National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

We will start proceedings with a commemoration of the tragic event that occurred 50 years ago in Aberfan, on 21 October 1966, when 144 people were killed, 116 of them children. Members will have heard the contributions of our guests from Aberfan, who joined us in the Assembly’s memorial event earlier, and who join us in the public gallery. On behalf of all Members, I thank you for joining us today, and for participating in such a special tribute.

Mae’r Senedd yn llwyfan cenedlaethol er mwyn cydnabod stori ein cenedl. Mae’n bwysig iddi chwarae ei rhan wrth adlewyrchu ein hysbryd, ein gorffennol, presennol, a’n dyfodol. Mae gwydnwch cymuned Aberfan yn wyneb trallod yn dyst i allu gobaith i orchfygu, hyd yn oed mewn trychineb. Rwy’n gwahodd Dawn Bowden i siarad ar ran cymuned Aberfan, a’i hetholaeth, Merthyr Tudful a Rhymni. Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Lywydd. Nine-fifteen a.m., Friday 21 October 1966—the terrible events visited on Aberfan that day reverberated around the world. On the last day of the school term, one small mining village lost 116 children and 28 adults. Nothing would ever be the same for Aberfan, for Wales, for the world. Just one day later, just one hour earlier, things would have been so different.

Aberfan was the first major disaster seen by the world through the lens of a television camera, and the impact was immediate. The sight of endless streams of miners, volunteers, emergency workers and the military fighting tirelessly to find survivors, and recover those who perished, is emblazoned in the memories of anyone who was around at that time. Despite these heroic efforts, no-one was found alive after 11 a.m.

As a small child, not living in Aberfan, or even in Wales, at that time, this was the first news story that I have a memory of. Such was its impact that the horror of what happened on that day has stayed with me all of my life, as I recall so vividly my parents thanking God that it wasn’t me or my brother who had gone to school that day never to come home. Their sorrow poured out for people who they didn’t know and they would never meet, but, as young parents themselves, these were people with whom they had complete empathy. At that time, everyone felt the pain of Aberfan.

It was, of course, the day that the community of Aberfan changed forever. Survivors would never know the normality of life without tragedy. Families lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, parents and grandparents—lives that were torn apart under the mountain of black sludge. The guilt of survivors who lived when their friends perished, the guilt of parents whose children survived when many were left childless, the parents of children lost, unable to visit their graves, or alter a child’s bedroom, teachers killed doing their job—the unspoken trauma that we know stays with so many even now.

No-one was unaffected by those terrible events, but the community gave each other comfort and strength to come through it. As we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the disaster, it gives us all time to reflect on lives lost, families broken, survivors tormented. But it also allows us to reflect on a community’s resilience and the courage shown in the face of the most terrible of tragedies.

What happened that day shows us that the price of coal, in a place whose only reason for existence was to dig for it, was too great a price for any community to pay. But coal had also created these mining communities, whose values of solidarity, comradeship and community spirit were rarely seen elsewhere. That spirit has lived on well after the last coal was cut in Merthyr Vale, and that spirit has been such a credit to the people of Aberfan, enabling them to rebuild their lives and their community, and to look forward with courage, dignity and hope.

That dignity has been so apparent as the people of Aberfan have come together to make arrangements to mark this anniversary, and I pay tribute to all of you, not just this year, but every day of every year, for everything you do for each other, and for the memory of those who were lost. I’ve worked with many of you in the recent months and weeks while we’ve been discussing these events, and it has been my privilege to get to know you and to now call you my friends.

While it’s difficult to talk about positives when contemplating the scale of suffering visited on this small mining community, there is perhaps some comfort in recognising that it did result in the eventual removal of all coal tips across the country, ensuring that there could never be a repeat of the Aberfan disaster. It led to improvements in health and safety at work, particularly in heavy industry, and resulted in the effect of the experiences of people in Aberfan finally being recognised as the medical condition of post–traumatic stress disorder, so that those who needed it could receive treatment for the traumas that they suffered. So, while these anniversary commemorations will undoubtedly bring back terrible memories for many, it is also a time for the whole country to come together to support Aberfan and let them know that those lost will never be forgotten. This community will grow and become stronger as each year passes and as new generations build their futures and become their new hope.

In closing, I must acknowledge that whatever sympathy and empathy we express, only those directly involved can know the true impacts of the effects of 21 October 1966. But we, as the National Assembly for Wales, on behalf of the people of Wales, and so many people beyond, can hope that our acts of commemoration will offer some continuing support and comfort to the community of Aberfan.

I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Llywydd, at 9.15 a.m. on 21 October 1966, Wales changed forever. When the Merthyr Vale No. 7 tip slid through the mist of the morning in a 40-foot wave and engulfed Pantglas junior school and the surrounding buildings, it had a profound effect on the community, of course, but also on the wider world. My mother was a young schoolteacher, pregnant with me, when she first heard the news from Aberfan. It was break time in the junior school where she was teaching. The head came in and said, ‘A school in Merthyr has collapsed. We don’t know if anyone’s hurt.’ And that’s all they knew at that time. And then the full story came out during the course of the day.

It affected her. Over the years, I heard her talk of Aberfan. I heard her talk of teachers who had been found buried with their arms around children trying to protect them against the deluge, and when my own children were young, we went to Big Pit mining museum, and there on display are newspaper front pages describing the disaster, and she was deeply affected then. For although she wasn’t from Aberfan, she was from a small mining village and she knew what the cost would be to the community.

Men knew the risks of working underground. They knew the risks of a fall. They feared being engulfed by blackdamp. They knew the explosive power of firedamp. They knew about the risk of injury underground. The lamp rooms were full of men who bore testament to that. Many of us in our families saw the effect of the dust on the lungs of those who worked underground—pneumoconiosis and emphysema taking the lives of those as they aged prematurely and were taken so young. They knew the price of coal was high, but they didn’t realise that the price would be so extortionate, because who would have thought that coal could take the lives of children so suddenly, and above the ground?

We can’t share the experience of the community of Aberfan and those who lost so much. We can’t share their grief because their grief is different. Their grief has been, and still is, played out in the full glare of the public spotlight. And this week will be difficult. Friday will be hugely difficult for so many families. But I hope I speak for all Members in this Chamber when I say that today we stand in solidarity with the people of Aberfan. We offer them support and I hope some comfort as they deal with the memories of that day when winter darkness came early to the community of Aberfan.

The events of 21 October 1966 resonate right across Wales. Many of our communities were created as a result of the rich seam of coal beneath our feet. Coal brought employment, it brought opportunities, it gave us infrastructure, but it did also extract a very heavy price. Many of us grew up with a coal tip perched upon the mountains above us. What happened in Aberfan could have happened almost anywhere that had a coal mine. Many of us grew up in very close-knit communities where you looked out for your neighbours and where your neighbours looked out for you. And it’s because of these links that we feel such a strong sense of solidarity with the people of Aberfan.

To those closest to the event, you must know that you have our support, you have our sympathy, you have our solidarity and you have our respect. It’s incumbent upon all of us and the generations that follow to ensure that we continue to remember what happened that day in Aberfan 50 years ago and today we will ensure that Wales will remember.

The harrowing images of the Aberfan disaster shed some light on the unimaginable scenes that the community of Aberfan, Wales and the world had to endure 50 years ago. This tragedy, which devastatedly consumed 20 houses and the village school, took the lives of 28 adults and 116 children. The children had just returned to their classes after singing ‘All things bright and beautiful’ at their assembly. Today, we remember those adults and children who lost their lives so tragically, but we must also reflect on the bravery of the survivors and of the bereaved. Having read the stories of the survivors who have now felt able to break the haunting silence and share their experiences of that day, I am awed by the formidable courage and community spirit with which the people of Aberfan have faced the future in the aftermath of such heartbreak and devastation. The personal accounts given by those who were there on the day, like that of Karen Thomas, who along with four other children were saved by their school dinner lady, Nansi Williams, who so selflessly sacrificed her own life to save the young children in her care, reveals the extraordinary fortitude which is grounded in the community of Aberfan.

From those haunting black and white images, we are able to see the immense blackness that engulfed Aberfan on that day. But despite the horrors endured, the community did not succumb to the darkness, instead choosing to tirelessly dig for light. It is with feelings of the utmost reverence and compassion that we remember.

Aberfan: 50 years ago today, an obscure pit village barely known beyond its physical horizons, but within 48 hours known throughout the world for the dreadful cataclysm that engulfed the village school and rendered its name immortal. The tip slide not only crushed the bodies of 116 children and 28 adults but temporarily crushed the heart of our nation too and it touches yet the heart of generations then unborn.

I remember Friday 21 October 1966 very vividly. It was half term. My parents, my sister and I had crossed the newly built Severn bridge to stay for a few days with my father’s aunt and uncle near Bath. In those days there was no rolling 24-hour tv news, no mobile phones—my relatives had no phone at all. We heard the news on what we then called the ‘wireless’. My father was the National Coal Board chief engineer in west Wales and he went out to the village red phone box to get a first-hand account of what was happening. Our holiday was abruptly cut short. We packed our bags immediately, as he rushed to help in the rescue operation.

I grew up in a vanished world of coal tips and pithead winding gear. Wales has seen many mining disasters, and some like Senghennydd in 1913 and Gresford in 1934 with even greater loss of life, but Aberfan was something else. Danger was endemic in a deep mine, but this disaster on the surface seemed even more a sacrifice of innocence.

Looking back now at the images of the black and white world that we then lived in, what strikes me most is the nobility on the faces of the bereaved and the stoic, silent sadness of their grief. This day, we remember not ony those who died, but those who survived: their familes, their friends and neighbours.

‘Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.’

Thank you all for your contributions. It is right that Wales’s Parliament pays its respect on the fiftieth anniversary of this tragedy. We are conscious that, for the community of Aberfan, it is a tragedy that you live with day in and day out. However, we commend the community for facing the future with strength and resilience. I now ask the National Assembly and the public gallery to rise to remember those 144 men, women and children, who, on that morning of 21 October 1966, had their future taken away from them.

Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

I thank the Member for that question. After adjusting for the one-off capital expenditure associated with the buy-out of the housing revenue account subsidy system, capital expenditure by local authorities increased by 7.4 per cent in 2015-16.

Cabinet Secretary, statistics out last week show that capital expenditure on social services has fallen by 45 per cent in the last year from £22 million in 2014-15 to £12.6 million in the last financial year—the greatest fall of all local government capital expenditure. Revenue spend has also fallen by 0.4 per cent. In light of this reduction in funding, would you please provide clarity on Welsh Government commitments to better integrate health and social services and work to remove the uncertainty that hangs over many local authorities’ social services departments?

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I think that when accounting adjustments are taken into account, capital expenditure on social services actually fell by 1.1 per cent last year, and that was in line with the estimates that local authorities had provided and takes no account of the £10 million additional capital provided through the intermediate care fund, which is largely spent on social services matters.

In the draft budget, published yesterday, in which, for the first time for a number of years, we are able to provide local authorities in Wales with a budget that has no cash cuts within it, I have earmarked £25 million for social services purposes, in response to the call from local authorities themselves, but in clear recognition of the pressures that that service faces.

Building works will start in my constituency soon on a new community primary school at Cwmaman, where the local authority is using twenty-first century schools funding to deliver school facilities that are fit for purpose. Will you join with me, Cabinet Secretary, in congratulating Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council for the way in which it is engaging with the twenty-first century schools programme to improve capital infrastructure, but also the educational opportunities it is offering to children and young people?

Certainly, I agree with Vikki Howells in her commendation of RCT council, and indeed councils across Wales for the way in which they have embraced the twenty-first century schools programme. Over 150 schools and colleges across Wales are seeing rebuilding and refurbishment of their premises. But the point that my colleague made in her supplementary towards the end is perhaps the more important. Schools are more than buildings: it’s the message that they send to young people about the value we place on them and the opportunities that proper premises of this sort will go on providing into the future.

Will the Cabinet Secretary join me in congratulating City of Cardiff Council on their project for capital spending to introduce light-emitting diode and dimmable street lighting in the city? Doesn’t he think that’s an excellent way to use capital money with long-term benefits?

I thank Julie Morgan for that question. I think Cardiff’s record in using capital spending on environmental purposes of this sort is admirable. The latest intention to use capital spending for street lighting in the city is part of a wider pattern in which they’ve used money, made available through the Welsh Government in part, for street lighting energy efficiency, council building energy efficiency and school lighting programmes—in Rhydypenau Primary School in her own constituency, for example. It is a very good example of the way in which local authorities are using the assistance available to decarbonise their spending, providing a better future, not only for their own citizens but for the whole of our nation.

What assessment has the Cabinet Secretary made of the impact that the £66 billion deficit predicted in the leaked treasury report will have on Wales if we were to have a hard Brexit?

I thank Eluned Morgan for the question. The protection of our economic interests in the Brexit context is vital to Wales. Together with finance Ministers from Scotland and Northern Ireland, I will meet with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury next week ahead of the autumn statement. The impact of EU transition is at the very top of our agenda.

Thank you. The Cabinet Secretary yesterday gave a warning that there are leaner times ahead, and that this year’s budget should be used as an opportunity for those public sector recipients of funding to prepare for cuts in terms of the austerity that’s being imposed by the UK Tory Government. But now we have this additional problem of this £66 billion of a projected shortfall if we were to go for a hard Brexit, complying with World Trade Organization rules rather than having free unfettered access to the EU. That would make a massive dent in Welsh Government receipts. To what extent has the Cabinet Secretary factored into his predictions the impact of that £66 billion dent, and what impact would that have on future capital expenditure projections?

Eluned Morgan draws attention to the long-term impact that leaving the European Union on the wrong terms would have for Wales. The budget I laid yesterday grapples with the immediate consequences of losing potentially European funds that otherwise would have come to Wales. But the long-term impact of lower growth in the UK economy, with everything that that would mean in terms of tax receipts and money available for public expenditure, is the greater long-term anxiety. For yesterday’s budget, it’s beyond the scope of the one-year revenue budget that I was able to lay, partly because of the uncertainties that she points to. Undoubtedly, if we were to see cuts on anything like the scale suggested in that leaked document, the implications for Wales would be very serious indeed.

In addition to the Treasury forecasts that were leaked regarding the fiscal deficit and the impact of Brexit upon that, there have also been numerous reports on the impact of leaving the European customs union and the single market as well—all issues I expect will be discussed at the Brexit Joint Ministerial Committee that I understand is happening on Monday. Of course, in the Scottish press, that’s being characterised as a Sturgeon-May showdown. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell the Assembly who will be representing Wales at that Brexit JMC and what the game plan is to ensure that Wales’s voice is not drowned out?

The Welsh Government will be represented at that JMC by the First Minister and I will accompany him to that meeting. We will go into those negotiations in exactly the same way as you would expect Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to approach those discussions, making sure that the interests of Wales are firmly and inescapably drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister and other UK Ministers, and to ensure that our voice goes on being heard as the UK’s negotiating position continues to develop.

Minister, obviously, since 23 June, the sky has not fallen in, economic growth is in good health and, ultimately, manufacturing capacity is expanding. There have been many predictions on both sides of the referendum debate, but what we’re dealing with here is the real world that needs to now take shape, post the negotiations. Have you had discussions with your Cabinet colleagues about the promotion of Wales as a destination for investment and investment opportunities, because the other devolved administrations and, indeed, regions across the United Kingdom are ramping up their operations, obviously, to promote the virtues of their area? Have you had discussions with Cabinet colleagues about making additional resources available to make a stronger platform to promote what Wales has to offer, post the Brexit referendum vote on 23 June?

The promotion of the Welsh offer remains a very important part of the work that the Government does as a whole, and it’s led by my colleague Ken Skates. I think it’s fair to point out to the leader of the Conservative Party that we’re yet to leave the European Union, and the impact of that on our economy remains very much still to be seen. What is absolutely clear, from those businesses that have talked directly with the First Minister and with the Cabinet Secretary, is that full and unfettered access to the single market remains a determining factor in businesses that wish to locate in Wales.

Can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that there is no official Treasury forecast of a £66 billion deficit from Brexit, and that this figure came from one briefing paper amongst many by one anonymous Treasury civil servant, and may well have been written in order to be leaked in the first place? The £66 billion shortfall in tax revenue, which is what it referred to, would imply a 9.5 per cent collapse in our national income. This is clearly preposterous given that, even if we have no deal with the EU arising out of these Brexit negotiations, 75 per cent of the traded goods and services of the EU have a zero tariff in any event.

Well, the £66 billion figure comes from a leaked document, as the Member agreed. Nevertheless, the Treasury produced a series of far more formal briefings in advance of the referendum on 23 June. All of those demonstrated the adverse effect that leaving the European Union would have on the United Kingdom’s economic prospects. I see that the Treasury has not disassociated itself from any of the statements it made then.

I now call for questions from the party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary. First of all, Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sian Gwenllian.

First of all, I wish to thank the Cabinet Secretary for presenting the draft budget yesterday. It was good to see a number of the Plaid Cymru priorities being reflected in it, including an additional £25 million for local authorities. As you know, local authorities across Wales have suffered serious cuts to their funding over the years with their resource budgets being reduced by £461 million in real terms between 2010 and 2014-15. So, it is very good to see that the additional funding that has been received, as a result of the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, and that there will be additional funding for the non-domestic rates and it does mean that this is the first year since 2013-14 for the finances and funding for local authorities to increase in nominal terms, although it will still be a reduction in actual terms.

Our attention now turns, of course, to the local government settlement for 2017-18. I would like to ask you about the formula used to allocate funding between the various local authorities. I read in your statement—

A question, please, Sian Gwenllian.

I see that the formula has been revised. Could you elaborate, please, on how exactly that has been done?

I thank Sian Gwenllian for her initial comments on funding for local authorities in the next financial year. Of course, I recognise the fact that there is £25 million in that budget following the agreement made between the Government and Plaid Cymru.

O ran y fformiwla, rwyf wedi dilyn y confensiwn a ddilynwyd gan Weinidogion llywodraeth leol ers llawer iawn o flynyddoedd yn y Cynulliad hwn. Rwy’n cymryd cyngor y grŵp arbenigol a sefydlwyd i roi cyngor i ni ar y fformiwla. Mae’r grŵp hwnnw’n cynnwys cynrychiolwyr—mae arweinydd Gwynedd yn aelod o’r grŵp hwnnw, ac arweinwyr cynghorau eraill—ynghyd ag arbenigwyr yn y maes. Ac rwyf wedi dilyn cyngor y grŵp hwnnw. Felly, dyma dair ffordd y cafodd y fformiwla ei newid eleni: o ganlyniad i’w cyngor, mae wedi’i diweddaru i ystyried yr amcangyfrifon poblogaeth diweddaraf, mae wedi’i diweddaru i ystyried y wybodaeth ddiweddaraf mewn perthynas â disgyblion sy’n mynychu ysgolion, ac mae wedi dechrau ystyried y cyngor diweddaraf mewn perthynas â gwariant ar wasanaethau cymdeithasol. Mae’r ffordd y câi gwariant gwasanaethau cymdeithasol ei negodi drwy’r fformiwla wedi’i diwygio’n helaeth. Cyngor yr is-grŵp oedd gweithredu hynny dros gyfnod o ddwy flynedd. Rwyf wedi cymryd y cyngor hwnnw. Bydd yn cael ei roi ar waith a’i gyflwyno’n raddol yn y ffordd honno.

Thank you. As a former member of Gwynedd Council’s cabinet with responsibility for finance, I’m very pleased to see that you have now started to amend the formula and that the rural element of social services expenditure can vary and be an additional pressure, of course, on councils covering rural areas.

