National Assembly for Wales

Order. I call the Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the first question is from Steffan Lewis.

Thank you, Steffan. Up-to-date advice on foreign trips is produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This advice is also signposted in all-Wales guidance for education visits, written by the Outdoor Education Advisers’ Panel for Wales and the Health and Safety Executive. This advice is accessible from the Welsh Government’s website.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her answer. She will be aware, I’m sure, of the tragic death of Glyn Summers, who died whilst on a college trip to Barcelona in 2011. And whilst everybody here, I’m sure, would agree that we should give pupils and students every opportunity to travel abroad with their schools and colleges, I’m sure we’d all also agree that safety must be paramount. Is the Cabinet Secretary satisfied that current guidelines go far enough, and is she satisfied with current processes for when things go wrong? Will she consider whether or not to turn guidelines into regulation, or even legislation, to ensure that student and pupil safety is guaranteed as best as possible? And will she also consider how we can best deliver full transparency to parents and families, such as that of Glyn’s family, when things go tragically wrong?

Thank you, Steffan. Can I take this opportunity to offer my condolences to Glyn’s family for the tragic loss that they have suffered? I know that they are moved out of a sense of altruism to ensure that regulations are as good as they can be, so that no family should have to go through what they have been through.

I am aware that the First Minister’s office continues to look at some of the issues around the handling of this specific case, and the previous education Minister did ask Estyn to carry out a thematic review into issues around how further education colleges conduct themselves and conduct trips. At that time, Estyn believed that there were no systematic failures, but, obviously, things had gone wrong in this particular case. As I said, at that time, there was a belief that no further action needed to be taken. Predominantly, this is health and safety legislation, which is not devolved. But, if the Member has specific examples of how he feels that current guidance is not as strong as it could be, and it is within the powers of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly to change that, I and my officials would be happy to look at specific proposals that he could bring forward.

In Whitchurch, we’ve got a company called Schools Into Europe, and I’ve been told by the director there that there has been a drop-off in the number of schools undertaking trips abroad, which he does think is partly due to the confusion over travel safety guidance, and schools adopting their own ad hoc rules as to whether it’s safe to travel or not. So, following up to her answer to the previous question, could she ensure that there is more clarification to schools, and to local authorities, that the definitive guidelines are the Foreign Office guidelines, rather than having individual guidelines, which does sometimes make a bit of a mishmash, really, of guidance, and maybe is turning schools off undertaking what we know are very valuable trips?

Thank you, Julie. I’m grateful to both you and Steffan for recognising the importance of school trips and foreign visits as a part of an exciting curriculum that we can offer children and young people in Wales. They are an important part of education. Schools and local authorities that organise school trips should be aware of their duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to ensure that sensible risk management procedures are in place for planning and organising activities.

But, in view of the concerns raised, I will indeed, Julie, ask my officials to remind schools and local authorities of the need to refer to up-to-date advice on foreign trips from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when planning trips abroad. And my officials will also draw their attention to the comprehensive all-Wales guidance on educational visits, written by the Outdoor Education Advisers’ Panel for Wales and the Health and Safety Executive. That guidance also contains links to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice, but that is the definitive advice.

It’s now a number of years since the Health and Safety Executive produced a statement, stating that school trips have clear benefits for pupils, but misunderstandings may discourage schools and teachers from organising such trips, and they want to make sure that mistaken and unfounded health and safety concerns don’t create obstacles that prevent these from happening. What engagement have you had, or could you have, with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given to local authorities and schools enables them to focus on how the real risks are managed, rather than on the paperwork that can accompany that?

Thank you, Mark. As I’ve said to previous Members, the Outdoor Education Advisers’ Panel guidance is a web-based resource that is kept up-to-date constantly with changes in legislation and good practice by a working group of experts in the field. That website also has links to other relevant advice, whether that be from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or from the Health and Safety Executive. Now, as I’ve said earlier, there is much to be gained from allowing students, young people and children to participate in visits, trips, outdoor activities, and, if schools follow the advice that is available to them, they will be doing so knowing it is most up-to-date and is best practice.

Eluned Morgan is not in the Chamber to ask question 2.

Therefore, we move to questions from the party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and, first this week, the Welsh Conservatives’ spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, will you provide us with an update on any progress that you’ve made towards implementing your priority of reducing infant class sizes to a maximum of 25 in Wales?

Thank you, Darren, for that question. As I said prior to the summer recess, officials and I are studying the evidence of how best we can implement such a policy, especially as we know that smaller class sizes have the potential to make the biggest difference for children who are from our most deprived backgrounds, for children whose first language is not Welsh or English, and where we know that that will allow a change in teaching styles. I hope to make further announcements following the publication of the Welsh Government’s budget.

I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be familiar with the broad consensus of opinion amongst many academics that this is not the best way to invest money in order to improve outcomes for younger pupils, and, of course, you’ll be aware of the fact that we’ve got some significant recruitment challenges now across Wales in terms of teaching staff. Will you consider looking again at making this a priority, in order that we can look at the opportunity cost of investing the resources that might be available? You estimated in your Liberal Democrat manifesto that this would cost around £42 million in order to achieve it. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on other priorities, such as improving the quality of teaching in our schools, to deliver better outcomes for our younger pupils?

There’s also a consensus amongst parents and, indeed, teachers, that class sizes makes a real difference. Indeed, in the most recent industrial action that we’ve seen from teachers across the border in England, growth in class sizes was their largest concern. Now, I recognise that class sizes alone is not the only thing we that we need to address to raise educational standards in Welsh schools, but it is one part of an improvement agenda that I and this Welsh Government are committed to.

You’ll be familiar with the fact that the Scottish Government also considered some moves towards this, and that the conclusions that were drawn by a working group up in Scotland were that these were complex issues, and whilst everybody would like to see smaller class sizes, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Can I switch to another issue, which I know we’ve had some correspondence on, Cabinet Secretary, and that is the recognition of the Welsh baccalaureate qualification by higher education institutions, particularly over the border in England? You will know from the correspondence that we’ve exchanged that there are a number of universities that do not appear to pay regard to the quality of the education that our young people receive, who take the Welsh baccalaureate in Welsh schools, and this is denying them access to the courses that they want to be able to choose in those higher education institutions. What action specifically are you taking to be able to tackle those problems, and will you join me in visiting some Welsh baccalaureate students in my own constituency in order to discuss this issue with them?

Presiding Officer, can I thank the Conservative spokesperson for his support for the Welsh baccalaureate? I know that he recognises it as an important qualification. The Welsh bac, passed at advanced level, is the equivalent of 120 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service points. That is the equivalent to an A grade, and I met many students over the summer that had gained a place in university courtesy of their Welsh baccalaureate. But the Member is absolutely right: there is more to do with some institutions that do not recognise the rigour in our new reformed Welsh bac. So, as a result of the correspondence I’ve received from you, Darren, my officials will continue to work with UCAS to identify those institutions and particular courses within institutions that do not accept the Welsh bac, and I intend to write to all those institutions to reassure them of the rigour and the policy background behind this important qualification. I would be delighted to visit schools with you that are doing so well in delivering the Welsh baccalaureate.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. You will be aware, I’m sure, Cabinet Secretary, that recent Research by the National Union of Teachers Cymru has revealed that teachers in Wales had lost up to 52,000 school days last year because of sickness as a result of pressures of work. It seems that 12 local authorities in Wales have recorded an increase in absence because of stress, and the research estimates that the financial cost to our schools was some £34 million over the past four years as a result of that. Can you tell us what your Government is doing to tackle this situation?

Thank you very much, Llyr. I recognise that workplace stress and ill-health arising out of the workplace is of huge detriment to the individuals involved and to our ability to transform education here in Wales. The Member will be aware that, as part of our pioneer schools and networks, some schools are currently looking at workload issues to see what we can do to reduce workload in the classroom for teachers. We are carrying out an audit at present of some of the paperwork associated with teaching to look to see what we can get rid of that isn’t adding value to teachers’ understanding of their pupils or actually making a difference to pupils. And, later on this year, I will be carrying out, for the first time ever, a Welsh Government-backed survey of all teachers in Wales and classroom assistants so I can hear directly from them about aspects of their job that are causing them stress and frustration and are not actually aiding them in their ability to do what we all want them to do, which is to spend their time teaching our children.

Thank you for that response. Of course, it seems that this stress is mostly apparent on headteachers, who, at the end of the day, have to do a great deal of the additional bureaucratic work. We know that there are difficulties here in Wales, with a number of vacant headteacher positions and a number of temporary headteachers in place. This, again, creates more stress not only for those individuals, but for the teachers who are left behind and who have to pick up the additional burdens because these posts are left unfilled. Can I ask you therefore what the Government is doing to try and tackle the disincentives that are out there—with stress clearly being one of them—for teachers in stepping up to headteacher roles?

I recognise this as a real, real issue for our potential next generation of school leaders, and there is a number of things that we need to do: we need to ensure that individual local education authorities are providing support mechanisms for those people to make the next step; and we need to work with our consortia to ensure that, in taking the step into being a headteacher, people will be supported in the first few months and years of taking on that particular role. The Member will be aware that, prior to the summer, I made an announcement regarding the setting up of a leadership academy in Wales, which will be specifically there to support, in the first instance, headteachers. Progress is going well and I hope to be able to make further announcements about the formation of that later on this autumn term. We’re also looking at the development of the role of school managers, so allowing headteachers to concentrate on curriculum development and educational matters and giving some of the paperwork associated with managing what are often large institutions to professional school managers. Officials and I are also looking at future options for reform of the qualifications that will be needed to become a headteacher, because we do know that there are some issues, especially given changes across the border, which are potentially narrowing our pool of potential headteachers, and we’re looking at options for change at this moment.

You’ve said twice, in response to both questions, that you acknowledge that there is a problem. You’ve mentioned some things that are in the pipeline or are already commenced and you also talk about having a dialogue later in the year. But the fact of the matter is that teachers and headteachers are facing those challenges and stresses now. I don’t know if you’re aware, but in one education authority in Wales, just since the start of the year, three headteachers have suffered strokes because of the pressures of work. That is not acceptable. It won’t be much comfort to many in the front line that ‘something is going to happen at some point in the future’. Can you tell us more specifically when people at the coalface will see a difference?

The leadership college, as I said to you prior to the summer recess, will be established during this year and will be taking and providing courses by the start of the next academic year.

With regard to school managers and different forms of school governance and leadership, I hope to be able to make those announcements in line with resources allocated in the Welsh Government’s budget, which will be later on this term. We are moving as quickly as possible to look at ways in which we can change qualifications for headteachers. I’ve literally been in post since halfway through May and we are moving things on as quickly as we possibly can. I identified a lack of support for school leaders immediately on coming into office. It’s one part of issues that were raised with Welsh Government by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that had not been taken forward, and I’m taking them forward as a priority.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, if, as most experts predict, Wales fails to make any significant progress in the PISA rankings this December, what does the Cabinet Secretary propose to do to improve our rank for next time?

What I can tell the UKIP spokesperson is, by not waiting to see what the PISA results are before—

You know them already.

No, I don’t know them already actually, Simon. I don’t and if you have evidence that I do, maybe you should get up and say it. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh’.]

Carry on, Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you. We are not waiting for the PISA results to come. We have embarked on an ambitious programme of educational reform, shaped by the expert views of the OECD, which had some very critical things to say about the Welsh education system when they reported in 2014. I am taking those things very seriously and, in fact, I have asked the OECD to come back to Wales this term so that I can be assured that we are on the right track and that we are making the right decisions that will make a difference. I have no intention of waiting to see what the PISA results do before making any of those changes. The reform is ongoing. It’s happening now.

What does the Cabinet Secretary intend to do regarding tuition fees in Wales now that the Diamond report has been published? Would she agree that the current system of subsidising Welsh students to study in England is not sustainable and is not a good use of precious Welsh Government resources?

I’m assuming that the Member was in the Chamber yesterday for my statement on the Diamond review, where I stated quite clearly that the Welsh Government have accepted the underlying principles contained in that report. I want to ensure that Welsh students will be supported in a system that is unique in the UK, in that it is fully portable, so that students can study in other parts of the UK and indeed around the world, and that the mode of study is also supported, regardless of whether you are part-time, a full-time undergraduate or postgraduate. Those are the recommendations by Sir Ian Diamond. I know that UKIP don’t like to take the advice of experts and live in a post-fact world, but having received the report from Sir Ian Diamond, who is one of the UK’s pre-eminent academics, a report that was also written and supported by people such as the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, the director of the Open University, the president of the National Union of Students and esteemed ex-colleagues here in this Chamber, I think that UKIP should be very careful about casting aspersions on the quality of the people who have considered that report. I’ve considered it and the Cabinet are backing the principles contained within it.

Welsh Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of referenda when it suits their political purposes, namely on further devolution and voting reform. So, let me use this opportunity to ask the Liberal Democrat education Secretary in a Labour Government to give local people an opportunity to start new grammar schools, where there is sufficient local demand demonstrated through the means of a local authority-managed referendum. Will she join with UKIP in giving local people more choice over their children’s education?

Presiding Officer, I had thought that I had been crystal clear in the debate last week about my views on grammar schools. There is no evidence at all that grammar schools serve their students any better than traditional comprehensive schools. We know that they are bad news for the poorest students and we also know that the OECD, even though it had many tough things to say about Welsh education, commended us for our comprehensive system. They say that’s the best way to make improvements to the education system in Wales, and I intend to follow that advice.

The Welsh Government does not make payments to schools in the private sector.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her answer. Could she confirm, which I’ve seen from an FOI request from one of her constituents, whether the Welsh Government continues to make a payment of £90,000 a year to the private, fee-paying London Welsh School?

The Welsh Government does indeed make a payment to support Welsh-medium education in London, where many Welsh people find themselves working and want to avail themselves of a Welsh-medium education for their children. We do know that education is vital in ensuring that the Welsh Government’s exciting and exacting targets on Welsh speakers—. If it’s to be met, we do need to focus on education and we want to be able to support that where practically we can, and in this instance we support it in London.

On a point of order—

Question 4, Nick Ramsay.

On a point of order—

Question 4, Nick Ramsay.

Mae’r cwestiwn wedi’i alw.

Thank you, Nick. The Healthy Eating in Schools (Nutritional Standards and Requirements) (Wales) Regulations 2013 aim to improve the nutritional standards of food and drink served in Welsh schools. This helps ensure children and young people are offered healthy food and drink throughout the school day.

Thank you. Last week, I was one of many AMs who attended the National School Meals Week event at the Pierhead. I believe you were there yourself, along with the Chair of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, to my right. We enjoyed some of the very best of Welsh school food, including jam roly-poly, tikka masala and, of course, spotted dick. AMs were treated to the best food, but, of course, Cabinet Secretary, standards of food do vary across Wales, particularly in rural areas where costs are higher. How are you ensuring standards are high across Wales, so that all schools can benefit from the highest quality of school meals?

Thank you very much, Nick. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the event that you were at, but Lesley Griffiths, my Cabinet colleague did, as did my officials. Now that I know that there was jam roly-poly on offer, I’m particularly disappointed I wasn’t able to get there. I am aware that there is a constant review amongst local authorities of how they can ensure that the very best quality of food is going into their school meals service, and they do that, trying to balance the needs of affordability for parents as well, and sustaining a school meals service. I am particularly keen, where they can, that local authority catering teams are able to source local produce for use in their school canteens. I do that because not only is it good news for the local economy and it means that they get great produce in their school meals, but it’s also a great way to connect learners with the origins of the food that they eat, something that, in many places in recent years, has been lost.

It’s School Milk Day today, so we should recognise and acknowledge that as we discuss nutritious food in our schools. What opportunities does the Cabinet Secretary have now to improve nutrition and the quality of school food, given the fact that we’re leaving the European Union and procurement rules won’t apply in the same way, so we could promote local food, and with the possibility under the new curriculum of having children and young people growing their own food, processing their own food in cooking it at school, and then consuming that food too? Because, as I understand it, there are serious problems actually preventing children from doing that at present.

Can I thank Simon for that? The current legislative framework already allows schools and local authorities to procure Welsh produce if they wish to do that, and many do, where they can, and where they can balance, as I said, the issues around local procurement with maintaining school meal prices at a level that is affordable for parents. We’ll be looking to review what opportunities may arise out of changes to procurement rules, not only in education but across Welsh procurement. But, if there are opportunities to get more local produce into schools, then I would welcome that.

With regard to pupils growing their own food, the new curriculum outlined by Donaldson actually creates much more flexibility in our curriculum to allow schools to be able to tailor their needs without having to pay reference constantly to the very tick-box curriculum that we currently have at the moment. So, I would hope that there were opportunities for more of that activity. Certainly, within the foundation phase and the focus on outdoor education, there is plenty of opportunity for our very youngest pupils and their teachers and learning practitioners to be engaged in that kind of activity, and I know that many do.

Thank you, Oscar. We have seen continued improvement this year across all subjects at key stages 2 and 3. There were also improvements in mathematics and the overall foundation phase indicator at foundation phase. These improvements demonstrate a continued positive impact of our focus on improving standards and outcomes for students.

Thank you for the reply, Cabinet Secretary. Welsh Government statistics have shown a marked general attainment gap in the foundation phase, key stage 2 and key stage 3. Girls outperform boys across all key subjects in each of the first three stages of learning and, for the first time, the difference between boys and girls in the key foundation phase indicator has widened. What action does the Cabinet Secretary intend to take to address this gap, which has implications beyond the classroom into the further job market in Wales and abroad? Thank you.

Thank you, Oscar. Just to be clear, and to have it on the record, improvements this year show our highest ever end of key stage 2 results, and results for key stage 3 have also improved. We welcome the news that the gap in performance between girls and boys has narrowed in most subjects at key stages 2 and 3, and there’s yet more improvement in most subjects above the expected level across the areas of learning in the foundation phase. So, the gap between boys and girls is closing, but it is one that still exists. This is not a phenomenon that is affecting Wales alone, but a phenomenon that affects across the UK. Indeed, in western Europe, there is an attainment gap between boys and girls. We will be looking at ways in which we can employ specific strategies in specific schools to address the needs of boy learners. It’s particularly acute for pupils who are on free school meals, and we’re looking at innovative ways of using the pupil deprivation grant to be able to create opportunities and a curriculum and an experience to better engage those young boys in their school education.

Thank you, Mike. Estyn is an independent body and the Chief Inspector for Education and Training in Wales is responsible for the inspection of schools. Inspectors will make judgments about the standards, provision and leadership at a school based on Estyn’s common inspection framework.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that response. As well as the Estyn inspections, schools also undergo an annual assessment by the regional consortium under the GAR—better known as the traffic light system. Why do they produce different results, and which ones should parents pay most attention to?

Well, thank you, Mike. Can I take this opportunity to commend you for the leadership at the schools where you are a governor that have seen both very positive Estyn results and have actually seen improvement in their school categorisation scores, moving from being categorised as yellow in 2014 to green in 2015? So, many congratulations to you, Mike, and your fellow governors, in those specific schools in Swansea. There are slightly different sets of criteria that the regional consortia look at and Estyn look at, but we would want to make sure that the competencies, the skills, the provision that is being judged by both Estyn and the regional consortia are as consistent as they can be. What parents need to do when looking at school categorisation and Estyn reports is they need to look at the school in the round. Estyn gives a picture of a school, categorisation does another, but actually going and visiting a school and looking at the ethos of that school—you know, parents or potential parents need to look at schools in the round, and not look at just one specific piece of information.

David Melding.

Sorry.

Question 7, Sian Gwenllian.

Welsh will remain compulsory to age 16, and the new curriculum will include a language continuum for Welsh from 2021. We have piloted expanding Welsh in other subject areas, and remain focused on increasing our young people’s communication skills. We are also increasing support on Welsh to teachers and schools.

Thank you. Last week, you said, as you’ve repeated today, that Welsh as a second language would not be taught as part of the new curriculum by 2021, and, to replace it, there would be one continuum of Welsh language learning for every pupil. But I’m still not clear about the changes to the qualifications. Can you confirm what was said in the press following the interview on ‘Newyddion 9’, the Welsh language news programme, that is, that you will be replacing Welsh as a second language with one single Welsh qualification that every pupil will have by 2021?

I know that many people regretted the words that I used. I personally was surprised at that too, because I wasn’t changing policy; I was reiterating current policy. We are at present in a transition period from where we were when Professor Sioned Davies published her report up until the introduction of the new curriculum in 2021. The second language Welsh qualification will be replaced in exactly the way that you have suggested in 2021, and we will look at how we will develop different qualifications for the period beginning from 2021.

Professor Sioned Davies’s report recommends that post-16 qualifications should be reformed to develop better oral language skills that would be appropriate for the workplace, and, following that, the Welsh Government have said that you

‘will work with Awarding Organisations and other stakeholders’.

Who are those? Have you been speaking to Tata Steel, Tidal Lagoon Power, Aston Martin or the Ford Motor Company to discover what their views are at present on the Welsh language and to help them understand how these skills would be of great advantage to major employers? And do you agree that this should all begin before 2021?

I’m very happy to continue the discussion on that if the Member has some suggestions that she’d like to make. But may I say this? There has been a great deal of discussion as to where we are at present since Professor Sioned Davies’s report was published. There will be fundamental changes introduced over the next few years, and therefore there won’t be a lost period, as some have suggested, but there will be a transition period from where we were to where we will be. The discussions that the Member described have taken place and will continue to happen, and I’m more than happy to continue and enhance the discussions with those groups that she mentioned and others, if need be. But may I say this? My priority is to ensure that people leave school with the ability to speak and use the Welsh language, not just so they can pass an exam at 16, but so that they are able to use and speak Welsh during their lifetime. Therefore we are moving in quite a fundamental way to change the way in which teach the Welsh language.

All providers of vocational courses are required to promote and develop their Welsh-medium and bilingual provision. Welsh Government requires all work-based learning providers and further education colleges to increase the number of learners who use Welsh within their learning and provide opportunities for learners to develop their Welsh language skills.

Thank you for that response, and I’m very pleased to hear that, but, recently, I contacted the company Ynni Cymru, which has received quite significant financial backing from Welsh Government to help support new business in Wales, and that would actually include useful vocational qualifications. The company doesn’t have any Welsh language policy or any understanding of your ambition as a Government to improve bilingualism in the workplace, and, when I enquired about it, they said, ‘Oh, we’ve got somebody somewhere who can speak Welsh.’ They completely missed the point.

We would expect such a company to at least advise new companies that they should bear in mind that the Government is looking at Welsh in the workplace, and to encourage them to consider how they can provide that. With regard to the Welsh language, may I ask what your expectations are of any organisation that is supported by Welsh Government money that offers vocational training or business support?

It may be useful if you were to write to me with the detail of the very incident that you’ve described this afternoon, but may I say in general terms, rather than addressing the example that you gave, that I would expect any institution in receipt of funding from Welsh Government to implement their language policy? When we’re talking about the private sector and private businesses, of course, there is a different statutory framework in place for the private sector. At the moment, we are consulting on a new strategy for the Welsh language, for the target of reaching 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.

