them and I hope that other people will too, but I'm a little bit disappointed by the response that the Minister has given to my amendment 13.

As the Minister has quite rightly said, at the moment, the Bill as it stands will allow for the continuation of support to someone beyond their twenty-fifth birthday, but not beyond the academic year in which the young person turns 25. The problem with this is that many college courses, particularly in our FE institutions, are college courses that go beyond a single academic year. So, you could have an individual who starts a college course aged 24, and it could be a two-year course. They would receive support in the first academic year, but not the second, and I think that that is not what the Government would intend, and it's certainly not a situation that I want to see, that you would have individuals having that support withdrawn halfway through their course. And of course, some courses can take even longer, particularly if they're studied on a part-time basis. So, I do think it's very important that if someone starts a course with support that that support continues throughout the duration of their course. So, we're not talking about an indefinite period, as suggested by the Cabinet Secretary here. We're talking about a period that ends when their course ends. So, I can't see why there is significant opposition here from the Welsh Government to this particular amendment. Nobody would want to see that support withdrawn. Indeed, the very reason that this provision was put in there to allow for the extension beyond the twenty-fifth birthday to the end of the academic year was entirely to try and ensure that no support was withdrawn during the duration of an academic course. The difficulty is that we failed to think about academic courses that go beyond a single academic year. So, I do hope, Cabinet Secretary, that you'll reflect on those facts, and the significant challenge that that would present to children and young people with additional learning needs who might be delighted to get into college on their twenty-third birthday to start a two-year course with the support that they might need, suddenly to find it all come crashing down afterwards and them not being able to sustain their place in that college and to complete their course of education. So, I would appreciate if you could reflect on that, and not simply dismiss this well-meaning, well-intended amendment, which is non partisan. It's simply responding to some of the concerns that a number of stakeholders have raised with me between Stage 2 and Stage 3.

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

Could I assure Darren that, in approaching the legislation before me, I have certainly not taken the attitude of simply dismissing things out of hand because they've been tabled by opposition Members? I'm very grateful for the engagement by opposition Members throughout the course of this process, and, as we've seen by many of the votes here this afternoon, we've been able to arrive at a consensus on how to improve this legislation. However, in relation to Darren's amendment 13, we've made it very clear that we would not want to see support suddenly cease on somebody's twenty-first birthday. That's why section 32 is included within the legislation: to allow that person to continue their course to the academic year. I believe that the provisions within the legislation, as drafted, are fair to the learner concerned and other learners, both those not in an FEI in Wales and older learners who may have an ALN but would not get an IDP. I would urge Members to support amendments 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 47, which have been tabled in my name, and reject amendment 13.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 9.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 57.

I move.

The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 57 is agreed.

Group 6. This group of amendments relates to the definition of looked-after children. Amendment 10 is the lead and only amendment in this group. I call on Darren Millar to move and speak to the amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. The purpose of the very simple and straightforward amendment 10 is to change the definition of a looked-after child on the face of the Bill. Section 13 of the Bill currently defines a looked-after child for the purposes of additional learning provision as a child who is, and I quote, 'not over compulsory school age’.

But the Children's Commissioner for Wales has raised concerns that the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act has defined a looked-after child whom the local authorities have responsibilities for as a child up to the age of 18. She has argued that the difference between these two definitions could lead to some confusion, and could lead to looked-after children who should be benefiting from additional learning needs provisions finding themselves losing out when they reach their sixteenth birthday. I know that that's not the intention. I can see the Cabinet Secretary shaking her head, but I'm simply making the arguments that have been presented to the Children, Young People and Education Committee.

The commissioner was also concerned that duties to prepare and maintain plans for looked-after children could automatically end after compulsory school age, even when it wouldn't be appropriate. She's recommended that the definition be changed to make it consistent with the definition in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, and that's why I've tabled the amendment today. I urge Members to support it.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the former Minister said, at Stage 2, this amendment is well-intended in its aims to address the children’s commissioner’s concerns, which Darren has just helpfully reiterated, but it is, nevertheless, misconceived.

The approach currently taken in the Bill is, I believe, the right one. The decision to define a looked-after child for the purposes of this Bill as a person not over compulsory school age was taken after very careful consideration. The age at which looked-after children cease to be looked after as part of the progression into adulthood can vary. It might occur at 16, or only when the child becomes an adult at 18, or somewhere in between. So, there is no clear dividing line in the social services system. By contrast, the cut-off line in the Bill aligns well with the education system, using the clear and fixed point of ceasing to be of compulsory school age.