There are many other ways of amending the formula, and several groups, including the Welsh Local Government Association and the Federation of Small Businesses, have been calling on the Government to amend the formula, referring in particular to the use of old data, derived from previous censuses. What steps has the Welsh Government taken for next year’s settlement to ensure that the data used is more current and reflects today’s conditions better? Do you think that it is now time to revise the formula in that manner too?

Of course I agree that the formula should rely on the most up-to-date data possible. That’s why I was pleased to agree the recommendations in relation to population numbers and school pupil numbers. I think every effort is made, both by local authority partners and those who advise them, to make sure that the formula does depend on the most reliable data available. During my visits around Wales, meeting all 22 local authority leaders, every one of them had something to say about the way the formula applied in their own localities.

What I’ve agreed with the members of the group that advises the Government is that we will begin the next year’s round of consideration of the formula with a more open seminar, in which we will look at the way the formula currently operates and think of whether there are better ways in which we might be able to reform it for the future, and we’ll do that in an open-minded way with our partners.

Thank you very much. In the narrative on the budget that was announced yesterday, you allude to the fact that the Government will take further steps to reduce the administrative burden on local authorities, by combining grants and viring funding from specific grants to unhypothecated funds, through the revenue support grant. What steps have already been taken to do this?

Well, we will continue with that intention in the next financial year. I’ve spoken to all Cabinet members and they have all placed some grants into the RSG for next year. That is part of the pattern that we, as a Government, have drawn up over the past few years. I am eager to proceed in the same way for next year, where we can provide greater flexibility for local authorities to use the funding available to them. I agree with them that that is the best way of using those funds in future.

The Welsh Conservatives’ spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, as Sian Gwenllian said, your budget agreement, announced yesterday, features £25 million additional funding for local authorities, but this does come in the wake of the £761 million real-terms reduction in aggregate external finance, as has been identified by the Wales Audit Office. That’s between 2011 and 2016-17. How are you going to ensure that this extra money that is going to be received by local authorities this year is distributed evenly and fairly across those authorities?

I’ll do that in exactly the way I explained a moment or two ago. We have a funding formula. It is an agreed formula. It is revised every year. It’s been revised again this year. It involves political voices and expert voices in it, and I take the advice of that expert group. We will use that formula as recommended to me and then we will distribute the quantum that we are able to make available to local authorities through the formula that has been updated for next year.

Thank you. This is clearly a very important area for local authorities across Wales, financially. The programme for government commits to a floor for future local government settlements. This is particularly important for rural authorities that have consistently received poorer deals, for whatever reason—you and I might have different views on the reasons for that. But, for whatever reason, they have consistently received poorer deals than their urban counterparts across Wales. That’s a fact. But when do you anticipate the new floor kicking in? And can you confirm it’ll be fully operational this year and at what level?

Well, Llywydd, I have to be a bit careful not to anticipate the detail of the statement that will not be released until later this afternoon. What I think I can say at this point to the Member is that I do intend to use a floor mechanism for next year’s distribution to local authorities and that will be reflected in the settlement that I will lay before the Assembly later today.

I did anticipate that this is probably in advance of your statement later today, Cabinet Secretary, but, as I said, it’s a very important issue for local authorities, so it does need airing at the earliest opportunity. I hear what you just said. A funding floor, I’m sure you will agree, is all well and good, but, as we know from the Barnett experience, a funding floor can be seen as a quick fix that doesn’t deal with the underlying structural problems over the longer term.

The previous Finance Committee recommended that the Welsh Government commit to a fundamental review of the funding formula. This has been mentioned by Plaid Cymru in the earlier questions. Why have you rejected a fundamental, far-reaching review? I hear what you say about listening to experts across local government and within the WLGA, but why aren’t you considering at least an initial commitment to a future review of the mechanisms for funding local government in Wales? Because, surely, over the long term, a full, structural review that addresses the issues affecting local authorities across the modern Wales will be far better than the continual, piecemeal, annual modification of the existing formula, which is past its sell-by date.

I think there are two different ways in which it’s important to explore this issue in Wales. First of all, I am keen to set in motion work that will look at the whole way in which we raise local taxation in Wales and to see whether the system we currently have is the one that best reflects future needs. However, whatever methods you use for raising money, there will always be a need to find a way of distributing that money across Wales. The current formula copes with all sorts of different variations: urban needs, rural needs, age-related needs, economic arguments, needs arguments and so on. In the end, there is a fixed quantum, and, however you distribute it, the quantum remains the same. I sometimes think that the best advice to those who urge me, rather emphatically, to tear up the formula and devise a new one is that they might worry about what they wish for, because there is no way of knowing where such a fundamental reform of the formula might lead—to winners and losers, and they may not always be where people might anticipate them.

UKIP spokesperson, Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, you told the Finance Committee this morning that there was £10 million in the budget for the coming year for pilot schemes for the Government’s childcare plans. The overall budget, I think you said, when it’s fully operational, will be £84 million. Can we therefore assume that around one in eight areas will benefit from a pilot, and when will we be hearing where they are?

Well, those really are questions for the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for the childcare policy area. I know that he’s working very actively with officials and partners beyond the Assembly, informing the pilot schemes, and I’m sure that he’ll make an announcement to Assembly Members as soon as he’s in a position to do so.

To speak more about the financing, as a father of a two-year-old and a four-year-old I’ve experienced both the Welsh and the English systems for childcare. It’s clear that the provision in Wales, largely, in schools is good in quality, but the inflexibility of five 2.5-hour sessions means that it’s very difficult for many working parents to take advantage of it, and the rate at which female participation in the labour market, in particular, is lower in Wales. Is that something that the Government intends to change through its new childcare system? Is the intention greatly to boost participation in the labour market? If so, and despite the independent research, is the Cabinet Secretary really confident that £84 million is enough to provide for the likely change in behaviour, when this comprehensive system comes in?

Well, our approach to childcare in Wales has always been predicated on the links between affordable, available and good-quality childcare on participation in the labour market. We’ve always wanted to make sure that childcare is there in sufficient quantity to make sure that women, in particular, are able to pursue careers in the jobs market in the way that they would wish. The Member makes an important point about flexibility because that is exactly why the Cabinet Secretary has decided to proceed on a pilot basis, in order to make sure that we design the extra supply of childcare that will be needed to meet the pledge in a way that is able to meet the working patterns that families who will want to take advantage of the new service will need. So, it is an important consideration, and already there as part of the pilot approach. We carried out some serious work in advance of the election to draw up the figures that we have published that show what we think this scheme will need, but we will learn from the pilots in relation to the quantum, no doubt, as well.

I commend the Cabinet Secretary and the Government, on the whole, on the system that is proposed. It doubtless will provide much more flexibility and support for working parents, but I disagree with his assertion that that flexibility and support for working parents has previously been part of the Welsh system. Five 2.5-hour sessions without flexibility makes it far harder for two parents to go out to work. I think it’s likely that there will be a very significant increase in the participation rate, and I would question whether that’s been allowed for in the finances of the £84 million.

The Cabinet Secretary also said this morning to Finance Committee that he will have to ramp up spending gradually because of a lack of capacity. Certainly, in my personal experience, it’s incredibly difficult to get a childcare place at a good nursery in the south-east of England. It is far easier in Cardiff and south-east Wales to find capacity and find a number of really good-quality nurseries that can quickly take a child in the private sector. Given that, will the Government look at greater use of private sector nurseries, as well as state provision, particularly taking into account that, when you ramp it up from 38 hours to 48 hours a week, that may fit the school timetable and provision less easily and lead to greater average costs for school provision than has been the case to date?

Well, Llywydd, I’m happy to confirm what I said to the Finance Committee, that if you want to design a system that has the active participation of parents within it and learns from what they tell us about the sort of childcare they will need for the future, we need to calibrate the programme to take account of those views, and that will mean a build-up over time in the capacity that we will be developing. I’m quite sure that the Cabinet Secretary responsible will look at the contributions of the different sectors that already exist for childcare in Wales, and will look to make sure that we align those in the way that best meets the needs of parents, including the need for flexibility.

Well, may I thank Simon Thomas for the question? Over the life of the programme from 2014 to 2020, around £1.9 billion is available through European structural funds in Wales—£855 million, namely 44 of that allocation, has already been committed. I expect the remaining £1 billion to be deployed to the maximum extent, although our ability to do so remains dependent on the UK Government’s timescales for leaving the European Union.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response, and I tell him, of course, that we all hope that it will be possible to retain as much of this funding as possible within the pot for as long as possible. Now, may I draw his attention to one particularly successful scheme in Wales, which is the Sêr Cymru scheme, to attract researchers and scientists to Wales? The ‘Science’ magazine, over the past fortnight, has reported on the success of this scheme, which has attracted over 100 fellows to Wales and some 20 innovative researchers, which helps us to respond to things such as climate change, energy issues, and to respond to Brexit in the way that we look at the future of the agricultural industry, for example. So, what confirmation can the Minister give that projects such as Sêr Cymru will continue to be supported by the Government even after leaving the European Union?

Thank for that question. Of course, I acknowledge the excellent work that the Sêr Cymru programme undertakes. I had an opportunity, when I was responsible the health sector in Wales, to collaborate with Edwina Hart at the time on this programme and to try and attract people to life sciences in Wales and to do the excellent work that is carried out in Swansea.

Bydd cynllunio popeth rydym am ei wneud yng nghyd-destun gostyngiadau posibl yn y cyllid Ewropeaidd yn achosi rhai heriau, ond mae’r rhaglenni hynny sydd wedi dangos y fath lwyddiant yn siarad drostynt eu hunain o ran gwneud penderfyniad ynglŷn â’r adnoddau cyfyngedig, yn anochel, y gallwn eu darparu ar gyfer yr holl anghenion gwahanol rydym yn dymuno mynd i’r afael â hwy yng Nghymru.

Will the Cabinet Secretary join with me in congratulating Swansea University on the development of a programme to extend research Master’s and engineering doctorates, working with some of the UK’s and world’s leading industrial companies? Surely it’s something that the Welsh economy desperately needs. This has been backed by European Union funding. What will happen after the European Union funding ends?

I was very pleased last week to be able to announce an additional £850,000 of European Union funding for the scheme that Mike Hedges refers to. Participating businesses in it include Tata Steel, BASF, the Royal Mint and others. They will be actively involved in formulating research projects based on the technological developments taking place within their industries. Our aim, as he knows, is to draw down the maximum possible of European funding while it is available to us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement about the lifetime guarantee for schemes agreed prior to leaving the European Union is helpful in that way. I’m sure that this scheme will demonstrate its worth and we’ll then be able to argue for its continuation beyond the period of structural funding.

I thank Rhianon Passmore for the question. Islwyn has benefitted from structural funding in many different ways, from the very local support of two apprentices at a Newbridge dental surgery to the far wider impact, for example, of the Aspire to Achieve programme for at-risk young people and the Business Wales SME and entrepreneurship support scheme.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Since 2007, EU structural funds projects alone have, in Wales, helped nearly 73,000 people into work, helped over 234,000 people gain qualifications, supported the creation of nearly 12,000 businesses and created some 37,000 jobs. The UK Government’s commitment to guarantee expenditure for all European structural investment fund schemes approved prior to the UK leaving the EU is to be welcomed. What impact would be wrought on communities, people and businesses across Wales if the UK Government does not, penny for penny, fund Wales the moneys it presently receives from the European Union?

Well, the impact would be the one that I’m sure the Member would anticipate: that those investments that we are able to make, which help to shape the futures for individuals and communities and to secure the long-term success of the Welsh economy, would be set back if we did not have the money that is currently guaranteed to us as a result of our membership of the European Union. It would be a strange message, I’m sure she would agree, to take to members of her constituency if it were to turn out that Wales did less well out of its membership of the United Kingdom than it does out of its membership of the European Union.

Cabinet Secretary, it is clear from the result of the EU referendum that the people living in Islwyn and other areas of South Wales East did not feel the impact and benefit of European structural funding. Over 50 per cent of people living in Caerphilly council voted to leave the EU, over 56 per cent in Merthyr Tydfil, 60 per cent in Torfaen, and 62 per cent in Blaenau Gwent. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that these figures show the total failure of the Labour Party to demonstrate the benefit of EU membership in its heartland, hindered as it was by the half-hearted support for ‘remain’ from Jeremy Corbyn, and how will funds be supplemented to the South Wales East valleys by your Government in the near future?

I’m afraid, Dirprwy Lywydd, that it’s like arriving at the cinema to find a reel from an old film still going on in front of you. Of course I am aware of the results of the referendum. [Laughter.] I’m equally absolutely certain that the people in those communities to which he has referred did not vote for a poorer and more impoverished future.

I thank Lynne Neagle for the question. The majority of the funding provided to local government by the Welsh Government is delivered through the annual settlement. In this financial year, 2016-17, the settlement provided £4.1 billion in unhypothecated revenue funding.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I was pleased to welcome the announcement yesterday that you would be protecting local government funding in next year’s budget, and I look forward to hearing more detail from you on how you will prioritise targeting our most needy local authorities. The announcement last week that the Welsh Government is minded to phase out Communities First, and the apparent quiet ending of Schools Challenge Cymru in yesterday’s budget, does, however, make me worry that the Welsh Government is beginning to dilute its commitment to target resources at those communities most in need in Wales. What assurances can you offer me today that that is not the case?

Well, as I said during the statement on the budget yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary’s decision on Communities First is not driven by budget considerations. It is driven by making better use of the funding that has been put to those purposes in the past, bringing it together with budgets for Families First and Flying Start and trying to make sure that we have more of an impact in those communities that she so regularly represents on the floor of the National Assembly. As far as education programmes are concerned, there were two programmes, time-limited in nature, for which no funding provision would normally have been made next year. In the circumstances we find ourselves, it is impossible to carry on everything, particularly when schemes have been specifically identified as having a limited life. We were unable to take forward Schools Challenge Cymru, but we were able to take forward the pupil deprivation grant, which has a far higher budgetary implication, and to double the pupil deprivation grant for children in their most early and formative years. Together, I think they demonstrate the ongoing commitment of this Government to the agendas that she has so ably championed.

Each year for the past 10 years, either Powys or Ceredigion county councils have received the worst or joint worst funding from Welsh Government. I’ve heard your answers to earlier questions today, but what I would ask you, Cabinet Secretary, is: do you accept that you need to take into account the minority view that’s often posed by rural local authorities that isn’t heard when that recommendation is made to you, and is that something that you would be prepared to take into account when that recommendation comes to you?

I listen very carefully to what rural authorities say to me, and the changes to the social services strand in the formula this year very much do respond to the argument that those authorities have put. I’m afraid the Member will have to wait with everybody else to see the specific impacts of those changes on particular authorities for next year.

I just wanted to raise a technical issue with the Minister. Now, when you made your statement on local government reform recently, you kindly briefed me some days before, and I was grateful for it, and, of course, I respected the embargo. With your local government settlement, to my disappointment, I only received the briefing at 1.30 p.m. today. Could we have an early briefing wherever possible, as I feel this would benefit the work of the Assembly, and perhaps could you enlighten me as to the reason why we have these embargoes, as I feel they do impede somewhat the work of the Assembly?

Well, all opposition party spokespeople, Dirprwy Lywydd, were offered a technical briefing on the announcement that will be made later this afternoon, and all opposition party spokespeople were offered that briefing at more or less the same time. It’s a courtesy that we are keen to continue to afford opposition party spokespeople, because we would like to see people well-informed so that, when you are asked to comment, as I’m sure you will be, you will have had a chance to consider what it is the Government intends, having had some time in advance to digest the impact of that. It’s a tradition that I think has served us well so far. I’m keen to continue it. I’m very happy to have a discussion with the Member to make sure that he’s properly able to take advantage of the facilities that we try to provide.

I thank Dawn Bowden for that. Working in partnership with trade unions and public service employers, progress continues to be made in broadening adoption of the living wage in Welsh public services.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your response. Recent research by Middlesex University and the University of Liverpool showed a clear case in support of the real living wage, as opposed to, of course, the Tories’ phony living wage, with businesses who are paying it experiencing fewer employee disputes, an increase in productivity and staff motivation, and reputational and corporate brand advantage over competitors. Another study, by the Bevan Foundation, of employers in Merthyr showed that around 6,000 workers in that area—that’s about a quarter of the local workforce—were paid below the real living wage. The Bevan Foundation research revealed that different employers are at different stages in moving towards the real living wage, but they are often able to draw encouragement and confidence from other local employers who do pay it. Wales’s biggest employer, the NHS in Wales, with the highest level of women workers as the primary earners in their family, pay the real living wage, and I’d like to pay tribute to the Cabinet Secretary who, in his former position as the health Minister, worked hard with trade unions to deliver this. So, as we approach Living Wage Week, does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that our public services here in Wales can play a role in taking a lead on introducing the real living wage not just for their own employees, but also to make this an expectation in respect of employers providing contracted-out services, and will he also congratulate those local authorities, such as Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly councils in my constituency, who can, with some pride, call themselves living-wage employers?

Well, I certainly congratulate Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly councils for the approach that they have adopted and the leadership that they have shown in this area. The Member began, I thought, with the most important case for the real living wage, that it actually benefits employers as well as employees, and that there are strict business advantages to companies who deploy the real living wage in terms of reduced sickness, reduced absence, reduced recruitment costs, reduced training costs. It makes good business sense, and the leadership that local authorities have shown in this area helps to demonstrate that proposition.

I thank Angela Burns for the question. The proposals I announced on 4 October for mandatory and systematic regional collaboration between local authorities are intended to build resilience and enhance the effectiveness of services and outcomes for citizens.

Thank you for that. Because, of course, not taking forward the Williams commission recommendations has meant now that we need to seek to see that local authorities do collaborate more, I wonder whether you could just give us a little bit more information about the discussions you’ve had with local authorities or with the WLGA. Have you put a timescale on being able to see some tangible benefits from local authorities of mutual collaboration?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I explained in my statement on 4 October, I spent a great deal of time over the summer in visiting all 22 local authorities in Wales, meeting leaders and chief executives. I’ve met with trade unions, I’ve met with third sector organisations and I meet with the WLGA. I’ve done my best to be out and about in all of that.

The timescale for the next stage of the discussion is the rest of this calendar year, when we need to look at the detail underlying the big-picture pattern I was able to announce on 4 October. The prize for local authorities that I try and remind them of is that I would like to be in a position to argue for a local government Bill in the second-year legislative programme of this Assembly. It will be a competitive bidding round, you can be sure, with lots of Cabinet colleagues with ideas they want to get into the programme. I won’t get a place for a local government Bill to do all the things we would like to do unless I have an agreement that I can take forward. I want to get that by the beginning of the next calendar year, and then I want to move into the next phase.

Good progress is being made in implementing the Act, including, but by no means confined to, the publication of ‘Taking Wales Forward’. This committed us to develop four cross-cutting strategies, guided by our well-being objectives. I will publish the first iteration of the Welsh Ministers’ well-being objectives by 5 November, as the Act requires.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. I think there’s widespread agreement that this Act is a very important opportunity to help build a better Wales. I wonder whether you could explain some of the linkages between the Welsh Government’s well-being objectives and accompanying statement under the Act, with the programme for government, the four overarching strategies you mentioned, and also the budget.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I was asked questions about this in front of the Finance Committee this morning, where I attempted to set out the way in which the budget has been aligned with the five ways of working that the Act sets out. I won’t repeat them all here, but I hope I was able to show that we have taken a long-term view, balancing the needs of current generations with future generations, that we’ve sought to involve people in the way that we’ve made those decisions, and that, through our budget decisions, and the policies set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, the well-being of future generations Act has provided a lens through which we are able to view the actions across the Government as a whole.