Once we’ve published that strategy, I will start the work of consulting on the statutory framework. If Members, or any individual Members, have any comments to make on the private sector, that would be the time for us to have that discussion.

In a committee meeting on 13 July, the Cabinet Secretary for Education made it clear, in response to a question from the Plaid Cymru education spokesperson, that you’re going to look at the possibility of expanding the remit of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol to include further education. Please could you provide us with an update about the progress since that meeting, because it would go some of the way towards enhancing Welsh-medium education within further education?

Rwy’n credu bod yr Ysgrifennydd yn glir amboutu ei gweledigaeth hi. Mae hi yn y Siambr ac yn gwrando ar eich geiriau nawr. Mi wnaeth yr Ysgrifennydd Addysg a’r Prif Weinidog wneud datganiad o’r fath yn ystod yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol. Rydym ni fel tîm o Weinidogion wedi bod yn trafod hyn ers hynny. Rwy’n gwybod bod yr Ysgrifennydd addysg ar fin gwneud datganiad.

Thank you, David. The all-Wales attendance framework has a direct impact on levels of attendance. Along with wider education programmes, including ‘Rewriting the future’ and the pupil deprivation grant, positive progress is being made in better engaging all young people in education.

Minister, whilst the situation is gradually improving, absenteeism is still a concern in nearly a third of our secondary schools. Those who are eligible for free school meals are twice as likely to be absent as those who are not on free school meals, and just under a fifth of those on free school meals are persistently absent, with dire effects on their educational attainment. Yet less than half of schools have carried out a good enough analysis of why pupils do not attend school—that’s according to Estyn. Would you, however, commend best practice in the sector, such as Cathays High School, which has 37 per cent of their children eligible for free school meals, yet is making good progress in increasing attendance rates?

Thank you, David. I would like to say that absence from secondary schools has dropped faster for free-school-meal pupils than for any other pupils over the last five years. Since 2009-10, it has dropped 3.6 percentage points, whereas for others it dropped by 2.6, so we’re making better progress for children on free school meals than we are with the rest of the cohort. But there is still more to do, because we know that regular attendance at school is the best chance that children have to gain the positive experience and the qualifications that they need. I would expect schools to have carried out work to understand the reasons why some children are persistently missing from school, but I would indeed want to commend not only the good practice that you have highlighted in schools that you are familiar with, but also of other schools I’ve visited.

This summer, I visited Cefn Hengoed Community School in Swansea. They’ve focused on improving attendance through employing an attendance officer, with a particular focus on free-school-meal learners. Since 2012, the school reports that the average attendance of free-school-meal learners has risen by 6.9 per cent, so there is good practice out there. I would expect individual schools to take this issue seriously, and I would expect regional consortia to be working in schools across their region to ensure that, where good practice is happening and good results are being delivered by schools on this agenda, that good practice is employed in other schools where progress is not as good as you or I would want it to be.

Thank you, Hannah. I want to make it clear that I will not tolerate any bullying in the Welsh education system. I expect schools and education services to make it clear that all forms of bullying are entirely unacceptable and to tackle any incidents vigorously, ensuring that pupils are properly supported.

Thank you. I welcome your commitment in this area, Cabinet Secretary, and the time you’ve also taken to meet with me and my colleague, Jeremy Miles, to discuss this. One of the things we spoke about in those meetings was the examples of best practice happening in schools across Wales. Will you commit, Cabinet Secretary, to visit some of these schools to see the best practice in action?

Thank you, Hannah. I was very grateful to both you and Jeremy for leading on this agenda and coming to see me prior to the summer recess to talk about the importance of this agenda. As a result of that meeting, I am establishing an expert task group to better support me and officials in how we can support schools in this agenda. What we are aware of, from research, is that many schools feel—and teachers often feel—that they don’t have the knowledge or the understanding of how best to address some of these situations. So, we will be asking the expert group to help us to develop new resources that will be available for teachers to tackle bullying in all of its forms to be able to give them confidence. We will continue to look to do what we can to support schools and individual teachers to ensure that they are best equipped to support their pupils and to ensure that our schools are bullying-free zones.

Cabinet Secretary, Lindsay Whittle, my colleague in the previous Assembly, who I know you know well, did a campaign to raise awareness of bullying issues in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities in south-east Wales, and notified that there was a high level of bullying in schools in relation to that agenda. I was wondering if you had noted that research that he had done and taken much time to complete, and whether you had looked at the whole scope of Wales in relation to how you can tackle this and looked to him for his research to base that potential future work on.

Thank you, Bethan. It’s remiss of me—I wasn’t aware of the existence of Lindsay’s work, but I know that Lindsay approached all his work during his time in this Assembly with great enthusiasm and assiduousness, and so I’d be very pleased to see it. Perhaps you will be good enough to facilitate getting that research to me, because I’d be very pleased to look at it. As well as meeting with Hannah Blythyn and Jeremy Miles, I’m due to meet with Stonewall Cymru, meeting with Show Racism the Red Card—we’re working with them—meeting with the adviser to the Welsh Government on domestic violence; we’re meeting with as many experts as we can to be able to draw on their knowledge and expertise, so that we can pool that knowledge and good practice to ensure that bullying in all its forms, whether it is reflective of somebody’s sexuality, their race, their religion—that we can support schools and individuals, so that children going to Welsh schools feel safe and secure. If we can’t do that for them, we can’t expect them to learn. So our first thing must be to ensure that our environments are safe and secure.

I think it’s 13 years since I first attended a Stonewall Cymru—we used to call it homophobic bullying then, without the additional relevant terms now used. I think you were probably present at it too, 13 years ago. I was recently, however, contacted by the parents of a young man who was suffering homophobic bullying—I won’t name the local authority—but although the local authority and teachers claimed to have awareness to respond, that was not exhibited. It was only after he contacted me, and I referred them to Stonewall Cymru, that they then discovered the access to independent advocacy. What action can you take, all these years later, to ensure that schools and local authorities know that they should be advising such young people of their right to independent advocacy at the beginning of the process?

Thank you, Mark, for bringing that incident to my attention. If you would like to supply me with full details of the case, I’d be more than happy to look at it, and to ask my officials to look at whether everything that was done in that particular instance was what should have been done. If you’d be good enough to send it to me, I’d be very grateful indeed. We are about to carry out a refresh of the Welsh Government’s existing anti-bullying strategy, to look to see whether we can refine it, better target it, and to make sure it’s up to date. I will be making a statement to the Chamber when that work is complete.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Yr eitem nesaf ar yr agenda yw cwestiynau i’r Cwnsler Cyffredinol. Y cwestiwn cyntaf—Jeremy Miles.

Members will understand that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention, which exists to protect the confidentiality of my legal adviser role. So, whereas as I can’t say whether I’ve had any discussions, I can certainly tell you that it’s a very early stage, and I haven’t had any meetings at all yet on any matter. But I can say that the Welsh Government is committed to playing a full part in discussions around the timing and terms of UK withdrawal from the European Union, and around the shape of our future relationship with Europe.

Thank you for that answer. I’m sure you’d agree that the exercise of article 50 will have a significant impact on Wales. Perhaps you could confirm your view on that. Could you give an assessment of the impact of that for existing and future Welsh legislation?

It is worth reiterating what article 50 says. It provides for a member state notifying the European Council of its intention to leave. There is then a two-year period to reach an exit agreement, which will require a qualified majority of the European Council, and then the consent of the European Parliament. If agreement is not reached, membership and treaties are automatically terminated at the end of the two year period. There is no further clarity or guidance on this process, either in Europe or the UK Parliament, and an issue has arisen as to how article 50 can be invoked at UK level, which has attracted legal challenge. Legal action is being pursued in both England in Wales, and in Northern Ireland. The legal challenges relate to whether or not article 50 can be invoked by royal prerogative or whether the authorisation of the House of Commons is required. This does have constitutional importance because it impacts on whether, after a consultative referendum, the royal prerogative can frustrate the will of Parliament and overturn statute, namely the European Communities Act 1972, without at least authorisation from Parliament.

Northern Ireland has a specific interest because of the specific terms of the Northern Ireland peace agreement. I am monitoring the situation, and it is likely that this issue will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, and the legal implications of that determination will be considered in due course. I will of course be ensuring that any specific legal interest or implications for Wales are carefully considered. With regard to the implications for existing and future legislation, at the point that EU law ceases to apply, EU laws already incorporated into our legislation remain. So, to remove EU obligations from UK law, the UK Government will have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and other legislation implementing EU law. Where this impinges on Welsh legislation, legislative consent will be required from the Welsh Assembly. Of course, legislation does not just consist of statute; there are regulations and also legal judgments. Until there is greater clarity from the UK Government and the outcome of the article 50 legal challenge is known, it is not possible to be more precise. So, as I’ve said, the Welsh Government is considering all these issues and their implications, and is engaged with the UK Government. I am also paying close attention to all legal and constitutional developments with a view to considering their legal implications for Wales

I’d like to welcome the Counsel General to his post as I’ve not had the opportunity to do that previously. I wasn’t able to follow his answer in its entirety, unfortunately, and I’ll look forward to reading it subsequently. Will he agree with me that the principle of Parkinson’s law obtains, which is that work expands to fill the time available, and therefore it would be better to get on with triggering article 50 as quickly as possible so that we can all gain the full benefit of leaving the EU as quickly as possible?

That’s a reasonable question but one that requires a very, very complicated answer, and is very much dependent on one’s analysis of what the nature and the state of the negotiations are, what Brexit is and what Brexit actually means. The issue of the examination of the implications of that for Welsh law, for Welsh statute, for Welsh jurisprudence, for Welsh decisions, for decisions that are taken in England that impact on Wales, the approach that we might adopt to Welsh legislation, what bits of EU law we wish to retain and the relationship with other conventions is a very complicated matter. It’s very easy to say, ‘Well, start the process’ but at this stage no-one actually knows what is being discussed in detail and what the package is; the UK Government clearly doesn’t. All I can say is that there is an obligation and an agreement with Welsh Government. We will be consulted by the UK Government, and ultimately this matter will come before this particular Chamber. There will be areas for agreement, but at this stage there’s very little else that I can add.

Again, Members will understand that my advice is legally privileged, but I place great value on the protection of maritime natural resources. You will be aware of the active prosecution work that is being undertaken by me on behalf of the Welsh Government.

Thank you. In the last Assembly, two of the committees—the Environment and Sustainability Committee and the Enterprise and Business Committee—highlighted the importance of developing a marine plan. The Welsh Government intends to consult on a draft plan later this year, a plan that will be pioneering for Wales and would ensure that we protect our outstanding natural environment. With Brexit, Wales’s fisheries and maritime natural resources will come under the spotlight. What further steps can the Welsh Government take to make sure any implementation of the plan stands up to legal scrutiny?

Clearly, the issues that you raise are predominantly matters to be referred to the appropriate Cabinet Minister. Where I have a specific interest and responsibility is in respect of the enforcement actions that are actually taken under existing legislation. Of course, what future legislation there is will depend, obviously, on the outcome of discussions and the approach the Welsh Government takes to changes to Welsh law in the light of Brexit. But it is worth commenting on the steps that are being taken to protect our natural resources, because if law isn’t enforced it becomes meaningless.

Our natural resources are very, very valuable for our future, both commercially and environmentally, so I can say that, over the past three years, officers have investigated 57 infringements, which have led to 31 successful prosecutions. And as a result of the hard work of our marine enforcement officers, since May this year, six prosecutions for fishing offences have been brought in my name as Counsel General before the magistrates’ courts in Haverfordwest. In July, three scallop fishing vessels received penalties totalling £62,000, and in August three further vessels were prosecuted with combined fines and costs of over £26,000. So, these prosecutions should serve as a clear warning and deterrent to fishermen that I as Counsel General and the courts take fishing offences in Wales very seriously and I will look to uphold our laws to protect our natural resources. I can also tell you that, in order to understand better the nature of the enforcement and the work that is carried out, I am tomorrow travelling to Haverfordwest in order to visit the enforcement officers and to discuss any issues around those important issues.

I’m pleased to hear that the Counsel General will be going to Haverfordwest and will be travelling to west Wales, but may I ask him—? He will, I’m sure, be aware that developing the marine plan and a number of marine conservation areas stems directly from European legislation, and I think it’s extremely important that such legislation is implemented by the Welsh Government. There are a number of people who have suggested that that legislation is about to be breached by the fact that the Welsh Government hasn’t responded promptly to that legislation. Will the Counsel General therefore give the Assembly a guarantee that we are in no danger of facing infraction proceedings from the European Commission?

Presiding Officer, I—

I don’t think the Counsel General understood the question fully because of some technical problems. Perhaps you would be in a situation to repeat the first part of the question.

Yes, of course. Is it working now?

Can I check with the Council General—?

A ydy’r offer cyfieithu’n gweithio?

It’s not working. It was working, but it’s not working now.

Are you able to use next door’s?

This one’s working, yes.

I should have said ‘the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s’, rather than ‘next door’.

Simon Thomas, ymddiheuriadau, ond a yw hi’n bosib ichi ailadrodd y cwestiwn?

I do apologise that I hadn’t tabled a question, but I seem to have two questions in any case. I was asking the Counsel General, as the marine plan and other legislation that the Government has stems originally from European legislation, and as we are already late, as I understand it, in implementing these plans, is there any risk that the European Commission—whatever the result of the referendum—is there any risk that the European Commission may take infraction proceedings against the Welsh Government, as this legislation is late in the day in being implemented? Will the Counsel General give a guarantee that the Government isn’t facing any sort of infraction proceedings from the European Commission?

Under the habitats directive, in respect of birds and, I think, of harbour porpoises, what I do know is that there are two sets of infraction proceedings against the UK Government, or steps that have been initiated. I’m obviously not in a position to say any more about those as they’re matters that relate to the UK Government and obviously there’ll be further discussions and consideration of those. So, obviously, EU law continues to apply. We have to abide by the directives. We still have to implement—article 50 has not been implemented, so our position remains exactly as it was before in terms of our obligations to ensure compliance. Of course, you do also raise the very interesting point in that, even after Brexit, consideration will have to be given to what EU legislation we want to actually retain because it is good legislation, positive legislation and for the benefit of Wales.

I was privileged to lead a delegation for the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, including both Jayne and Simon, to the Ceredigion coast late last week. One issue we learnt from marine organisations there is that it was the marine strategic framework directive where there was, it was suggested, a potential breach and consequent, at least in theory, enforcement action. We just wondered—under that directive there’s a requirement to draw up protection zones and then check they have good environmental status, but there seems to be quite a lot of overlap with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and our obligations there, but also opportunity with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, to take a more proactive and ambitious approach. I just wondered whether the Counsel General would support that broader approach—or the extent to which we do need to worry about infraction proceedings under that marine strategic framework directive.

My role is obviously to advise when specific issues arise in terms of the actual implementation of policy, and the development of special protection areas, I think, is a question that is probably best directed to the appropriate Cabinet Secretary.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is a statement by the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee on the committee’s approach to its remit and how it plans to engage with the public in Wales. I call, therefore, on the Chair of the committee, Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. This is the first time that this Assembly has established a committee that will be responsible for communications, broadcasting and the media—a committee dedicated to holding broadcasters and other media to account. This is an area of vital importance to Wales. We need a media that holds up a mirror to this country and explains to citizens how we are changing as a nation. And this Assembly should be ensuring that the public is properly served by those who are spending public money on their behalf.

Although competence for broadcasting and the media is currently limited, there is now a consensus, in this place and with the Welsh Government and in other institutions, that the media and the broadcasters are accountable to the National Assembly for their responsibilities and commitments in Wales. This committee will provide the necessary focus for this accountability, and I am very proud to have been elected as its Chair.

Fodd bynnag, mae ein cylch gwaith yn llawer ehangach na chyfathrebu. Mae diwylliant, y celfyddydau a’r amgylchedd hanesyddol—elfennau allweddol yn y modd yr ydym yn gweld ac yn mynegi ein hunain fel cenedl—hefyd yn rhan o rôl y pwyllgor. Dyma’r pethau sy’n cyfoethogi ein bywydau ac sy’n ein gwneud yn unigryw. Maent yn darparu cyfoeth gwirioneddol o ran sicrhau bod Cymru yn cael ei hadnabod ledled y byd.

Yr iaith Gymraeg yw sylfaen ein diwylliant a’n treftadaeth, a’r cyfrwng ar gyfer cymaint o’r hyn sy’n unigryw am ein celfyddydau. Pa un a ydym yn ei siarad ai peidio, mae’n un o’r nodweddion sy’n diffinio orau beth yw bod yn Gymro. Mae’r iaith yn eiddo i bob un ohonom, ac felly rwy’n falch fod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi gosod targed uchelgeisiol o 1 filiwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050.

There is no doubt it is an ambitious target, and as much as the committee supports the Welsh Government in achieving it, it is crucial that the strategy and the specific staging points along the way are rigorously scrutinised so that we as Assembly Members can satisfy ourselves that they are realistic and achievable.

Before the summer recess, the committee agreed to conduct a public consultation on what it should prioritise in this fifth Assembly. We received a wide range of responses, across all the areas of our remit, from organisations and individuals interested in our work via social media, email, direct messaging—you name it—whichever means was easiest for the public to get in touch with us. In the summer, I also conducted a live broadcast on Facebook—I believe that the Llywydd also did one—explaining the work of the committee, which received almost 2,000 unique views.

Last week, the committee used these responses to inform and guide us as we considered our priorities for this Assembly. As a result, we have agreed that our first formal inquiry should concentrate upon how the goal of 1 million Welsh speakers can be achieved. This will be a relatively short and focused inquiry that will investigate the challenges facing this ambition, while seeking to influence how it can be achieved.

The committee also intends to conduct a number of other inquiries. We are concerned about the continuing decline of local media and local news journalism in Wales. Some of you may have heard that MagNet, the Port Talbot hyperlocal service, published its last edition this weekend. An inquiry to find real, lasting solutions will be one of our early priorities.

We are concerned that Wales is rarely portrayed on United Kingdom broadcast networks and we intend to do work on this. I am pleased that Tony Hall, director general of the BBC, will appear before the committee on 2 November, where I expect him to face quite difficult questions on this issue from Members.

The role of radio in Wales needs more consideration. Some of the most popular public and commercial radio stations operating in Wales provide virtually no specific Welsh content and, particularly, no news from Wales. Next year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be reviewing the remit, funding and accountability of S4C. We will need to be fully involved in that review and look to influence its outcome.

Rydym wedi derbyn nifer o awgrymiadau eraill drwy ymgynghori â’r cyhoedd, pob un ohonynt yn werth eu hystyried. Felly, cawsom y syniad y dylai’r cyhoedd benderfynu beth y dylai ein hymchwiliad llawn nesaf ganolbwyntio arno, ar ôl i’r gwaith a wnaethom ar strategaeth yr iaith Gymraeg ddod i ben. Credaf fy mod yn iawn i ddweud mai dyma fydd y tro cyntaf i’r dylanwad uniongyrchol hwn ar ein gwaith ddigwydd. Ydym, rydym i gyd yn ymgynghori ac yn ymgysylltu gyda’n hetholwyr cystal ag y gallwn fel Aelodau Cynulliad, ond mae ymchwil a wnaed gan Dr Andy Williamson yn dangos bod angen i ni ddatblygu sut y mae pobl yn helpu i wneud penderfyniadau yma, fel y gallant lunio’r agenda a theimlo’u bod wedi eu grymuso’n well, gobeithio, drwy’r prosesau democrataidd hyn. Sefydlwyd y sefydliad hwn i fod yn ffordd o symud penderfyniadau am fywydau pobl yn agosach at y rhai y maent yn effeithio arnynt, a chredaf mai dyma’r cam nesaf yn yr uchelgais hwnnw. Felly, byddwn yn awr yn cynnal pôl ar-lein—gallwch weld y gwaith graffeg yma o’ch cwmpas heddiw, gwaith medrus ein tîm cyfathrebu—yn ogystal â chaniatáu i bobl gyfrannu yn y ffyrdd mwy traddodiadol. Felly, byddwn yn caniatáu i bobl gymryd rhan yn y pôl ar bapur ac yn anfon y wybodaeth yn ôl yn rhad ac am ddim—rhag ofn y bydd unrhyw un yn gofyn y cwestiwn hwnnw i mi wedyn—a byddwn yn ei lansio yr wythnos nesaf.

Felly, byddwn yn gofyn i’r cyhoedd pa un o’r syniadau canlynol y maent yn eu hoffi: cryfhau cyfranogiad a gwella hygyrchedd gwleidyddiaeth; cadw treftadaeth ddiwylliannol leol yng Nghymru; sut y mae hanes yn cael ei ddysgu yng Nghymru, yn enwedig diwylliant a threftadaeth Cymru; sut i ddatblygu a hyrwyddo brand Cymru; adolygiad Llywodraeth Cymru o ddarpariaeth amgueddfeydd lleol yng Nghymru; cefnogi a datblygu ffurfiau celf unigryw a thraddodiadol yng Nghymru; ariannu’r celfyddydau ar lawr gwlad ac yn lleol; strategaeth ar gyfer ffioedd artistiaid a thelerau ar gyfer y celfyddydau gweledol a chymhwysol yng Nghymru; datblygu’r diwydiant cerddoriaeth yng Nghymru; cyllid ar gyfer addysg gerddorol a mynediad at addysg gerddorol; cymorth dwyieithog ar gyfer pobl fyddar a thrwm eu clyw a phobl ag anawsterau cyfathrebu. Nawr, nid yw hyn yn golygu y byddwn yn anwybyddu popeth heblaw’r mater mwyaf poblogaidd. Bydd ymateb y cyhoedd i’r awgrymiadau hyn yn ein helpu i benderfynu ar ein blaenoriaethau yn nes ymlaen. Ac rydym yn llawn fwriadu gwneud gwaith dilynol ar yr holl feysydd hyn drwy ymholiadau ffurfiol posibl, drwy ofyn cwestiynau i Weinidogion, neu drwy geisio dadleuon yn y Cyfarfod Llawn.

The committee now has before it a varied and important programme of work. We’ve listened to the public, and I fully intend, as Chair, to continue this new way forward, with people as partners in our work. I now welcome questions from other Members. Thank you very much.

Suzy Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for that, Bethan.

Mewn gwirionedd, gobeithiaf fod y Cynulliad wedi ei ysbrydoli gan y ffordd y mae’r pwyllgor hwn yn ceisio ymgysylltu’n ehangach, ac wrth hynny yr hyn rwy’n ei olygu yw bod ymgysylltu yn broses ddwy ffordd. Mae’n un o’r geiriau jargon hynny rydym yn eu cymryd yn ganiataol, mewn gwirionedd, ond nid yw hyn yn ymwneud yn unig â’r pwyllgor yn chwilio am wybodaeth neu syniadau o’r tu allan i’r adeilad hwn, ond mewn gwirionedd, mae’n ymwneud hefyd â chaniatáu i bobl Cymru ddylanwadu ar yr agenda yn y lle hwn.