As the dividing line is a known date that dovetails with the transition from compulsory schooling to post-16 education, it allows for better advance planning and avoids changes in the responsibility for the IDP occurring mid-way through a post-16 course. Although sometimes appropriate, generally such mid-course changes are undesirable. Furthermore, it means that the system is the same for all young persons, whether they are still looked after or care leavers or neither.

It’s also important to remember that the line we have drawn affects only the specific processes involved and not—and I repeat, Presiding Officer, not—the substance of the rights of young people who remain looked after. If they have an ALN and are in school or further education, they will be entitled to an IDP. 

The approach outlined in Darren Millar’s amendment, on the other hand, gives rise to an inherent difficulty. Many looked-after children—and, I hope, many, many more—will go on to attend FEIs after leaving school. So, changing the Bill’s definition of a looked-after child as proposed by the amendment would mean that local authorities would continue to be responsible for maintaining an IDP and securing provision for a looked-after person who is attending an FEI.

In the case of most looked-after children with lower level needs, the local authority would have to rely on the FEI to deliver the additional learning provision with only very limited means of making sure that happens or, indeed, monitoring if it does. This is because local authorities have no role in the governance or oversight of FEIs, no powers of intervention or direction in relation to FEIs and no role in funding them. This looser relationship, compared to maintained schools, makes it more complicated for a local authority to maintain an IDP for a young person if that person is at an FEI. As a result, such arrangements could actually risk the delivery of entitlements of looked-after young people being less effective in practice than those of other young persons, and I know that that's not what Darren Millar wants to happen.

I understand Darren Millar’s concerns about the front-line practitioner facing confusions around the definition of looked-after children, but, as I've said, the dividing line currently set out in the Bill is clear and it is unambiguous. If the looked-after person is of or below compulsory school age, the looking-after authority will usually be responsible for ALN matters under the specific provisions of the Bill for looked-after children. If the person is a young person, then the general duties apply. This will be clearer for those delivering post-16 education than the alternative proposed by Darren’s amendment, which would see responsibility for IDPs often transferring during the middle of a learner’s post-16 studies. As I've said, this is something that I am keen to avoid.

The code will be able to contain clear guidance to aid practitioners around the duties and provisions in the Bill for looked-after children and young persons. Indeed, practitioners and experts will have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the code, as I've said earlier in the debate, to ensure its effectiveness when it goes out for consultation next year. For all of these reasons, I consider the clear dividing line between pre- and post-16 arrangements set out in the Bill to be the correct one, and I would urge Members to oppose amendment No. 10.

Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I've listened carefully to what the Minister's said, and it's certainly not my intention to cause confusion if somebody has gone off to college to do their post-16 studies. I think what we have to remember, though, is there's still a potential for confusion if that individual stays on at school to do post-16 education under the arrangements under the Bill, because, of course, the duty will transfer from local education authorities, potentially, to the governing body of a school, which still can potentially cause some conflict. So, you know, I think we both agree that neither of those things is satisfactory and that, clearly, there'll need to be some very clear statement in the code to be able to deal with these transitions, as it were, from becoming a looked-after child to becoming a young person when it comes to ensuring that there is additional needs provision in place.

Given the assurances that the Minister has given, I'm prepared to withdraw, with the permission of the Assembly, this particular amendment.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Amendment 10 is being withdrawn, and so, if Assembly Members are content, then that amendment will be withdrawn.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 58.

Move.

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 58 is agreed.

Group 7, then. This group of amendments relates to the education tribunal, and amendment 11 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Darren Miller to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group—Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 11 and want to speak to amendments 19 and 20 and 21, also tabled in my name, and I also want to speak to amendments 42 and 46, tabled in the name of the Cabinet Secretary.

I want to put on record at the start of this debate that we will be supporting the Government's amendments, which relate to the sharing of information and the ability of the tribunal to be able to appoint a deputy chair. I think that they're both sensible amendments.

The purpose of my amendment 11 is to remove the ability of the national health service to ignore a ruling of the Education Tribunal for Wales when that ruling relates to something that the NHS must provide to support a learner with additional learning needs. At present, the Bill as it's written does not require the NHS to be subject to the rulings of the education tribunal, and NHS bodies cannot be compelled to implement a recommendation from the tribunal. 