I thank Joyce Watson for the question. Local authorities have many collaborative arrangements already in place across Wales. These arrangements not only deliver better services for people, but can do so more effectively and efficiently. Building on this, my proposals for local government reform are aimed at more systematic and mandatory collaboration between authorities in regional arrangements.

I thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I don’t know whether you did watch last night’s BBC Two programme ‘Who’s Spending Britain’s Billions?’, but it did actually outline a collaboration that maybe people don’t think is worthy of spending millions of pounds on—when the Plaid Cymru leader of Ceredigion was asked specifically about a contract with PricewaterhouseCoopers, spending that large amount of money, informing them how to close down facilities in order to save money, and also how to privatise local services. So, as you foster greater local authority collaboration, Cabinet Secretary, and also financial collaboration, would you please examine closely the use of these so-called risk and reward contracts? Because I also was outside yesterday with Unison representatives who are actually, quite rightly, in my opinion, aggrieved at that use of money.

Thank you for the question. I’m afraid I didn’t see the television programme. I spent my evening in the company of my questions folder and the advice I needed before appearing before the Finance Committee this morning. But, I hear what the Member says, and of course, will reflect carefully on it in my next conversations with local authorities.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Symudwn yn awr at gwestiynau i Gomisiwn y Cynulliad. Comisiynydd diogelwch ac adnoddau’r Cynulliad, Caroline Jones, fydd yn ateb y cwestiwn cyntaf.

I thank the Member for his question. As part of the Assembly Commission’s environmental plan, we encourage the use of sustainable transport. We recognise the development of electric cars and their falling costs and we are considering the viability of charging points within the Cardiff Bay estate. Demand will, in part, be assessed through our travel survey, which we intend to conduct shortly.

Can I anticipate your travel survey and say that I want to get an electric car? But I can’t, living in Aberystwyth, travel down to Cardiff if I can’t charge it here. So, why don’t we take that step? Why don’t we show that we’re going to be leading the way in responding to climate change and the environment and put that infrastructure here? By all means, charge for charging. Some of the problems with charging facilities in the past have been some idea that it has to be free. It doesn’t have to be free, but it has to be available, otherwise we can’t make the move to more sustainable transport solutions.

I thank the Member for making that point. Obviously, there was a travel survey conducted a couple of years ago, and in the travel survey, 250 staff members were given the surveys and they were completed. However, the demand was only 12 per cent at that time. So, on the positive side, I’d like to say to the Member that, yes, they are a low-carbon means of travel, and our Green Dragon environmental system requires a reduced carbon footprint. Our infrastructure in our car park would allow us to install charging point for electric cars, and the cost in procuring and installing charging points has reduced in recent years, along with the cost of electric cars. So, you make a valid point. However, when it was only 12 per cent who had responded, it was a small amount of people interested—that’s not to say that we’re going to purchase. So, the introduction of charging points in the car park would reduce car parking for conventional vehicles, so there’s an awful lot that we have to consider, and there would be an additional demand on the Assembly’s electricity supply. We would need to introduce a payment system for staff to pay for electricity consumed by the owners of electric vehicles.

But I would say to the Member that, within the next few months, we will produce a further survey to monitor the demand by staff. And I think that the lower cost of the electric cars to purchase will be an incentive for the demand to grow. So, we’ll have to wait for the next survey, which will we implement within the next couple of months, and we may have a more favourable response to the Member’s question.

Thank you very much. The second question to the Assembly Commission will be answered by the Llywydd, who is Chair of the Commission and the Commissioner for communications and engagement.

The Commission has already been successful in engagement with young people, as young people are having a great influence on the work of the Assembly and its committees. Earlier this year, we agreed, as part of our new strategy for the fifth Assembly, that we want to take this success even further. I certainly do want to see the establishment of a youth parliament early in this Assembly term and I have been working closely with the children’s commissioner and the Campaign for the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales on the best way forward. We will be deciding on our plans at the Commission meeting in early November.

Obviously, I tabled this question before the debate was tabled today and I tabled it because I think it is incredibly important that we do have a youth parliament for Wales. I very much welcome your answer. I hope to speak in the debate later on, but if I could just ask you to state your personal commitment as Presiding Officer to driving this work forward on behalf of the Commission.

It is a timely question and I thank you for getting in there first before the debate this afternoon. I can give my personal commitment and, I hope, following the Commission meeting on 3 November, also the full Commission’s endorsement for taking the next steps in finally establishing a youth parliament here in Wales. We are awaiting a piece of work that is being undertaken by the campaign for the children and young people’s assembly and that piece of research work will be instrumental in advising us on the right way to do this. But, certainly, you have my assurance and my support for this to happen and to happen early on in the term of this Assembly.

Thank you very much.

We move on to item 4, which is a statement by the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee on the committee’s forward work programme including refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children. I call on John Griffiths to move the statement. John.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to committee chairs to make statements to the Chamber. It is a welcome opportunity, Dirprwy Lywydd, to raise the profile of issues important to the Welsh public.

I and members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee have given careful thought to the priorities we wish to pursue through the fifth term of this Assembly and Members were unified in their belief that the committee’s work must be: outward facing, by providing genuine engagement with communities in every part of Wales, and in new and innovative ways; committed to being solution focused by bringing together expert knowledge and experience to provide solutions for public authorities to tackle some of Wales’s deepest inequalities; and dedicated to the effective scrutiny of the Welsh Government, with a view to improving public policy and legislation in Wales.

The committee is currently carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. I am pleased with the progress of this work and hope it contributes to making the implementation of the Act a success. Our ability to revisit key legislation and policy decisions by Welsh Government, and critically analyse their progress, will be an essential role of our committee. In the new year, the committee intends to focus heavily on tackling poverty and reviewing progress to date of interventions, such as Communities First. I hope to bring further updates to this Chamber early in 2017.

The committee’s next inquiry will focus on one of the world’s most pressing issues. Last year, one in every 113 humans was either a refugee, internally displaced, or seeking asylum. In all, there are more forcibly displaced people today than the populations of the United Kingdom, France or Italy. In 2016, with an intensifying conflict in Syria and huge uncertainty across countries in the region, there are now more displaced people in the world than at any other time in our history. There are millions dead, families torn apart by conflict and children left without parents. The constant news cycle of images and stories of people escaping war and persecution in Syria, Iraq and other countries are extremely distressing. It is a situation that has made me and many others in this Chamber, I know, despair.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want this Assembly to make a small but significant contribution to this global issue. Earlier this month, the French Government took the decision to close the Calais Jungle camp, where around 7,000 people are currently living. This has rightly been welcomed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as more suitable accommodation and support is expected to be delivered. But the reality is that 700 unaccompanied children living in the Jungle, and countless other people, could be left vulnerable to trafficking and abuse.

Refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children coming to the United Kingdom will have specific needs for settling into their new lives and becoming a full part of our communities. I am mindful that while a substantial amount of responsibility for resettling these people is with the UK Government, there are still key interventions and support that can be provided by Welsh Government.

In Wales, there are currently 112 people here under the UK Government’s Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme. In Scotland, there are 862, and in Northern Ireland 155 have been resettled. To make sure displaced people are effectively supported in Wales, the committee’s inquiry will look at the areas where we can do things differently and better.

The committee will have a particular interest in the pace and effectiveness of the Welsh Government’s approach to resettling refugees through the UK Government’s Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme; the effectiveness of the Welsh Government’s refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan, particularly around funding, accountability, mental health support, advocacy, housing provision, access to rights, protection for children, and destitution; and how unaccompanied children are supported, particularly because the Welsh Refugee Council said that the refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan

‘overlooks the need for independent advocacy for children and young people beyond duties owed by the Social Services and Well-being Act 2014.’

The committee will also look at how well the Welsh Government’s community cohesion strategy is helping refugees and asylum seekers integrate into Welsh communities. The committee will be talking to recently resettled families in Wales and exploring good practice in the UK and internationally.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I am heartened by the First Minister’s call with the third sector for urgent action by the UK Government to help child refugees. This is particularly important with the imminent closure of the Jungle camp in Calais by the French Government.

In conclusion, I hope this inquiry will lead to improved experiences for refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children in Wales.I want the generations of displaced people to be proud to call Wales home.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution as a member of the committee. I welcome the important piece of work that the committee is to carry out on refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have almost 3,000 people in Wales seeking refuge, which represents 0.1 per cent of the population—a very small figure, but an important and vulnerable cohort of people who deserve our full support.

It will be important for the committee’s inquiry to cover a number of issues, and you’ve referred to some of them already, but, for me, I will list some important issues. I think it is important for us to discover what the Welsh response is to the refugee crisis in Syria. It is a situation that varies from one part of Wales to another. For example, are the refugee relocation figures fair, and are local authorities taking their fair share? That clearly needs to be addressed. We will also need to consider how effectively local authorities are working in achieving the targets that have been set. One does hear about huge discrepancies in terms of what was agreed and what was provided, and therefore, during our inquiry, we need to understand how the Welsh Government and local authorities have been able to respond to the crisis to date, and also how swiftly they’ll be able to respond to the relocation of refugees in future.

I hope that we’ll be able to look at how this work is monitored, and therefore the committee will need to consider how effective the Syrian refugee taskforce has been in supporting these relocation efforts. It will also be important, I think, for us to discover how the Welsh Government is influencing the UK Government and the European relocation policy in concentrating on best practice, what has worked well, but also discovering what doesn’t work effectively.

I think we also need to look at the response of public services to the relocation of refugees and those seeking asylum. Has this been properly co-ordinated and is there sufficient co-ordination in the response between social services, the health services, housing providers, education and so on? That’s an important part of our work, I think.

We also need to consider how recent policy and legislation can feed into the relocation of refugees and those seeking asylum, particularly the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and responsibilities therein.

Now, I understand that Wales doesn’t have an advocacy support service for children and young people who are refugees or are unaccompanied, and I think that this is something that this inquiry should consider also.

So, that’s a number of suggestions for further discussion, and I look forward to contributing to this important work during the next few weeks. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Sian. May I thank the Member very much for her commitment to this piece of work, and I know that she has a great interest in it? I think it is very important that we take a view as to how joined up the services are in Wales, and how they can be joined up for refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children coming to Wales, and, indeed, how new legislation like the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 can help us achieve that joining-up and general improvement to services.

I very much recognise the points about advocacy. As I mentioned in my speech, the Welsh Refugee Council have highlighted that as an area that does require examination.

I think it was clear from the summer consultation exercise that the committee conducted that there is considerable support in Wales for this piece of work and a need for our committee to carry it out. So, I look forward to a high degree of interest and ongoing contribution from all those organisations in Wales with an interest. And it will be important that we look outward to what the UK Government is doing, what the picture is in Europe, and to make appropriate points, but, of course, our main focus will be on Welsh Government’s role and, indeed, local authorities, as the Member mentioned, because they’re absolutely crucial in terms of the powers and responsibilities that are devolved to Wales that can make a difference to the experience of these vulnerable groups.

Thanks very much for your statement. I’m in a strange situation as this is the first time since I’ve been in the Assembly when I’ve not a member of this committee or its equivalent predecessors, although many of the issues you raise have been subject to work by those predecessor committees. I hope, therefore, that you will—and I’m sure you’ll confirm that you are—looking at the legacy work of the last committee particularly, but some of the legacy work carried forward that’s relevant to the work you’re doing from predecessor committees also.

You indicate that you’ve focused already for some time on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. I hope you will, or would encourage you to, include within that—I’m sure you’ll confirm that you have—the matter that, as you’ll recall, had things on a tightrope at the end, which was the essential need for healthy relationships education. We were promised action to address that in the regulations and codes and the strategy following. There was some concern at the recent cross-party group on violence against women and children that insufficient rigour perhaps had been given to that. Similarly, concerns were raised there by a number of experts, including the national adviser, that the draft national strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence up to 2020-21 caused concern in a number of matters, not least the need to adopt the internationally recognised definition of violence against women. So, it would be appreciated, certainly by the people attending the cross-party group, if the committee listens to their concerted evidence in that respect.

You refer to focusing heavily on tackling poverty programmes. Perhaps you could confirm whether you are not only looking at the legacy but carrying forward the series of inquiries the previous committee was carrying out but hadn’t completed—I think we’d got to stage 2 out of a three-stage process—and whether you’re going to carry that through on the same basis or not.

I welcome the fact that your next inquiry will focus on refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children. You refer to the 112 people here under the UK Government’s Syrian vulnerable person relocation scheme, against Scotland’s 862 and 155 in Northern Ireland. It does seem that those other two nations have taken, thus far, a greater share of the affected population. Hopefully, you will look at that. But, in terms of those figures, could you also comment on the figures I was given by Oxfam Cymru last week that, in fact, the Syrian refugee resettlement programme has already brought 257 people to Wales, with a further 103 expected before the end of this year, with 21 local authorities of the 22 already having accepted some persons from that programme?

By the end of 2015, 65.3 million people will have been forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations, a small proportion of whom have sought sanctuary in Wales. I’m actually hosting and sponsoring a Sanctuary in the Senedd event with the Welsh Refugee Council on 7 December, when Members can meet asylum seekers and refugees from across Wales. So, I’m unashamedly putting a plug in for that now and encouraging Members to come along and meet, learn and hear first-hand about people’s experiences and the role that Wales has played and can play in the future.

Obviously, references have been made to the horribly named Jungle camp in Calais and the fact that that’s closing down. The Children’s Commissioner for England has previously said that about 300 children there, from countries like Syria and Afghanistan, will come to the UK. We know that, last week, British and French officials began registering unaccompanied children in the camp who are hoping to join relatives in Britain. Do you have any indication if those figures are accurate or can you perhaps drill down to try and establish the number? If it is 300, or more, what proportion will be in Wales?

Similarly, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has said the UK Government is, to quote, ‘moving quickly’. She wants as many children as possible brought to the UK before the camp is shut. But the charity Safe Passage UK, which is working with the UK Government, says it’s not yet been shown any operational plans setting out how the children will be transferred. Again, could you look at the operational plans as they develop, not only with the UK Government but with the Welsh Government, in terms of the settlement here? I won’t say much more, except to ask—

Are you winding up, please? Winding up, Mark, please.

Yes. The final question therefore relates to—. I’m sure you’ll confirm you will be keeping an overview of the disparate delivery so far in Wales. I have represented people, with a number of councils, and there has been a different approach, but above all, the key points raised are, for example, in Wrexham—which has already agreed to accept—the need for language support and, in Flintshire, for full language and curriculum support, supporting integration of families into local communities, as well as the hard-end issues around issues such as housing and health. Again, I hope you’ll confirm that you’ll be looking at those. Thank you.

Can I thank Mark Isherwood for his contribution to this statement and his questions? We will, indeed, as a committee, look at the legacy report of the previous committee, which we’ve already done, but we’ll certainly look at that in respect of the matters that the Member mentions. With regard to the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, we have, just today actually, been engaged in scrutiny of the Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, the national adviser, and many of our questions focused on healthy relationships and how we get the school educational offer right. We’ve also written to Kirsty Williams and have had a response in that regard, which we will follow up. Much of it, of course, revolves around Donaldson and the curriculum review, and the place of healthy relationship education within that, and whether or not it’s on a statutory basis and consistent across Wales in terms of quality and availability. So, I’m sure those are matters that will feature in our committee’s report. We also touched on the importance of having internationally recognised definitions, and I know that’s something that the Cabinet Secretary is considering very carefully in terms of the national strategy and general policy.

Can I also say that, in terms of previous inquiries around poverty, indeed there is some unfinished business, I think particularly with regard to the committee’s identification of welfare benefits and in-work poverty as areas that could fruitfully be the subject of future work? So, obviously, the committee, in taking forward further inquiries and further work on poverty, will look at that unfinished business, as it were, as well as the work it generally wants to do around poverty, and I’m sure it will be guided by the previous work of the committee.

With regard to numbers, whether it’s the Syrian refugees and the UK Government’s most recent scheme, or, indeed, the situation at Calais, the committee, I think, will be very keen to get as accurate a picture as possible of those figures, and that will be part of the committee’s work.

Finally, when we considered this inquiry in committee this morning, we did consider the event on 7 December of the Welsh Refugee Council, and I think we’re clear that that will be a useful opportunity for the committee to engage with those present around this piece of work.

Can I thank you, John, for your statement, and give a very warm welcome to the work that you are going to be undertaking on supporting refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children? Torfaen local authority has been punching above its weight in terms of taking Syrian refugees, and I’m very proud of the record of that council and also very proud that, yesterday, the council unanimously agreed to take to cabinet a paper to become one of the first authorities in Wales to take unaccompanied children. So, I think that is something that we can all be proud of and commend.

It has already been highlighted, though, that there is variation between local authorities in terms of engagement with these schemes, and I wanted to ask how you see the committee’s role in terms of bringing pressure to bear, both on Welsh Government and on local authorities, to improve the engagement with those schemes across Wales. I was also particularly pleased to see the reference to advocacy in your statement. The children’s committee is going to be conducting a short inquiry on advocacy, because there are still some issues that we’re concerned about with delivery across Wales, and I think it would be useful if the two committees could co-operate on that.

You referred to Communities First; again, I’m really pleased that you’re going to be looking at Communities First. You’ll have heard me say when the Minister made his announcement recently that, in Torfaen, our record of delivery on Communities First has been excellent, including on the kind of hard outputs like employability. I wondered if you could say a bit more about how you intend to scrutinise the Government’s decision to phase out Communities First. I think it is absolutely essential that we retain the excellent parts of that programme going forward, and I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government for his assurance on that earlier. I would also be interested to know how you intend to engage with the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children about the consultation. We’re still awaiting details of the consultation with external and internal stakeholders, and I’d be interested to know what input the committee is going to have into that.

I thank Lynne Neagle very much for her warm welcome for this piece of work and her support for it. I’d be very keen to work with the children’s committee, Lynne, on advocacy particularly. I think, in this Assembly, there’s a lot more thought and consideration as to how the committees can work together generally, and perhaps this could be an important example of how we achieve that. I very much agree that what we need is local authorities in Wales to come forward to show the right sort of commitment to understand the massive moral case, to play their part in taking unaccompanied children, but also, of course, refugees and asylum seekers. So, when a good example is set, such as in Torfaen, then that’s something that I hope other local authorities in Wales will sit up and take notice of. It’s very good to hear about that cabinet paper that’s going forward also.

I think what we have to do in our work is to make clear which local authorities are stepping up to the plate, as it were, and in doing that, I think that will bring a deal of pressure to bear on other local authorities that are not showing similar commitment and action. I think action, obviously, is the important thing, because all local authorities in Wales have signed up to playing a part in taking people under the various schemes, but what we haven’t seen up to now is a great deal of action. So, we do need a greater pace and a greater number of adults and children benefitting from the verbal commitment that local authorities have given.

In terms of Communities First, it will be a matter for the committee, obviously, but I think we will be looking to scrutinise the Cabinet Secretary once the statement is made early next year, following the consultation, and also, earlier than that, around our budget scrutiny, and particularly how, as you say, the most important projects—the real progress that’s been made through Communities First—how those areas of activity will be maintained and supported, going forward into the future. I think most Members’ general experience of Communities First is that, yes, it has been variable and patchy, but, yes, it has worked particularly well in some parts of Wales and there is some particularly valuable work that does need to be retained. So, I think that would be our focus.