Credaf efallai mai un o’r sylwadau a wnaed gan bob un ohonom ynglŷn â’r Cynulliad diwethaf—ac rwy’n gobeithio nad yw hyn yn swnio’n rhy feirniadol—ond yn sicr, wrth weithio ar bwyllgorau, roeddem yn tueddu i weld yr un bobl yn ymateb i’r ymgynghoriadau, yr un bobl yn dod i roi tystiolaeth, a’r dystiolaeth honno weithiau’n ymylu ar fod yn rhagweladwy. Felly, credaf fod hwn yn gam mawr ymlaen, a dyna pam y gobeithiaf y bydd yn ysbrydoli pwyllgorau eraill i edrych ar y ffordd y mae’r pwyllgor hwn yn gwneud ei waith, fel y gallwn glywed, mewn gwirionedd, gan bobl nad ydym yn clywed ganddynt fel arfer. Ac mae’n debyg mai dyma un o fy nghwestiynau anoddach i chi, Bethan, yn dilyn y datganiad hwn: pwy arall rydym yn gobeithio ymgysylltu â hwy, ac a yw hon yn rhyw fath o ymdrech gyffredinol i siarad â phawb yng Nghymru, neu a yw’r pwyllgor hwn yn mynd i weithio drwy gyfres o flaenoriaethau grwpiau newydd, ac efallai ardaloedd daearyddol newydd yng Nghymru nad ydynt o reidrwydd yn cymryd rhan mewn ymgynghoriadau yn draddodiadol?

Croesawaf y ffocws a roesoch yn eich cyflwyniad yn awr ar y gwaith y byddwn yn ei wneud ar y cyfryngau. Yn amlwg, yn y tymor byr i’r tymor canolig, mae’n anochel y byddwn yn siarad cryn dipyn am y cyfryngau, gydag adolygiad S4C ar y gorwel. Gobeithiaf, wrth gwrs, y byddwn yn parhau i siarad fel Cynulliad am rôl y cyfryngau yn craffu ar y lle hwn. Un o’n rolau fel y pwyllgor, wrth gwrs, yw craffu ar y Llywodraeth; ni allwn adael hynny i’r cyfryngau. Ac efallai mai dyma’r adeg briodol i ddweud y byddai datganiad heddiw ar Cymru Hanesyddol wedi cael ei gyflwyno fel datganiad llafar ddoe yn hytrach na heddiw, gan y gallai fod wedi rhoi cyfle i ni graffu arnoch chi, Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, yn hytrach na bod yn rhaid i mi holi Bethan yn awr. A gawn ni ofyn i’n pwyllgor graffu ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet mewn perthynas â materion syml megis a fydd dod â swyddogaethau masnachol at ei gilydd yn helpu mewn gwirionedd i sicrhau ffynonellau incwm newydd i Cadw ac Amgueddfa Cymru, a pham fod uno Cadw ac Amgueddfa Cymru yn cael ei ystyried o gwbl? Rwy’n sicr fod y Llywodraeth yn dal i ddod dros y frwydr yn y Cynulliad diwethaf ynglŷn â’r comisiwn brenhinol.

Felly, fy nghwestiwn mewn perthynas â hynny yw hwn: gyda chymaint o’r sefydliadau o fewn cylch gwaith y pwyllgor hwn naill ai’n rhan o’r Llywodraeth, neu hyd yn oed os ydynt yn gyrff hyd braich, yn cael eu hariannu’n sylweddol gan y Llywodraeth, tybed a fyddech yn ategu fy ngobaith y gallem weld rhai o’r cyrff hyn eu hunain yn dod gerbron ein pwyllgor yn hytrach na gorfod hidlo cwestiynau drwy Weinidog. Nid wyf yn gwybod os gallwch ateb y cwestiwn hwnnw heddiw, ond byddwn wrth fy modd pe baech yn dweud y byddech.

Yna, yn olaf, yn amlwg rydym yn siarad am gelfyddyd, treftadaeth a diwylliant yn aml yn ein pwyllgor, ac rwy’n meddwl tybed sut y mae’r pwyllgor yn mynd i weithio gyda phwyllgorau eraill ar faterion trawsbynciol. Yn amlwg, rydym yn sôn am y celfyddydau a’u defnydd mewn iechyd meddwl, efallai, neu adfywio treftadaeth. Nid wyf am i hynny ddisgyn oddi ar ein hagenda pum mlynedd yn y tymor hwy. Diolch.

Diolch. Thank you, Suzy. Thank you for the endorsement, I think, which we all agreed to, that we are trying to do things differently. I think, from my perspective, the reason why I personally—and I’m sure other Members will have an opinion—wanted to allow for the public to directly decide on what we did was because—and this isn’t meant as an offence to anybody sitting here—sometimes we do have our own pet projects and sometimes we do then push those forward, and we may not know—we may not know—that that is what people want us to discuss. So, this is merely a pilot to see whether this works. I’m not saying it will be the answer to all our problems but I think that it’s something we should at least try. We have five years as a committee and I feel, as a communications committee, it would be remiss of us not to try and look at those new ways of working and to try and seek to reach those people who don’t necessarily talk to us on a regular basis. But also, as you will know, we have an excellent outreach team and I hope they can help us with this activity so that they can then delve deeper into talking to people who are not the usual suspects. I think that may go a long way in helping us along the line also.

In relation to Historic Wales, yes, I’m not the person to be able to answer that—that would be elevating myself to another position if I did—but I think that it would be something that we potentially could look at as a committee. If there are going to be quite stark changes—we don’t know yet; there is a group looking at it—I think it would merit us at least having a view. But, of course, we would have to make that decision as a committee, as you will know.

I do agree with you on the arm’s-length agenda, personally. I know that the Cabinet Secretary gives a remit letter to such bodies, such as the Arts Council of Wales, but I think it would aid us in understanding their work better if we had them in. It doesn’t have to be formally: it could be us visiting like we did today with ITV and BBC. But it would be good, I suppose, to get it on the record so that we can understand fully how they operate.

So, I hope that answers most of your questions. On the cross-cutting issues, of course we may want to look at, for example, Welsh language education. So, of course, then we would want to discuss with the Children, Young People and Education Committee if they were doing work. Obviously, we wouldn’t want to duplicate it. We harp on enough about duplication from the Welsh Government. I don’t think it would look very good if we started doing it here in this institution.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s very pleasant to participate in this debate and also to be able to welcome Bethan in her innovative role as Chair of the culture committee that operates in an innovative way, as we’ve already heard, that is this communication. Given that communication is central to the work of this committee, our communication is also innovative, as Bethan has just set out, and is highlighted in the way in which we’ve been meeting and communicating with the public over the summer. Of course, that kind of communication in scrutinising the way in which our media communicates messages about this place and about Wales in the British context will also be an integral part of the new brief of this committee.

I was going to ask you about historic Wales, as this issue has been raised over the past few days. There was some mention in passing of Historic Wales in the last committee meeting, and the Cabinet Secretary alluded to what was about to take place. Of course, we have received this written statement today, but I think that there’s quite a bit of concern about this, and a number of people are concerned about what all of this is going to mean for our national museum, for example, not forgetting Cadw and our other national institutions. I believe that the subject deserves a deeper level of scrutiny than has been possible to date, and, as I said in this Chamber yesterday afternoon, we would wish to have a full debate in Government time on this important issue. People at the grass roots are very concerned and I believe that we should air these issues openly. So, I would ask for a full debate in Government time in this Chamber on Historic Wales. Following on what Suzy’s just said, we would expect as a committee to be able to scrutinise this issue, because there’s a great deal of unease, and I think we need to reflect that unease in our activities in this place.

Otherwise, I will just close by agreeing with you that there will be some cross-cutting issues that will cut across the remit of more than one committee, and of course, we’ll be looking at the Welsh language in this committee, but, bearing in mind that the Government and all of us will be contributing to this target of a million Welsh speakers by halfway through this century—of course, partially, the majority of the work will be undertaken in the education sector—and thinking of our scrutiny work as a committee, then we will have to look at how we’re going to achieve that outcome. So, we will also have to work with the education committee in that regard. Thank you for a wonderful report and also for mature and innovative leadership.

Thank you. I didn’t pay Dai to say those kind words. [Interruption.] It would be a scandal, of course, if that had happened.

I think it is important that we should communicate with the people of Wales in an innovative way. As I said in response to Suzy Davies, we have to look at models from other nations across the globe to see how they communicate with people. There isn’t one silver bullet that any of us has in this room. We all do our best, but there may be some innovative, new and radical ways that we should adopt. There are ideas coming into my head and people say, ‘Well, no, perhaps we shouldn’t try that’. For example, I thought that we could perhaps have a choir singing the committee’s terms of reference, but perhaps that was just a step too far for the clerks in the committee team. There are ways of doing these things. I was just making the point that, if we are a committee for the media and the arts, then how do we use the arts in our work, rather than simply bringing people in to give evidence to the committee? I do think that there is something creative that we could look at here.

Again, Dai Lloyd mentioned Historic Wales and, again, I would say of course it is something that we as a committee will consider. It would be very strange indeed if something were to be done without us taking note of it, but it’s not for me alone to make that decision. I would like to discuss that further with each member of the committee. It is important that national institutions are protected and it’s important that we take a strong stance in that regard.

In terms of the target of a million Welsh speakers, I do hope that people will be content that this committee’s first focus will be the Welsh language and that people can have a clear input into the Minister’s work in terms of his new strategy to reach that innovative target of a million Welsh speakers. I do think it’s important that we play a central role in ensuring that we do shape what the Government does to ensure that that target is achievable and that the Government can attain that target and that we’re not in a situation where that doesn’t happen and that we need to review the situation again. There are very many people who are in favour and are supportive of that objective and it’s important that we are supportive of that too.

Can I also congratulate the Chair and the committee on looking at innovative ways of engaging with the public and the committee? You mentioned media, and it’s been discussed quite a lot, but we tend to focus on the BBC and S4C an awful lot in the media, and in your statement you didn’t mention the hyperlocal media and the loss of the ‘Port Talbot MagNet’. You and I have both supported that publication. Will you also look at social media and the implications of social media on the communication and media activities, because there could be a situation where we’re seeing social media overtaking the role of hyperlocal media activities and, as a consequence, we’re seen the loss of those beneficial publications to our local communities? Therefore, in your investigation, will you ensure that that aspect is considered very much and the impact of that aspect is considered?

Thank you for your comments, David. Obviously, I share your sadness, really, that the ‘Port Talbot MagNet’ is coming to an end. Whenever I was speaking at various media events, I’d always show them as a shining light in the bleakness that is the situation where we’ve had ‘The Merthyr Express’, ‘The Neath Guardian’ and others close down their offices, taking away that ability for people to go and to talk to reporters to tell them their stories about their communities. I think that’s something that the ‘MagNet’ was seeking to do in an effective way, and not, perhaps, superficial stories—they were taking on quite hard-hitting stories, and you and I have both given them such stories. So, I think it’s important for that to be retained.

But what I think—and I think other members of the committee agree with me here, because we’ve talked about it privately—is that people often describe the problem in relation to hyperlocal and finding solutions, but nobody actually has the solution. So, if we do a piece of work, I’m very keen on making sure that we hone in on what those solutions could be. Obviously, Golwg360 has had Government money for that website through the medium of Welsh, but do we want to see that happening across the board? Will they feel that they’d have a vested interest in the news if they do receive Government funding? Is there another way of doing it? Can we look at local businesses, SMEs in the food sector, in the agricultural sector, to see how, perhaps, that could then relate to the media sector in Wales? I think we put it into a little box and think that there aren’t other ways of doing it.

But I take your point in relation to social media and the implications. I feel that many of us, like I and the Presiding Officer, have done Facebook live because we feel we have to create our own agenda if there is a lack of news provision or news outlets for us here in Wales. So, social media, I think, sometimes is filling that gap. I don’t necessarily know yet—you may know—if it will actually be a threat to such start-ups, but that’s something that we could potentially look at as a committee. But thank you for your comments.

I thank the committee Chair.

The next item on our agenda is a debate by individual Members under Standing Order 11.21. It’s a debate on bovine TB and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m pleased to open this debate and I’m particularly pleased that the debate is supported by Members of all opposition parties at least, here, and is an attempt, I hope, to put before the Senedd a picture of what is happening today on the ground in our rural communities—the threat to the livelihoods of many families and farms and to community life that this disease poses. We look forward to the statement in around three weeks’ time, I believe, from the Government on their TB eradication plan, and I hope that this debate will assist the Government by giving a broad-ranging and in-depth picture of the problems that farmers are currently facing.

May I just say something about the wording of the motion in case people are wondering why it is worded in the way that it is? It is based on the advice given to the Government by its own consultative group on animal health, including farm stock, the report on which was published on 28 July at the time of the Royal Welsh Show. That paper specifically requested that there should be a TB eradication programme that would be a combination of different measures aimed at all sources of TB—those within the herd and with the wildlife reserve—which would allow us to eradicate bovine TB.The report also asked for the introduction of some kind of programme to deal with bovine TB that included a different assessment in those areas where incidents were low, and to look at rules that were proportionate to the status of the disease in the various areas of Wales. So, that’s the purpose of the debate, and I do very much hope that the whole Assembly will be able to unite around a motion that is so important to our farmers.

There’s no doubt about the impact that bovine TB has on dairy farms and on beef producers at the moment, not just in financial terms, but also in emotional terms, because entire families, farm workers and, quite, often generations invest their time in the development of these herds. Although the numbers of herds affected by TB has reduced recently—and that’s positive in terms of the number of herds—I do think it’s important that we look at the percentage. Each one of us who has been looking at the situation in relation to dairy farms know that a number of farms have gone out of business over the last decade. I think it’s important to place on record that, this year, 56 per cent of all dairy herds in Wales have been affected by some sort of restrictions emerging from an incidence of this disease—that’s 56 per cent. Ten years ago, that figure stood at 38 per cent. So, yes, there’s a reduction in the number, but there’s an increase in the percentage. There’s a particular increase, of course, in those areas that are intensive action areas against TB: north Pembrokeshire, parts of Carmarthenshire, and there’s been a shocking increase in the Vale of Clwyd recently, which is quite a blow to those who think that the disease is under some sort of control in Wales.

There is a significant cost to the taxpayer because compensation is paid to farmers, and rightly so. That cost is somewhere in the region of £100 million across the whole of Britain, and a significant proportion of that—tens of millions of pounds—is relevant to Wales.

There is one other aspect that I would like to mention at the very beginning of this debate, so that Members are cognisant of it, and that is, of course, now that we have now decided to leave the European Union, there is a question about the status in trade terms between Wales, the rest of the UK, and what remains of the European Union. The TB eradication programme is a Welsh Government programme. It’s a Welsh programme, but, importantly, it’s also a European Commission programme. It’s been approved by the European Commission, and it’s been funded, to a great extent, by the European Commission. Because we have a programme in place that has been approved by the Commission, there is no way in which other nations in the European Union can question produce from Wales. Welsh produce is accepted everywhere in the single market, and there can be no objections to that. But, once we have exited the single market, as has been proposed by the Government at present, then questions could be raised about Wales’s status. We do have an enhanced level of TB in our cattle herd and, therefore, questions could be asked as to whether Welsh dairy and beef produce should be received into nations such as France or any other part of the single market. So, there are no guarantees that the rest of the European Union will accept that. That was reinforced just this morning by Peter Midmore from Aberystwyth University, who gave evidence to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Professor Midmore was asked whether there was a risk of this happening, and he said quite clearly that there was a real risk that this would happen, because, under the World Trade Organization rules, exports can be prevented if there is a problem relating to a certain disease in a particular nation.

Will the honourable gentleman take an intervention?

Indeed, I’ll give way.

He’s not in the least bit honourable. [Laughter.]

Could I commend Simon in both bringing this debate forward but also in the way he has introduced it very calmly and rationally? He is right; we heard that concern today, and I’ve heard it from individual farmers in my own constituency as well as others that we’ve met with the Farmers Union of Wales and National Farmers Union. That actually makes it incumbent upon UK Ministers at this very moment, including the three Brexiteers, but also our own very good Cabinet Secretary, to make clear to the European Commission, to the European Union Members of the European Parliament that are there now, and to the other heads of nations that what is acceptable now should also be acceptable afterwards. If we have a UK-wide—albeit with differences—TB eradication programme that is acceptable now, there is no darn reason to make it unacceptable tomorrow. That’s what we need to be saying right now.

I don’t disagree with Huw Irranca-Davies in that matter, but I would say to him that I don’t think these things are guaranteed at all because there is so much uncertainty in the situation that we are in.

I do need to bring my opening remarks to a conclusion so that other Members can have their say, but I think it is important also to put on record that the clear advice to the Welsh Government has always been that we dealt with TB in both the farm animal population and the wildlife population. While the Government had a credible vaccination policy it was able to persuade many people, I think, including the European Commission, and others throughout the United Kingdom, that there was an ability to deal with the wildlife problem through vaccinating badgers. I’m sure other Members in the debate will say whether that is an effective policy or not, but the fact was that it did fill a gap, because it showed that something was being done about the wildlife vector. The vaccine is no longer available. It hasn’t been used in Wales for at least a year. There are severe moral grounds for questioning whether we should be using a vaccine that is actually of greater use in Africa and countries that have TB in their young child population, where badgers actually need an increasing amount of vaccine in order for it to work in them. So, I think that we do need to see from the Welsh Government a new plan. If vaccine is not what is going to be used to deal with the wildlife vector, then the Government has to come forward with a coherent plan of how it is going to deal with TB in badgers, because that is what it boils down to.

This isn’t about direct transmission between badgers and cattle. They don’t go around snogging each other. It’s in the pasture. It’s in the way, sometimes, that farmers use their own practices. There’s more and more evidence coming out all the time, for example, about the use of slurry and other methods. But it is endemic, and it is really endemic in parts of Wales, and if we don’t have a credible plan for getting rid of it, then we will face trade difficulties, we will face animal health difficulties and we will face severe financial difficulties for many of our farmers.

I haven’t mentioned a cull yet, so I’ll just say the cull that I want to stop. The cull I want to stop is the 117,771 cows that have been culled because of TB in the last 10 years. Let’s talk about culls when we have to, but let’s put it in the right context of which animals are deserving of our support. I want to see all animals treated correctly with welfare at the highest level, and I want to see this disease dealt with in both cows and badgers.

I’m grateful to the Members for bringing this debate here today. I was unable last week to attend the briefing that was given by the British Veterinary Association. However, I did send a representative and I have read the notes very closely. As you will all be aware, I have always approached this subject from an evidence-based position, and I am going to move straight on to the subject of badgers. It is the case that badgers do come into contact with cattle who are infected with bovine TB, and vice versa. It has been, on occasions, proven that there is some connectedness and interaction between those two species.

But what I would like to bring to your attention is that, in 1997, there was an independent scientific body that issued the Krebs report. It did conclude that there was a lack of evidence about whether badger culling would indeed help control the spread of bTB. So, the Westminster Government set up a series of trials to find out, and they were called the randomised badger culling trials—RBCT. They adhered to strict scientific principles and they lasted nearly a decade. They concluded that badger culling could, and I quote,

‘make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.’

So why was that? One of the first things that the trial found out was that in areas of reactive culling—that is, culling after any TB outbreak in cattle—rates of TB were higher than in areas of no culling. Twenty per cent higher, in fact. That informed our understanding of perturbation, when diseased badgers scatter and spread the disease even further. Rather, in order to have even a small reduction in bovine TB, 70 per cent of the badger population in an area no smaller than 150 sq km must be eradicated. This must be done over a very short period of around six weeks every single year. Of course, if you kill too many badgers, you risk local extinction, and that has already happened in the Republic of Ireland.

The BVA paper recommends culling in Wales on this basis, provided that it’s targeted, effective and humane. ‘Humane’ refers to the method of cage trapping and shooting, as used in the RBCT. That does push up the cost-benefit threshold considerably, which leads us to what is happening over the border. In England, any veneer of scientific application or purpose has gone out of the window. The ever-expanding cull flies in the face of Krebs’s evidence. It is an unmitigated disaster and it is a financial black hole. And, it may well be making the very serious problem for famers much worse.

Here in Wales, last December, the former Deputy Minister for Farming and Food announced that, due to a global shortage of BCG vaccine, there had to be a suspension of vaccinating badgers in the controlled area. At that time, we were four years into a five-year project within that intensive action area, which is in my region. I understand and I know that the Cabinet Secretary will reassess our strategy accordingly. But, in so doing, Cabinet Secretary, I urge you to stick with the science. As Lord Krebs recently said of the English—I won’t say ‘trials’, I will say ‘English culls’:

‘Badger culling is a sideshow. The only effective way to stop TB is stopping the spread from cattle to cattle by more testing and a much better test.’

And that also, by the way, explains the increase, as has been outlined earlier, of 50 per cent in the number of herds being identified as being infected, because we have actually screened them more often, more frequently.

I commend Simon Thomas for bringing this debate forward and for the sober way in which he argued his case, in particular his conclusion, because that’s how I was intending to begin my speech, in any event, to point to the enormous cull of cattle that has taken place—with no conferring. Since 1996, nearly 120,000 cattle have been slaughtered as part of the control of tuberculosis in cattle. So, this debate, which is so frequently taking place in the context of the badger cull, has to be considered in a much wider context, because also, as a result of the uncontrolled expansion in the number of badgers in the countryside, other species have also been culled quite naturally—hedgehogs, toads, snakes, slow worms, and so on and so forth. So, nature in the raw, I’m afraid, is perhaps very unpleasant, but that’s the reality of life in the wild.

The problems in Wales are particularly severe. In the 12 months to June 2015, 9,500 cattle were slaughtered, and that’s a 43 per cent increase on the previous year. It’s particularly a problem in our region of Mid and West Wales. In Pembrokeshire, there’s a 55 per cent increase in the number of cattle slaughtered to June 2015. In Carmarthenshire, it’s 89 per cent. Simon referred to the particular problems in Clwyd, which has seen a 129 per cent increase in the number of cattle slaughtered. These are dreadful figures and each one constituted a tragedy for the farm concerned and the farming family that runs it.

So, this is not a problem that is going to be solved very soon. The tragedy is that, at the moment, because of the lack of vaccine, in effect, the Government has no policy. The percentage of herds in Wales that are currently under restriction has gone up from nearly 4 per cent in 2006 to nearly 6 per cent in 2015, and that also poses significant costs and difficulties for the individual farms concerned. Vaccination is undoubtedly part of the solution to the problem, but we won’t have a vaccine available generally until at least 2023, according to the industry.