Now, during Stages 1 and 2, the then Minister suggested that the existing NHS redress measures were sufficient to ensure that any concerns relating to the engagement of the NHS in the additional learning needs process for failing to provide specified services and support were appropriate. But I'm afraid we all know from our own experiences with those wrestling with the existing special educational needs system, and the voices of countless other witnesses that came and gave evidence to the committee, that the evidence suggests otherwise. 

We heard overwhelming evidence from stakeholders, all of whom agreed, with the exception of the then Minister, that the tribunal should have the power to direct the NHS in relation to the provision of support for learners with additional learning needs. The Children's Commissioner for Wales said that she believed that the powers provided to the tribunal on the face of the Bill as it stands did not go far enough to ensure that all of its orders were fulfilled by duty bearers. The current Special Education Needs Tribunal for Wales, SENTW, told the committee that they would often request local health boards to deliver additional support, and, when they refused to meet the needs of the child, because the existing tribunal had no additional powers to compel health boards, those needs simply went unmet. They said that that is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the current system that necessitates change. 

The Third Sector Additional Learning Needs Alliance, the alliance that came together of different third sector organisations to give evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee during Stage 1, said that there needed to be a single redress system for all of the support that might be required for a learner, so that all parts of an individual development plan should enjoy the same legal robustness. UCAC also stated their belief that ensuring that some form of redress mechanism for individuals to challenge health bodies that fail to address health needs is one of the key areas that has remained unaddressed. Even health boards themselves told the committee that they were very comfortable and relaxed with the Education Tribunal for Wales being able to direct NHS bodies as long as health professionals could give and be involved—could give evidence to the tribunal's decision making. 

Now, the former Minister did seek to address some of these issues, particularly in terms of the lack of engagement, sometimes, by the national health service by making some amendments to the Bill that required the national health service to report back on what they'd done as a result of the decision and order that had been made by a tribunal. But those amendments that were made at Stage 2 fell short of requiring health boards to implement their decisions, and that means that we have a system that has two redress systems: one for the national health service, one for the local education authority and others. I don't think that that's satisfactory at all. 

We all know from our own experience that, unfortunately, there are problems with the NHS redress system. It's far from perfect. The Welsh Government acknowledged that it was far from perfect when they commissioned a piece of work on the NHS redress system. 'Using the Gift of Complaints' was a report that this Assembly considered, and we've not heard anything of it in terms of any follow-up work. We've not seen any changes to the redress system as a result of that, even though it identified some significant flaws, and that there was not sufficient learning from the NHS about complaints.

I don't want a complicated system to be something that we give to children and young people, and parents across Wales, as a result of this piece of legislation. I don't want two redress systems. If they've got an issue with redress, I want them to be able to go through one channel to get that resolved, and that channel, quite rightly, should be the Education Tribunal for Wales, and its rulings should stand. So, I very much hope that the Cabinet Secretary will accept the amendments that I have tabled—19 and 20.

Just very briefly on amendment 21, this amendment is slightly different in its nature. It doesn't relate to the NHS. It simply requires that the educational tribunal, which will be established as a result of this new system, must produce an annual report on its work and lay that report before the National Assembly for Wales. So, at the moment, the existing special educational needs tribunal produces an annual report on its website, but it's a pretty dry document. It's basically a summary of its activity, a summary of its expenditure over the year. The tribunal is not currently required to put those reports in an accessible format to make them more widely accessible to the public, or to report on recurrent issues and themes that crop up in the cases that it hears in the way that, for example, our Welsh commissioners or our public services ombudsman is required to.

I think that requiring the new tribunal to produce an annual report that is laid before the National Assembly and placing a requirement in the Bill that the report must be in a format that is requested by the National Assembly is one way of addressing some of those shortcomings in the current system. We can ensure that future annual reports are useful, that they are accessible by all stakeholders with an interest in additional learning needs, and so I very much hope that that is an amendment that also Members will see fit to support.

I rise to support all amendments in this group, many of them formally, particularly the lead amendment—amendment 11. We must acknowledge that the Government has moved on the role of the tribunal and has introduced a number of amendments at Stage 2 to try and respond to the strong evidence that we received on the need for the education tribunal to have the power to direct health bodies in relation to additional learning needs. They have moved closer to what I would want to see, and what the majority of witnesses to the committee wanted to see, but the Government is still falling short in my view.