I’m not a member of the committee, but I’m very interested in this issue and I’d like to congratulate you for taking on this particular inquiry, because I think it’s absolutely vitally important. Obviously, because of all the recent news of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK, I think that is one of the issues that’s foremost in our minds.

I was very dismayed this morning—other Members may have heard it—on the Radio 4 programme, when there was a debate going on about whether the unaccompanied children who were arriving were over 18 or not, and there were talks of dental scans and bone scans to try to identify whether they were children or not. It just seemed to me that we know that these young people who are arriving are traumatised, we know that they have lost family and it seems to me that this is an incredibly awful way to start the debate of them coming. So, I wondered if the committee was going to look at some of the attitudes that there are around—whether there was any way of looking at people’s views of refugees. Because, I suppose, when you think of a child refugee, people think of a small child, and we that know most of them are teenagers—teenage boys. I was just very shocked at that, so I hope the committee will take that on board. Bearing in mind that many of these children and young people will be traumatised, they will need access to counselling and post-traumatic stress treatment, and I hope the committee will be looking into that as well.

Yesterday, I was at the Radio Wales and BBC World Service programme over in the Pierhead—I think others were there—and one of the speakers who came from Syria six years ago made the point that people who come from Syria, his fellow countrymen and women, aren’t unskilled, on the whole. They are mainly doctors, teachers, architects and engineers—they were the professions that he listed—and they’re very keen to work, because when you don’t work, very often you do lose your sense of self-esteem and you do lose the sense that you are contributing to the community. Also, he did say, if you work in a community and that community extends the hand of friendship to you, you’re loyal to that community in the future, because of what it’s done to you.

So, in terms of the Syrian resettlement scheme, I wondered if the committee could look at what opportunities for work there would be available, because we do know that, under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, refugees will be allowed to work for five years, but that is not actually true of other refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. Over the years, I’ve met many, many asylum seekers, as the rest of us have, who are—well, the meaning of their life is gone, because they are unable to work. So, I think many of the people who come in on the Syrian scheme will actually have a lot of attention and support, but I wonder if the committee could bear in mind as well that there are other asylum seekers who are here who do not have that type of support that the Syrian scheme will have, which I applaud, and we want to do all we can to help them. But there are other people there, and there are people who are destitute who are asylum seekers and who are seeking jobs in this country and who are actually on the streets in Cardiff. There was a sleep-out last weekend to note the fact that there are homeless, destitute people on the streets in Cardiff.

Finally, the last point I wanted to make was: I know that we talk about the resources that are needed to be put into the communities to help refugees settle and integrate, and I do believe that very strongly—we need to do that—but I also think that we must recognise the strengths that those families bring. I’m particularly thinking in terms of schools, because in Cathays High School in my constituency, where a lot of asylum-seeking children and economic migrants, as we call them, are, there are 63 different languages spoken and children from many different communities, including Somali, Czech, Slovak, Roma, Bangladeshi, Pakistani—you can go on listing where they come from. All the staff and the school say that they bring enormous energy to the school, they really enrich the school, the parents are so keen for the children to succeed because many of them have gone to many great lengths to get to this country, and I think, as part of your report, it would be good to see some of that enormous enrichment that it’s brought to this country.

I thank Julie Morgan very much for her ideas as to the sort of work that the committee could carry out as part of this inquiry. It’s really useful to have those ideas coming forward today as part of this statement. I’m sure the committee will be very interested to look at all those areas of work.

Can I say that I, too, caught some of the debate today in terms of how you determine the age of young people coming here as part of some of these resettlement schemes? I know that many in the medical profession have serious concerns around medical ethics in terms of carrying out scans, for example, that might have possible health consequences when there isn’t a medical reason for that procedure to take place. So, I think there are some serious issues and, of course, in terms of human dignity, I think that many of us would have strong views as to what should and what shouldn’t take place. So, I’m sure that these, as topical matters, will be matters that the committee will be concerned with. It is about attitudes, isn’t it? If we are to give the warm welcome that should be on offer in Wales to asylum seekers, refugees and unaccompanied children, then we do need to get the right messages across and try and create the right atmosphere in Wales and within our communities. To some extent, I think we do hope for responsible media coverage, which, unfortunately, is by no means always the case.

We will be doing work around community cohesion and looking at how we can integrate people as effectively as possible. I think that does come down to attitudes and messages, and the atmosphere that prevails. So, I think those will be interesting matters for the committee to look at. I very much agree that, not just people coming from Syria, but many others too, bring valuable skills, professional qualifications and experience, which are very valuable and will be very valuable in Wales, and could fill some important gaps in terms of provision of public services and adequate numbers of qualified professionals and experienced professionals to carry out those jobs. So, again, I think that will be a significant part of that work.

As the Member stated—it’s my experience as well in Newport, as a multi-ethnic area, that schools with high levels of children from a variety of diverse communities do bring a lot of energy, a lot of commitment to education, and a lot of drive to succeed to those schools, for their benefit, but also for the benefit of the other pupils and the whole school.

Thank you. I have got three more speakers, but I think it’s a subject that people are interested in. So, if they can all promise me that they can be brief, we can have everybody. So, Gareth Bennett.

Thanks. Thanks, Chairman, for your statement. It is a welcome development that the committee is looking closely at the issue of refugees. A lot of the work, though, will inevitably involve hearing from groups who are involved with refugees, groups trying to help them to integrate with society as a whole, groups providing services for refugees, and some of these groups also call for us to take on more refugees.

As you stated, Chairman, we do need to be outward facing and, in considering refugees, we do need to take into account their impact on the wider community. We need to look at the likely cost and resource impact of resettling refugees here in Wales. How will it impact on local councils financially? How will it impact in terms of the housing list? How will it impact on the health and education services? So, along with hearing in detail from the providers of refugee services in Wales, the Assembly must also—at the same time, I feel—consider these wider implications.

I thank Gareth Bennett for that contribution. The committee will look at the wider community issues around community cohesion, as I mentioned in my response to Julie Morgan. In my statement, I identified that as a significant part of the committee’s work. We do need to hear from others beyond those groups that provide the services and have a particular role in helping to resettle and supporting asylum seekers, refugees and unaccompanied children. Of course, funding is important. There are many issues around the level of funding that the UK Government provides to local authorities, for example, and I think that that has been an important part of the information that local authorities have sought in advance of taking part in the various schemes. So, I think that all those matters will be significant to the work of the committee in carrying out this inquiry.

Thank you for your statement, John. I’m slightly thrown now by Mark Isherwood’s figures earlier on, but in your speech you mentioned that we had 112 refugees from Syria resettled in Wales, which means that that doesn’t seem to have changed since August, if that’s still the case, and it still means that 13 councils haven’t resettled any Syrian refugees at all. I’d certainly like to know whether your inquiry into this is going to drill down to find out why, after two and a half years, 13 councils still haven’t taken anybody. On the back of that, congratulations to Torfaen. Swansea and Neath Port Talbot have also got modest numbers of Syrian refugees resettled. Is your inquiry going to assess the quality of support and the outcomes for the refugees who have been resettled here? The First Minister, a couple of weeks ago, said that he would be talking to the WLGA personally about the new children’s resettlement schemes. I was wondering whether the First Minister was likely to be asked to come and give direct evidence on the back of those talks.

On a separate issue: language. In fact, I regret chickening out on moving this amendment now, but whether languages in some of the communities in Wales—and I don’t mean the Welsh language now—still prove a major source of isolation for particular groups of people, including women in particular and older people who might have moved into communities and not had access to languages other than those that they speak themselves; whether there’s any work that could be done there to find out how much of a barrier to integration language can be. Sorry; you probably know where I’m going with that.

Then, thirdly and completely differently, I wonder whether it would be possible for the committee to look at reviewing the effectiveness of disability awareness raising in Wales across all sectors, not just the public sector, and perhaps pinning down who should be taking lead responsibility for that. I’d like to include autism awareness and dementia awareness in there as well. I appreciate that that’s different from disability awareness, but we speak about this a lot and I’m wondering whether, at some point, we could get an Assembly report, as opposed to Government figures on this, to show how well it’s going. Thank you.

I thank the Member again for a number of ideas that could help inform the work of the committee and add value to the work of the committee. In terms of disability awareness raising, we had a summer exercise in terms of asking organisations within Wales for ideas for our forward work programme. That wasn’t one that was particularly prominent, but I’m sure the committee, in going forward over the fullness of this Assembly term, will consider those matters, along with many others.

In terms of numbers, I would hope that we will be able to provide a greater degree of accuracy around numbers. There will be some instances where it’s easier than others. Some information, I think, is not easily available. Obviously, if people achieve refugee status, then they may travel from Wales to other parts of the UK or beyond, and it may be quite difficult to track that, but it will be easier, I think, in terms of asylum seekers who are a part of particular accommodation arrangements and also with unaccompanied children.

With local authorities, as I said earlier, hopefully, through the work of the committee, pressure will be applied to those local authorities that have been less forthcoming in helping to resettle refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children. I would hope that we do see a greater degree of commitment, but, more importantly, more action from those that have been relatively reluctant up to now.

Yes, it is a matter of the quality of support and services, and we will be looking very carefully at that. When it comes to language, I think schemes such as the provision of English as a second language are very, very important, and we would want to look at what availability is like across Wales, whether it’s sufficient to meet demand and what sustainability there is in those services during these times of great funding difficulty.

Whether we would call the First Minister to give evidence or not would be a matter for the committee as we go forward. We’re currently considering witnesses.

Thank you. Finally, Joyce Watson.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Chair, for your statement. Not to lengthen the debate too much, I want to focus in particular on the report that we will eventually come up with about asylum seekers, refugees and specifically unaccompanied children. I would ask that, within our stages of going through the report, we look at the children we’ve seen from the care report by ECPAT, which particularly focuses on asylum-seeking children being taking into care, because they’re unaccompanied minors, and then going missing from that care provision simply because they haven’t been looked after in maybe quite the way that they should have, and some of the practices that go alongside unaccompanied minors hadn’t been thought about.

I’m going to be quite specific when I say that it is very often the case—and I hope it will never be the case in Wales—that unaccompanied minors do end up being trafficked. They end up being trafficked because people haven’t quite grasped the fact that they are under extreme pressure and that many of them, in the very first place, have arrived where they are due to being trafficked in the very first place. So, we do really need to be very, very aware of that.

Moving on with the same theme, it is the case, and it would be worth us examining this, that we have the new anti-slavery Bill that is coming through from the UK. There are trial projects in Wales that we could certainly look at when we look at the role of child trafficking guardians, and anything that we can learn from that, that might be useful to work along those lines in this instance.

I do have to say—and I don’t expect a comment, but I have to say it—that waking up this morning and listening to David Davies, the MP for Monmouth, suggesting what he did suggest this morning about checking individuals in a very personal, intrusive manner really did appal me, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

I thank Joyce Watson very much for her views and thoughts. I did say earlier, actually, that I do very much agree with the sentiments that express great concern around the comments of David Davies in terms of age checks and how they might be carried out. It’s very undignified and, as I say, it gives rise to many concerns around medical ethics, as well as many other concerns. In terms of the care system and the report, I think that will be an interesting aspect of the work that the committee could carry out because, obviously, these children are very vulnerable and they do require a substantial amount of committee concentration and focus.

We hear now that, at Calais, as part of the demolition of that site, it is entirely possible—in fact, it has proven to be the case in the past—that many children simply disappear and go missing. There are huge concerns around trafficking and exploitation in general for those children. The sooner that countries agree to take those children, and the sooner they are settled into safe and secure circumstances, the better. I am sure that the committee will want to pay careful attention to how Wales can play its part in that more positive possibility for those children, rather than the dangers they obviously face. Again, with the anti-slavery Bill and the child trafficking guardians, I think that, too, could be a significant part of the committee’s work.

Thank you very much, Chair.

We move on to motions to elect Members to committees. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motions—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

Thank you. I see nobody wants to speak. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Thank you. Therefore, those motions are agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on local government. I call on Sian Gwenllian to move the motion. Sian.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Public services of a high quality are central to Welsh life. This is the glue that binds our communities together. Plaid Cymru has always stood for public services, for the people who provide them, and for the communities and homes that rely on them. The public sector is a crucial partner for the private sector, to make Wales a more prosperous, fair and sustainable nation. Public services are also the foundation of the success of the private sector, from education and skills to the provision of public transport, infrastructure and job opportunities in light of strong procurement policies. The success or failure of public services is also crucial in terms of the progress of the Welsh nation, but the future of those services is at great risk at the moment. We cannot over-emphasise the gravity of the challenge posed by austerity at a time of a changing demographic.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have anticipated that the demand for health services will continue to take an increasing percentage of Welsh budgets in the future, which will place a huge strain on the funding available to local authorities specifically. There’s also a specific challenge facing Wales in terms of ensuring that public services are provided at the appropriate level in order to reduce complexity and to ensure improved democracy, scrutiny and collaboration. Our motion today does concentrate on the crucial elements when we look at local government reform in the future, in order to ensure that it will serve and meet the needs of our communities effectively for the future.

I want to look first at reducing the voting age to 16. The younger we can actually attract young people and children to politics, the better. Giving young people the opportunity to vote at 16 can engender the interest of young people in schools and beyond. If young people don’t participate in the electoral process, then there’s a risk that candidates and political parties will concentrate their messages on the needs of older people. And, as we have seen a number of times over the past few years, it’s youth services that are often cut first.

Now, in looking at electoral reform, then it is clear that people have lost confidence in politics. In local elections in 2012, only 39 per cent of people actually got out and voted. And, in the Assembly election in May, only 45 per cent of people voted—that was the highest percentage since 1999, which is a problem in and of itself.

There are a number of reasons for this, of course, but one of them is without doubt the fact that a number of people choose not to vote in certain areas, because it’s the same faces that win time and again. How many times have we heard that? Particularly in those council wards that are unchallenged—there were 99 in the 2012 local elections, which is over 8 per cent of the total seats.

I’ll give you some examples. In Sketty, in Swansea, the Liberal Democrats won all the seats, although they only gained 37.4 per cent of the vote. The Labour Party won 29 per cent, and the Conservatives 20 per cent, but they failed to take any seats. And, under the current system, parties that finish third can go on to win most of the seats. In Cardiff, in 2008, the Liberal Democrats came first according to the number of seats, but third according to the number of votes cast.

A new electoral system is necessary if we are to enhance people’s confidence in politics once again. Our long-established policy in Plaid Cymru is to introduce the STV system—the single transferable vote—in order to ensure fair representation for all political views. When the Sunderland report was published in 2002, it said that STV was the most appropriate way of meeting the needs of local people in terms of the local election system, and that was after the commission actually tested seven alternative methods of voting.

In my view, the introduction of STV to local government elections in Scotland is one of the most positive developments in the age of devolution. In Scotland, local government elections are far more competitive, and the constitution of local government is far more closely aligned to the desires of the population. The Government here has had an opportunity to take action on the recommendations of the Sunderland report in the past, but, unfortunately, that hasn’t happened.

But it is important to note that this isn’t a party political point, because all political parties have benefitted disproportionately from the first-past-the-post system. The question is: do we want to accept the inequality of the process? And, as a nation, if we truly believe that all citizens are equal, then we should also believe, and ensure, that all votes are equal. There is no good reason for not introducing STV for local government elections in Wales. We therefore need to make a positive change for the benefit of the democracy in our nation.

A few words on the regional element in our motion: like any nation, Wales needs regional leadership in order to give strategic direction that reflects a set of priorities that are pan Wales, along with strong local government to ensure local accountability that is co-ordinated at a community level. Our proposal is gradual evolution, using current structures to create new leadership at a regional and community level. And others from the Plaid team will expand upon this point and other issues within the motion.

Now, in terms of the amendments, we will be voting against the Conservative amendments, clearly, because they delete many of our points. We don’t necessarily disagree with your first amendment, and, indeed, this is one of the main factors that needs to be considered when we do look at the way in which local government is funded in future, in order to ensure that rural communities aren’t disproportionately disadvantaged.

With the second amendment, in terms of transparency, although transparency is, of course, extremely important to scrutinise the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, transparency in and of itself isn’t going to actually manage wages or create a national framework.

And, in terms of the Labour amendments, I would like greater clarity on what exactly the Government means, in practical terms, with the wording in point (a), namely to

‘increase accountability of local government through electoral arrangements’.

Now, I don’t know exactly what that means. Do you agree with the need to introduce change to the electoral arrangements or not? Perhaps we will get greater clarity on that this afternoon. Other members of the team will expand on some other elements of the motion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have selected the amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Janet.

Thank you. I move amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, and thank Sian Gwenllian for the opening address on the local government debate—a debate that’s very close to our hearts here on the Welsh Conservative benches, because it’s clear from the proposals with regard to regional combined authorities, of course, put forward by Plaid Cymru’s manifesto, and in the Cabinet Secretary’s local government reform statement earlier this month, that this is one of those mysterious areas in which Labour and Plaid have done a deal. And I have to say that we are disappointed that these workings have not been more open, and, indeed, more transparent, especially given that there have been calls for the new approach to local government reform to be put across the Chamber on a more cross-party basis—however. And it is vital to remember that, in this Chamber, and in the back-office workings upstairs on the fifth floor, it is to the people of Wales that we are all, irrespective of political colour, accountable—to the electorate. It is they for whom we are seeking to secure and improve services, and it is upon them that Labour and Plaid Cymru are now seeking to work together to deliver the aims of the Plaid Cymru political manifesto. But what matters to our hard-working families is not the intricate structures of local government, but the security of knowing that services will be improved and that they will be delivered in an efficient and cost-effective way.

Welsh Conservatives believe that public services are best delivered locally so taxpayers can hold local representatives to account for what happens in their community. Indeed, Paul Williams, of the Williams commission, himself has highlighted several concerns about the pooling of sovereignty by councils to form regional consortia and describes it to be ‘very tricky’. Now to justify these additional costings, Cabinet Secretary, how do you envisage regional combined authorities to be democratically engaged and accountable to the electorate? After spending over £130,000 on the Williams commission, and a further £434,000 on the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales last year, the cost to the taxpayer of local government in Wales reform planning and electoral reviews is well over £0.5 million, and we are no closer to seeing any meaningful changes. Instead, we have the discarded—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mike.

[Continues.]—expensive folly of reports, draft local government Bills, lining the waste paper bins of the latest Welsh Labour Government. Goodness knows the full costs associated with that process, on which we, of course, submitted questions for answer. Again, Paul Williams has spoken of his dismay that, since the publication of the report almost three years ago, requiring much-needed reform of our public services, nothing—nothing—has happened. The Welsh Conservatives make no bones about it. We have always been strong and we have always been clear. We would hold referenda to ensure public support for any local government mergers of any size. We would ensure full openness and accountability at all levels of government, and we would publish all local authority spending, such as the Welsh Conservative-led Monmouthshire council, who have been noted by the Wales Audit Office as having effective financial governance, and I hope to see more Conservative-led councils after next May.

It is abundantly clear that the Cabinet Secretary obviously does not wish to fall foul of his own Labour councillors so early on in his new portfolio role. And who could blame him, given the demise of his predecessor, charged with bringing about such reform? But we do need to look at new, smarter, more open ways of working. There’s no denying that. Certainly, we need to examine the way in which local government is financed to ensure that rural authorities receive a fair funding equivalent, and, when we once again see Powys struck by the biggest cuts in the provisional local government settlement, it is clear that you do not value or appreciate rural authorities. And it is disappointing that a Cabinet member for the Liberal Democrats, Kirsty Williams, actually has a seat at the Cabinet table and has let her own people down.