We have to remember that, even if we do have a vaccination policy, it doesn’t actually confer immunity upon badgers that have already been infected, although it does help to stop other badgers being infected. Although, it’s said that the vaccination itself may be no more than 70 per cent or 80 per cent effective. So, even if we do have a proper vaccination policy, it’s not going to be the solution, 100 per cent.

The cost of the current policy is significant—or the policy that we had up until the vaccine disappeared, that is. In 2015, we spent £922,000 on 1,118 badgers—that’s £825 per badger. I don’t know how we can conclude that this is a policy that we can afford, if it’s going to be applied to achieve the levels of freedom from infection that we would like to see.

Greater surveillance and biosecurity are also important, and have, undoubtedly, had an effect on the figures. They have reduced the number of new incidents—we have to be aware of that—from 1,112 in 2012 down to 854 in 2014, the latest year for which figures are available. But, the slaughter figures have actually got worse as the number of herds infected each year has gone down. In 2014, 8,103 cattle were slaughtered, compared with 6,102 in 2012.

We have to remember that tuberculosis is a horrible disease, and the badgers that are infected by it suffer as well. So, any means that we can employ that have a long-term benefit of reducing the incidence of TB in badgers is good for badgers themselves. It’s not humane, actually, to have a policy that doesn’t work. Therefore, I think we have to, perhaps, be less squeamish about the way in which we approach this.

There is no doubt that badgers do spread tuberculosis to cattle—that has been proved scientifically. It has been proved also that culling badgers does reduce the incidence in herds. I heard what Joyce Watson said about the Krebs report, but the Krebs report has been criticised for many reasons on account of the weaknesses and anomalies in its strategies. We haven’t time to go into that today. But, I agree with her conclusion from the report that has been produced by the British Veterinary Association that a targeted, effective and humane cull is going to have to be part of a long-term policy of eradication. This can be done in ways that are humane. Shooting with rifles at a distance is not a humane or effective way of doing it—that’s not something that I would support. But, there are more humane methods of trapping and gassing in setts with carbon dioxide, which isn’t lethal to badgers except in certain doses, so, if it is not done properly, there is no ill effect that is felt.

So, I’m afraid that the cull will continue—not of badgers, though, but of cattle, with all of the costs. Simon Thomas was quite right, I think, to refer to the emotional costs that are involved here, as well as the financial ones. Ultimately, as far as our negotiations with the EU are concerned, I do agree with both him and Huw Irranca-Davies that this is potentially a hurdle that we’ve got to get over. It’s vitally important, therefore, that the Welsh Government takes a strong view on this, and I think Huw Irranca-Davies showed the way forward—that, under the current regime that has been endorsed by the European Commission, there is no excuse whatsoever for using this, as the French did in relation to BSE, to try to block exports of meat products from Wales or the United Kingdom.

So, although we, perhaps, don’t have the full answer to the problems that exist in relation to bovine TB, perhaps today we have begun, in a cross-party debate, to explore the solutions that are bound, ultimately, to be the ones that the Government will have to face up to.

As NFU Cymru state in their briefing to us, bovine TB is one of the biggest threats facing the Welsh cattle industry. They add that the historic failure of the Welsh Government to effectively tackle the disease in wildlife means that it continues to not only impact cattle keepers and their families, but also those further down the supply chain.

They state that bovine TB

‘is a complex disease that must be tackled in the round, including addressing wildlife disease reservoirs, if we are to stand any chance of eradicating the disease’.

We’ve heard already that new herd incidences recorded in Wales to June fell 16 per cent last year, but, in the equivalent period, the number of cattle slaughtered due to bovine TB rose 43 per cent. The Farmers’ Union of Wales added the statistic that the number of Welsh cattle slaughtered due to bovine TB in the 12 months to July 2016 represents a rise of more than 900 per cent over the last two decades. NFU Cymru state that the shelving of the Welsh Government’s vaccination programme due to a global vaccine shortage has created a policy vacuum, and the FUW president would like to remind all Assembly Members of how critical it is that Welsh Government implements a strategy that effectively tackles bovine TB in both cattle and wildlife, without which, they say, it’s hard to see how we can secure trade deals with European nations after Brexit—a point well-made by earlier speakers.

Speaking here seven years ago, I stated that the British Veterinary Association had said the

‘failure to tackle wildlife sources of TB infection has prolonged the presence of the disease in all affected species populations.’

Speaking here three years ago, I quoted the statement by the British Veterinary Association’s president at the annual Welsh dinner, which was that

‘we need all the tools in the toolbox to get on top of the disease, and that must include targeted, humane culling of badgers in certain circumstances’.

That was three years ago. A retired GP in Denbigh e-mailed, ‘Dead badgers are a common sight on the roadside. They remain for weeks. If these badgers carry TB, there must be a danger of transmitting the infection to cattle and other animals. Somebody should be responsible for removing dead badgers from the public highway.’

Now, the British Veterinary Association, or BVA, states that scientific evidence proves that badgers and cattle spread bTB to cattle. Their position supports a comprehensive approach to tackling bovine TB, based on the application of scientific research, coupled with the application of veterinary epidemiology. Control measures in cattle, they say, must occur alongside simultaneous and coordinated measures in badgers, other wildlife and susceptible farm species. They believe that slaughtering cattle that test positive for bovine TB is essential to control the disease in cattle, but has not been enough to get on top of the disease. Therefore they also believe that badger culling in a targeted, effective and humane manner is necessary in carefully selected areas. They state that vaccination of both cattle and badgers should play a central role in any bovine TB eradication policy, but its current role should not be overstated or exaggerated, adding that badger BCG vaccine is not proven to protect from infection, and has no impact on those infected prior to vaccination, and there is currently no licensed cattle vaccine, without which the UK could not trade live animals or animal products.

Will you take an intervention, Mark?

Last week—. I will on this one.

Thank you for taking an intervention. Is there any evidence at all that once badgers are culled that they’ve actually tested those that were infected and those who not infected by bTB? Because, if you’re talking about getting a rounded picture, that would also need to be done.

Again, unfortunately you weren’t able to attend the meeting last week, but the BVA representative explained the problems with testing as well, which need to be taken forward. So, when I hosted their Assembly briefing on bovine TB last week, I referred to their historic comments, but we heard at that meeting that the randomised badger culling trial report 2007 established that badgers contribute significantly to the disease in cattle, and that cattle-to-cattle transmission is also very important. Regarding cattle vaccination, we heard that BCG vaccine does not fully protect any species, that the differentiating infected from vaccinated animals test is not yet validated, and that this is currently illegal in the EU. We were reminded that the randomised badger culling trial 1998 to 2006 did find that proactive culling of badgers reduces the incidence of bovine TB in cattle herds. The BVA support badger culling as part of a comprehensive strategy, provided it’s targeted, effective and humane. Although, as we heard, they’ve withdrawn support for the use of controlled shooting, they’ve called for the wider roll-out of culling, using cage-trapping and shooting only in carefully selected areas. So, the Welsh Government must take decisive action to tackle bovine TB, working with the British Veterinary Association to deliver the comprehensive and scientific bovine TB strategy that they are calling for alongside the industry and many in the wider scientific community. Thank you.

We know the destructive impact that TB is having economically on farm families and businesses and on communities. It’s also having a detrimental emotional effect on individuals in destroying generations of work in developing pedigree and quality stock. I don’t need to paint that picture, but I am concerned sometimes that we are desensitised, particularly if we as politicians aren’t close to some of these communities and individuals who are affected.

As someone who lives on a family farm—and I should declare an interest here, of course, because my wife is a partner in a farm business—seeing friends and neighbours and their farms going down with TB—it is as horrific an experience for them today as it has ever been. The historic failure of the Welsh Government to tackle this disease effectively does mean, of course, that the pain and heartbreak will continue in communities the length and breadth of Wales.

The latest statistics, to be honest, are no comfort to me. Yes, we’ve seen a reduction in the number of herds infected, but, of course, there are 30 per cent fewer herds in comparison to the situation 10 years ago. That tells its own story, in my view. Today, 5.6 per cent of herds are under restrictions as compared to 3.8 per cent in 2006, as was mentioned earlier. And, of course, there is the significant increase that we have heard about in the number of cattle that are culled—43 per cent nationally over a period of 12 months. We’ve heard reference to Clwyd, the area where I live—an increase of 129 per cent in the cattle that are culled. Now, of course, people will say, ‘Well, we’re testing more’. Well, yes, we are testing 5 per cent more in Clwyd; 129 per cent more cattle, though, are culled.

The skin test that is used to find TB has been successful in helping to control and eradicate the disease from a number of countries over the past 50 years. Interestingly, it only fails where the disease exists in wildlife. In Britain, the test was very successful in the 1950s and 1960s, apart from in those areas where there was a high number of badgers.

We know of the situation in England—there was a decline of 53 per cent in the new cases of infected herds in the six months after the completion of the proactive badger culling trials in England. There’s been a decline of between 60 per cent and 96 per cent in the rate that herds were confirmed to have been under restrictions following badger culls in the Republic of Ireland.

We have heard of concerns about Wales’s trading relationship with the rest of the world. Well, Australia and New Zealand actually eradicated TB successfully because of the specific threat of trade restrictions on their agricultural produce as a result of high levels of infection. Central to that success, of course, was controlling the disease in wildlife.

I have to say that hearing Carwyn Jones in this Chamber last week saying in quite a blasé manner that there wasn’t a real threat to Welsh exports and trade because of TB—well, that was a real concern for me and it should be a cause of concern for each and every one of us. Don’t expect other nations to make it easy for us; the stakes are higher now than they have ever been. We are duty bound to use all tools possible to tackle TB more effectively.

What are the experts saying? We as politicians often like to say when we discuss health policy, ‘Well, it’s important that we listen to the voice of the doctors and nurses’. When we discuss education, ‘Well, it’s important that we listen to our teachers.’ The Cabinet Secretary for Education said that just an hour and a half ago when we were discussing the reduction in class sizes, although the OECD, the academics and research organisations say differently—’No, it’s important that we listen to the voice of teachers and parents’. Yes, fine, that’s perhaps how it should be. What, then, about the workers in the front line in the battle against bovine TB? What do they tell us? Well, ask the vets, ask the BVA, the association representing British vets—they are in favour of badger culling as part of a comprehensive eradication strategy, and that is exactly what is needed in my view too. The time has come for the Government here to be brave and to face the reality once and for all. We need a badger cull scheme as part of the solution to TB in Wales, and we need it now.

I congratulate Simon Thomas on getting this debate and on proposing his motion without, I believe, mentioning badgers, which I think we all knew were the substance of the debate to come. I find it unusual speaking at the moment because I don’t have a strong view for or against badger culling as a potential solution or at least way to improve, mitigate, the situation of bovine TB. I did vote against the culling that took place in Somerset and Gloucestershire, but for me it was a very finely balanced issue, hearing both from farmers who were affected and many who were concerned about the potential cruelty and a desire to protect badgers who wrote on the other side of the debate. I think at that point, though, the prospect of vaccination as an alternative solution was—there was, I think, perhaps greater optimism around that than there is now some years later.

As chairman of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, this is in the purview of the committee and we as committee members must decide how much of our time we wish to invest in understanding this issue better and trying to take the situation forward.

I complement Simon Thomas on the wording of his motion. I believe the people who believe vaccination may still be a realistic solution or have other ideas as to how bovine TB could be dealt with may perhaps find themselves able to support this motion. But what I would ask is, whatever Members are, I just hope we would try not to become overly entrenched in a position without focusing and really trying to understand new evidence that may come forward. We’ve heard, I think, of the Krebs study that took place historically, and some other more recent studies people referred to, as perhaps having a different implication. But also, on the farmers’ side, I can see the pain this issue causes them, but I also fear that, for some, the idea of culling badgers will be a solution, if not a silver bullet, I think a great deal of belief is invested in, whereas, even if we were to go down the route of really significant and continual badger culling, it is not clear to me, at least, how much effect that would have on the problem, even if it were to have some, and I continue to study the evidence on either side of this.

I look very much to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary has to say to us in two or three weeks’ time in her statement. I also look forward to the full report on the culling in Somerset and in Gloucestershire, which I’m told will be available later this autumn. Even if the scientific basis of that culling is not as strong as we might want in terms of a comparison, as there have been difficulties with how it’s been carried out, I do hope it will take the debate forward and I do hope Members will remain engaged with this as we on our committee do what we can to take the issue forward. I look forward, I hope, to this continuing to be discussed in this Chamber so we can give some report and do the right thing, as well as we can, by the farmers as well as for the protection of wildlife and the prevention of cruelty of all kinds. Thank you.

I wanted to focus my contribution today on the personal distress that is caused to farming businesses and farming families. I think farming businesses are unique in the fact that the farmer does not go to work at eight and come back at six. The whole family is part of the business, including children, and, when there’s an issue on farm, that affects the whole family.

Presiding Officer, I had a farmer contact my office last week and speak to my office manager and the farmer was in tears. It was an emotional conversation with my office manager, so much it affected my office manager as well.

I thought what I would like to do today is to read an extract of a letter that she sent me, which will probably take up most of the time I have. But I thought it was a powerful extract. It says, and I quote:

‘We are a small farm and have a closed herd which is sadly losing its animals at a rapid pace due to the spread of Bovine TB. We have not bought any cattle for 65 years and have no adjoining neighbours with cattle so the spread cannot be from cattle to cattle.

‘We had our first TB outbreak six years ago, and we hoped we would never have to go through this devastation again. After a routine test, we had reactors which sadly had to be slaughtered; these were heavily in calf cows, but under animal welfare regulations they cannot travel if it’s less than 28 days before they are due to calve so they are subjected to on farm slaughter. However, the baby calf will slowly suffocate inside the womb—a cruel barbaric way to die, and the most emotional event anyone could witness.

‘The same on farm slaughter is carried out if the cow has given birth to her new baby calf within the last 7 days. The TB reactor cow will be shot, leaving behind her new-born baby calf who will then be an orphan.

‘Again, this is a really devastatingly emotional experience especially when you are the person that has reared that cow from birth, and has also helped her previous generations into the world. Although we don’t seem to be getting rid of the disease, it’s like we are going round and round in circles but not dealing with the prevention of TB.

‘In England, when a cow is TB tested and the calf is due to calve within 28 days, the cow is allowed to stay on the farm in isolation, the calf will be naturally born and the mother is removed after 7 days of giving birth.

‘And in Ireland, if a herd has TB reactors, a 3 kilometre radius to that farm will have all the badgers culled. Why doesn’t the Welsh Government learn from experience from neighbouring countries which show that a two pronged approach is necessary to deal with the disease in wildlife for the successful eradication of Bovine TB.’

Now, for me, I just think that, reading that, it’s not just the unions and other organisations, but this is a real-life experience of a farmer who has suffered this cruel, cruel disease. Farmers don’t seek to see wildlife culled for the sake of it, but what we need is an option that takes into account all options to eradicate this cruel, cruel disease. I would just simply say to the Cabinet Secretary: please don’t turn your back on Welsh agriculture and Welsh families. I look forward to a positive contribution from the Cabinet Secretary when she responds.

I’d like to thank Simon Thomas, Paul Davies, Neil Hamilton and Llyr Gruffydd for putting this motion before us today. I agree that we need to tackle bovine TB by committing to use the most effective measures to control and eradicate the disease. I do not agree that culling the badger population is the most effective measure to tackle bovine TB. In fact, all the scientific evidence shows that most disease transmission is from cattle to cattle, and killing badgers will not eradicate herd-to-herd transmission.

An independent scientifically robust trial of badger culling was undertaken, which took nearly a decade and cost approximately £50 million pounds, and the lives of 11,000 badgers. Following the trial, the independent scientific group concluded badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.

In fact, the evidence suggests that, unless we completely eradicate badgers from Britain, culls can actually lead to an increase in TB infection rates. This is because the territorial nature of badgers stops free-ranging diseased badgers from roaming throughout the countryside. Do those who propose a cull really want to hunt badgers to extinction? Must we destroy one of Britain’s most iconic species, protected by their own Act of Parliament, because it is cheaper to kill them rather than vaccinate them as well as the cattle?

For those who favour a cull, could you explain how you would kill badgers humanely? During the 2013 cull trials, around a quarter of badgers were still alive five minutes after being shot. This led the British Veterinary Association to call for controlled shooting to be abandoned as a culling method. Not only is a cull inhumane; it’s also ineffective. There are three active cull zones in England, and all three have seen an increase in bovine TB. Scotland is free of TB, yet they have a large badger population. Here in Wales, we have seen a reduction in bovine TB without killing badgers, while in the Republic of Ireland, they’ve been killing badgers for 30 years without having any noticeable effect on TB. They now want to extend the cull to include deer.

To conclude, the most effective measures to control and eradicate the disease are increased biosecurity and vaccination, and not wiping out the entire badger population in the UK. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. As Members will have seen from the latest business statement, I will be making an oral statement on a refreshed approach to TB eradication on 18 October. Therefore, I don’t intend to go into too much detail today. However, since I became the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs in May, I have made very clear my intention to refresh the TB programme in Wales, to ensure it’s robust and fit for purpose, and I will certainly not turn my back on the extremely important Welsh agriculture sector.

I support the motion proposed today, and believe the only way to tackle this issue is to use a combination of the most appropriate and effective measures, proportionate to the different risk areas in Wales. All measures applied must be supported by firm evidence and veterinary risk assessment, focusing on all routes of transmission, not just transmission from wildlife reservoirs, which seems to receive all the attention. Responding sensibly to the levels of disease in different parts of Wales is a very important step towards TB eradication. Since I came into this portfolio in May, I’ve spoken to a significant number of farmers, the farming unions, vets and other industry bodies across Wales at the agricultural shows and on individual farm visits. I would like to reassure everyone that I am listening to all concerns raised with me, and, of course, my statement next month will provide more detail on how I intend to develop our TB eradication programme going forward.

I would like to highlight that new TB incidence consistently fell in Wales from late 2012 to mid-2014, and, following a plateau, subsequently turned downwards again. There was a 29 per cent fall in the number of new TB breakdowns between 2009 and 2015, and the latest figures show the trend is continuing in the right direction, with a 16 per cent fall in the 12 months to June 2016. This means, in comparison to the same period last year, 66 fewer herds are under restrictions because of a TB incident in Wales.

The TB picture across Wales is a complex one. I am aware of the increased interest in the number of cattle slaughtered over the latest period by many in this Chamber and the industry itself. However, I would like to reassure you that this does not mean the disease is on the rise: 9,476 cattle were slaughtered for TB control in the 12 months to June of this year, which is an increase of 43 per cent compared with the previous 12 months, however the recent rising trend in animals slaughtered is because of increased numbers of reactors in established breakdowns, and not new incidents. Much of this is due to better targeting of the testing and the use of severe interpretation to increase the sensitivity, coupled with the use of the gamma interferon blood test within our most chronically affected herds.

In terms of wildlife, I agree that an effective programme needs to target all transmission routes if there is robust evidence to support that intervention. My officials are engaging with vets and wildlife experts to develop ways to break the transmission cycle in chronic herd breakdowns, where it can be demonstrated badgers are contributing to the problem. We are currently running a dead badger survey to help us understand the true level of disease in the badger population in Wales. This will help us develop policy at both local and national levels where the disease is endemic. The survey is not yet complete. However, to give you an indication of the findings to date, of the 584 carcasses collected so far, 40 were infected, which is less than 7 per cent, although this level does vary across the country. In response to a point that somebody raised before, DEFRA do not test culled badgers in England.

Would the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes.

I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary has had any discussions with her English Minister counterpart, because it seems to me, whether it’s the dead badger survey or the other scientific monitoring that’s going on, it’s exactly what should be going on in England so that we can really test what is happening in different countries. It’s a shame that that isn’t being followed through on the other side of the border at the moment, because it could provide us with valuable information as well.

I haven’t had specific discussions with my counterpart, but my officials work very closely, particularly, as you’ll be aware, the chief veterinary officers—the four of them across the UK—work incredibly closely together.

We are now in a position to identify and agree three categories of TB areas across Wales, based on incident levels. This will allow us to tailor and implement different measures and approaches that are proportionate and that reflect the varying disease level and risks across Wales.

It is crucial that we get these measures right in order to protect areas with low levels of disease and drive down incidence in areas where the disease has become endemic. I will be saying more about this next month in my oral statement.

Would the Minister give way?

Yes.

I’m grateful to the Minister for giving way at that point. I welcome what she’s said. I understand that she’s going to make an oral statement, and so the detail is not here, but, of course, one part of the motion that she has accepted precisely addresses what she’s just said about the commensurate approach in different areas of Wales. Can she confirm, if possible, today, however, that, whatever happens in the wildlife sector, at the moment, the Welsh Government does not have access to a vaccine? Is that still the case for the foreseeable future?

In relation to the vaccination, I was going to say, in response to something that Neil Hamilton said, just because we don’t have a vaccine supply, it doesn’t mean that we don’t have a policy—of course we have a policy and the majority of that, rightly so, is around cattle control measures. I don’t know what crystal ball Neil Hamilton has, but he came up with the date of 2023 and that we won’t be able to get access to vaccination until that time. We know we won’t get it next year, but we don’t have a date as to when we will get that vaccine.

So, we continue to build on the programme, which, as I have highlighted, has seen a reduction in incidence and, more importantly, a reduction in the number of farms under restrictions. However, I do appreciate that we can learn valuable lessons from other countries fighting TB. And, as I said in response to Huw Irranca-Davies, my officials do have very close working relationships with their counterparts in other parts of the UK, and also with colleagues right across the world, including in countries such as New Zealand, to make the best use of the new and innovative approaches to the issue.

I firmly believe that, in Wales, we are leading the way in many aspects and that our approach to date has been proportionate and is striking a good balance between business continuity and disease eradication.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I want no-one to make any mistake—that TB eradication will rely on the industry, the veterinary profession and Government working and sharing that burden together. I believe that the new measures that I will be announcing next month will put us in a stronger position going forward and will ensure that we continue to make progress towards a TB-free Wales. Diolch.

I call on Paul Davies to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. I am pleased to close this important debate. I should state from the outset that my parents-in-law’s farm has been affected by bovine TB over the last 15 years and I know, from personal experience, how devastating it is, emotionally and financially.

Today’s debate has been about getting the message across to the Welsh Government that cattle measures and cattle restrictions alone will not eradicate this awful disease. It will need a holistic approach, which includes using all the tools in the box to eliminate bovine TB in cattle and in our wildlife population. It’s quite clear that we need far more comprehensive action to be taken by the Welsh Government on this issue.

Could I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate? It’s been a very good debate and I know that there are significant differences in how we should go about tackling this disease, but I know that all Members want to see bovine TB eradicated from our communities.

Simon Thomas opened the debate and set the scene by providing an overview of bovine TB, quoting some of the devastating statistics involved with this disease and the consequences of this disease on farming families and how we need to deal with this disease effectively and in a far more comprehensive way.