Ministers have consistently reminded us that the narrative of this Bill and the broader package of reforms in terms of ALN is to make it easier and simpler for a child or young person and their families to actually find their way through the additional learning needs sector, that services should be child-focused, that the system works around the child, and that the child shouldn’t have to work their way through a complex and multi-faceted system.

Now, keeping two separate regimes for appeals or seeking redress undermines all of that, in my view. Extending responsibility for the education tribunal to include health bodies—only in relation to additional learning needs—would simplify things significantly, while everything relevant then would be included under a single tribunal. I would encourage Members to support amendment 11 specifically.

I'm afraid I cannot support amendments 11, 19, 20 and 21. Generally speaking, in relation to Darren Millar's amendments 11, 19 and 20, they seek to undermine the position that we have reached in terms of the remit of the tribunal when it comes to the NHS. The Government has been very clear on its position here. We have listened very carefully to the views of the Children, Young People and Education Committee and of stakeholders during scrutiny of the Bill, and I believe that we have responded positively. 

Indeed, if one looks at the draft Bill, there has been considerable movement from the provisions with regard to the NHS in the draft Bill to what we have before us today. That has been fairly recognised, I think, by both Darren and Llyr in their contributions.

The amendments agreed at Stage 2 around the tribunal making recommendations on NHS bodies and the NHS having to report back to the tribunal will have a positive impact and have been welcomed very much by the president of the tribunal. They introduce a new level of scrutiny of the actions of NHS bodies and that is to be welcomed. The president has noted that the Stage 2 amendments, taken alongside those made to section 73 of the Bill on non-compliance with tribunal orders, will—and I quote—'give a real insight into what happens after the tribunal has made its order.'

The Government’s amendment 42, which I’ll come on to, is of direct relevance here. The Government has listened to members of the committee and has moved to ensure that the NHS has a full and proper role during all key stages of the new system, including during and following appeals to the tribunal. 

With that in mind, it is worth mentioning section 18, which does not exist in the current system and represents a significant strengthening of the role of the NHS. It requires that an NHS body, when it receives a referral, considers whether there is a relevant treatment or service that is likely to be of benefit in addressing the child or young person’s ALN. If the NHS body identifies such a treatment or service, it must secure it.

As the Minister said during Stage 2, we have sought to re-engineer the relationship between health and education through the provision of the Bill because of testimony that has been brought forward and the experience that Assembly Members will have had here on behalf of their constituents. The next stage will be delivering this on the ground, and that's where the activities of the wider transformation programme come in.

Turning to the specific amendments, we do not support Darren Millar's amendment 11. It seeks to remove subsection (9) from section 19. This subsection makes it clear our policy that the orders of the tribunal are not binding on the NHS. I do not accept that it should be removed, and so cannot support the amendment. 

Amendment 19 and amendment 20 with its consequentials to amendment 19 would completely undermine our position on the remit of the tribunal when it comes to NHS bodies. They would effectively mean that the recommendations of the tribunal under section 72 were binding on the NHS, and for the reasons I've already explained, I cannot support them. The position now provided for in the Bill makes clear that the tribunal can make recommendations that the NHS must consider and that the NHS is required to provide a report to the tribunal on the outcomes of its considerations, and this requirement to report back to the tribunal will require a detailed consideration of the matter and an explanation of the action taken to respond to it. On that basis, I would urge Members to oppose amendments 11, 19 and 20.

I also cannot support amendment 21 as I do not consider it to be necessary. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales already publishes an annual report, and this is available publicly on their website. Darren Millar's amendment would introduce a different reporting requirement for the reports of the tribunal when compared to most of the other Welsh tribunals. Now, I take Darren's point about accessibility, and about the annual report being user-friendly, but we have to recognise that the tribunal is an independent judicial body and its annual report is a matter entirely for them. But, having said that, I would welcome the inclusion of more information on lessons learned from the tribunal cases in the annual report so that other delivery partners can learn those lessons. Given the individual nature of cases, it may not always be possible to draw broader conclusions, but I will write, Darren, to the president to ask whether it would be feasible to provide more commentary in future annual reports. Moves in this direction would have my full support if the tribunal decided to do so, but, ultimately, it is a matter for the tribunal and the president to consider, and I would urge Members to resist amendment 21. 