Coupled with the centralisation of social services spend, it is vital that the Welsh Government come forward with a clear strategy on how public services will be improved, not downgraded, as a result of their consistent cuts to local authorities, and those concerns are echoed in the first two points of this motion. They could and should, of course, look to Monmouthshire for examples of good practice, transparency, efficiency and democratic accountability. There the three social services localities have now co-located social care and occupational therapy staff under the management of a single integrated care manager, providing easier access to senior occupational therapy practitioners for advice on complex cases—

[Inaudible.]

Okay. And to be truly accountable for the delivery of these services. Cabinet Secretary, I applaud you for the work that you’ve done on the social services, to the budget there, and to the car parking in town centres, because that was really affecting my constituency. [Interruption.] I thank you for my contribution.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt, formally.

Formally.

Thank you very much. Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I will speak more to

‘(c) introduce a nationally decided set of pay scales, terms and conditions to control senior and chief officer pay through a national framework’.

I just wanted to quickly address the Labour amendment

‘(c) to continue to examine the case for a nationally decided set of pay scales’

and so on and so on. To ‘continue to examine the case’, which basically means do nothing: not good enough. I think, if you look at local government in Wales, the pay at the top end is out of control, really, and the amount of six-figure salaries, of people earning over £100,000 a year, is shocking, really. Millions upon millions could be saved every single year and that money could be put into front-line services. If you look at Swansea, the top salary, without pension contributions, is £140,000 a year—Neath Port Talbot is £125,000 a year, Cardiff is £170,000, Wrexham is £125,000. If you look at the local government ombudsman it is £140,000 a year. If we look at one single—just one single—housing association in this city, Wales & West Housing Association Limited, the chief executive earns £133,000 a year.

Will you give way? Will the Member give way?

Yes, I’ll give way.

In the spirit of parsimony, the Member could make a generous contribution in handing back the £12,000 councillor’s allowance he’s drawing by sitting as both an AM and a councillor. That would be a good start, I think.

Thanks, Lee. Thanks for that. But, if you add up the total that I am earning at the present time, it’s way under the £100,000 that we’re talking about. And what I’m actually addressing here, and have addressed for the last five years, six years, are salaries in excess of £100,000 a year. Now, the First Minister earns £140,000 a year. Should anybody really earn over that? I don’t think they should. In terms of further figures, let’s just go back to the Wales & West housing association: one person earning £133,000 a year, and in virtually every single housing association in this city and region the chief exec will earn in excess of £100,000. RCT Homes—I think it’s around £160,000 a year; I may be wrong, it’s possibly £170,000, which makes maybe the £12,000 there pale into almost insignificance really.

In terms of what we need to do, we need to legislate and, in terms of track record, what we did as a council when we ran Cardiff was phase out salaries of over £100,000 a year, because we didn’t feel that we needed to pay that kind of money. The irony is that, when Labour took control again and brought in huge salaries again—huge salaries of well over £100,000 a year—services got worse because of cuts at the front line. I pay one slight tribute to the council across the way, because they did introduce a living wage. But a little-known fact outside of the council is that, when they introduced the living wage, they then cut the hours worked by the lowest-paid on that council. So, what it really was was quite a cheap PR gimmick.

If we look at the wider picture in terms of the Welsh taxpayer, what we need to do is stop the gravy train of people earning, in my opinion, far too much: in excess of £100,000 a year. [Interruption.] I’ll take the points that I’m being heckled about in terms of my personal position. I do sit on Cardiff Council and I also sit here and, yes, I earn an excellent salary through that. But what I would point out is that, to arrive at this Assembly—[Interruption.]—to arrive at this Assembly, I actually went for 12 months without a full-time professional salary. When you go without a salary for 12 months, there are implications. What—[Interruption.]

Thank you. The Member will be winding up, hopefully, in 30 seconds. Thank you.

To some of my colleagues to my left—physically, but certainly not politically—you may have a surprise coming in the new year in terms of what I will be doing; I’ll be announcing then.

Thank you. Mike Hedges.

I think I probably am on the left, both physically and politically. Can I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer? Can I first of all return to the motion that Plaid Cymru has put down? I’d like to agree with the statement that local government is contributing towards the local economy, health service and educational outcomes.

Taking each in turn, local government is both a very large employer and a large purchaser across Wales. It plays a crucial role in the local economy, which is a non-service-delivery reason to oppose the creation of giant councils.

Secondly, the importance of local government to health cannot be overestimated—environmental health, ensuring the safety of food, the collection of refuse and the dealing with vermin, social services providing adult social care and keeping people out of the health system. Leisure facilities keep people fit and active. Housing puts people in suitable accommodation. Each of these actually keeps people out of hospital. I know that there are Members who see health as equal to hospitals, but local government plays a major role in protecting the health of people in this country.

Providing education through the school system is helping to make Wales a wealthy country. Through support from the Welsh Government building and improving school buildings, and providing Flying Start, the quality of buildings that children are going to is continually increasing.

Could I just say that I support the nationally agreed set of pay scales? I’ve always supported the nationally agreed set of pay scales. I go back to the days when we used to have chief officers’ joint negotiating committee, where, depending on the council’s size and its type, the salary of the chief officer was set within a band. I saw no reason to end it. The Conservative Party did end it. It happened under the reign of Margaret Thatcher, and what happened was that they thought they would get better people in from outside. You had all these great businessmen who were going to rush in to run local government. It hasn’t worked. We’ve seen a huge increase in the pay of chief executives and other senior staff in Wales. Does anybody actually believe—or can maybe point out people who have been recruited because we’ve increased these salaries, who would not have been recruited previously from the old JNC scales? For the most part, they are people who were actually working in local government and have been promoted inside it.

I’m glad that Plaid Cymru have finally discovered that there is no right size for local authority functions—even the same functional area. The right size for development control is not the right size for the structural plan, which will need to cover a much larger area.

Finally, I’m going to describe how services could be organised in the Swansea city region. Firstly, and most simply, there is a fire and rescue service that can be easily realigned with the whole city region boundary as they only need to transfer out of Powys and Ceredigion.

Secondly, if there’s going to be an economic sub-region, then what is needed is to have a development plan equivalent to the old county development plan to cover the whole area. This would ensure housing, economic development and planning can be aligned over the whole region, and not only over a local authority area.

The development of the bay campus is in Neath Port Talbot, but it will almost certainly have a greater effect on Swansea than on Neath Port Talbot, and is an example of an area-based approach. There are quite a lot of these where things happen to be in one local authority area—. Trostre shopping centre has an effect on the west of Swansea. It’s not in Swansea, but it’s all part of the sub-region. So, we really do need to start putting things together.

The third Swansea bay city region policy where co-ordination is needed is transport strategy. A Swansea bay equivalent of the Cardiff city region metro system is required. This needs to ensure that there is a coherent rail and bus network that can move people from the residential areas to the main employment, retail and leisure sites. Also, the road network need to be such that movement between major population centres is at least via a dual carriageway.

Within the city region, a simple subdivision in two can be done—west Glamorgan and Dyfed—which equates to the former counties of Dyfed, minus Ceredigion, and west Glamorgan. Joint boards in Neath Port Talbot and Swansea can be set up for both social services and education, which are the two main former county council services, and the same can be done for Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. Health boards could be realigned to these larger areas covering the joint boards. That would align health and social services, just like they were under the old health boards such as west Glamorgan health board, which existed to cover health in its days as a county council. It would also make it easier for the health board covering Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire to work more closely with west Glamorgan.

Local services should continue to be run by the current local authorities. Local authorities provide a very wide range of services, most of which are best provided at the local level. Local people making local decisions on behalf of the area in which they live is the basis of local democracy. It’s about agreeing on city regions as the basic footprint and then having within that region organised services effectively.

Can I just say one last thing on STV? STV could best be described as ‘guess how many seats you’re going to win’.

I’m very pleased to follow my colleague on the Finance Committee, and I agree with a lot of what Mike Hedges has said, apart from perhaps his final comments on STV.

I think this is an important debate, because we are trying to tease out in the debate further information from an important statement that the Cabinet Secretary made some weeks ago on the future of local government. Plaid Cymru obviously generally welcomes the approach that this new Government is taking. But can I say to the Conservatives that they’re barking up the wrong tree if they think there’s some sort of deal? They’re very fond of back-room deals, perhaps because they’ve never gone into a back room and agreed a single penny for their own priorities once in 17 years in the Assembly. There is no back-room deal—nothing at all. We put forward in the Assembly elections a comprehensive alternative to the Williams proposals, and I’m very pleased that this Government has, no doubt for its own reasons, come to a similar conclusion—not exactly the same, but a similar conclusion. And the purpose of today’s debate is to tease out some more detail around that, particularly as to how the different regional authorities could work: are they combined authorities, or do they just have some sort of collaborative agenda? The Minister has talked very clearly that there could be mandatory collaboration. Well, to me, that moves us along the path towards combined authorities, so we need to understand a little more of the detail around that.

But, clearly, whatever local authorities are going to do in Wales, they need to be funded adequately to achieve their aims. I think all of us who either took interest or started our professional political lives in local government are extremely concerned, really, that local government over the period of devolution has not strengthened. In fact, it’s been weakened, and I think that is a general weakness that we all should be concerned about.

The weakening of local government didn’t start with devolution; it dates back to the 1980s and the assertive determination of the Conservative Government then to cut back on local government, to take away the powers and to make local government less effective—less of a challenge, indeed, to the Conservative central Government. But it’s worked out, post devolution, as a regime that really holds local government back, and, particularly financially, doesn’t allow local government to make some key investments and to be the economic drivers in its area that the motion talks about. In the last few years of austerity in particular, we’ve seen extreme pressures on local government.

The Welsh Assembly Government as was, and the current Government, have done whatever they can, I think, to defend local government to a certain extent, and this year’s local government settlement and this year’s budget, following the agreement with Plaid Cymru, is one of the more appropriate and successful ones for local government. Certainly, local government in west Wales is thankful for a far better settlement than we’ve seen in the recent past. But, the reductions over the last few years have fallen disproportionately on several services that really do maintain the well-being of our local populations—libraries, cultural services and transport services have seen, particularly in west Wales, enormous cuts of between 20 per cent and 50 per cent, varying from service to service. All local authorities have certainly reacted to cuts by commercialising and outsourcing, sometimes without, it has to be said, much support of the local populations. We understand why all parties in local government have sometimes been forced to look at and examine how that might happen.

But I hope that, with the clarity on the future of local government in Wales, and with the ideas that come forward in the Cabinet Secretary’s new proposals and the budget this year, we can use this period of relative calm to try and re-establish what local government is about—it’s appropriateness and the best level of service provision, and strengthening, sometimes, town and community councils, I think, which have some general powers that could be used very creatively for their local populations.

I think, in particular, as well as the review of the formula that the motion talks about, I’m interested to know, as we move forward with our own powers for our own budgetary procedures here—the finance Bill, at the end of the day, and all the tax-varying powers here—whether that can be reflected in what we give local government. We empowered health boards to have three-year budgetary and financial planning in legislation we passed in the last Assembly. Can we now empower local government to also go on to three-year financial planning? Can we give local government wider powers to do things that are actually now easier to do in England, which is curious, than they are in Wales—for example, setting up your own local energy company? The Robin Hood Energy company, set up by the city of Nottingham and councils around there, was really empowered by the Localism Act 2011, as I understand it. We need to examine how devolution in Wales could also deliver that kind of devolution to our local authorities. I’d be very interested to look at some experiments around Bethesda, I think, with Ynni Ogwen and so forth—where local energy provision can be scaled up with local government help.

So, this debate is certainly intended to throw light on the current situation and to tease out some more detail from what the Government proposes, but let’s be clear: devolution in Wales has to work hand in hand with local government in order to get the wider support for our own Assembly as well.

This motion refers to the Williams commission describing public services as being characterised by ‘poverty of ambition’. Of course, the Williams commission report also stated that the only viable way to meet the needs and aspirations of people is to shift the emphasis of public service towards co-production and prevention. The need to make this change, they said, is shared across the developed and democratic world.

As Co-production Wales have said, this is not just a nice add on, but a new way of operating for the Welsh Government as well as for public service professionals and citizens themselves.

The report says that

‘leaders at all levels will need to be open to different ways of working, including collaboration or coproduction’

and that

‘the basic purpose and nature of public service needs to be redefined. The key features of that redefinition are: a clearer shared vision and sense of common purpose between government at all levels, citizens, and communities; a much greater focus on co-production with citizens and communities to identify and implement means of pursuing those outcomes; and consequently, a much stronger emphasis on enablement, empowerment and prevention in the design and delivery of public services.’

It says that

‘new models of delivery which focus on prevention, early intervention and demand management through co-production and citizen engagement will be essential.’

The Big Lottery funded co-production network for Wales, which was formally launched in May, is showing the way with scores, if not hundreds, of organisations—public and third sector—on board as part of the revolution. It’s heartening that the Wales Audit Office is at the forefront of co-productive evaluation and behaviour-change initiatives. Their report, the Auditor General for Wales’s report, ‘A Picture of Public Services 2015’, published last December, says:

‘there is now a much clearer recognition that previous approaches have not worked as intended and that radical change is required. The narrative’s focus on reform where it matters—at the frontline of service delivery—could help to move on from a tendency to see the production of strategies and plans as a solution to practical problems. The approach also is clearer in explicitly identifying co-production as a method of reshaping and redesigning services at the frontline.’

The auditor general says

‘Co-production and behaviour change offer opportunities to improve public services but often require public services to take radically different approaches’.

It says the Welsh Government developed its updated vision for public services as part of its response to the Williams commission’s report and recommendations with a stronger recommendation or emphasis on co-production, personal responsibility and focus on prevention. In fact, the Welsh Government vision says:

‘Our public services must evolve to reflect a new relationship between the people who deliver services and those who benefit from them. In particular, public services must increasingly be delivered not to people, but with people…involving people in the design and delivery of services, recognising people’s own strengths and tailoring services accordingly.’

But, of course, delivery, and the message, has been far more ambiguous. The auditor general’s survey showed that there were differing views on the importance of co-production across Welsh public services. It said that local government respondents were far less likely to include this in their top three, and referred to the Wales public services think tank, which outlined how co-production could be combined with lean and whole-system methods to reshape public services. It also quoted Monmouthshire County Council, saying they used such an approach as part of the transformation of its approach to supporting older people and adults with a learning disability.

And, as a local government cabinet authority member quoted in the report said:

‘The need for co-production and service user involvement is immense but this is poorly understood in the public sector and the investment required in people, skills and culture change is a long term fundamental requirement.’

So, they said:

‘The gold standard of co-production is for people to consciously engage with, and embrace their involvement in, public services.’

However, regrettably, the response from Welsh Government Ministers, with some notable exemptions, including, clearly, Mark Drakeford—the general response from Welsh Government Ministers and Cabinet Secretaries has been inconsistent, ambiguous, often hierarchical, frequently confused and sometimes even dismissive, yet the letter sent by Co-production Wales to the First Minister at the end of 2014, supported by over 130 letters, started by asking the Welsh Government to agree what co-production actually means, recognising that this is not a response to austerity, but part of a global movement that is now decades old and has made significant improvements across our planet. Thank you.

I want to speak briefly about how effective local authorities in Wales are vital to maintaining health services through their work in social care. Good social care services are vital, of course, in helping to keep people out of hospitals or, if they need to receive treatment in hospitals, in allowing for them to be released from hospitals promptly.

Unfortunately, social care has traditionally been considered the poor relation of the health service, and that has led to underinvestment historically. Workforce wages are too low, and zero-hours contracts are still being used, and that is often driven by underfunding. And the relationship, I believe, between social care and healthcare is misunderstood, to some extent, too. The fact that the Conservatives at Westminster have succeeded in misleading people, by saying that they’ve been cutting local authority budgets to pay for safeguarding the NHS budget, shows how little understanding there is of the entirely symbiotic relationship between the services. There is a wide range of opinion that the effect of the cuts in local authority budgets that was the crisis in accident and emergency departments in England in 2012. In Wales, the previous health Minister blamed the pressure on A&E departments on the deficiency within social care services in being able to release people from hospitals promptly. It’s clear that that’s a problem, and that’s why this word ‘integration’ has become so important. If we integrate our services genuinely and bear in mind at every level that social care and healthcare need to be planned on a joint basis, then there is more of a chance that we will have a single smooth service with people moving up to hospitals or moving back down to social care service freely without bureaucratic or budgetary restrictions preventing that. We’re all agreed on that, it appears, but, despite local examples of very good work, it’s unfortunate that those words aren’t being turned into genuine, transformative action on a wider basis.

There are other ways that a local authorities can bring about a healthier nation. I’ll talk about some of them. We were very pleased, as part of the budget agreement, to ensure that there is no cash cut in the budget for the Supporting People programme. This is a programme that saves money, of course. Homelessness always costs more for the public purse to deal with than it would do prevent, so ensuring that local government has a strong role to play in tackling homelessness is something that we not only wish to see happen, and something that’s morally right, but it’s cost-effective, too. The role of local authorities in the broader area of housing—tackling low standards and tackling overcrowding in housing—is also important in terms of keeping people healthy and therefore saves money for the NHS. Investing in housing adaptations as well, of course, is an important way to ensure that people can stay in their homes.

Look, too, at environmental matters, local transport and the planning system, I would say. When these are effective, they can be an enormous boost in terms of things such as active travel and encouraging people to be active in their communities. These are the kinds of things that are good for people’s health.

So, public services are co-dependent. I hope we can agree on that. It’s inevitable that failure in one part of the system will put strain on other parts of the system. So, why is failure happening? Making cuts without considering the implications of those is one way that this happens. Cutting in one area often leads to the need to spend more, ultimately—and I refer again to the difficulties in emergency care in England a few years ago. But poor governance is another problem, and the Williams commission drew attention to several example of poor governance. If the commission had looked at the health service, I’m sure that they would have found problems there as well, and the number of boards that are facing differing levels of intervention at present is proof of that.

So, to conclude, it’s clear that scrutiny of public services has to improve, and that’s a responsibility on our shoulders, all of us here, of course, but it also deals with empowering people out there—people who are using services. There are steps that we can take. We can give votes to younger people, at 16, change the voting regime, toensure that people who use our services have genuine influence on them.

Thanks to Sian for moving the debate today. Some of the Plaid Cymru proposals we in UKIP Wales fully support. Yes, we agree with the first part, that good local government can make—and I paraphrase here—a valuable social contribution. There’s nothing to disagree with there. On point 2, on poverty of ambition of local government, as attested by the Williams commission, well, yes, we regret that, too. Point 3 is where we have some points of departure from the Plaid proposals. Like them, we support electoral reform. To be more precise, we, too, want some form of proportional representation for local elections and, in our manifesto, we supported the introduction of the single transferable vote in Wales. We certainly do want to depart from first past the post, which can tend to deliver large Labour majorities on less than 50 per cent of the vote. So, it’s no real surprise, then, that we want an end to this unrepresentative system and Labour want to retain it. So, we are with Plaid on that one, whether they like it or not.

The national pay scale proposed by Plaid we also like. We have some absurdly overpaid local council chiefs in Wales. In Pembrokeshire, the chief executive gets £200,000; that’s more than the Prime Minister—utterly absurd. Recently, we had the pay scandal in Labour’s rotten borough of Caerphilly, and there are many other rotten Labour boroughs in Wales. So, some kind of national pay scale—

Can I intervene there, please?

Sure.

I think Gareth Bennett should be very careful about what he’s talking about there, as the majority of councillors knew nothing about the situation with the pay in Caerphilly. It was a number of cabinet members and the deputy leader of Plaid Cymru who were part of the committee, and when the majority Members found out, the Labour leadership apologised and reversed the majority of that decision. So, I think he should be very careful about the allegations he makes in this Chamber and I ask him to withdraw.