He’s absolutely right that Welsh farmers need and deserve more support and how a much more comprehensive package must now be delivered to support our farming industry. He also referred to the importance of tackling bovine TB in the context of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, and he is right to say that this follows deep concerns from the farming unions, which are right to say that the current disease status has the potential to be a challenging negotiation tool, especially given the vacuum created by post-vaccination failure. The inability of the Welsh Government to address this issue will certainly not make our produce any more attractive to other countries and could seriously damage any trade negotiations. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary has only been in her role for the last few months, but her engagements over the summer with the industry must have emphasised the importance of this matter to our future farming industry and our economy. The Welsh Government wants to increase Welsh food and drink sales by 30 per cent to £7 billion, which is a great aim. However, failing to deal with issues such as bovine TB will harm the chances of reaching that target and harm our ability to sell to new markets.

Now, Joyce Watson, in her contribution, also voiced her opposition to a cull of wildlife and a cull of badgers and said that other policies must be pursued to tackle this disease. Whilst I very much respect her view, she will not be surprised to hear that we’ll have to agree to disagree on how best to go about eradicating bovine TB. She also mentioned that we need to improve the test, but in the BVA briefing last week, it was made clear that the test is appropriate and that it has been used in countries where the incidence of bovine TB has been reduced dramatically. So, the test is fine. What we need is a more comprehensive approach.

I welcome Neil Hamilton’s contribution to this debate and his broad support for more comprehensive action to tackle bovine TB. He also quoted some of the devastating statistics this disease is having on our farming communities.

Mark Isherwood raised the BVA briefing and their evidence, which I’ve also found very informative as well. And it’s reinforced, I think, the support for more action from the veterinary industry.

Llyr Gruffydd reiterated the importance of tackling bovine TB and the importance of dealing with this matter, particularly given the huge impact this is having on farming families. He also referred to the failure of successive Welsh Governments in dealing with this issue. He was also right in saying how important it is that the Welsh Government listen to the experts, and, of course, the experts in this case are the BVA, the veterinary association, and the farming unions.

In his contribution, Mark Reckless said we shouldn’t be overtly entrenched in our views, and that’s why it is important to tackle this disease holistically and that’s why it’s important to use all the tools available to the Welsh Government.

Russell George in his contribution talked about the emotional impact that this disease is having on farmers. And he, of course, quoted his constituents and the devastating impact this is having on them.

Caroline Jones talked about the importance of tackling bovine TB, and concentrated her remarks on badger culling.

I listened very carefully to the Cabinet Secretary’s response, and I’m pleased that she did say that we have to deal with the disease in cattle and in the wildlife population. However, since the Assembly election, there has been a vacuum, I think, in Welsh Government policy on this matter, with no clear direction on how the Government intends to tackle bovine TB. I hope, therefore, that the Cabinet Secretary will now reflect on Members’ contributions today and actually deliver a package of support for Welsh farmers that deals with this disease once and for all. So, I urge Members to actually vote for this motion this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? As there is no objection, the motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on the nursing bursary, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. Well, we’ve tabled today’s motion for a very simple reason: we believe the nursing bursary to be valuable and we’re seeking clarity from Welsh Government about their intentions in relation to the future of that bursary. We know that the UK Government has made the decision to scrap the bursary in England and that set alarm bells ringing in Wales, and in Scotland too. But on 20 June there was a huge sigh of relief in Scotland, when the Scottish Government announced that it would not be following England’s lead and would be retaining the bursary. But three months later, we still don’t have a decision from the Welsh Government. It may well be, of course, that they’re keeping some good news up their sleeves, but the uncertainty—the long wait—is causing real concern within the NHS in Wales, and among current and potential future nurses in particular.

Nurse training must be strengthened in Wales and must be put on a firmer footing. We know that we’ll need more nurses in future. The health needs of our population, quite simply, make that an inevitability. An ageing population is something that is to be celebrated, but it’s something that we’ll need to invest in. Part of that investment is in the education of those who will look after that ageing population—all of us.

The safe staffing Bill was rightly celebrated by nurses in Wales, and the inevitable results of the passing of that Bill, of course, will be a requirement for more nurses to achieve its objectives. We’re bound to see, I’m afraid, a reduction in the numbers of foreign-born nurses choosing to come to work here, performing crucial roles within the NHS in Wales, as a result of the referendum on withdrawing from the European Union. This, incidentally, is why parties in this Chamber who claim to be serious about the future of our public services should be very wary of abandoning long-held principles in relation to the movement of people across Europe. We must recognise the concerns, of course, of many people across Wales on this matter but not be afraid of continuing to explain how our society and how our public services are enriched, in many ways, by people from outside these islands.

Why do student nurses need this extra support through the bursary? There are many reasons. I’ll go through some of them. Firstly, they tend to be older than the general student population. It’s quite possible, then, that many of them may have family and childcare responsibilities that mean higher living expenses, and scrapping the bursary could well exclude many of these students.

Secondly, nursing courses run all year round—not the usual 30 or so weeks that other students may have. This means that the option of employment outside term time is unavailable. The Royal College of Nursing points out that this is a unique position. A full calendar year, rather than an academic year, is needed in order to attain the 4,600 hours required to be completed before a nurse can be registered. That means rostered service, working within the NHS, performing an important function within the NHS as part of the training process.

Will you give way?

Certainly.

I’m grateful. Just on that point. I’ve had discussions with my health board, Hywel Dda Local Health Board, about how we can encourage more of those nurses in training to come to places like Withybush that are not traditionally seen as places where nurses train. And if we were having some security of what the future plans were from the Government, we could move ahead with some of those plans and increase the number of nurses that are available to some hard-to-recruit places from time to time.

Absolutely, because that training period and working in the NHS is a way to open the door to a future career within those areas where, perhaps, we are finding it difficult to recruit.

I think nurses deserve payment for that work that they do—for working the equivalent of a full-time job in the NHS whilst studying. Is it really feasible, for example, for them to work part time in a bar, or in a busy department store, perhaps, alongside 12-hour shifts in a hospital? Is it really morally correct that, for the work that these nurses supply whilst on placement, they should be entirely without financial compensation? What happens to a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay if this bursary disappears?

But it’s also the consequences, of course, for the NHS and the way that it operates that we worry about. The removal of financial support for nurse education in Wales would increase the risk of poverty for nursing students, and may discourage people from this career option as a result. Therefore, there’s the possibility of failing to hit the numbers that we require to train. Wales currently has the lowest attrition rate for nursing students in the UK, and it would be foolish, I would suggest, to jeopardise this. I remind the Senedd that even delaying the decision has caused some concern. The insecurity that that creates must no doubt be hampering the ability of the Welsh Government to plan the healthcare workforce of the future.

Before I close, I’ll also ask for a comment from the Minister in light of the Diamond review publication yesterday—whether he can give an assurance that student nurses will be eligible for other means-tested support, alongside other students too, quite apart from the bursary debate that we’re having today.

We’ve tabled the motion today, as I say, to indicate our support for retaining that bursary as part of a wider package to encourage people from lower-income backgrounds into the profession. Our future NHS needs that. Our future nurses deserve that. The Government needs to stop dithering on this issue and make its mind up.

I start my contribution by thanking Plaid Cymru for tabling today’s debate on the retention of the nursing bursary in Wales. We’ve already heard how in England the UK Government decided to no longer provide bursaries for nursing, midwifery and allied health professions’ students. They are bursaries that pay for tuition fees as well—it’s not just living grants that they include. The UK Government claims that such action will allow universities to remove a cap on places for students and consequently boost the amount of nursing and allied health and midwifery students—a cap, remember, that is imposed by the Government that is funding the schemes anyway.

I’ll focus my attention on nurse education, but we must remind ourselves of the impact of the removal of the bursary on all those other professions, because they also face the same workforce challenges that this debate applies to nurses. It’s true that, in order to provide the future workforce needed for the NHS in Wales, it is crucial that there are sufficient numbers of nursing students entering the profession, and we need to continue with the increase in student numbers that we have seen in recent years—actually, approximately a 40 per cent increase since 2013, though the RCN will probably shoot me if I don’t remind everybody that there was a dip prior to that.

Student nurses spend three years undertaking nursing degree courses and, as has been pointed out by the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, that’s not an academic year of 30 weeks; that’s an extended academic year, usually of 42 weeks. When they take their studies they spend 50 per cent of their time on a practical placement—and that’s a full working week in a practical placement. As has been pointed out, that creates huge difficulties for those to actually find alternative means of funding.

Now, the need for degree-qualified nurses is supported by research undertaken in 2014, conducted across nine European countries, which found that a better-educated nursing workforce reduced unnecessary deaths. Every 10 per cent increase in the number of Bachelor degree-educated nurses within a hospital was associated with a 7 per cent decline in patient mortality.

However, there are challenges for those interested in pursuing a nursing career, particularly as regards personal finance. For example, it’s already been highlighted that the average age of a nursing student is 29, and they’re far more likely to have caring responsibilities. An RCN survey found that 31 per cent had dependent children, 10 per cent were single parents, and 23 per cent were caring for sick or disabled or elderly relatives. Nursing students in Wales do receive a bursary from the Welsh Government, similar to that being abolished in England, to allow them to follow the ambition of following a nursing career and entering a very rewarding profession. We cannot allow the removal of this bursary because it increases the risk of poverty for nursing students and may discourage people from this career option.

The Nuffield Trust stated that many studies suggested that as demand for the courses is elastic, with higher prices putting people off, this loss of support could be made worse by the demographic profile of those applying for nursing—they are disproportionately female, older than 25 and with children. The new loan-based system of support is less generous for childcare and for people with dependents. The Department of Health’s own impact assessment shows that the original introduction of student fees had a much more significant impact upon those aged over 21 compared to younger students. And that is the national profile, as we’ve heard.

A few weeks ago I hosted the RCN here in the Senedd at the launch of their latest campaign to promote leadership within the profession and to continue the work on the nurse staffing levels. At that event, many expressed their grave concerns for the future of the nursing bursary here in Wales and the effect it would have on Welsh nursing student levels, particularly part-time students, to an extent. I also recently hosted the nine allied health professions—I won’t name them all—and they expressed the same concerns about student take-up in their professions. More than 20 charities, medical and professional bodies and trade unions urged David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, arguing that the end of the bursary system for nurses and midwives would be an untested gamble. I do not want to see that untested gamble here in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, I appreciate that we may need to look at how we continue to support those who wish to follow a nursing career, or one of the other health professions, but it’s important to look at the model of education. Can we expand nursing education into more part-time study? Can we look at a form of—and I use this word loosely here—apprenticeship-type scheme allowing students to be employed during their studies? Should we consider health boards employing student nurses, to ensure that they receive a wage whilst they progress through their three-year extended degree programme, whilst they actually undertake practical activities on behalf of the health board? I think there’s more that we can look at and there are different models we must explore in detail, and in detail with these professions.

The Nuffield Trust says that cuts to the training or education budget are short-sighted. Shortfalls in staffing threaten the safety and quality of patient care and can ultimately cost significant sums if they fuel a reliance on bank and agency staffing. We need to retain our local nurses. We need to retain support for those nurses.

I’m very pleased to hear this debate being brought forward today by Plaid Cymru because it very much follows on from many of the debates we’ve had—it follows on from our debate last week about workforce planning. We have such a crisis in our workforce planning throughout all strata that I think that this adds to it. We will be supporting this motion.

I did think about adding an amendment to it, because what I would really like, Cabinet Secretary, would be for you to conduct a short inquiry into training support for not just nurses, but other professions within the healthcare industries that have to do significant long-term placements as part of their qualifications. So, I would use the example of a physiotherapist who will have to go out and spend four weeks here, four weeks there. It’s hard to get these placements. Very often, people have to be far away from the university or the college that they’re at, they have to find other board and lodgings, and then they have to get their travel there—the whole lot.

So, we’re going to support this totally, because I think nurses are key. But, my plea is that there is actually an inquiry that looks at the whole range, because, as we have talked about in our various debates, including the very good one we had last week, we need nurses, physiotherapists, clinical psychologists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. All these people are part of the workforce needs that we have facing us and anything we can do to ensure that these people are able to be attracted into the profession and retained within the training would be very helpful. [Interruption.] Yes, of course, David.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I totally agree with you. We need to look at the placements because the placements are going to be crucial in developing that practical expertise, but we also need to look at, therefore, the staffing available to mentor the students in those placements. So, there is a wide-ranging issue that needs to be addressed here.

Yes, and I thought you made some really good points in your contribution, which I think could be easily wound into the inquiry. I have to say that I stop slightly short at the notion of paying a wage to all trainee nurses, because, then, do we pay a wage to trainee doctors and dentists and vets? I think we have to look at what we can do to support people in an equitable and fair way. And, we have to do what’s best for our nation and, at the moment, our critical shortage is in the NHS, in our workforce. So, as a nation, if we deploy more of our resources into attracting people, then I think that that’s what we need to have a look at.

I think we shouldn’t be shy either about trying to widen the access not just, as you so well put it, Rhun, for more mature students—perhaps people who are wanting to swap their jobs or people wanting to progress up a career pathway, perhaps they’ve been a healthcare assistant and now they’d like to go and be a nurse—but I think we can actually look at trying to poach people from very different professions that have some kind of tie-ins. I think we need to try and poach people from abroad to come into here, and people from England, from Scotland. There are lots of things we can do to try to make it far more attractive to come into Wales, to work in the medical profession and then, more importantly, to settle here, make Wales their home, take us on as their nation and actually help to build our country going forward. So, I think this is quite a complex area.

What I don’t think, Cabinet Secretary, is that any inquiry or review into how we might be able to support nurses and other allied professionals needs to be complicated. We’ve shown it already with the independent patient funding request inquiry. We can do something small, sharp, highly focused that’s got a very clear set of references, and then we want a very, very quick outcome. Why we need it to be a quick outcome is we need to have a look at what effect it might have with the Diamond review, as Rhun mentioned, and what effect it would have on Donaldson. I think the Donaldson element is very important, because I’d like to finish by making one comment: how many times do we take students—schoolchildren—out of their schools and take them into a hospital or into a general practice to try to encourage them into these medical professions? Not actually that often. Those are the kinds of things that we could do: a short, sharp review to look at how we can make it more attractive; how we can support and put in place good packages; how we can put in place good mentoring services and perhaps even have key clusters around Wales that act as training focal points, so that people don’t have to try and fight to find their placement; and, how we can support them financially and, above all, attract more people from all walks of life into our healthcare professions, because we need them, and we need them desperately.

I would like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate today, and it goes without saying that UKIP will be supporting the motion. Investment in training is of paramount importance, and, like the other parties in this Chamber, we disagree totally with the UK Government’s decision to remove bursaries for nursing students in England. We implore the Welsh Government to maintain bursaries for student nurses in Wales.

Removing bursaries for student nurses not only disadvantages those from poorer backgrounds, it also prevents university graduates from entering nursing unless they can afford the £9,000-a-year fee. We want to attract the brightest people into nursing, but if you have already taken an undergraduate course, you don’t qualify for student support. Without nursing student bursaries, graduates won’t be able to enter nursing—they won’t be able to afford to enter nursing.

There is also the fairness argument. As student nurses spend 50 per cent of their time in direct clinical practice, and their final three months working full-time in the NHS, is it right that we expect them to pay up to £9,000 a year for that privilege? I don’t understand the UK Government’s reason for removing the bursaries, and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary, when he responds to the debate, will guarantee that the Welsh Government will not be following Westminster’s lead. Nurses are the lifeblood—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, Angela.

I just wanted to briefly intervene, because you’ve made this comment—David has, I think probably Rhun has, and I’m quite sure the Minister will—but, to be frank, we all buy into devolution, do we not? So, if a devolved nation, i.e. England, chooses to get rid of bursaries, who cares? That’s what they want to do. I don’t agree with that, but I don’t quite get this fact that we have to spend so long—so much of your speech, and, indeed, others’ speeches—talking about what the English do, when what we’re trying to do is sort out what we need to do here in Wales. If they picked over every decision we make here—

It’s not another speech, Angela.

[Continues.]—in such as detail as you do there, it would be an absolute waste of our time.

It has a knock-on effect, and it has an impact on Wales. Nurses are the lifeblood of our NHS, and we should be doing all we can to encourage more people to choose nursing as a career, not make it harder for anyone to enter the nursing profession. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Members for taking part in this important debate today. I can confirm that the Government will support the motion.

It is important to recognise that NHS bursary arrangements cover a wide range of professions and not solely nurses—that was a point highlighted by David Rees. The Conservative Government’s decision to remove the NHS bursary in England will have a significant impact on the costs of supporting those who wish to study health-related subjects, but I welcome the different approach taken by Angela Burns in rejecting the Conservative approach in England.

The bursary arrangements meant that students from the rest of the UK choosing to study in Wales were funded through the arrangements in Wales, and that approach was reciprocated by the other UK Governments. That will now change. We in Wales, though, committed to keep the current arrangements for 2016-17, and we have. The decision taken by the UK Government to remove bursaries in England has resulted in a number of difficult cross-border flow issues that we are currently working through.

I’ve been consistent in my view, both in talking to elected Members and stakeholders, that health-related students cannot be fully considered in isolation to the wider student support arrangements. You’ll be aware, of course, of the Diamond review published yesterday, and so I will be working across Government, and in particular with the Cabinet Secretary for Education. We’ll be considering the recommendations of the Diamond review carefully, because this Government is committed to making sure that finance is not a barrier to a career in nursing.

It’s worth remembering again a point made by both Rhun and David, that the average age for a nurse trainee is 28 or 29 in Wales. These are people with responsibilities, in the main, when they start a career in nursing. So, we need to consider the best way to support people who are likely to have those wider responsibilities.There is a really good example of healthcare support workers, a number of whom are now training to become nurses, in a career pathway as healthcare support workers. Many of them want to go on to become nurses, and we encourage that. That group of workers will mostly want to keep working whilst they’re studying. Again, they have responsibilities and giving up the income they currently have is a potential issue for them. And that’s why—and this is the point that David Rees made—we need to consider how we support and enable full or part-time study, and how we widen access. Again, I recognise the point that Rhun ap Iorwerth made there as well.

Those are really important points to consider about who we want to be nurses in the future, and particularly those people who have experience in other parts of the caring industry, but also personal experience of being carers, and at various points in their lives may want to transfer that experience into a career in nursing. So, for the future, I will want to consider how we use incentives to both work and train in Wales, and how the ability to encourage people to train in Wales could play a part in the support system that we fund.

Thanks for giving way. Just for clarification, we’re grateful that you’re suggesting that you will support the motion today, but can you just confirm that you are affirming what is in the motion in relation to 2016-17 only, and that beyond that is up for discussion still?

I’ll come back to that point directly, as I come to a close, because I think it’s really important to set out the principles that we have, and the fact that we will want to support nursing students. We are not taking the approach that has been taken in England. Obviously I’ll need to consider the final budget settlement in doing that as well, and that’s been a consistent conversation that I’ve had with nursing representatives since taking office.

I won’t undertake the short but formal inquiry suggested by Angela Burns, but I do look forward to working with stakeholders in both the NHS and education, and of course RCN and Unison, as major stakeholders within the nursing profession, as we work through our proposals for the future. In terms of timescale, I’m happy to confirm that I expect to make a statement that sets out our plans and sets out our path in Wales this autumn. I do recognise that there’s a need to provide some certainty for people both in education and within the health service, and those considering a career in nursing, so I look forward to updating Members in the relatively near future.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I have a very short period of time just to sum up. Firstly, to thank the Members that have spoken for this motion today. David Rees was absolutely right in pointing out that it’s a breadth of people and not just nurses—including allied health professionals—that benefit from the bursaries. Thanks also to the Conservative health spokesman, and, yes, I would echo the need to make sure that we have good evidence-based approaches to planning ahead for our workforce in future. That’s a key issue. Thank you to Caroline Jones.

To the Cabinet Secretary, I think what we’ve heard is that you accept in principle that you’d like the bursary to continue in some way or other. I think we have a guarantee for a year. That is disappointing to me, and it’ll be disappointing to some of the nurses who will be listening today, because of course we are looking for guarantees for the long term. I’m grateful to hear that there will be a statement in the very near future—I think ‘autumn’ makes it probably the next five or six weeks—and I look forward to that statement giving more assurances for the long term.

It is the long-term health of the Welsh NHS that all of us here are interested in, and that long-term secure NHS workforce has got to have at the heart of it nurses that are well-trained, that are supported through that training, and of course recognising that much of that training is a valuable contribution in itself to the day-to-day work going on in the NHS. I look forward to a more long-term positive outlook from the Minister in due course.

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

We move on to the next item on our agenda this afternoon, which is a Plaid Cymru debate on the Supporting People programme, and I call on Bethan Jenkins to move the motion—Bethan.

Thank you. Often in these debates we scrutinise an area where we believe the Welsh Government could be doing better and highlight what we perceive to be its shortcomings, before proposing positive alternatives. For this debate, we want to try something a little different. We are taking a Welsh Government scheme that has successfully saved money and helped people, with one proviso which I’ll come to, and we’re asking for it to be protected against cuts for the duration of this Assembly.

We would, of course, like to see more resources allocated to the scheme, and it could be tweaked to improve its effectiveness, but we’re starting from the pragmatic position that, before expanding the scheme, we need to protect it.

The Supporting People programme helps around 60,000 of the most vulnerable people in Wales to live independently and prevent them from becoming homeless—very successfully, as I’ve said. It helps people back into education, sustains tenancies, and gets them back into work. The moral case for doing this is well understood, but there is a financial case for doing so as well. In 2006, it was found that, for every £1 spent by the programme, there was a £1.68 saving to the public purse. This was before improvements were made to the programme, so we could see even greater savings when the next evaluation is published.

This is because we now know that dealing with homelessness costs public services far more than preventing it. Research conducted in New York City that tracked nearly 10,000 homeless people concluded that each cost public services $40,500 each year, including time spent in hospitals, shelters and jails. Once housed, these costs were reduced to the point where they effectively offset the entire costs of providing people with housing subsidies and intensive supportive services. Had homelessness been prevented in the first place, these people wouldn’t have needed services that were as intense, saving even more money.

The UK Crisis report of 2015 underlined the New York findings by modelling several scenarios of homelessness in the UK—recognising, of course, that the reasons for homelessness are different to each individual, and that some individuals may be more resilient than others and others would require fewer services. The conclusions were stark. In every scenario, the savings to public services outweighed the cost of preventing homelessness by a magnitude of 3:1 over just one year. For some scenarios where you assume additional costs such as frequent arrests and use of mental health services facilities, the savings could be as high as 20:1. There is a very clear message here—preventing and rapidly resolving homelessness always costs less to the public than allowing homelessness to become sustained or repeated. There is an underlying lesson here about the way public services interact, complement and enhance the effectiveness of what they do when they focus on preventing problems and take a longer term view of what really costs money.