Turning to Government amendment 42, this builds on amendments agreed at Stage 2 relating to compliance with orders of the tribunal, now section 73 of the Bill. This amendment will enable the tribunal to share with Welsh Ministers reports received from local authorities, FEIs and health bodies about their compliance with orders and on action taken to respond to recommendations along with other related information. Information about failure to comply with orders, or of health bodies' failure to take action in response to recommendations, could also be shared. It is with this information that Welsh Ministers can monitor how the system is working and also take action where appropriate in response to non-compliance, for example through the Welsh Ministers' various powers of intervention. The monitoring and evaluation of the system facilitated by this amendment applies in relation to compliance with orders by local authorities and FEIs, and it will also be useful in establishing whether tribunal recommendations on health bodies and subsequent reports of health bodies to the tribunal have the desired effect. The president of the tribunal has noted the usefulness of the Stage 2 amendments, and this further amendment would ensure that the full potential of section 73 is realised.

Government amendment 46 creates a new 'deputy president of the tribunal' role. The former Minister made clear our intention to introduce amendments to create a deputy president at earlier stages in the Bill, and this was done in direct response to the strong operational case made for it by the current president of the tribunal. The president has said that a deputy president of the tribunal would—and, again, I quote—'significantly enhance the operational efficiency, business continuity and sustainability of the tribunal.' In practical terms, the deputy president will be designated by the president from a pool of existing legal chairs. I have heard from the president on this matter, and she is very pleased that we have tabled the amendment. Given the operational benefits it presents, I would urge Members to support it. 

Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the Government's response. I notice that there were lots of references to the opinions of the president of the tribunal in relation to the Government's position in terms of welcoming what the Government had done so far, but this is the very same individual who gave evidence to our committee and who made it abundantly clear that she wanted direction-making powers given to that tribunal so that it had the teeth to get the job done on behalf of children and young people who need additional learning provision to be secured from the NHS. And at the moment, that is simply not happening frequently enough. We're having problems in people getting the support that they need and it's leading to significant disadvantage for those children and young people.

As Llyr Gruffydd quite rightly said, we've got to do away with unnecessary complexity. That was one of the stated aims of this Bill and, unfortunately, I'm afraid it's leaving one huge volume of complexity there in terms of having two separate redress systems to try to navigate through. I mean, I've got cases in my own constituency going through the NHS redress system that have been going on for two years. Is that acceptable for children and young people who might be requiring an opportunity to get the support that they need in their place of education? I think not, and I know that you don't think that that's acceptable either.

As I say, it would be helpful to know what an earth has happened to the improvements that were suggested by Keith Evans in his report, 'Using the Gift of Complaints' in relation to the national health service so that we can sort the problems out that it has in dealing with concerns that are expressed to it and complaints that are made to it. Effectively, we've got eight individual NHS bodies all with their own redress systems working slightly differently, whereas we could have one body, the tribunal, making decisions that are consistent across the whole of Wales, which my amendments in this section seek to do.

You said quite rightly that the tribunal is an independent judicial body and, when it comes to its reports, they are a matter for the tribunal, but I do welcome the correspondence that you've committed to have with the tribunal to make sure that it is aware of some of the things—and you were able to make suggestions about some of the things—it might be useful to include in their reports going forward. I think a far better way to make sure that it's going to be a more useful report is by allowing the National Assembly to require things to be reported in a format that the National Assembly thinks is appropriate and then for that report to be laid before the National Assembly so that there can be an appropriate opportunity to scrutinise it. At the moment, that report is very often posted onto the website. I'd be surprised if it gets a couple of hundred downloads over a 12-month period, frankly. I've been on there, I've had a look at it: it ain't much cop, if I'm honest with you. And it's certainly not much use to those children and young people and their parents who might want to glean useful information from it.

So, I'm very disappointed that you're rejecting amendments 11, 19 and 20. I do think that people want to see this power to direct. As I say, there was one single witness that appeared before the committee at Stage 1 who did not feel that it was appropriate to give this power to direct, and that was the former Minister. Every single other person was in agreement—. And that was the previous portfolio holder. Every single other person who appeared before that committee and every single other person who gave evidence to the committee in writing was unanimous in their opinion that the tribunal should have its powers strengthened with the opportunity to direct the national health service. So I do urge all Members in this Chamber to be conscious of that when they come to vote.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 30.

I move.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 30 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 31. 

I move.

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 31 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 32.

I move.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does anyone object? Amendment 32 is agreed.

Darren Millar, amendment 13.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 13 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 33.

I move.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 33 is agreed.