Thank you, Hefin, and, given the information you have imparted, I may, perhaps, have been mistaken and I do withdraw my comments.

This doesn’t actually detract from the substance of the need for a national pay scale, perhaps along the lines of the civil service pay scale. That would be entirely welcome.

But we now come to the issue that has only fleetingly been mentioned today—Rhun just mentioned it—votes for 16-year-olds. Well, we do completely oppose that for the following reasons. The first one being simple medical evidence. Firstly, we are dealing here with adolescents and not adults, and there are significant differences between the two groups. Parents have long observed behavioural changes that affect many children when they enter adolescence. They’ve also observed that, often, adolescents are not the most rational of creatures. Scientists are now uncovering firm evidence of genuine medical differences between the brains of adults and those of adolescents. I quote from ‘The Teen Brain: Still Under Construction’, a booklet produced by the National Institute of Mental Health in Maryland, USA, the largest research organisation in the world dealing with mental health:

‘The research has turned up some surprises, among them the discovery of striking changes taking place during the teen years. These findings have altered long-held assumptions about the timing of brain maturation. In key ways, the brain doesn’t look like that of an adult until the early 20s.

‘An understanding of how the brain of an adolescent is changing may help explain a puzzling contradiction of adolescence: young people at this age are close to a lifelong peak of physical health, strength, and mental capacity, and yet, for some, this can be a hazardous age. Mortality rates jump between early and late adolescence. Rates of death by injury between ages 15 to 19 are about six times that of the rate between ages 10 and 14. Crime rates are highest among young males and rates of alcohol abuse are high relative to other ages. Even though most adolescents come through this transitional age well, it’s important to understand the risk factors for behavior that can have serious consequences. Genes, childhood experience, and the environment in which a young person reaches adolescence all shape behavior. Adding to this complex picture, research is revealing how all these factors act in the context of a brain that is changing, with its own impact on behavior.

‘The more we learn, the better we may be able to understand the abilities and vulnerabilities of teens, and the significance of this stage for life-long mental health.’

End of quote.

We recognise that some adolescents are perfectly capable of rational thought and have a reasonably sophisticated political understanding. However, many are not and do not. In many ways, the Welsh Assembly recognised the vulnerability of this age group when it changed the law in Wales to prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from being able to legally purchase cigarettes. If young people of this age are not to be trusted to exercise judgment over whether or not to buy a packet of fags, then why on earth are we proposing that we lay on them the responsibility for electing politicians? It’s absurd. There is an argument that this age group pays tax, so should be entitled to the vote. But the truth is that, with university expansion, this group is actually cossetted in adolescence for a longer period, with most of them institutionalised in the education system until the age of 21 or later.

Are you coming to a conclusion, please?

The reality is that, of the 16 to 24 age group, only 30 per cent pay income tax. If you want to extend the tax argument, you could extend the vote to 10-year-olds who go to the shops and pay VAT on a packet of Smarties.

Are you coming to a conclusion, please?

Yes. We support the Conservative amendments.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I begin by thanking Sian Gwenllian for opening the debate and bringing it before the Assembly this afternoon? I said on 4 October that I was looking forward to a detailed set of discussions on the future of local government at the end of this calendar year. Those discussions will include local authorities individually and jointly, as well as their important partners. These discussions must also include the political parties, and, especially, the political parties in this Assembly.

I am grateful to all the party spokespeople here for their willingness to participate in conversations on the future of local government in Wales since the election in May, and I am still eager to continue with those discussions as the process progresses.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Government has tabled an amendment to the Plaid Cymru motion. The differences are relatively small in terms of the motion and the amendment, but they do set out the Government’s position.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, o ran pwynt 1 y cynnig, rydym yn hapus iawn yn wir i gefnogi’r teimladau a fynegwyd ynddo. Aeth Mike Hedges, y byddaf bob amser yn gwrando’n ofalus iawn arno ar bwnc llywodraeth leol, ati’n dda iawn i osod y rhaglen eang o wasanaethau hanfodol bwysig y mae llywodraeth leol yn eu darparu a’r rhan bwysig y mae’n ei chwarae ym mywydau pob dinesydd yng Nghymru: yn addysgu ein plant, yn edrych ar ôl yr henoed, yn cael gwared ar ein gwastraff, yn goleuo ein strydoedd a llawer iawn mwy.

O ran ail gymal y cynnig, wrth gwrs, rydym yn rhannu’r dymuniad i gael awdurdodau lleol uchelgeisiol—awdurdodau lleol sy’n uchelgeisiol ar ran eu poblogaethau lleol ac sy’n gallu darparu gwasanaethau o ansawdd uchel mewn ffordd ddibynadwy a chyffredinol. Credaf fod pethau wedi symud ymlaen ers comisiwn Williams a bod awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru, yn aml gyda chymorth sylweddol o’r tu allan, wedi bod o ddifrif ynglŷn â’r angen i wella. Rwyf wedi dweud yn aml fy mod wedi bod yn ffodus i ddod yn gyfrifol am lywodraeth leol ar adeg pan nad yw gwasanaethau addysg yr un awdurdod lleol yn destun mesurau arbennig, pan nad oes unrhyw wasanaethau cymdeithasol yn destun mesurau arbennig, a phan nad oes unrhyw awdurdod lleol yn galw am gymorth allanol i’w ganol corfforaethol. Rwy’n pwysleisio’n rheolaidd iawn i arweinwyr awdurdodau lleol y cyfrifoldebau sydd ganddynt dros sicrhau parhad y sefyllfa hon, ac maent, yn ddigon dealladwy, yn nodi’r gwelliannau y maent wedi gallu eu gwneud dan amodau hynod o anodd o ganlyniad i gyfyngiadau cyllidebol.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, trof at drydedd ran y cynnig. Oherwydd trefn y pleidleisio y prynhawn yma, bydd ochr y Llywodraeth yn gwrthwynebu’r gwelliant a gynigiwyd gan Janet Finch-Saunders, nid yn gymaint am resymau yn ymwneud â’i sylwedd—er, fel y dywedais y prynhawn yma, mae gwledigrwydd yn ffactor arwyddocaol o ran y ffordd y mae’r fformiwla bresennol yn gweithio—ond yn fwy oherwydd rhesymau’n ymwneud â’r weithdrefn. Sylwais ar yr hyn oedd gan Janet i’w ddweud am Sir Fynwy ac wrth gwrs, roeddwn yn falch iawn o weld y Cynghorydd Peter Fox, arweinydd Ceidwadol Cyngor Sir Fynwy, yn dweud, er eu bod wedi galw’n gryf am gadw Sir Fynwy fel cyngor ar wahân, ei fod yn credu’n gryf y byddai symud at ffyrdd rhanbarthol a chydweithredol dyfnach o weithio yn caniatáu arbedion maint ac yn sicrhau dyfodol cynaliadwy i lawer o feysydd gwasanaeth. Dywedodd hynny gan groesawu’r datganiad, ac rwy’n falch o allu cofnodi ei safbwyntiau yma y prynhawn yma.

Mae gwelliant y Llywodraeth i ran 3 y cynnig wedi’i nodi er mwyn i ni allu egluro rhai—

[Continues.]—of the points—. Yes, of course.

As you’ve mentioned my colleague in Monmouthshire Peter Fox, Minister, I think you’ll remember as well that he was one of the first people within south-east Wales, or one of the first elected officials, to call for the combined authorities model that has been practised in areas such as greater Manchester. I think he even called for it before Plaid Cymru were talking about that type of model.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I am keen to learn from all local authorities in Wales, of all political persuasions. I enjoyed my visit to Monmouth. I’m grateful for an invitation to return there, which I intend to take up over the coming months, and I’m sure that there’ll be an opportunity to discuss those views with the leader there.

The Government amendment is intended to clarify our position on a number of important points. We leave the second element of the original motion intact. We amend the first element to broaden the reference to electoral reform to a reform of electoral arrangements in the round. Unlike Gareth Bennett, we, on this side, support the reduction of the voting age to 16. I listened with interest to his argument: that it was unwise to provide the vote to people who are prone to brawling, and that a difficulty in sustaining a rational argument was another reason for confining the franchise. He may have been reading a pamphlet provided by his own party. Certainly, I remind him of the advice of Hayek, the famous Austrian economist, who was Mrs Thatcher’s favourite author, who argued that the voting age should be raised to 45 on many of the arguments that Mr Bennett put forward this afternoon. For us, we support the voting age at 16. I said as much to the Government Minister for the Constitution, Chris Skidmore, when he was here in the Assembly last week. I told him that I wanted to move to a system where electoral registration becomes much more of an automatic process, and that that could apply particularly to school students, so that we could make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds were on the register to vote. I want to look at ways in which people’s voting can be made easier: electronic voting, holding elections on different days of the week. We must make voting as accessible as possible, better align it to the way that people live their lives today, and our amendment is there to draw attention to that wider range of electoral reform possibilities.

Do you also support the same day for polling day and electoral registration, like they have in America?

Well, Mike, I am in favour of us using the powers that we may get through the Wales Bill to be as radical as we can in allowing as many of our fellow citizens the maximum opportunity to exercise their democratic franchise. If that is one of the ways in which that could be taken forward, I’d be very keen to look at it.

The third element of the Government amendment, Dirprwy Lywydd, recognises the debate about senior and chief officer pay, and the case that can be made for nationally decided arrangements. It stops one step short of a commitment to move now in that direction, because I believe that the necessary discussions with elected members of local authorities, and the representative arrangements for senior staff, have not yet been concluded. I think we’ve shown a willingness to move in that direction here in Wales. We have the independent remuneration panel, which introduces a new national context and challenge to any changes in senior and chief officer pay, and it’s an area that I am prepared to keep properly and actively under review.

Finally, our amendment makes a change to the final part of the original Plaid Cymru motion, which refers to regional combined authorities. I put forward an amendment to that because I think that that phrase can be read as a commitment to a very particular set of legal arrangements governing regional collaborations. In my statement on 4 October I made a commitment to discuss the detailed governance arrangements for regional working with local authorities, trade unions and other partners, and I want to be open-minded to the suggestions that will be put during those discussions, and the Government amendment simply, but purposely, is less definitive than the original motion in that regard.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I particularly enjoyed the contributions from Simon Thomas and Mark Isherwood. There is far more to the debate about local government futures than simply electoral arrangements. They drew attention to that. I hope that it will be clear from all of this that we have approached this afternoon’s debate in a constructive, closely engaged way. It will be a valuable and early addition to the discussions that will continue over the rest of this year, and our amendment has been designed to allow the breadth of that discussion to continue. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I call Sian Gwenllian to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the debate. I do agree with the first speaker, Janet Finch-Saunders, that we do need to be accountable to the people of Wales. For me, improving the quality of public services for future generations is a clear way of being accountable to the people of Wales, and shows our commitment to that.

There is no deal with Labour. What’s happened is that Labour has seen the wisdom of our own proposals on regionalisation. But, where we differ is that we feel that regionalisation alone doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. It is not radical enough. It doesn’t eliminate those artificial walls between health and social services, and there is no emphasis, as we have, on integration.

My colleague Neil McEvoy mentioned the need for a framework to look at the pay of senior officials. Clearly, the gap is too great between those at the top of these organisations and those on the front line—the carers, the teaching assistants, the cooks in our schools, and so on—and we must right that wrong.

Mike Hedges mentioned the importance of quality services and the need to control salaries. He had some interesting ideas for the Swansea area, and I’m sure that those will be considered as we move forward.

Simon explained that the purpose of this afternoon’s debate was to try and get more details on Labour’s proposals. I’m not sure if we’ve succeeded in that, exactly. He also voiced concern about weakening local government over a number of years. I share those concerns, particularly from the point of view of financing and the huge cuts that still face local government. Certainly, empowering councils with greater powers and three-year budgets would do a great deal to right that wrong.

Mark Isherwood mentioned the Williams commission. The problem that we see is the pace of the response to the Williams commission. We saw the chair of the commission himself, Paul Williams, voicing his frustration about that issue last week.

Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned aspects of bringing social care—the poor relation that has seen under-investment—and health closer together and integrating that relationship. Certainly, there is some misunderstanding as to that interrelationship. Although there are some local examples of excellent collaboration, and I could name Ysbyty Alltwen near Porthmadog as an excellent example of how services can be integrated on the ground, that doesn’t happen in all areas of Wales. We do need to move towards that.

I note that UKIP agrees with us on STV. I also note that you withdrew some comments, having been corrected by the Member for Caerphilly. I also note your view that the brains of adolescents are not mature enough to vote. I see that as being interesting. Most of the young people of 16 that I know are mature, responsible, sensible, rational individuals. It’s a shame that we can’t say that about everyone in this Chamber. [Laughter.]

If I turn to the comments of the Cabinet Secretary finally, I was pleased to hear those. I’m pleased that the discussions are continuing, and that there is still an opportunity to have an influence as we progress. I share the desire for ambitious local authorities. I also note that the rurality of certain local authorities is being given some attention, and that there are differing needs arising as a result of that, and that we therefore need to see the formula reflecting those differences.

I welcome the fact that you too support lowering the voting age to 16, and note your comments on automatic registration in schools. I think that would be a positive step forward. Certainly, enabling people to vote electronically and to use far more modern methods in order to allow people to cast their vote is certainly something that we should move towards. But, I do note that you are not going to vote in favour of STV, and that is a shame this afternoon because I do think that that truly would create an empowered local government and that people would feel that it was relevant to them and that their votes truly counted.

I’m pleased, therefore, that these ideas of combined authorities—that more discussions can take place on that issue, and that it is still on the table. Therefore, we look forward to further discussions in the future on that issue. Thank you all very much.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you very much. We defer voting under this item until voting time.

We move on to the Welsh Conservatives’ debate—a youth parliament. I call on Darren Millar to move the motion. Darren.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to open and lead this debate, which calls on the National Assembly for Wales to establish a youth parliament for Wales. I want to say thank you to all parties in the Chamber for the support that has been shown for this motion.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae gan y Cynulliad hwn draddodiad balch o gefnogi plant a phobl ifanc. Ers ei sefydlu yn 1999, cafwyd deddfwriaethau nodedig a phenderfyniadau sydd wedi gosod Cymru ar y blaen yn fyd-eang o ran hyrwyddo lle plant a phobl ifanc yn ein cenedl. Ym mlynyddoedd cynnar y Cynulliad hwn, rhoddodd y penderfyniad i fabwysiadu dull sy’n seiliedig ar hawliau mewn perthynas â phlant a phobl ifanc y sefydliad hwn ar lwybr a arweiniodd y ffordd i wledydd eraill y DU. Roedd y gefnogaeth unfrydol i greu swydd comisiynydd plant i Gymru er mwyn hyrwyddo’r hawliau hynny yn gam pwysig. Yn 2001, Cymru oedd y wlad gyntaf un yn y DU i benodi comisiynydd plant—person gwirioneddol annibynnol i ddwyn Llywodraeth Cymru, y Senedd hon ac eraill i gyfrif, ac i sicrhau ein bod yn cyflawni ar gyfer ein dinasyddion ifanc. Yna, yn 2011, aethom ymhellach, gan ddeddfu i ymgorffori hawliau plant a phobl ifanc yng nghyfraith Cymru, a gosod dyletswyddau ar Weinidogion i roi sylw i Gonfensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig ar Hawliau’r Plentyn, ac yna, yn 2014, ymestyn y dyletswyddau hynny i hybu gwybodaeth a dealltwriaeth o’r Confensiwn.

Rydym wedi cefnogi datblygiad cynghorau ysgol i roi mwy o lais i blant a phobl ifanc yn y ffordd y caiff eu hysgolion eu rhedeg, ac rydym wedi annog pobl ifanc i ddefnyddio proses ddeisebau’r Cynulliad i fynegi pryderon ac i ymgyrchu dros newid. Mae’r rhain i gyd yn gyflawniadau arloesol y gallwn fod yn falch ohonynt. I’w gwneud yn fwy arbennig byth, cawsant eu cyflawni gyda chefnogaeth drawsbleidiol. Nid yn unig ein bod wedi mabwysiadu polisïau ac wedi deddfu ar gyfer hawliau plant a phobl ifanc, ond mae pob un o’r pleidiau yn y Siambr hon hefyd wedi mynegi ei chefnogaeth i ymgysylltu â phobl ifanc. Mae ACau unigol, drwy ymweliadau ysgol a chyfarfod â phobl ifanc yn eu hetholaethau, drwy ymweld â cholegau ac ymgysylltu â mudiadau ieuenctid, er enghraifft, i gyd wedi gwella’u hymgysylltiad. Rydym wedi cefnogi gwaith ardderchog Comisiwn y Cynulliad hefyd yn ymgysylltu â phobl ifanc yn ein hysgolion, ein colegau a’n prifysgolion. Mae timau ymgysylltu’r Cynulliad wedi cyflwyno miloedd o sesiynau addysg i filoedd o bobl ifanc ar draws y wlad, yn eu hysbysu am ein gwaith fel Cynulliad ac yn eu hannog i gymryd rhan yn yr hyn a wnawn. Maent hefyd wedi cynorthwyo rhaglen bwyllgorau’r Cynulliad, i hwyluso ymarferion rhoi tystiolaeth gyda phlant a phobl ifanc er mwyn eu galluogi i gyfrannu at ein gwaith. Cofiaf, er enghraifft, y gweithgareddau ymgysylltu ardderchog a gafodd y cyn Bwyllgor Iechyd a Gofal Cymdeithasol yn y Cynulliad blaenorol gyda phobl ifanc mewn perthynas â’n hymchwiliad i sylweddau seicoweithredol newydd, neu ‘anterth cyfreithiol’ fel y’u gelwir.

Mae’r Comisiwn, wrth gwrs, hefyd yn rhoi cymorth gyda chostau cludiant i ysgolion ac eraill i’w galluogi i ymweld â’r Senedd. Mae pob un o’r pethau hyn yn enghreifftiau cadarnhaol iawn o ymgysylltiad â phobl ifanc, ac mae angen iddynt barhau. Maent yn helpu i ddangos sut rydym yn ceisio cydymffurfio â gofyniad Confensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig ar Hawliau’r Plentyn i barchu barn y plentyn. Ond er gwaethaf y llwyddiannau pwysig hyn, mae ein henw da fel sefydliad wedi cael ei lychwino yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf yn sgil absenoldeb senedd ieuenctid yng Nghymru. Wrth gwrs, nid yw bob amser wedi bod felly. Yn ôl yn 2003, sefydlwyd y Ddraig Ffynci, Cynulliad plant a phobl ifanc, gyda chefnogaeth ariannol Llywodraeth Cymru. Cafwyd croeso gan bawb i’r llwyfan a grëwyd i blant a phobl ifanc allu trafod eu pryderon a lleisio’u barn ac ymgysylltu â chynrychiolwyr etholedig ar bob lefel o lywodraeth. Gweithiodd y Ddraig Ffynci yn ofalus iawn i fod yn gynhwysol ac i fod yn gorff cynrychioliadol a estynnai allan at gymunedau ledled Cymru ac a oedd yn sicrhau bod pobl ifanc mewn grwpiau anodd eu cyrraedd yn cael eu clywed hefyd. Roedd yn ymwneud yn dda â seneddau ieuenctid eraill yn y DU, yn Ewrop a thu hwnt, ac yn fuan, daeth yn sefydliad i droi ato er mwyn ceisio barn plant a phobl ifanc. Ac wrth gwrs, ymgysylltai’n dda â Llywodraeth Cymru, y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, y Comisiynwyr, ac eraill sy’n gwneud penderfyniadau ledled y wlad.