One aspect of austerity that is under-reported is that it fails on its own terms. Right-wing Governments come into power and cut spending on public services only to find themselves having to spend money dealing with the consequences of their short-sightedness. For example, potentially, when schools fail, we often end up with increased demands on benefits, adult education services and the criminal justice system, in particular when you are talking about people who are not in training or education. The response to this isn’t usually to reverse the cuts and make our schools better, but to then cut entitlements to benefits and make further cuts to adult education. The prison system then gets told to warehouse people and not to bother with educational or creative means by which to stop them reoffending, and so the cycle repeats itself yet again.

When the health service gets cuts, it can mean botched operations due to staff shortages. People who would have recovered then become chronically ill and become repeat users of the service, and perhaps are unable to work and contribute towards the income of the state.

We have long recognised the dangers posed to schemes that are good but don’t have the same level of ‘brand recognition’ as other services. They are often the ones most at risk during periods of financial challenges. We also know that schemes that mainly benefit groups of people who are socially excluded, as opposed to those who always vote, may also be at risk when it comes to facing the axe, regardless of how effective and value for money they are. That’s why we here in this institution passed the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010. We recognised that there would always be the temptation to focus spending on health conditions that didn’t attach a stigma over those conditions experienced by people unable to articulate and defend themselves for very, very complex reasons. So, we made it a legal requirement that health boards could never cut those services. Similarly, this motion today is simply asking to send a message that it will not be acceptable to cut the Supporting People budget during the course of this Assembly term. And, if we pass this motion today, we’ll be showing that at least some of us in this Chamber are capable of understanding the notion of invest to save—that public services and policies to help people stay in their homes are cheaper—

Will the Member give way on that point?

[Continues.]—than cutting off support and sending people to the streets. Yes.

Thank you for giving way, Bethan. I agree with you in terms of sending a message out there of what we want to achieve. You mentioned the mental health legislation the Assembly has passed. There is, of course, all the world of difference between making legislation and actually ensuring that the results of that legislation happen on the ground. How are you going to make sure—how so you think the Welsh Government should make sure—that the message that we do send out today does actually get interpreted by local authorities out there?

Well, I think the strongest message that the Welsh Government can give is that they would not be committed to making any cuts to this scheme, because then local authorities will not feel that there’s any ambiguity in the process of making sure that these services are vital to what they’re doing on the ground, because, if they do not have a clear signal from Welsh Government that this is being protected, they may well see fit, potentially, to do things in a different way and then may unroll some of the good work that some of the charities in the sector are currently doing.

I just wanted to finish briefly and I wanted to raise one last point that has come to me from the sector. Priority-need acceptances may have fallen by 63 per cent, but, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, measuring homelessness demand according to how many are in priority need is no longer an accurate metric. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 is requiring local authorities to work with all eligible households and relieve homelessness. Analysis conducted by Shelter Cymru has concluded that traffic to homelessness services has in fact increased by around a quarter since the law changed. It’ll be interesting therefore to hear the Welsh Government’s response to this. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion and therefore I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Mark.

Diolch. We agree with the original motion calling on the Welsh Government to ensure that the Supporting People programme is protected from any financial cuts, and have included this in our amendment to replace this accordingly. However, our amendment goes further, addressing calls by Supporting People providers to ensure that the key preventative services provided alongside the Supporting People programme by the homelessness prevention budget and the housing transition fund are also protected, and recognise that this funding helps people to live independently, saves lives, saves money for statutory services and provides a platform for other sources of funds to be deployed into prevention work—i.e., not only good of itself but an ideal way of tackling a situation of reduced budget.

The Supporting People programme is conservatively estimated to save £2.30 for every £1 spent, whilst also levering in other funding, preventing homelessness, preventing spending on health and social care, and increasing community safety—minimising the need for high-cost interventions and reducing avoidable pressure on statutory services.

This year’s Let’s Keep on Supporting People campaign has been launched by Community Housing Cymru and Cymorth Cymru to secure continued investment and ensure that people who are marginalised and at risk continue to be protected. As they state, the Supporting People Programme prevents homelessness and supports over 60,000 people in Wales to live independently in their own homes and with dignity in their community. They say it’s an essential, preventative service

‘that makes a real difference to the lives of those who benefit from it, increasing their resilience and ability to maintain a secure home’

as well as reducing their demand on health and social services.

‘Over 750,000 lives have been transformed since its inception in 2004’,

they add.

Supporting People services support a wide range of people at risk of crisis, including people at risk of homelessness, families fleeing domestic abuse, people with mental or physical health problems or with learning disabilities—or, should I say, learning difficulties—ex-service personnel, care leavers, and older people in need of support. The Supporting People data linkage feasibility study of this year showed that Supporting People interventions reduce use of accident and emergency and GP surgeries, meaning fewer resources used and greater availability of services for the general population. Public Health Wales’s adverse childhood experiences report shows how many of the most intractable health and social issues can be reduced if we intervene early enough to protect children. The Supporting People programme helps us to meet this need.

Supporting People providers have been doing all they can to cut costs and deliver effective services with decreasing budgets, but further cuts would do irreparable damage to these essential prevention services, leaving many vulnerable people with nowhere else to turn. The Supporting People programme grant is £124.4 million and Cymorth Cymru are grateful for the cross-party support that kept this protected last year. They state the housing transition fund has also been hugely promising and effective. However, set around £5 million last year, and falling to around £3 million this year, this is due to reach its final year of funding next year.

So that local authorities are able to retain this funding to enable innovative ways of working, they suggest an increase in the Supporting People grant to £130 million and rolling the transition fund into that. This would allow security of funding for local authorities and providers alike to explore new ways of addressing the homelessness issue on a longer term basis.

Shelter Cymru, Llamau, Gisda, Digartref Ynys Môn and Dewis are calling on the Welsh Government to ensure that all three budgets supporting prevention of homelessness work are protected: Supporting People, transition fund, and the homelessness prevention fund. They state that the homelessness prevention grant provides one of the few stable sources of funding for independent housing advice for those at risk of homelessness, without which much of that work would be at risk. They add that the grant has provided a platform for other sources of funds to be deployed into prevention work and works with people before their problems escalate, meaning statutory services are benefitting from this funding. In other words, cuts to any of these mutually supporting funds would, effectively, be a bigger cut to statutory services.

As the people I met when I visited Supporting People projects this summer told me, these had saved their lives. After all, as we heard at today’s Co-production Network for Wales and LivesthroughFriends seminar, which I hosted, we can all benefit from the abundance of talent and resources amongst our citizens by promoting self-reliance, encouraging reciprocity and ensuring that public services, citizens and communities work effectively together. Let’s not miss this opportunity. Yes, we can save money, but only by doing this differently. Thank you.

There can’t be a Member in this Chamber who doesn’t have substantial numbers of constituents touched in some way by the services supported by the Welsh Government’s Supporting People. In my own constituency, Gwalia, Coastal Housing, Neath Port Talbot Homes, Dewis Housing and many others provide vital services funded through Supporting People. I’ve met people who’ve been given back their independence because of Supporting People, and no decent people could meet someone in that position without appreciating the immense value of the work that it funds.

Supporting vulnerable or elderly people to live independent lives should be at the heart of what all of us want to achieve, whatever our political affiliation, in this Chamber. So, let me be clear: there is a not a monopoly of support for this programme on the opposition benches in this Chamber. It’s a Welsh Government programme and, indeed, while the nationalist Government in Scotland and the Conservative Government in Westminster have slashed support for their programmes, the Labour Party in Wales has consistently prioritised Supporting People.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I am grateful to the Member for giving way, and I understand the points that he’s making, and I understand the Government have supported this. But I have to say to him it was the budget before last, in which his Government suggested cutting Supporting People, that’s led to this debate now.

Well, I fully expect the Government to maintain its commitment to Supporting People in this budget, and, if it doesn’t, I’ll be as angry and disappointed as anybody who has put forward this motion today. But the work funded by Supporting People is a lifeline; it’s not a political football. The place for voting on the funding of Government services and programmes and policies is the budget vote. Everyone who follows this place carefully will know that, but for a lot of people who don’t follow it, or are casual observers, which will include a lot of people affected by Supporting People, it will seem that today’s vote is the vote on the programme, and it is not.

So, I appeal to Members to bear in mind the anxieties of people—many constituents of ours—who will understand full well the effect of the UK Government’s austerity cuts on the Welsh budget, and understand full well how much they depend on Supporting People. Others will form their own views of the opportunism of a party with a central role in writing the budget on the liaison committee, and the opportunism of a party whose Westminster colleagues have decimated their own programme and who have cut the Welsh budget, choosing to bring this motion in front of us today.

I’ll be voting against the motion, but I’ll not be voting against Supporting People. I’ll be voting against the kind of politics that treats Supporting People as a 30-minute quick hit in the Chamber.

Thank you very much. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome today’s debate, and I thank Members for their comments. Can I first start by recognising the many organisations that look after many vulnerable people in our communities, and start by just thanking Cymorth Cymru for the starting point? Thank you to Auriol Miller, and good luck to her in her new job, and to the interim director, Katie Dalton, when she takes her post.

Although often taken for granted, a stable home is a basic requirement. It’s the foundation for children’s education, for holding down a job, for health and well-being, and it helps people realise their full potential. The Supporting People programme, as Members have alluded to, helps people to find and keep a home, provides vital support in overcoming problems—in many cases, difficult circumstances. This year, it is expected that around 58,000 people, including some of the most vulnerable, will have been touched by this programme. Be it an individual or a family, young or old, the support is there for them. It’s available irrespective of whether someone owns their home, is in social housing, lives in supported housing, or is in the private rented sector. In some cases, the support comes with accommodation, such as refuges, which help victims of domestic violence. In other cases, short-term floating support is provided in their home.

Can I just pick up the points that Mark Isherwood was making? I do find it astonishing that the opposition of the Conservative benches bring their support to these debates, placed by some of the opposition Members—but the Member has to have some reality about his comments today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recent report says that the Welsh Government will be 11.6 per cent worse off in funding by 2019-20, compared to the year when we first started. I think that the Member has to recognise that we have one pot of money. We have to make sure that it’s well used. Prevention is certainly something that I’m keen to pursue with my team of colleagues around the Cabinet table.

Members will also be aware that the early results of the new homeless legislation are very encouraging—as Bethan Jenkins made reference to, indeed—so much that the UK Government is under pressure to follow our lead. The Supporting People programme plays a very important part in this success, but its benefits are not limited to housing alone. I have met Shelter Cymru this week, and I will be having further discussions around the impacts of that—the long-term sustainability of such a programme, which has seen great success.

I will take an intervention if the Member wishes to intervene.

I hope you heard me say that I acknowledge that budgets had been contracting. I’m asking precisely why, therefore, the Welsh Government doesn’t look to maximise the opportunity to do things differently in order to compensate for that, because this will help you manage reduced budgets. It’s not a cost; it’s an investment.

Indeed, and the Member’s right to raise that very issue. That’s why the Member voted against the housing Act in the last Government, when we were introducing this legislation. He should think back about his actions.

Our research shows how the programme helps to reduce unnecessary demands on the NHS—a significant benefit in its own right. It provides the case for early intervention and prevention, which is inherent in our well-being of future generations Act. For example, for people with substance misuse needs, there is an overall long-term reduction in the use of accident and emergency departments and GP services after receiving support. I’m very keen to pursue the issues around adverse childhood experiences as I believe that this is a long-term solution that impacts particularly on the health service, and mental health services too.

These examples, Deputy Llywydd, show how the programme—and, importantly, their integrated approach with other public services—benefits everybody: the individuals concerned, the NHS and other public services such as local homelessness services. Given increasing pressures on public services, preventing or reducing demand has never been so important. I do hope with sincerity that the Member who has brought this debate to the Chamber today will also recognise through that budget process the challenges that Governments face, and where we can make clever investments such as Supporting People, there is a consequence somewhere else within the budget mechanism. So, we have to be careful where we make our investments. I want to see more and even greater contribution in preventing homelessness—more joint working with other services so people get help when they need it. Whatever the funding arrangements, we must ensure the money makes as much difference as possible for those who need it.

Deputy Llywydd, I recognise the spirit of today’s motion. However, we cannot pre-empt the current budget process or speculate on our overall budget in subsequent years. Members will be only too aware of the continuing and, in some cases, increasing financial pressures bearing down on us. For those reasons I will be asking Members to oppose the motion.

I am pleased, however, that Paul Davies recognises the programme’s significant preventative role in part of his amendments. However, for the same reasons as I alluded to, I will have to oppose amendment 1. I trust that no-one—[Interruption.] Of course, the Member’s free to intervene if the Member wishes.

I was just saying, it was going so well and I had hoped that you would have supported the very sensible Conservative amendment that was put down in the name of Paul Davies.

I’m not sure the Member was in when the Conservative amendment was debated, but it’s impressive that he remembers.

I trust that no-one will seek to misrepresent or disrespect the proper budgetary process of this Assembly as the Welsh Government puts itself at odds with the views expressed across the Chamber on the importance of this work, Llywydd—that united messages must not get lost in the rough and tumble of party politics and that we are all, in this Chamber, supportive of the Supporting People programme, though there is a proper process to go through, as the Members here do recognise. Diolch.

Thank you very much. I call Bethan Jenkins to respond to the debate. Bethan.

Thank you. I don’t have much time, but I’d like to thank people for taking part in this important debate. I think it’s important that we do debate this particular issue.

You find in politics sometimes that you can’t win whatever you do. You support a Government programme and you’re accused of making politics with it. We are here to make sure, as the main opposition, that we hold you to account, Minister, and that we make sure that programmes like this are important for the future. So, I would say to your backbench Member Jeremy Miles: are you therefore patronising the people in the public gallery who are not saying that this is just a 30-minute political hit? They know of the importance of this debate because it was your Government who put forward the proposition to cut Supporting People, so we must keep this on the political agenda. If we do not, then it’s failing to hold you to account as the main opposition here. So, I accept that the Government Minister has been very liberal in his spirit to talk to us in the future, and I hope that he can hear the concerns of the people here today, but this is certainly not to try and play games. I don’t do that in politics, so I am a little bit offended by those comments, and also by the Conservatives. You know, a ‘delete all’ amendment—we came here in good faith. You could have helped improve our motion and enhance it. You said almost exactly the same thing that I said, Mark Isherwood.

So, let’s please try and get behind these schemes. They aid and support people in our communities.

Will you accept that the comments I made reflected the comments made to me by the charities I named, who say that the three funds are interdependent, in order to achieve the goals that we share?

I do, but I have finished. Thank you very much.

I missed that. Sorry about that.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, thank you. Therefore, I’ll defer voting on this item until voting time.

We move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on the programme for government. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to move the motion on the order paper this afternoon in the name of Paul Davies. I had hoped that the First Minister would be here to respond to the debate. I presume it must be the leader of the house who is responding to the debate instead this afternoon.

The motion on the order paper looks at the First Minister’s programme for government and states that it

‘does not provide the confidence or detail required to improve the life chances of people in communities across Wales’,

and also calls on the Welsh Government to outline how it intends to deliver its programme for government within its budget. I don’t think those two points are unreasonable, to be honest with you. I think they are what most people would expect from any programme for government. But then, when this was presented to us last week, at 15 pages in total, including the front cover, with all the intellectual might of the nationalist party and the governing party, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, talking through the summer—and this is the best that they could come up with.

As I said in my response to the statement last week from the First Minister, I generally wished the Government well in its delivery programme because, actually, it is the people and communities of Wales that get let down when these initiatives aren’t carried through and aren’t delivered to the very people who require them to be delivered in health, education and the economy. But, if you just look through this document, it is impossible to actually see how the Government proposes to take Wales forward, as the front page talks about.

The UK Government, for example, is not even mentioned once in this document. Yet, the largest constitutional issue that this country faces, the Brexit question, is in everyone’s mind. Ultimately, there is no mention here at all of how the Welsh Government will be taking forward its discussions and its negotiations around structural funding, around university funding, around rural-development funding—and that’s quite remarkable for a document that is supposed to encapsulate the workings of the Government for the next five years. This isn’t 12 months, this isn’t six months; this is five years’ worth of work in 15 pages. That has to be something that the Government really do need to reflect on. Hence that’s why the motion that we’ve put down today calls for the lack of confidence that we do have in the Government’s ability to actually take forward many of the initiatives that they’ve outlined.

Only earlier this afternoon, for example, there was a debate on bovine TB in this Chamber, which many Members from all the parties participated in. Bovine TB is not even mentioned in this programme for government. No mention at all. Yet, when you talk to the agricultural sector and the unions as well—and Wales is renowned for its livestock production—that is the one big-ticket item that they are looking for from the Government, for a response, for a way forward. Yet, within its programme for government, it has found itself unable to even mention the words ‘bovine TB’.

If I go back to the point about the UK Government’s role in working with the Welsh Government to deliver projects—. The apprenticeship levy, for example: a huge change, a huge transformation in the way apprenticeships and training opportunities will be developed, but, again, no mention at all in this programme for government as to how you will be working to take forward the apprenticeship levy. I’ve spoken to two major companies this week who have indicated that, given the shambolic response from the Welsh Government in relation to the apprenticeship levy, it’s going to be easier for them just to shut their training places rather than to continue them. What response are we going to receive from the Welsh Government to give us the assurances that you’re not working on the sidelines and you are actually on the field of play?

Then, you look also at the cross-border services issue where, again, the UK Government has a huge role to play in developing a coherent cross-border-services strategy for constituents in my colleague Russell George’s constituency, for example, and many other constituencies, especially in north Wales, where many intensive services, neurological services, for example, are dependent on good cross-border relationships—in particular, around the economy, for example, where the north Wales growth deal is dependent on that cross-border connection.

Again, the ‘Taking Wales Forward’ document, which I hold in my hand, does not mention whatsoever any type of relationship or understanding of how these strategies will be taken forward. So, it really now is incumbent on the Government here to actually address, over the coming weeks, before the Christmas recess, how it can give anyone confidence that this is a serious programme for government, that it will deliver on its aspirations and, ultimately, we will not just have the same repetition of the previous programmes for government that have been delivered by successive Labour Governments that regrettably see us as an economic failure in many parts of Wales because of various strategies that the Labour Government have brought forward. Educationally, regrettably, on the PISA rankings, we’ve gone backwards. And in health, we have the longest waiting times anywhere in the United Kingdom. That isn’t an unreasonable proposition to put at the outset of a Government’s term.

What are you going to actually do on the three big questions? What are you going to do to improve economic performance across Wales so that communities across Wales do not remain poorer than parts of Bulgaria or Romania? What are you going to be doing to improve education attainment levels so that, ultimately, we are not propping up the PISA ranking tables, but we are actually seen as trailblazers? Because, in fairness to the previous education Minister, Leighton Andrews, he did have an aspiration. He might have been mocked for that aspiration of getting Wales into the top 20, but it was a noble aspiration to have, because you could actually say, ‘Well, at least he wants to project Wales going forward’.

This document doesn’t offer anything whatsoever in wanting to push Wales forward in the field of education. It just wants to continue to manage the decline. Well, that just is not good enough—it is just not good enough. When you look at what is going on in the health service, and in particular the chronic waiting times that see one in seven people in Wales on an NHS waiting list, there is no way forward within this programme for government on how those waiting lists are going to be curtailed and what progress we are going to see. [Interruption.] I will gladly give ground to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children.

I’m very grateful. The Member has been talking about England a lot. Angela said in the previous debate that we shouldn’t reflect on England and what they’re doing in England. Maybe the Member would like to tell us what the junior doctors are doing in England and not in Wales.

The junior doctors are developing a seven-day NHS that will get rid of premature deaths on weekends, that will deliver a service that acute hospitals will deliver, and that will make sure that waiting times come down in England, because they’re already under what we have here in Wales. Just in case you haven’t caught up with the news, actually the courts have judged today that the UK Government has the right to impose that contract that will deliver a seven-day NHS. You might disagree with a seven-day NHS, but at least the UK Government have put—[Interruption.] At least the UK Government have put on the table what their aspirations are. What have you done in this document? Fifteen pages of just fine words, but little or no substance. That cannot be a Government that is—[Interruption.] I will not take an intervention at the moment. If I have time, I will take it a little later, Joyce. But that cannot be sign of a confident Government—a Government that is brimming with ideas. You are in the early part of your tenure—your five years to change the landscape of Wales—and you just have not succeeded in doing that with this document.

Today, for example, we’ve had the European external advisory committee put together. On page 14, the document states

‘Work to ensure that membership of our democratic bodies better reflect the whole of society and improve equal representation on elected bodies and public sector boards’.

There is not one ethnic minority candidate on that board—not one. Only 28 per cent of the board are women, and there are two representatives from north Wales. How is that meeting what is, most probably, the most basic aspiration within this document? If you can’t meet the most basic aspiration of the document, how on earth are you going to be able to deliver the more complicated and more knotty issues that need undoing?

In particular, the most galling thing in this document is the identification that there is a postcode lottery when it comes to drugs and waiting times in Wales. Who’s been running the NHS for 17 years in Wales? You have done nothing for 17 years, and yet you’re pointing out in your own document that there is a lottery existing in Wales. You’ve failed to do it for the first 17—what confidence can we have that you will succeed in unpicking that with this document that you’ve laid before us?

So, I put it to the house tonight that what needs to happen here today is that the house does come together, sends a clear message to the governing party to show our lack of confidence in this document and calls on the Government to bring forward a more coherent strategy of governing Wales and of taking Wales forward with a strategy that can be delivered, that will deliver a decline in waiting times, that will deliver an improvement in education and, above all, that will deliver prosperity to all parts of Wales. If Members of this house on the opposition benches choose to try to scupper this motion or vote with the Government, then we really can see the crocodile tears behind the sentiments that, from time to time, they stress within this place.

This is a simple document that needs to be torn down and replaced with something that is more substantial, that can be benchmarked and that can deliver the real gains that Wales desperately needs in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Anything less and the people of Wales will have been let down and it’ll be another wasted five years. I move the motion today and I urge support for the motion before you.

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

Thank you, madam Deputy Presiding Officer. I agree with the leader of the Conservatives: this is a very flimsy programme, given that all the power and ability of the civil service is behind the Government. We have produced our own ideas in the programme for opposition and there is reference to that in our amendment. There are more ideas contained there than in the Welsh Government’s programme for government, which is disgraceful. I know that size isn’t everything, of course, but 16 pages to cover five years of a governmental programme at a crucial time in the history of Wales. Now, if you compare that with what the Government did five years ago—and it was this Government—there were 51 pages. We can look to Scotland—89 pages; Northern Ireland—113, and that’s just the draft programme. And, of course, it goes deeper than that. As the leader of the Welsh Conservatives said, we’ve gone down from the previous programme for government, where there were 12 specific policies areas. We are now down to just four headings, and no targets at all. The previous Government had 122 result indicators—a little jargon-ridden, but at least they were there. There were 224 tracking indicators. Now, what the difference is between the two, I don’t know, but at least there were clear targets, so that we, in this place, and most importantly the citizens of Wales could actually track the attainment of Government year on year. Of course, there were annual reports on that programme for government setting out attainment against those targets, but no targets—[Interruption.] Yes.