Roedd y Ddraig Ffynci yn llwyddiant. Trafodai faterion sy’n peri pryder i bobl ifanc, o fwlio a’r amgylchedd i hygyrchedd trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus a gwasanaethau iechyd meddwl. Cafodd pobl ifanc eu cynorthwyo a’u cefnogi i ymchwilio, i ddadlau, ac i wneud argymhellion i’r rhai sy’n gwneud penderfyniadau. Eto i gyd, er gwaethaf y llwyddiant, yn 2014, torrwyd ei gyllid, ac yn anffodus, cafodd y Ddraig Ffynci ei dirwyn i ben. Wrth gwrs, cafodd ei ddisodli gan brosiect arall ar gyfer ymgysylltu ag ieuenctid, prosiect o’r enw Cymru Ifanc, sy’n gwneud gwaith rhagorol yn ymgysylltu â phobl ifanc ar draws y wlad, yn gwrando ar eu barn a cheisio gwneud eu lleisiau’n glywadwy i’r rhai sy’n gwneud penderfyniadau, ond nid yw, ac nid yw erioed wedi esgus bod yn senedd ieuenctid.

Nawr, nid oes arnaf eisiau manylu ar y dadleuon a fu’n rhemp yn y Cynulliad ar yr adeg y gwnaed y penderfyniad i roi’r gorau i fuddsoddi yn y Ddraig Ffynci, ond afraid dweud, gwelwyd hynny fel cam yn ôl gan lawer ar bob ochr i’r tŷ hwn. Ac ers tranc y Ddraig Ffynci, cafwyd corws cynyddol o leisiau’n galw am sefydlu senedd ieuenctid newydd yng Nghymru. Canfu arolwg o bobl ifanc gan yr Ymgyrch dros Gynulliad Plant a Phobl Ifanc Cymru fod mwyafrif llethol o 92 y cant o’r ymatebwyr am weld senedd ieuenctid newydd, ac 85 y cant o’r rhai a holwyd eisiau i’r senedd ieuenctid fod yn barhaol ac wedi’i gwarchod mewn cyfraith. Mae Comisiynydd Plant Cymru hefyd wedi galw am adfer gofod democrataidd cenedlaethol i bobl ifanc ar ffurf cynulliad ieuenctid yn ei hadroddiad diweddar. Mae’r Cyngor Prydeinig, y Gymdeithas Diwygio Etholiadol ac eraill wedi mynegi eu cefnogaeth i senedd ieuenctid hefyd. Ac yn adroddiad pwyllgor monitro Confensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig ar Hawliau’r Plentyn eleni, a gyhoeddwyd ym mis Gorffennaf, mynegodd y pwyllgor bryder nad oes gan Gymru senedd ieuenctid, a galwodd am sefydlu un.

Nawr, rwy’n cydnabod bod yna wahanol fodelau o seneddau ieuenctid mewn gwahanol wledydd ac awdurdodaethau o gwmpas y byd, gan gynnwys yma yn y Deyrnas Unedig. Sefydlir rhai gan Lywodraethau, sefydlir rhai gan sefydliadau seneddol, a gwrandewais yn ofalus ar yr hyn a ddywedwyd yn gynharach mewn ymateb i gwestiwn yr Aelod dros Dorfaen i’r Llywydd mewn perthynas â sefydlu senedd ieuenctid yma. Roeddwn yn falch iawn o glywed yr ymateb, ac rwy’n edrych ymlaen at glywed mwy yn y drafodaeth ynglŷn â sut y gall y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn ddatblygu cynnig ar gyfer senedd ieuenctid yma. Ond nid yw’r union fodel y dylai’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ei fabwysiadu yn rhywbeth rwyf am ei drafod yn rhy fanwl; rwy’n siŵr y bydd pobl eraill yn cyflwyno syniadau i’r Siambr y prynhawn yma. Ond yr hyn rwy’n ceisio ei wneud heddiw, ac rwy’n ddiolchgar am gefnogaeth yr holl bleidiau, yw sicrhau cytundeb i benderfynu sefydlu senedd ieuenctid genedlaethol i Gymru, fel y gall pobl ifanc yma gael cyfle i leisio barn ac i ddylanwadu ar benderfyniadau sy’n cael eu gwneud am eu bywydau yn y lle hwn ac mewn mannau eraill, ac wrth gwrs, rydym i gyd yn gwybod y gall senedd ieuenctid helpu i sicrhau bod hynny’n digwydd.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will.

You mentioned influencing decisions in other places as well, and I wonder whether you’d agree with me that there’s an option we should be considering as well for youth councils, sort of shadow councils, because, if we’re talking about young people not getting involved in politics at our level, really we need them involved at council level as well.

You’re absolutely right, and there are some good examples across Wales of youth councils in operation, but, unfortunately, it’s not consistently applied across the country, in spite of the work of Young Wales and other organisations like them.

So, we’ve got this excellent track record. We were leading the way in terms of youth engagement very early on in the life of the Assembly. We invested in this and have continued to invest as an institution, as a parliament, and, indeed, the Government has also continued to invest. We all want better youth engagement, individually and as an institution, and I happen to believe that the best way of achieving that is by re-establishing a youth parliament as soon as it’s feasible to do so. I recognise there are costs involved in these sorts of decisions, but the reality is this is a price worth paying to make sure that the next generation of leaders for Wales are people who understand the democratic processes and recognise that their voices are to be heard, and I very much hope that everybody in this Chamber will be unanimous in their support of the motion before us today. Thank you.

It is a sad fact that too many young people feel disengaged from politics today. This sense of disengagement needs to be addressed if we are to sustain a healthy and accountable democracy in Wales. Detailed polling by the firm Opinium suggests that turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds in the last referendum was 64 per cent, which was a bit of encouraging news. The figure is much higher than originally thought. I believe that engaging people early in the democratic process is vital if we are to ensure they continue to participate in our future.

Creating a youth parliament in Wales will not do this alone, but I do think that giving young people an opportunity to make their views heard, particularly on issues that affect them, will greatly assist in increasing the engagement that we all wish to see. Youth parliaments exist in many other countries, such as Belgium, Finland and Australia. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland has its own youth parliament, while Northern Ireland has made considerable strides within its own youth democracy organisations. Wales remains in a minority of UK nations and territories that do not have a youth parliament. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recently said that one of the issues facing Wales was the disappointment surrounding young people not having a national, independent, democratically elected youth parliament. We all believe that a youth parliament in Wales is vital in widening understanding of the role of the National Assembly. In a recent poll, only 61 per cent of respondents knew that the Welsh Government was responsible for education in Wales. Remarkably, only 48 per cent of respondents knew they were responsible for the NHS. If voters do not understand the devolved power we have in Wales, then there’ll be little motivation to go out and vote.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I made a few notes while I was listening to my colleague, Darren Millar. The political system actually put together and the public opinion get together and the young people’s voice must be heard within that arena. Understanding of race relations, understanding of LGBT, and understanding of other different relations at a young age is vital to have a peaceful society for the future. All other areas, such as tuition fees, are directly affected by the living wage and child poverty. These are the areas where we must know the views of the child, and what they are going through within their families, especially in Wales, where poverty is still very, very serious among our young children. Fifteen per cent of our population—15 per cent, Deputy Presiding Officer—are between the age of 11 and 18. Actually, that comes to around about 0.5 million children. So, we’ve got to be serious about it and we’ve got to do not what’s best for us, but what’s best for them also, and best for our future.

A reduction in the age for voting is also a view that I heard from the Minister earlier. Children have different views about that. Why don’t we listen to the children as to what their opinion is on that side also? We also know that the mental health issues in our society can be very nicely looked after by young children. The young children are a force; the grandparents and parents virtually—they get cured by the youngsters of their own families more than medicines and other things. Zero tolerance in school—I mean bullying—is another one where we must consider the children’s views. We must move the recommendations on and—[Inaudible.]—this Chamber, Deputy Presiding Officer. But the fact is we must—we must, we must—listen to young children’s opinions and their views and their concerns before we make any rules and bye-laws here.

There is a long list, Deputy Presiding Officer—time is short—but we must do whatever we can to make this country greener, and we can only have a greener future if our children are there, involved in our planning for the future. If one child plants one tree or two trees or three trees in his or her lifetime, there’d be 1.5 million trees in the next seven to 10 years. There’s a long list, Minister, and we want to make sure that our children’s parliament is as vital as this parliament in Wales. Deputy Presiding Officer, education remains the key to democratic engagement. I believe that a youth parliament, in conjunction with other measures, would drive up interest in the democratic process and deliver long-term benefits. It will bring a colourful, beautiful painting to our black and white political picture in this country. Thank you.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak today. Can I also thank the Welsh Conservatives for letting the Assembly use some of their debate time for this very important debate?

I’m very pleased to speak in support of this motion today, because I genuinely believe the need for a youth parliament is a complete no-brainer. I am proud of the role this Welsh Labour Government has played in promoting children’s rights and I am also proud that this Assembly has led the way in the world with cross-party support for our Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011.

I was disappointed, in 2014, when the decision was taken by Welsh Government to cease funding for Funky Dragon, and made the point to Ministers at the time that I felt it would’ve been better to work with Funky Dragon and children’s voluntary organisations in Wales to find a way to maintain a youth parliament in Wales.

In June this year, the United Nations gave its verdict on what progress has been made to deliver on children’s rights in Wales following a UK-wide review. It made more than 150 recommendations and one of the concerns expressed was that children’s views are not systematically heard in policy making on issues that affect them. It noted that there is no youth parliament in Wales and recommended that one should be established as a matter of priority.

I am absolutely delighted that the Assembly Commission is taking forward this initiative and really welcome the personal commitment that the Presiding Officer has given to making this a priority today. Notwithstanding my earlier comments about the decision to cease funding for Funky Dragon, I believe that having a youth parliament set up by this Assembly is far better, in my view, than having one directly funded by Welsh Government. I hope it will be more independent and provide a far stronger voice for children and young people in Wales. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Campaign for the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales, for the work they’ve done to press this issue, and for the consultation they’ve undertaken with young people on what such a parliament should look like. I am sure we’re all looking forward to seeing the detail of that consultation, but as Darren Millar has already said, it is great to know that 92 per cent of respondents supported the establishment of a youth parliament and 85 per cent of respondents would like to see the parliament made permanent and protected in law. And I hope that, too, is something that the Commission will look at.

I just wanted to close by saying a few words about the need to ensure the broadest possible participation by young people in Wales in a future parliament. I think there is always a risk that such parliaments are more prone to engaging the more articulate, confident young people—and I celebrate the fact that we have these young people in Wales—but the test of a genuinely representative parliament will be how effectively it ensures we hear the voices of some of those young people who do not usually get their voices heard. I believe there is good practice we can draw on here, and I hope that the Commission will look at this. As part of the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s inquiry into youth services in Wales, I learnt about a project run by the Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs of Wales called Not the Usual Suspects, which is designed to engage young people who are not normally consulted. As part of that, they developed an app called ‘Politically Incorrect’. I believe we need to look at all good practice to make sure that, going forward, we engage the widest number of young people, also building on the excellent work of youth engagement already undertaken by the Commission.

Last week, I was privileged to be invited to a forum organised by the children’s commissioner for 15 to 24-year-olds in Wales with experience of being looked after, along with Llyr Gruffydd, Darren Millar and Carl Sargeant. There, we heard from young people of their very powerful hard-hitting experiences of the care system in Wales. Despite all the challenges they’d faced, these young people spoke out forcefully and powerfully about their needs. I hope that any youth parliament will ensure that those are the kinds of voices we also make sure are heard—a youth parliament that addresses the needs of the most disadvantaged young people will be one we can all be very proud of in Wales. Thank you.

The question of a youth parliament, or youth assembly, indeed, as Lynne Neagle referred to it, which I think I would favour as well, is one that has been discussed a number of times in this Assembly by many AMs past and present over the years, but we’ve never quite got there—well, certainly not yet.

This is, at the end of the day, about democracy—increasing youth participation and getting voter turnouts up, and I think we would all want to do that. Currently, Wales is one of six devolved nations without a youth parliament, and that’s simply not good enough. It’s not just us saying this, or AMs across parties saying this; the United Nations agree. As has been said, they believe that a youth parliament in Wales would be a key way of supporting article 12. The children’s commissioner has also said something similar. The children’s commissioner sees it as a vehicle for engagement and enfranchisement. A youth parliament featured in more than one party’s manifesto, so this is one of those issues that is genuinely cross-cutting across all parties, and would have widespread support were it to go ahead.

But, although Members like Lynne Neagle have campaigned for a long time for this sort of development, it’s still not a key priority of the Welsh Government, or certainly hasn’t been up until this point. That’s the reason for us bringing this debate forward today—to show that it’s not just one party, it’s all parties, it’s the Assembly as a whole. We would like to see the Welsh Government bringing forward legislation in this area to establish this or an appropriate mechanism.

This isn’t just about giving a democratic voice to young people. It’s also about creating a new conduit that can provide more robust scrutiny to the democratic processes in Wales. Young people will be able to give evidence more directly to National Assembly committees, as has been mentioned by Mohammad Asghar. But let’s go back to this issue of engagement, which, in Wales, let’s face it, historically, is at a low. The Hansard Society’s audit of political engagement in 2014 showed that just 30 per cent of young people are certain to vote, but, as we know, 58 per cent would be prepared to do something if they felt strongly enough. So, young people have a different way of approaching politics—different to the older generations, at any rate. It’s one that we should recognise and we should provide mechanisms and vehicles that are suited to that.

Now, I’m not standing here stating that a youth parliament is the be-all and end-all and will change everything overnight for the better. It would be ludicrous to claim that. It won’t. I don’t believe that lowering the voting age to 16 is a silver bullet either. In fact, in the past in this Chamber, I’ve not been an advocate of lowering the voting age. I must admit my views on this issue have moved, but I think that whether it’s about the voting age or whether it’s about a youth parliament, none of these alone are sufficient mechanisms to increase youth engagement. But, taken together as a package, I think that there is a vehicle there that would be capable of moving the arguments on. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is one key way that we could do this. We want young people to engage, so we have to engage with them and them with us. It’s a symbiotic process.

I imagine we would all want to see voter turnout for Assembly elections on a par with general elections in Westminster, and getting young people more involved in the process here in this Assembly is a step towards doing that. But it won’t just happen by words alone, and I think it’s time for us to see action on this front to get these things done.

The UK Youth Parliament was born in 1999, the year this Assembly itself was born, so maybe we aren’t that far behind, but we still have a lot of groundwork to do, and the sooner we start, the sooner we will get there. As we’ve heard, other areas have done it. Northern Ireland set up a youth forum back in 1979. Scotland’s institution has been lauded as offering one of the highest levels of youth participation anywhere. So, not that far away in this United Kingdom, youth parliaments and youth fora are working, have been working and will work into the future. Further afield, in Australia, youth Bills can get passed on to the actual Parliament for their review. So, young people really feel engaged in the overall process in Australia at a very young age.

This will only work here if we have strong links between schools, other educational facilities and the new youth parliament or youth assembly that we want to create. As Mohammad Asghar said in his contribution, this is about creating a healthy, vibrant democracy overall. Young people aren’t young people forever. They are the older people of tomorrow. We were all the younger generation once—at least I think many of us were—and we are here now. So, let’s get on with the job. Yes, let’s talk about this in this debate today and let’s agree that we need a youth parliament, but let’s get on with laying those foundations today so that that youth parliament can be up and running as soon as possible and we can get on with creating a far healthier and more vibrant democracy in Wales.

Thank you. David Rowlands.

No.

No? Okay. Thank you. Julie Morgan. Sorry—. Yes; go on, Julie Morgan. Sorry, Rhun. My screen’s all jumping around. Sorry.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. I’d actually like to start by praising the work of Funky Dragon. I think that the work that Funky Dragon did over many years had much merit. I had a lot of contact with Funky Dragon for many years in Westminster, and I know that they did empower many of their members to go forward and to take prominent places in their community. Certainly, we know that some of them went forward and became councillors, and that they’ve campaigned on issues. I think that Funky Dragon did an enormous amount of good. I do regret that we didn’t move from Funky Dragon to a youth parliament because that would have avoided this gap and this feeling that we’ve been left behind in this particular area of work, which, of course, we have to acknowledge, we have been.

We are lagging behind other countries, and we’ve already heard about the fact that the UK parliament has been up since 1999 and, of course, a lot of progress has been made there. The young people now sit on the hallowed green benches, which was a big fight to actually get them to be there, but they do actually debate in that Chamber now, in the House of Commons. Also, the young people there are very representative. When I met a group of young people, I was really pleased that there were Gypsy/Travellers represented as young members of Parliament. So, I thought that that’s the sort of thing we need to think of to make sure that every group is represented. Of course, the Scottish parliament has already been referred to. The Scottish Youth Parliament has members aged 14 to 25, and they represent all of the 32 local authorities in Scotland. So, again, I think that that’s a very good model that we can look at.

There are youth parliaments all over Europe, and, of course, there is a European Youth Parliament. The youth parliaments of the devolved nations, and of all the nations, send representatives to that youth parliament. In the UK we have the power to send people to the youth parliament. I just feel, at this time, when it’s so important for us to keep as many links as we can with Europe, and to build up our links with Europe, that that is going to be a way that, when we hopefully set up the youth parliament, we will have strong links with the European Youth Parliament.

I think it is important to engage young people at an early age with the political process. I know that, in the earlier debate, which I wasn’t present for all of, there was a discussion about the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. That’s something that I campaigned on for many years along with Funky Dragon. It was one of their five priorities at one time—and along with the British Youth Council. I do feel that there is now a mood coming to this Chamber from all parts, including on the Conservative benches, towards votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. But I do agree; nothing is a golden bullet. Not one thing by itself will ensure that we have young people’s voices actually embedded in everything we do, because that is what we want to do, and that is what actually is in our laws. Because the children’s rights Measure does mean that we are supposed to consider everything we do, how it impacts on children—and the future generations Bill as well. That’s written into it. But in order to make that happen, we have to have young people to use as a reference point. We have to have young people to tell us what they think about things. The way that we will improve the laws we make is by having the voice of young people there. I just think we can’t do that without having a representative body.

So, I think it’s very cheering that we’ve reached this point today. I think the important thing—I know we will discuss different models, and I don’t think it’s the time for it today, as the mover of the motion said—today is the time for us to really show our support for a youth parliament for Wales, to continue with our tradition of fighting for children’s rights, and giving children a real say in what we do here in the Assembly.

I’ll try again. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. It’s slightly strange that the debate is happening during the opposition debate, because we’re talking about something that’s far beyond party politics. And that’s why I’ve been very happy to be one of those who signed this motion on a cross-party basis.

I feel very enthusiastic about the principle of establishing a youth parliament. I remember, when I was in my teens, being fired up by contemporary issues, and debates on the past, present and future of my nation. That was the start of the journey that led to the honour of being elected to the National Assembly itself.

Now, looking back, I treasure the opportunities that I had at that time, experiences such as the famous debating society at Ysgol David Hughes in Menai Bridge. We have all kinds of groups across Wales that provide experiences for young people. My daughter gets a great deal of benefit from her work with the Bwrdd Syr IfanC Urdd group, and others are having excellent experiences with the Scouts or the Guides. The young farmers—that’s another very important society. I give my best wishes to Laura Elliott, who has had a great deal of experience through the young farmers society and who, partly through that, has been chosen by the Assembly’s branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to represent our youth CPA in Victoria in Canada next month. That’s an excellent experience for someone so young.