I’m grateful to the Member for taking the intervention. Would the Member consider withdrawing his amendment tonight, because, obviously, I do take the point that you want to progress your alternative vision and obviously your programme for opposition, but by submitting your amendment the opposition will fragment and we will not be able to obviously cast a joined-up view to show our lack of confidence in the programme for government that has been tabled by the governing party?

I hope the Member will understand why—. I don’t want to do that, because, of course, we support our own programme for opposition. But I’m happy to confirm that we will support the Conservative motion, because we do have to hold this Government to account for a poor programme for government—a programme that is vacuous when Wales deserves better.

To put it in very simple terms, there are no performance data attached to anything that the Welsh Government is saying in this programme for government. I was looking through the document for figures; there are very few figures contained in it: 20,000 affordable homes—that was in their manifesto, of course—cutting smoking rates in Wales down to 16 per cent. Now, in the whole document, there are only two such targets to be attained—and 100,000 apprenticeships—just two or three targets, as compared with the hundreds of indicators that were listed in the previous programme for government. There are a few targets, of course, that take us up until the middle of the next century—1 million Welsh speakers, for example. Well, those aren’t real targets where you can hold the Government to account in a five-year term.

Even if we look at the language, as has been said, this is mealy-mouthed weak, very open-ended, with many mentions of ‘promoting’, ‘supporting’ and ‘working towards’. Well, you can work towards something until the cows come home. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone. To ordinary people, certainly, it means nothing. It’s difficult to disagree with much of what’s contained here, but none of us have any idea what it actually means, and what yardsticks are in place so that we can know whether they’ve made attainments.

Ac nid ni’n unig sy’n dweud hynny—ond y Sefydliad Materion Cymreig, Undeb Cenedlaethol yr Athrawon, y Gymdeithas Diwygio Etholiadol, Cartrefi Cymunedol Cymru, ac yn y blaen. Yn seiliedig ar y ddogfen hon, mae yna ddiffyg arweinyddiaeth, fel y gwelsom, o adael yr UE i TB gwartheg, ac ar sail y ddogfen hon, mae perygl mai hon fydd y Llywodraeth wannaf, y Llywodraeth waethaf a gawsom, o bosibl, ers dyddiau Alun Michael. Nid yw’n drywydd ar gyfer y dyfodol—nid yw’n mynd â ni i unman yn arbennig. Ac os na allwn gael Llywodraeth yn lle hon ar hyn o bryd, yna mater i ni fel deddfwrfa yw gwneud ein gorau i geisio ei hachub rhag y diffyg llwyr o syniadau sydd yn y ddogfen hon ar hyn o bryd.

In 2012 I was given leave to introduce an enterprise Bill in this Assembly. The aim of my Bill was to propose a series of measures to boost economic growth, employment, procurement and skills. These measures, I believe, would have increased prosperity and tackled community deprivation in Wales. Sadly, my Bill did not succeed in passing into law. Now, four years later, the Welsh Government has brought forward its five-year plan. They claim their programme will foster the conditions needed to allow businesses to thrive and to create high-quality jobs. This will be done by promoting manufacturing and reducing the burden on business. Well, better late than never. There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 ones who do not need to.

As ever, the devil is in the detail. But there is precious little detail in this document as to how they will improve the life chances of people in communities across Wales. The Welsh Government pledges to create a minimum of 100,000 high-quality, all-age apprenticeships in Wales. The skills Minister said in June that the target for apprentices had been built into the current budget allocation to apprenticeship providers. But in this Chamber, the Minister said, and this is his quote:

‘I am not going to be drawn into making commitments to numbers that cannot be delivered’.

So, what guarantees do we have that this pledge will be delivered and how will the Welsh Government monitor progress towards its goals?

They also commit to reshaping employability for job-ready individuals and those furthest from the job labour market to acquire the skills and experience to gain and maintain sustainable employment. Again, no detail is given. There is no reference to how the apprenticeships will be focused on specific skills. The Welsh economy is facing a serious skill shortage. More than 70 per cent of Welsh businesses experienced difficulty in recruiting the right staff last year. Sixty-one per cent fear that they will not be able to recruit enough high-skilled workers to meet demand and to grow.

How will the Welsh Government tackle issues of gender inequalities in work-based learning and apprenticeship schemes? Older people in Wales are often those who are in greater need of retraining and employability support. They make an immense contribution to economic and social life in Wales, yet they are marginalised by the Welsh Government when it comes to assessing, learning, training and upskilling opportunities. Jobs Growth Wales automatically discriminates against older people by funding employers to take on people aged between 16 and 24 only. How will the Welsh Government tackle this problem of age discrimination? I believe there should be greater collaboration between education and business to ensure young people leave school with work-ready skills. We need greater targeting to ensure that the sustainability of skills is addressed in our future needs in Wales.

It is also vital to take full economic advantage of large infrastructure projects, such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and the M4 relief road. The M4 in its current state is not fit-for-purpose. Increasing level of congestion on the road is a huge barrier to economic growth in south Wales and the entirety of Wales. Yet, this vital project has been the subject of dither and delay by the Government. The programme for government commits to building infrastructure to keep Wales moving. We can only hope this means delivering on the M4 relief road.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I hope that the next five years will produce fruit worthy of repentance by this Government. Thank you.

I’m very pleased to speak in this debate to support the Government’s programme. I think the opposition parties have protested a bit too much this afternoon and protested a bit too much about the size of the document, which I don’t really see is the key issue—rather it is the long-term plans and I’m very pleased to speak in support of those plans today.

Obviously, we are in difficult circumstances. We have uncertainty about the EU situation and, of course, we have experienced the relentless budget cuts from Westminster. So, in this sort of time, I think it’s even more important that we have imaginative and ambitious programmes that have spin-offs that permeate different parts of society and help the people of Wales who come to us, to our surgeries, looking for help and opportunities, and to those people who come to my surgeries this offers a lot.

So, I’m going to address most of my remarks to the proposal to extend childcare for three and four-year-olds—extending the number of hours from 10 hours a week to 30 hours of free childcare a week for 48 weeks of the year. Shall I just say that those 10 hours that already exist are in the foundation phase, and can I also say that the foundation phase was a groundbreaking initiative that this Assembly—this Labour-led Government—delivered? So, I’d like to make the point that there have been great achievements from this Government and that that needs to be recognised.

So, we’ve already got the 10 hours in the foundation phase and that’s going to be increased to 30 hours for 48 weeks of the year. That is one of the absolutely key issues. It’s 48 weeks of the year, so it’s not just term-time cover, and I think it’s absolutely vital to parents as it takes into account that most people who work only have four weeks holiday per year. It is an ambitious pledge, but it will transform the lives of families. It will affect rates of employment, it will boost the economy, it will unleash the talents of many parents—many of them women—as well as providing first-class educational and care opportunities for the children. So, I think that this is an ambitious, challenging programme. I know that my constituents are absolutely thrilled that this opportunity is going to be offered, so I think the opposition parties should really consider that.

Also, in England the childcare offer is—[Interruption.] In a minute. In England, the childcare offer is for 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year, and in Scotland it’s 16 hours a week only for term time. So, I know we don’t want to go into too much comparison, but definitely this childcare offer is the best offer in the UK.

Thank you to the Member for Cardiff North for taking my intervention. I agree with you entirely: childcare is a really important offer that the Government can make and it’s something that all parties had an offer on the table for. You, obviously, were the biggest party, so your offer will be the one that you’ll be charged with delivering. But, this document doesn’t say how it’s going to be delivered, the timeline for delivery, the budget for delivery, or exactly what the categorisation will be. So, we support the offer, but let’s just have a bit of meat on exactly how it’s going to be unfolded. Surely, that’s not unreasonable to ask in our questions.

This is a headline document. Obviously, all that discussion and debate and detail will take place, and what I think we should be doing today is addressing the merits of what’s in that document. I was actually speaking to a constituent this morning who was saying that there was a very high-quality nursery in Cardiff North that she wanted her child to go to, but the child couldn’t go there because it was only term time. So, I think the details of this proposal are very important.

I think it’s very important that when we do develop the details that the model is developed flexibly, because it will be added on to the existing 10 hours of the foundation phase, which I know is logistically very challenging to many parents because it’s difficult to access if it’s only two hours a day as it is delivered at the moment. So, I hope it will be flexibly done, so that child minders, play groups and nurseries are recognised as childcare providers that would be eligible for this money, because it’s got to be worked in together with the foundation phase and we do need a mix of settings.

I think it’s very important that we do recognise that to pay for childcare in Wales is very expensive. A 2016 report by Chwarae Teg estimates that for full-time jobs, based on five days of nursery and a child minder, the cost of childcare is 32 per cent of an average man’s salary and 37 per cent of an average woman’s. So, the cost is very high for childcare in Wales. So, this, I think, is a fantastically important policy, and I’m very proud that the Labour Government has put this forward as part of the key elements of its programme for government.

I am pleased to take part in this Conservative debate this afternoon. What I find disappointing is that when I read the Welsh Government’s programme for government, it just clearly fails to set out what they will do differently—differently—this time around to ensure that their aims are delivered effectively. The programme for government contains no targets for delivery on which the Welsh Government can be held to account, and no detail about when, where and how they are actually going to deliver the Welsh Government’s aims to support business or promote digital connectivity and deliver a transport network that’s fit for purpose for the twenty-first century. The aims are good; there are plenty of aims in the document, but aims are no good unless they have the detail with them about how they’re going to be achieved. Julie Morgan, I appreciate the size of the document doesn’t matter to you, but surely it does, and that’s what’s important here. Adam Price, I thought, very well brought out the comparisons between the past programmes for government and the programmes for government in other nations with the very small document that we were presented with last week.

With regard to business, as well, there’s been no commitment to raise the threshold—. Sorry, I was going to say that what the Welsh Government say in their programme for government, which I very much welcome, is that they’re going to deliver a tax cut for smaller businesses, for their bills to come down, and they’ll deliver that to 70,000 businesses. Well, that’s great, but there’s no detail about how that’s going to be achieved and there’s no detail or commitment to raise the threshold for the 100 per cent small business rate relief from the £6,000 rateable value. Now, business rates have been devolved since April 2015, but we’re still waiting for action, and our small businesses are crying out for support.

On digital connectivity, there is a lack of mention of how the Welsh Government’s going to play its part in extending mobile coverage to communities that have no coverage at all, or how it’s going to support better 4G and 5G mobile coverage. What I would suggest is that the Government looks at the Scottish Government. They’ve got detailed plans in this area and perhaps they could take a lesson from them. The Welsh Government also offers good, fast, reliable broadband, but there’s no timetable attached to that and there’s no definition, crucially, of what ‘fast’ and ‘reliable’ mean. I know the current goal is for 96 per cent of properties to have superfast broadband by June of this year, but the reality is that 50 per cent of properties in rural Wales now still have no access to superfast broadband. That’s 50 per cent. The final evaluation of the next generation of the Broadband Wales programme was published earlier today, and that highlights some significant concerns, including issues with the availability of historical and forward-looking information from BT, and criticism that the marketing and communications on the timetable for the roll-out have been inconsistent. It would therefore be helpful to learn how the Welsh Government intends to implement the report’s four recommendations.

It would also be good to have information and details on what Transport for Wales is going to do and how that will work with the national infrastructure commission that is being set up as part of the deal between Plaid and Labour. How it is going to work? How is the national infrastructure commission going to work with Transport for Wales, or is this just going to be the creation of more administration? So, how will each of these roles be defined?

Also, I noticed that some other big issues are missing from the programme for government. Andrew R.T. has mentioned that there’s no mention of tackling bovine TB. It’s scandalous not to mention that in the programme for government, given how much that affects many of our farming communities up and down rural Wales. There’s little mention of rural Wales in the programme for government. I think that’s particularly disappointing to large areas of Wales. And there’s no mention of supporting the steel industry, I also noticed, in the programme for government. So, in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, there does seem to be a lack of ambition. If I’m wrong, I certainly can’t see it in the document that we were presented with last week.

I don’t want to labour the issue of the lack of pages, because Julie’s already taken umbrage with that, but even if we accept it’s only 16 pages long, even within its small size, there is a certain lack of content within it. I wasn’t here five years ago, but I’m told that the equivalent document then was 600 pages long. That does seem to indicate a certain shortcoming in some area.

Will you give way?

Yes, sure.

There were lots of complaints, then, that it was too long. [Laughter.]

Perhaps they have overcompensated in that instance. Maybe they should have struck a balance somewhere in the middle. [Assembly Members: ‘Ah.’]

Quite right. [Interruption.]

Carry on.

There was also something, I believe, in the previous Assembly, called a delivery unit. It’s no longer with us, as far as I know. It appears to have delivered nothing, as very few targets were met, and was thus itself delivered into oblivion. So, now, the targets have largely disappeared, and what we are left with is a catalogue of vague ambitions and no means of monitoring how far we can successfully achieve them.

Lots and lots of public money is spent on the Labour Government’s pet projects, but how effective are these projects? We’ve recently had significant evidence that one of their major schemes, Jobs Growth Wales, was not having any economic impact whatsoever. This ties in with Oscar’s comments regarding the skills shortage and the way in which we failed to produce college leavers with work-ready skills. How is this going to be addressed in future?

The First Minister has been in the habit lately of telling us not to rely on anecdotes, but rather, that we should rely on evidence. We shouldn’t denigrate evidence. Does the Minister here today agree that this document, with its lack of targets, demonstrates a total retreat by this Government from the need to conform to targets and evidence?

I feel as if I’m in a privileged position, as the housing spokesperson, because there is a commitment—a specific commitment—in the programme for government that I can react to. In fact, I was quite pleased—possibly even excited—when I read that the Welsh Government aims to deliver 20,000 additional affordable homes during this Assembly term. I then looked into this in a little more detail, and I pressed the First Minister. Unfortunately, I was too far down the order paper yesterday to actually get called, but as is our practice, my oral question was then subject to a written answer from the First Minister. He has stated that the commitment for 20,000 additional affordable homes leaves the Welsh Government’s general target for new homes built every year in Wales unchanged. It remains at 8,700—although, you’re not achieving that, incidentally. I have to say that I find it very strange that, in the programme for government, there’s a commitment to building additional affordable homes, and yet the general target for house building is unchanged. It’s been roughly what it is now for five years. Perhaps greater minds than mine will be able to cope with this sort of level of paradox, but I do hope that the Minister can give us some clarification later when she responds.

This is not a trivial point. We are facing a housing crisis. It’s one that’s gone on for a number of years. In the run-up to the Assembly elections, the Confederation of British Industry said,

‘For too many years, we’ve not been building the new homes Wales needs. This has led to rising prices, undermining our economic competitiveness and Wales’ reputation as a destination for investment.’

I completely agree with that. Also, house building is an excellent economic multiplier. It uses local resources, local labour, largely, and many SMEs, and we should be building more homes at the moment.

Evidence points to the need to build at least 12,000 homes a year in Wales, and when I saw the commitment to build an additional 20,000 affordable homes in this Assembly term, I thought, ‘Ah, they’ve now accepted the target of at least 12,000 homes. At last there is a real advance here, and we can welcome it’. Because that would take your target up to 12,700. But no. Somehow, the word ‘additional’ in the First Minister’s dictionary means something different to what the rest of us, I suspect, take as its common meaning.

Unsurprisingly, the housing crisis has led to incredibly high prices by any historical comparison. The average house price at the moment in Wales is £173,000. Have we lost the ability to be shocked by some of these data, which go to the fundamentals of life—the desire and need for a home? The average price now is £173,000. That is a remarkable multiple of average salary, at 6.4—6.4 times the average salary to get the average house in Wales. Something is very, very wrong about how we meet housing demand.

The housing crisis hits younger people particularly hard. There are currently 150,000 20 to 34-year-olds still living at home. Family homes are all too often out of reach of those who most need them, i.e. people in their 30s, when they are raising families. The tragedy here is that we could be doing something, and we could be doing something very economically productive in addition to meeting that basic housing demand.

Can I just finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, by saying I’m very disappointed that the Welsh Government has now the Executive power and has not chosen to match the ambition of the Welsh Conservative party as outlined in our manifesto when we said we would have brought forth a housing access Bill to help young people onto the housing ladder, promote a more lively housing market, and boost the construction industry? That is what Wales needs. Get to it.

Well, we’ve had a spirited debate this afternoon. I appreciate the way in which it was opened by Andrew Davies, and, although we’re in different parties, I think we have a lot in common. We’ve got one thing in common—we’re both against this useless administration that has dominated Wales for so long.

When the First Minister gave his statement on this last week I dismissed this document as a pot pourri of platitudes. Well, I think it’s 15 pages of fluff, isn’t it? That’s what we’ve got here. It’s what you might call a soufflé of sugary froth, but soufflés do not benefit by being warmed up, and this is the third time we’ve had a programme for five years in the fifteen or sixteen weeks that we’ve been here in the fifth Assembly. So, if we’re going to get a new programme of government for a Government of five years every five weeks, then we’re going to be producing a lot of paper and cutting down a lot of trees over the next few years.

If you look through this document, it is very long on words but very, very short on action. We’ve heard from speakers in the debate today of its limitations. I want to focus on agriculture, representing Mid and West Wales. All that the document says on agriculture, basically, is we’re going to

‘work with partners to secure a prosperous future for Welsh agriculture’.

Well, who isn’t going to do that? But that comes as little consolation to farmers—[Interruption.] Little consolation to farmers, who have no idea what the Government’s going to do about TB, no idea what the Government is going to do about the collapse in farm incomes. Yes.

I’m somewhat surprised that you get up and talk about what’s going to happen for farming when you, your party, actually wanted exit from the EU. You’ve got that. What I would like you to say is: what did you think was coming next? Because you never said it. You campaigned on a platform of hatred, and that is exactly what you did, and you had no idea of what was coming next.

Well, it’s a typical contribution from ‘Joy-less’ Watson, but—

Excuse me, can you refer—

I respond—

No, I’m sorry, can you refer to the Member as she is listed on the order paper, please? Her name is Joyce Watson.

I regret I gave way to Joyce Watson.

Thank you.

But I shall know better next time. The document says nothing about the solution to the TB problems, says nothing about the collapse of farm income, and says nothing about the overburdening of famers with regulation.

On the health service, again, they

‘remain committed to the founding principles of the NHS, healthcare free and accessible to all at the point of need.’

But that comes as a big surprise to the residents of Blaenau Ffestiniog, as I pointed out in questioning the First Minister yesterday, as they’ve had their hospital closed and they’ve got almost no GPs left. There’s no solution to the GP recruitment crisis in Wales in this document either.

On transport, all we’ve got is a warmed-up list of projects that have been ongoing for years. The M4 relief road—that’s eight years in the making and we still haven’t even got on the starting blocks for that as yet. But we are told that, by the year 2050, we’re going to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent, the consequences of which will be a massive addition to the cost burden of British industry and a massive increase in the electricity bills of ordinary householders throughout Wales, and the poorest members of the community will be the ones who will suffer most. And that’s what this Labour Government is committed to.

The whole document is predicated, to go back to Joyce Watson’s intervention, on the idea that we’re going to have a shrinking economy as a result of leaving the EU, but a Treasury forecast published today has been revised now in the other direction from ‘project doom’. So, what leaving the EU gives us is a massive opportunity to repatriate powers, not just to Westminster, but also to Cardiff, and to use them to improve the productive potential of the British economy and, therefore, to improve the prosperity of all classes and income levels in society. Because those powers are in the hands, at the moment, of people who are not elected and therefore not accountable to the people of this country, it gives us every opportunity to improve democracy in Britain as well.

It’s absurd to think that as a result of leaving the EU—even on what you might regard as the worst-case scenario of not being able to do any kind of deal with the EU at all—that’s going to lead to a shrinking economy, because only 5 per cent of our GDP is accounted for in exports to the EU, and 65 per cent of that 5 per cent would have a maximum tariff of 4 per cent if we did no deal with the EU. So, we’re only talking about, in the worst-case scenario, a possible diminution of part of 1.5 per cent of GDP—if you ignore all the dynamic effects of leaving the EU and our freedom to enter into trade deals with countries all around the world that are currently blocked or stymied as a result of the need for 28 countries to agree these deals before they can be put into place.

Are you coming to a conclusion?

I am coming to a conclusion. There are things in this document one can welcome. One million Welsh speakers by 2050—I hope I’m still here to see whether the Government is able to deliver on that deal, and I strongly support Alun Davies, one of my favourite Ministers, in this respect, and many other things as well. [Interruption.] But I’m going to bring my remarks to a close. The Government is often talking about the poverty that exists in Wales, but the worst example of poverty that exists in Wales is actually the poverty of ambition on the part of the Welsh Government, represented by the extinct volcanoes on the front bench here.

I call Jane Hutt to respond for the Government.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m very pleased to respond to this very lively debate this afternoon. Thank you for wishing the Government well, Andrew R.T. Davies, in delivering this programme for government. We have provided a very clear statement to the people of Wales about what this Government stands for—what this Government stands for and what our principles are and what actions we intend to take. We’ve highlighted the areas where we can have the biggest impact, with headline commitments to move us forward. I’m very happy, again, to remind the Assembly of these commitments.

We want a Wales that is prosperous and secure. So, we will deliver a tax cut for 70,000 businesses. We will create a Wales development bank. We will implement the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK, as Julie Morgan has said. And we will create a minimum of 100,000 high-quality all-age apprenticeships and deliver an extra 20,000 affordable homes.

That was warmly welcomed, I’m sure you know, David Melding, by Community Housing Cymru. But I do welcome also the fact that you recognise that this is an important policy area for this Welsh Government. I want to make a couple of points.

Thank you for giving way. How, in a five-year period, can you commit to building an additional 20,000 affordable homes and yet your annual target remains the same at 8,700? It stretches my ability in terms of logic. Now please explain.

Of course, in the last term of Government, we set out a target of 10,000 affordable homes. We achieved over 9,000 in the first four years—actually, the statistics for last year are being released in a couple of weeks’ time. I’m confident they’ll show we’ve exceeded the target. [Interruption.] No, I want to finish my point for David Melding. This is very important, because this is an ambitious target—to deliver 20,000 affordable homes—and you will hold us to account for that, I know. It includes social and intermediate housing, as well as helping to support people into home ownership through Help to Buy—Wales, so important for the young people who are also using Help to Buy.

Also, this Welsh Government, unlike the UK Government, where it no longer exists, is investing £68.1 million for new affordable homes via the social housing grant programme. You recognise that this is crucial in terms of providing accessible social housing. Also—and this is the important point—we are building. Local authorities are now, for the first time since the 1980s, building new homes as a result of our successful exit from the housing revenue account subsidy. Surely—I know David Melding will recognise that.

But let’s move on to those other commitments. We want a Wales that is healthy and active, so we will recruit and train more GPs, nurses and other health professionals. That was warmly welcomed when the Cabinet Secretary made his announcement about that, and it was warmly welcomed when, yesterday, he made his statement about the new treatment fund. This is about a Government that has listened, is working with you, and then making statements on how it is going to deliver this programme for government.

I’m very grateful to you for taking the intervention, Cabinet Secretary. You made previous commitments in your last programme for government in the previous Assembly to ensure that all over-50s had an annual health check and that everybody could have access to evening GP appointments and weekend GP appointments. You failed to deliver on those commitments. What guarantees can we have that you’re going to deliver on these commitments now?

Well, you certainly have welcomed the commitments that we have made, Darren Millar, in terms of the health service. But, also, I think and I recall that you welcomed the fact that we, the Welsh Labour Government, actually put money into social care, which, of course, in England is now being cut, resulting in people remaining in hospital because there is no funding for social care. The Welsh Labour Government put social care as a forefront ambition.

We also have to recognise that this is about how we’re ambitious with learning. We have invested an extra £100 million to drive up school standards, and introduced a new curriculum to give us the skills we need and promote teaching excellence. I’m delighted that Neil Hamilton welcomes the fact that we’re working towards 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. It sounds as though you might be leaving us, Neil Hamilton, though, from what you said, but let’s recognise that there are important points to make.

I would also like to respond to Mohammad Asghar’s points about the 100,000 quality apprenticeships for all ages. That’s what, last night, the Construction Industry Training Board—I was at the dinner, Russell George was at the dinner, Simon Thomas—welcoming the fact that we had announced 100,000 quality apprenticeships for all ages looking at the key areas: life sciences, financial services and digital technologies—welcoming the fact. In fact, James Wates, the chairman of the UK board, said, ‘When I come to Wales, I see innovation’. You know that—you heard it, those of you who were there last night. But they were also saying to us how worried they are about the apprenticeship levy. I don’t know how the leader of the opposition can think that this isn’t an issue—a UK Government issue imposed on us with no consultation, an unnecessary burden on employers, and CITB is very concerned about it. So, we’ve been very clear on this agenda and how we can take this forward in terms of our ambitions.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we do face great—[Interruption.] I’ve given way to your side quite a bit already. Dirprwy Lywydd, we do face uncertainties. We’re preparing for a draft budget amid ongoing public cuts, austerity and uncertainty, of course, since the UK’s vote to leave the EU—more uncertain times. We’re not going to pre-empt the content of our 2017-18 budget, and we have to recognise that it’s about aligning resources to our priorities. But I want to finally say that not only are we delivering on our commitments, but we know what Wales needs, we listen to what Wales needs—that they wanted us to support businesses, they wanted us to support our health service, our schools, our affordable housing programme, but they also wanted to recognise new needs, and Julie Morgan described those in terms of our childcare offer. Let’s just look at that childcare offer. It’s one of the key priorities of this Government. It delivers a better deal on childcare that anywhere else in the UK, building on the foundation phase, providing working families with 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for 48 weeks of the year. This includes term-time and holiday provision. I’m so glad I’ve had the opportunity to say that and broadcast this in this debate today. This is the most ambitious priority for us as a Welsh Government. In Liverpool on Sunday, the First Minister quoted Nye Bevan, when he said,

‘only by the possession of power can you get the priorities correct.’

And, as the First Minister stated, we’ve set out our priorities, we’ve set out what we will do to achieve them, and we can do them constructively with your engagement through the compact with Plaid Cymru across this Chamber. But we are clear that the people of Wales voted for our programme, and we have a mandate to deliver it.

This has certainly been a curate’s egg of a debate, and I do think that the Welsh Conservatives have managed to snaffle all the good parts, because I do think that most of the other contributions were pretty thin, particularly the Welsh Government, who only managed to find one backbencher to defend their programme. Leader of the house, I understand that the May election result must have thrown you and your colleagues into a real tailspin. I also understand that you must have delayed over whether or not you had the collective courage to try and form a minority Government with the intellectual bravery to hammer out a consensus, Bill by Bill, policy by policy. And failing having that intellectual bravery, I also understand that you needed to see if you had the time and the space to absorb the Liberal Democrat one, and to reach some kind of woolly agreement with the nationalists.

I might even be persuaded that, after 17 lacklustre years, you needed the time to re-energise, and to come up with a positive plan for the next five years. What I don’t understand is how this can be this result—how your programme for government for the next four and a half or five years is reduced to a lightweight fly-poster, with zero ambition, a paucity of objectives, and above all, no metrics for outcome-based monitoring. Julie Morgan said it was a headline document. But the truth is that we—civic society, the public—we were all expecting a rather more detailed vision of your objectives. Instead we are treated to woolly phrases, such as, and I quote,

‘improve access to GPs surgeries, making it easier to get an appointment’.

I think it’s fair to say that most of us would have expected easier appointments to be an outcome for improved access. The real detail that is missing is how you will do it, and how you will be measured.

I’ve met with a great number of organisations in the last few weeks, and most express hopes that are dashed, and frustrations as a result of this document supposedly taking Wales forward. Andrew R.T. Davies and Russell George listed the many areas where this document is light, ranging from bovine TB, to cross-border issues, to waiting times, to the steel industry. Your programme of government is lightweight, and is conflicted, leader of the house. One simple example is that you wish to improve children’s health and activity, but you cut the funding for sports and physical activity by 7 per cent in the 2016-17 budget, and have reduced the amount of time that children can participate in PE.

Let me look at another area in your programme for government.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I won’t, thank you, Joyce.

The ultimate woolly aspiration—your promise to hold a wider conversation about local government reform. So, are you saying that, despite the months of effort, and tonnes of wordage produced by the Williams Commission, and the First Minister personally championing local government reform in the last Assembly, this new programme for government firmly places local government, their elected representatives, the officers and the thousands of people involved in delivering services throughout Wales in limbo land?

I’ve mentioned the lack of vision, I’ve mentioned the woolly aspirations, I’ve mentioned the conflicts in policy and I’ve mentioned the endless fudging. So, let me finally touch upon the great con. The Welsh Government plan to drive forward investment, innovation and the creation of new jobs by providing more support for businesses, including a tax cut—a tax cut that is really a promise to keep the current business rate scheme for a further year; a scheme which could ultimately result in the uniform business rate in Wales increasing by 10 per cent as a result of next year’s rvaluation.

In fact, David Melding touched upon another area—housing—where one statement appears to mean something entirely different. When I went to school, I have to say that the word ‘additional’ in the context you use it in your document meant ‘extra’. Obviously not here in Wales.

Leader of the house, you, your colleagues and your teams have had plenty of time to plan where you want to go. You’ve had 146 days. You’ve got thousands of civil servants plus the endless promises in your manifesto, not to mention, Gareth Bennett, the much-vaunted and into-oblivion delivery unit. And yet we have a document that you, First Minister, try to defend as a strategic road map, which doesn’t even mention the Brexit landslide that could block your way. I do find it astonishing that there’s no mention of how you intend to tackle this issue, one that has to be the most important facing us today. I cannot help but wonder if your programme for government document is shaped because in May 2021, we, the Welsh people, business leaders and civic society will be able to challenge and hold your performance to account—because it is almost impossible to evaluate that which you cannot read about, that which you cannot measure and that which is not being implemented.

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

It has been agreed that voting time will take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly now to voting time. Okay, thank you.

The first vote, then, will be on the Supporting People programme, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendment tabled to that motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 13, no abstentions, 36 against the motion. Therefore, the motion falls.

We will now vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 16, no abstentions, 34 against the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

We’ve not agreed anything now, have we? That’s right. Okay, thank you. Nothing was agreed, so we’ll move on to the next item on the agenda for voting, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on the programme for government. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If this proposal is not agreed, we will then vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 16, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed, and we will go to vote on amendment 1.

I call for that vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 40 against the amendment. Therefore, again, nothing was agreed.

As the Assembly has not agreed the motion without amendment and has not agreed the amendments tabled to the motion, the motion is not agreed. Thank you very much. We will now turn to the short debate. If Members are going to leave the Chamber can they do so quietly and quickly, please?

I now move to the short debate, and I call on Eluned Morgan to speak on the topic she has chosen.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. We all want to see older people get the best care possible. However, here in Wales, as elsewhere in the UK, we have a social care time bomb, and before it goes off it’s absolutely critical that we have an honest, challenging conversation about how the future of care in Wales is going to occur and how we’re going to pay for it. Otherwise, we risk facing a social crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in this country since the days of the workhouse.

Now, this is a challenge for us all; it’s a challenge for the Assembly, for the Welsh Government and for the people of Wales. But I think rather than see this as a problem, we need to see it as an opportunity. What I’d like to suggest today is that we start the discussion on the establishment of a national care service for Wales—a service that will, in time, be as loved and respected as our national health service, but a service that will be integral to the health service and work hand in hand with it. We need an overarching framework, where people will know what to expect and will receive a quality of service that is consistent across the whole of Wales.

It’s essential that we work cross party and cross departmentally, and that we develop a consensus between the generations. We need to reflect on a new funding model that develops a fair balance between the state and the individual. We need to rethink our building policy to provide for the elderly, which could promote economic development in our communities. But, most of all, we need to develop a new and deep respect for the people who work in this essential service and give them the training and financial support that they need and deserve.

The fact is that, when the NHS was set up by the Labour Government in 1948, life expectancy for men was 66 years of age and women 71. Now, these poor men retired from work at 65, so they were lucky if they lived for a year.

We’re now living into our eighties and children born today can expect to live until they’re 100. But with people living longer and surviving with more complex conditions, more specialised care and support is required. Care services are struggling to keep up and the state is struggling to pay for it.

Report after report has noted that something needs to be done. The amber lights have been flashing for a long time, but I’ve got to tell you that they’re about to turn red. We can’t deny the evidence of recent statistics, which warn us that the current system is unsustainable. In August alone, over 455 patients were recorded as delayed care transfers in Wales.

The situation is only going to get worse. Population forecasts for Wales predict a dramatic increase in over-85s in the next 25 years, with numbers set to soar from 80,000 to over 180,000. That’s the equivalent of all the people who live in Carmarthenshire. These are our friends, they’re our family members, they’re our loved ones and we have a duty to care for them.

Almost £300 million was spent on looking after our elderly in Wales in 2013. By the time I’m 85, we’ll need to be spending almost £1 billion. That equates to 7 per cent of the entire Welsh budget. Our Labour policy will see the state contribute towards the cost of care should an individual’s savings fall below the £50,000 threshold. Those with capital exceeding this amount will be expected to pay the full costs of their care. Now, care’s not cheap. Across Wales, local authorities pay on average £450 to £500 for residential care and £500 for nursing care per week. Those with additional requirements can expect to pay even more. Now, if someone needs to go to a care home, the average time a person will spend there is just over two and a half years, incurring costs of over £75,000. This far exceeds the average pension pot and the £35,000 lifetime contribution cap proposed by Dilnot. Women are particularly hard hit, as they’re more than twice as likely to need long-term care and more than twice as likely to retire without their own pension pots. Thanks to Welsh local government—they have capped weekly domiciliary care contributions at £60. So, that means that homecare is more affordable in Wales compared to England, where there is no cap. But with these projected demographic changes some seriously hard questions will have to be faced.

And there are economic implications, not just for the elderly, but for those with ageing relatives. With more people leaving jobs or working less to assume those care responsibilities, our economy is taking a hit. The challenge is how to construct a system that is fair to all generations. Many older people, but of course not all, have benefitted from huge house price increases. Many did not pay for further and higher education. Many had a job for life and have protected inflation-proof pensions. In the meantime, the next generation who, through their work and taxes, will meet the costs of caring for their elderly, will never be able to afford a house of their own. Many will be facing substantial student debts or living on zero-hours contracts. Our increasingly ageing population means an increasingly larger number of older people are going to be supported by fewer younger taxpayers. Although this may seem inequitable, we must not lose sight of the fact that financial differences within the generations are just as stark as those between the generations. So, we’ve got to ask the question: do we think that we all deserve the same care and opportunities, whether we are grandparents or grandchildren?

Wales has an additional problem, we live in a beautiful country with attractive prospects for those seeking cheaper retirement opportunities compared to other parts of the UK, and they’re coming, in their thousands. Now, let me be clear, I welcome the fact that people want to retire here, but in the longer term, can we hand on heart say that we can pay for anyone who arrives without any mechanism to plan for them financially? Whilst we must appreciate that they may have paid generously into the UK general taxation system, we and they need to understand that payment for care homes comes from a local authority budget—a different pot. So, the extent to which the state can support the elderly in Wales will depend on how thinly we spread the jam.

We need to consider seriously the need to develop a more contributory-based system, but one that ensures that those who cannot self-fund are also protected whilst incentivising those who work to save and contribute. These are really difficult and sensitive issues and they’re not easily resolvable. But we could and we should start a conversation about the mechanics of how such a system might work.

To what extent should we be expecting people to release equity from their homes, buy insurance and unlock pension funds? And yes, I’m going to say the unsayable: should we consider a new Welsh tax to pay for this now that we have the powers to do so? None of us knows what care we’ll need in future, so we need to ask whether we need, as a society, to collectively pool the risk as we do with healthcare.

In looking ahead, we need to think about building policies and planning for houses with the elderly at the forefront of our minds. Could this be an opportunity to promote economic development in our communities? Could we consider rolling out building programmes in co-ordination with colleges and apprenticeship schemes? Let’s develop the skills of our local bricklayers, electricians and plumbers and revitalise the Welsh workforce. Understanding the level of demand for future care services and the associated costs is vital in planning for an efficient and equitable social care system, and given the current pressures on the NHS, we must strive wherever possible to move away from high-cost, reactive and bed-based care to care that is preventative and proactive, focusing as much on wellness as on responding to illness. We should look to the examples of other countries such as Holland, where students are offered free accommodation in exchange for their time spent with elders. Could we too develop a state-sponsored voluntary scheme to assist with minor tasks such as changing light bulbs or simply helping to combat the issue of loneliness? Solva Care in my own constituency is an excellent example

We also need to ensure that appropriate respect is offered to those in the care profession. Their work is complex; it requires skill, experience and knowledge. These people are dealing with emotionally vulnerable people in challenging environments with limited resources and support. More action needs to be taken to combat poor pay and conditions within the sector. We need to nurture ambition in our experienced care workers and encourage them to become managers of the future.

Let’s not forget the implications of the Euro referendum. With almost 6 per cent of our care workforce comprised of non-UK nationals, we’re likely to be facing significant reductions in staffing levels in a sector that already struggles with high turnover and recruitment difficulties.

Now, during my recent visit to care homes, I’ve been told repeatedly that private homes are giving up nursing care. They claim it’s not economically viable and that they have extreme difficulties in recruiting nurses. The private model appears to be in trouble. So, should the state now step in and provide more nursing homes to cater for the increasing demand? We need to act not react when it falls apart. Let’s use this as an opportunity to develop partnerships with private care homes to stop these providers failing. Let’s reduce the reliance on bank nurses at triple the cost to support these services and work with NHS nurses and provide them with the same rates and conditions. We can’t, however, have a system where the state owns care or nursing homes only to see a future right-wing government come in and sell them off, like they’ve done with the housing associations in England. We need to develop a model that can’t be privatised by the state to ensure that the next generation of elderly are protected. This would complement the proposal for a more contributory-based mechanism, which could even be part-owned by individuals or by co-operatives.

We’ll need to offer additional consideration to the complex issue of delivering care in rural settings, where running costs and low recruitment levels for both residential and nursing homes continue to be problematic, and consequently deter private investors.

Finally, we need to break down the artificial barriers between health and care. At the moment, arguments over who pays and how to pay are clogging up the system and are causing delayed transfers of care. The intermediate care fund is a step in the right direction. However, £60 million in a budget of approximately £7 billion for health is but a drop in the ocean. We need to ask how far we should go to integrate health and social care, perhaps even thinking the unthinkable and merging both funds, but this will need a sensitive conversation with local authorities.

I hope today that we can make a start on this opportunity. I think it’s our responsibility as elected representatives to bring about change on this extremely sensitive issue. The Welsh Labour manifesto rightfully emphasised that the care sector should be a sector of strategic national importance, so let’s build on that and make it a reality. This problem is not going to go away. We must act now, and we must establish the national care service for Wales.

Thank you. Would you like to give a minute of your time to other speakers?

Yes, I would like to.

Okay. I call on Mike Hedges.

Diolch. Can I first of all thank you, acting Presiding Officer, and, more importantly, can I thank Eluned Morgan for a minute in this debate, and raising the issues? Let me state at the outset I don’t necessarily agree with everything she said, but I think the issues are worth raising, and they are important.

Most social services departments in Wales are under more financial pressure than any other service area in the public sector, and that includes the health service. We know that the population is ageing and that people are living longer, often with substantial care needs that have to be provided outside of hospital. We also know that whilst health deterioration and hospitalisation needs normally occur in the last two years of life, whatever age that is, social care can be needed for decades and the amount needed can and usually does increase as people become more frail and in need of more support.

Can I just add two quick points? I think loneliness is something that is really the curse of an awful lot of elderly people. If I could actually do one thing by using a magic wand, I’d deal with loneliness because it really is probably the biggest killer. The other thing is: Eluned talked about merging health and social care funding. All I can say is that when primary and secondary care got merged, primary care didn’t do very well.

Can I thank Eluned Morgan for a most enlightening and challenging debate? I wholeheartedly support the idea of a national care service. We’re having to deal with the proceeds of success—the success of our health service—but how are we going to deal with that? In 1950, King George VI signed 250 cards for people who were 100. By 1990, Queen Elizabeth had to sign 2,500 cards for centenarians, and two years ago Queen Elizabeth had to sign 13,000 cards for centenarians. So, how are we going to deal with that level of success?

Before the NHS came along, the health service was fragmented between the private sector, charitable organisations and local authorities, and we’re in that situation now with care. Care needs to have the parity of esteem with health, and I believe that we should be challenged to form a national care service because at the moment care is fragmented between the private sector, the charitable sector and local authorities. It needs to be brought together, and let’s have a sensible debate about the way forward. Diolch yn fawr, Eluned.

I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to reply to the debate.

Diolch. I’m pleased to be able to respond to this debate, and I thank Eluned, Mike and Dai for their contributions. This Government has been strongly focused for a number of years now on building a care service fit for the pressures of the modern world. We have brought forward groundbreaking legislation to reform care, based on a person-centred approach. We have protected social services budgets despite the austerity of the UK Government, and we’ve led the sector towards new approaches of collaboration and integration. We have, since 2011 and the launch of ‘Sustainable Social Services for Wales: A Framework for Action’, delivered a coherent and strategic response to the issues of an ageing population, and enhanced public expectations and limited financial growth.

We know, of course, that the population in Wales is growing older. Life expectancy is increasing, and the proportion of older people aged 75 and older is projected to increase each year. Society is changing, and social services must change in response. There has been, and will continue to be, a shift in the public’s expectation of public services. Social services need to alter and respond in the light of a difficult financial outlook.

The Welsh Government has, since 2011, transformed the fundamental basis of the social services system to meet these challenges. ‘Sustainable Social Services for Wales’ has changed the foundations of social care, placing the citizen at the centre and recognising that effective services are those shaped by the people who receive them.

The focus on challenge now is on ensuring that the changes underpinned by the two major statutory levers for transformation, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 are fully embedded. Our new programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’, explicitly recognises this imperative. That programme for government also recognises the very real challenges of the costs of care. The Government will more than double the capital limit for residential care in this administration, ensuring that people are able to keep more of their hard-earned resources should they need to go into residential care.

At the core of service delivery is partnership and co-operation. The challenge here is making health and social care work in a collaborative way to provide good-quality care and support for people with needs, recognising that local authorities and partners, including the third sector, housing and communities, need to work together in order that preventative services can be put in place to help people live independently.

Statutory regional partnerships boards have been set up to bring together health, social services and the third sector to assess, plan and provide jointly for the needs of their populations. This includes agreement on the capacity of services they need from care homes, and integrated commissioning arrangements. This Government has invested significantly to support innovative new models of care. The intermediate care fund, this year alone, has provided £60 million to regions, to promote prevention and integration approaches. I’ve personally seen the results of that investment across Wales in step-down facilities, in health and social care information services working together, in professionals from different sectors working together. This money is significant and it is making a difference.

Let me turn to the market in social care. Members will be aware of the provisions of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, which requires local authorities and the Welsh Government to look ahead and think about the future of the social care market. It also gives new powers to the regulators to monitor the health of the market, particularly those big players whose departure could cause significant problems for those receiving care. I’ve met with providers to discuss these matters and will continue to look at ways we can support a strong, vibrant and resilient sector going forward.

Those providers, together with other stakeholders, sit on the Government’s care home steering group. That body recently requested the national commissioning board to undertake a market analysis of the care home sector. This work is crucial, and I expect to see the results of the research shortly. It will give us the clearest picture we’ve ever had of the existing provision and capacity within the sector, and I am sure it will help the regional partnership boards meet the Government’s requirements that, from April 2018, they establish pooled funds in relation to care home accommodation for adults.

In terms of the workforce, we know that the care sector is facing significant pressure in relation to recruitment and retention. This Government invests over £8 million every year in training that workforce and is committed to taking action to improve the attractiveness of the sector to the potential workforce. The overriding view of respondents in the Government’s recent consultation on improving the quality of domiciliary care was that terms and conditions of employment for domiciliary care workers should be improved. The national living wage provides a welcome improvement to the terms and conditions of employment for social care workers. However, we do recognise that this poses challenges to the financial health of the sector. I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to work with the sector to explore and respond to the challenges of the national living wage.

We have undertaken significant research into the links between the terms and conditions of the workforce and the quality of care, and that link is now well established. I’ll be publishing a report on that consultation shortly, alongside a written statement setting out the direction of travel that this Government will take in this regard. I’ll be working with the sector in the period ahead to consider how to limit the use of zero-hours contracts, as promised in our manifesto.

This brings me to a final challenge that has only recently emerged, and that is the impact of the Brexit vote and the fact it will have far-reaching consequences for our society. But, actually, the social care risks may be more immediate. Our sector relies on a workforce drawn from across the European Union and I want those staff to feel secure in their roles and not to feel threatened by the outcome of the referendum. As a Government, we will continue to press the UK Government to recognise the valuable contribution made by those from outside the UK and to ensure that we are able to attract an able and passionate workforce for our social care system.

So, a lot has been delivered by the sector in response to the transformational change set out in recent legislation. The sector still faces challenges and we will continue to work with the sector to meet those challenges in the future. We can and we will grow a sustainable system of care and support in Wales, which has the well-being of, and good outcomes for, people at its heart. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Minister. That brings today’s proceedings to a close.