We have an opportunity now to create a national forum, a genuine forum, for the young people of Wales, whatever their interests and whatever their background. A report by the inter-parliamentary association two years ago said that there are youth parliaments in around 35 nations—there might be more now, I don’t know. There are all kinds of formats for them, and their relationships with the national parliaments in those nations varies.

I met an interesting politician from Rwanda around two years ago, again through my work with the Commonwealth. He was a member of the youth parliament of his country, and because of the very formal relationship between the youth parliament and the main parliament, he sat as a representative of young people in the national parliament, amongst the other parliamentary members. After leaving the youth parliament, his interest was fired up, and he went on to be elected as a Member of Parliament.

Nick Ramsay spoke about a different model from Australia, where youth Bills are passed on to the Parliament. So, there are all kinds of models. But what about Wales? There is some kind of a belief that we’ve already had a kind of youth parliament here. We have Young Wales now, and we had Funky Dragon before that. But while I was very critical of the decision to get rid of Funky Dragon, it wasn’t a youth parliament, and that’s what I want to see in Wales. It was a forum from the Government to consult young people and engage with young people. That was entirely right, and I’m very supportive of that, but in the same way that we’re eager to see that the people of Wales don’t get confused between the National Assembly and the Welsh Government, it’s also important for us to pursue the principle that it’s this Senedd, this Parliament, that should lead to a youth parliament.

To conclude, there are elements that are held in common by youth parliaments across the world. First of all, they’re there to listen to young people and to give them an opportunity to express their opinions. Secondly, they’re there to raise awareness amongst young people about their political systems and parliamentary systems that have an effect on their lives. And, thirdly, they’re there to empower young people in the hope that giving direct experience of democratic systems will awaken their desire to play a more active part as citizens in their nations. I think, from working according to those principles, we can lay very firm foundations for a youth parliament for Wales.

I’m delighted to take part in this debate and to commend Darren Millar for all the work that he has done for many years in promoting this project and, indeed, if I may say so, to Lynne Neagle, whose attractive and intelligent speech this afternoon fully justifies the vote that I gave her for the chairmanship of her committee. [Laughter.]

Of course, youth, for me, is an increasingly distant memory, but they say that you are as young as you feel, and every morning I wake up constantly astonished that I can feel anything at all after the rackety life that I’ve led. [Laughter.] But I was interested to listen to Rhun ap Iorwerth a minute ago talk about his teenage reminiscences. I was, myself, an insufferably precocious and opinionated teenager. Indeed, the whole of my life has been a quest for the rational underpinnings of the prejudices I held then. But the importance of this project cannot be underestimated in my view. It is, frankly, a national disgrace that in the referendum vote just a few months ago, only about 30 per cent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 turned out to vote. Voter disengagement is one of the great curses of our age, and it gets worse as you look at the demographic of voters.

Will you take another intervention? We, of course, would have supported lowering the voting age to 16, but do you accept that had that have happened, the result might well have been very different?

Well, I will come to that point in a moment. It is important to engage more young people in the civic life of our country, and I think a youth parliament would be one way of achieving that. It is an unfortunate truth that we are the only country in Europe not to have an independent youth forum of some kind. I know that we used to have one in Wales in the form of Funky Dragon, which has been mentioned many times in the course of this debate today. I would like to draw attention to Theo Davies-Lewis and the pamphlet that he wrote for ‘Gorwel’, which I will mention in the presence of David Melding here, and the discussions that he had with the First Minister, which, unfortunately, the First Minister was not convinced by. But I hope that, as a result of this debate today and the contributions that have been made by Labour Members in it, it will cause the Government to take a slightly different view.

My party does not support votes at 16, for the reasons admirably set out by Gareth Bennett in his speech earlier on. Also, I think that a youth parliament will be some kind of a halfway house between the two sides of this argument. Disraeli, in 1867, took a leap in the dark, as Lord Derby said, by extending the franchise to the industrial working classes, and then he said that he had to prepare the mind of the country and his party. One of the ways, I think, of preparing the mind of the country on the issue of reducing the voting age would be by introducing an institution of this kind into the picture.

Mohammad Asghar, in his contribution to this debate, did refer to the widespread public ignorance that there is about the powers of this Assembly and the devolved administration. It is amazing that nearly half the people of Wales have no idea that the Welsh Government is responsible for health policy, for example. I think that maybe we are all at fault in not playing our full part in ensuring that public understanding of Government and administration isn’t better informed than it is. Therefore, I think that one of the ways in which we could improve public knowledge and understanding of what we do here, and indeed inspire people to perform public service in the way that politicians do—. We get a very bad press on the whole, and there’s a huge amount of cynicism about politicians, which is largely unjustified. One of the ways in which we could encourage greater public confidence in our profession is by involving people in a formal way at an earlier stage. So, I very much hope that this motion will pass unanimously this afternoon, in the spirit of constructive consensus building that is exemplified in the person of Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas, of course, who has championed this for many years. So, on that basis, I commend this motion to the Assembly.

Thank you very much. I call on the Llywydd and the Chair of the Commission, Elin Jones.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to give an update to the Assembly about the discussions about creating a youth parliament for Wales. Members will be aware that the Commission has discussed this issue in the early days of this fifth Assembly as part of a broader consideration of our strategy for the next five years. One of our three strategic goals for the fifth Assembly is to engage with a wide variety of people and champion the Assembly’s achievements.

The Assembly, like Parliaments worldwide, faces a challenge across the board to increase levels of awareness and understanding of our politics processes. As we address those challenges, it’s important that we remind ourselves that the Assembly isn’t laden with ancient traditions and ways of working; we are one Europe’s youngest parliaments. That isn’t something to fear; we should maximise the opportunities our newness present, and forge a better way of doing politics. And we must take young people with us as we do this. The decisions we take here affect their future, and so their voice must be heard by us as an integral part of our discussions.

We have a proud record in this respect. The Assembly’s outreach and education teams are leading the way in parliamentary engagement, and we have a long-established relationship with the children and young people of Wales. During the last Assembly, the Commission took a conscious decision to focus on its youth engagement efforts, including young people directly into the formal business of the Assembly, providing them with opportunities to influence the work of Members and committees. Since then, we’ve established a youth work programme that has engaged with over 200 youth groups and a wide range of views in the Assembly’s work, including those so often without a voice: looked-after children, disabled children, and young carers. More than 20,000 children and young people visit Siambr Hywel or meet Members and officers on an annual basis.

Many of you Members have engaged with young people through your committee work. Increasingly, I see that their input forms a core and influential part of the evidence-gathering process, and not simply as an annex or reference at the end of a report. Earlier in this debate we referred to the work that some of us did on the health committee in the fourth Assembly, and as a member of that health committee I clearly remember the evidence that we received from young people leaving care as we discussed and drew up legislation on social care services.

Like many of you, I’m sure that I don’t accept that young people aren’t interested in politics. Despite the fact that they cannot vote in Assembly elections hitherto, they understand the importance of the decisions we take here. They can tell us when and how they are directly affected by our actions, and many of them work hard to influence our processes. However, good enough is not good enough.

As a nation that is committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we must do better. Children and young people have the right to participate as citizens now. So, we must increase meaningful opportunities to involve them in our work—input that, I’m sure, will inspire us to think differently about our nation’s future. We should also provide support for them to discuss issues that matter to them, finding ways for young people to drive our agenda, and, above all, we must listen. That’s why, since taking office in May, I’ve made clear my commitment to further increase the involvement of children and young people in the work of the Assembly.

I’m acutely aware of the gap in the provision of a national youth assembly for Wales since Funky Dragon ceased to exist in October 2014. Undoubtedly, Funky Dragon was a trailblazer, because it provided a means for young people in Wales to speak directly with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, for example. But today we are presented with an opportunity to think afresh about a national democratic space for young people in Wales—a space that reflects the separation between government and parliament. The Welsh Government has developed structures for its own purposes to enable young people to influence its policies and to enable the Government to comply with its duties under the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011.

So, I am delighted that we’re having this debate today, as it allows me to confirm my commitment to establishing a permanent youth parliament for Wales early in the fifth Assembly. The Assembly Commission has endorsed this ambition as part of the new strategy, and I know from conversations with colleagues since May, and from contributing to this debate, that there is enthusiasm across all parties for such a move. Assembly officials have been in close contact with the Campaign for the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales since they launched their consultation earlier this year, and that consultation encompasses input by experts in children’s rights, the opinions of young people as well as comparisons of various international parliamentary models. I’ve also discussed this issue with the children’s commissioner, Sally Holland, and found that we share common ground and the same ambitions on this issue. I wish to inform Members that I have written to the Campaign for the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales’s trustees in advance of their meeting on 23 October, signalling our commitment to taking this matter forward as a Commission. Of course, I will be respectful of their consultation and I look forward to receiving their final recommendations on a youth parliament before Christmas.

To conclude today, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the trustees of the Campaign for the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales, and the campaigners, for their dedication to their cause. For two years now they have campaigned tirelessly for the establishment of a youth assembly, building an outstanding body of research and evidence that will help us to drive our ambition forward. Thank you for reminding us that our duty is not only to today’s voters, but to all citizens with a stake in our democracy, present and future. If the Assembly votes in favour of this motion today, it will give the Commission a clear mandate to make progress on the details to establish, in the near future, the first youth parliament for Wales.

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

May I sincerely thank everyone who’s contributed to the debate? I don’t remember so much unanimity on any motion—apart from the references to voting at 16, perhaps. But certainly in terms of the content of the motion itself, I do think that the mandate will be clear and unanimous, and I’d like to thank all Members who’ve contributed, and everyone else who will support the motion.

It was entirely appropriate that we heard at the opening of the debate about the way in which this Assembly has been in the vanguard and has been innovative in terms of the rights of children and young people, and in terms of the creation of a children’s commissioner for Wales, and also, as an institution, in the way in which we take pride in our accessibility as an organisation to young people, and the work that we do with schools and the 20,000 children and young people who visit annually as part of those plans. ‘No brainer’ was Lynne Neagle’s description of this concept of having a children and young people’s parliament, and I think we would all endorse that sentiment. Of course, it was important that she reminded us of what the UN has said in terms of the lack of provision currently.

I’d like also to thank Julie Morgan for reminding us of the UK youth parliament. I have seen pictures of young people on those green benches in Westminster and they are very powerful images, I have to say. It’s not just middle-aged men in grey suits but young people, and all of a sudden you see the House of Commons looking far more lively and far more relevant, and politics, as a result of that, becomes far more lively and far more relevant to the young people who perhaps feel that they are disengaged from politics as it currently exists in this country.

I don’t necessarily agree with Neil Hamilton that the establishment of a youth parliament is some sort of halfway house. I would like to go the whole hog, as they say, and to provide a vote for those aged 16 as well as a youth parliament, and to do more, because this is an ongoing process, not something that can be achieved and left alone. I think that the youth parliament of Rwanda that we heard mentioned poses a challenge to us all. Just imagine a youth parliament where a member of that parliament can actually sit in the full Parliament. Now there’s a challenge for us all. I do think that that would be an excellent thing for us to emulate and it would certainly encourage debate as to what the next move should be in terms of empowering and giving young people a voice in this country.

Of course, after the referendum in Scotland, we did see a wave of young people in Scotland, but also across the UK, who became part of politics and who engaged more with youth politics. We were reminded that those fora do exist in other parts of the UK to channel much of that enthusiasm. Young people, as we know, do have real concerns—about Brexit, about austerity, about their lack of rights in the rental sector, and much more—but far too often, those concerns aren’t heard, never mind listened to, which is another issue altogether, of course.

But, where is the voice of young people in the debate on Brexit today? We know that the First Minister established a consultative group on Europe, but I don’t think that there is a young voice on that particular group, so how can we ensure that we hear the views of young people within that discourse and discussion? The youth work charter that we have in Wales, which was published by the Government some six months ago, does mention young people’s rights, and I quote, to have:

‘Opportunities to participate in decision-making via informal and formal structures for youth engagement locally and nationally’.

Well, there is certainly a void at a national level, and the picture is very patchy at a local level too.

Fel rhywun a ddechreuodd ei yrfa yn y sector gwaith ieuenctid, fel gweithiwr ieuenctid flynyddoedd lawer yn ôl, caf fy atgoffa o rai o egwyddorion sylfaenol gwaith ieuenctid yng Nghymru, sy’n sôn am roi cyfleoedd mynegiannol i bobl ifanc, cyfleoedd sy’n grymuso, cyfleoedd i gymryd rhan. Eto i gyd, ar fater gadael yr UE, mater a fydd yn diffinio nid yn unig ein cenhedlaeth ni, ond cenedlaethau’r dyfodol yn ogystal wrth gwrs, ble mae llais y bobl ifanc? Os cawn hyn yn anghywir, yna hwy, yn amlwg, yw’r rhai a fydd yn talu’r pris.

Cawsom ein hatgoffa o’r gwahaniaethau yn y pleidleisio. Gwyddom hynny, wrth gwrs, rhwng y cenedlaethau iau a hŷn, ond y nifer is a bleidleisiodd hefyd, ymhlith y genhedlaeth iau—30 y cant, rwy’n credu oedd y nifer o blith pobl ifanc a bleidleisiodd yn y refferendwm penodol hwnnw. Nawr, wrth gwrs, nid cynulliad ieuenctid yw’r ateb, nid dyna’r unig ateb, ond mae iddo arwyddocâd ymarferol a symbolaidd iawn, rwy’n meddwl, fel y mae’r drafodaeth hon heddiw yn ei adlewyrchu.

Therefore, I congratulate the Llywydd on her comments. Clearly, this debate started very early after she was elected and very early on in this fifth Assembly. It is an opportunity for us as a young institution, as we were reminded, to innovate. If Westminster, which isn’t famed for being innovative, is able to achieve this, then certainly that reflects on the disappointing situation that currently exists in Wales. I welcome the commitment made and the confirmation of that commitment made by our Llywydd, and I’m grateful that the conversations and the arrangements are already in train.

Achieving a national assembly for children and young people is our aim. I am sure that we will unanimously support this motion today, hopefully. But, as I said, this is part of a continuing process. Achieving that will be a milestone. Let us actually achieve that milestone as soon as we can. Thank you.

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

We move on to the debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on its inquiry on the UK Government’s Wales Bill. I call on the Chair of the committee, Huw Irranca-Davies, to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking all of our committee members of all parties, our excellent clerking team and the support team around us and also those who’ve contributed with expert evidence to our report?

Constitutional issues are often considered to be dry, incidental matters of little consequence to the average person in the street. But if Brexit has taught us anything, it is that constitutional issues do matter and they do engage. So, we should not be surprised that the Wales Bill has been a source of much discussion, not just between politicians, but also when people use our laws on a daily basis. The Wales Bill will determine the laws we can make to improve the prosperity and quality of life of all citizens in Wales. Our role as legislators in scrutinising the Bill is to make sure that the Assembly has the best possible framework in which to make those laws. It is also to ensure that the constitution is accessible to all.

This is not constitutional navel gazing as some would have you believe; it is about making sure that the Assembly has all the necessary tools to make laws that deliver for the people of Wales. And that is why, even though this is the fourth Wales Bill in the last 20 years, we must speak out if the Bill makes the job of legislating more complicated and if it does not deliver what was promised.

There are elements of this Bill that we welcome. In principle, we agree with the move to a reserved-powers model. We also welcome the removal of the necessity test in relation to private and criminal law, giving the National Assembly greater freedom to legislate. We welcome the ability to remove and modify some UK Minister functions without consent, with bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Electoral Commission having been carved out from the consent requirements. We also welcome the listing of all the main Welsh public authorities in the Bill, removing any doubt that these bodies are within the National Assembly’s legislative competence.

However, our overall assessment of the Bill is that it is a complex and inaccessible piece of constitutional law. It will not deliver the lasting, durable settlement that the people of Wales had expected. That is disappointing and it is regrettable. The Bill certainly does not offer the progressive, ambitious and aspirational settlement that many in Wales hoped for and believed is needed. Neither does it befit a modern legislature and an equal partner within the family of nations that make up the United Kingdom.

This Bill is better than the draft Bill, and we welcome the changes made by the UK Government. However, of greater importance, this Bill will not improve the devolution settlement overall, as it stands. The complex way in which the Assembly’s legislative competence is expressed, including the number and the extent of reservations and restrictions, is far too restrictive. It is out of touch and it is out of date.

In addition, the National Assembly is being prevented from taking on responsibilities that would be expected of a mature legislature. It is clear that unless the Bill is amended significantly in the House of Lords, the Assembly will lose the power to make laws in certain areas. It does not, in our view, reflect or respect the democratic will of the people of Wales as expressed in 2011.

Before discussing in detail the conclusions of our work, I would like to use some examples to explain the practical effect of the Bill and how it fails to fully empower the National Assembly as a modern legislature. So, for example, the health committee and the First Minister raised concerns about the reservation of the sale and supply of alcohol, which could impact on the ability of the Welsh Government to tackle alcohol-related health issues. We’ve also heard concerns expressed about the loss of competence in relation to the protection of children and adoption policy, and—

Will the Member give way?

I will indeed give way.

I thank the Member very much for giving way. Does the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee believe that any of the reservations listed would affect the ability of this Government and this Assembly to remove the defence of reasonable punishment, which is one of the aims that have been in the programme for government?

I thank Julie Morgan for that intervention, and, indeed, that is one of the areas of concern that have been raised by authoritative experts on the constitution and legislation who have given evidence to the committee. So, it is one of our areas of concern, unfortunately.

These highlight some simple examples. It would take too long to explain how the complexity of the tests and the reservations work together and impact on the ability of the National Assembly to make laws. However, we have published an example of the difficulties that would be faced in relation to a hypothetical Bill, an example we shared with the House of Lords Constitution Committee last week. I would encourage anyone with an interest in the Bill to read that.

While the Bill actually needs a complete overhaul, it would be too complicated to attempt to rewrite a Bill of this nature through amendments. It’s a general point of principle highlighted in our predecessor committee’s ‘Making Laws in Wales’ report. So, faced with the challenges I have outlined, as a committee, and working constructively with stakeholders, we recognised that our role must be to suggest amendments that would make the Bill more workable than it currently is, reduce the bureaucracy that it introduces and, at the very least—at the very least—return the National Assembly’s legislative competence to that set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. On this latter point, I would point out that the judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill should be viewed as the Supreme Court’s view of the UK’s Parliament’s intention in relation to that 2006 Act. This is an important constitutional point.

So, our approach was to identify and support amendments previously suggested by the Llywydd or the Welsh Government that delivered the objectives I have just referred to. In particular, we supported amendments that: in relation to clause 2, would make it much more explicit about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament would legislate on devolved matters; in relation to clause 3, would remove necessity tests to ensure that the Assembly’s current—current—level of competence was maintained; and, in relation to clause 18, sought to ensure that the executive functions of Welsh Ministers in devolved areas aligned with the legislative competence of the National Assembly.

We also suggested our own amendments, most notably an amendment to permit the National Assembly to consolidate, without modification, all the legislation relating to the Welsh constitution in our official languages. Such an approach is transparent and will make sure that the legislation is accessible. In a healthy democracy, this is vital so that citizens are clear about which parliamentary institution is responsible for law making in a particular policy area. But the complexity and lack of clarity within the Bill as currently drafted, calls into question the long-term durability of the settlement. Another factor impacting on this durability is the failure to provide for a distinct or a separate jurisdiction for Wales. As we heard at a stakeholder event, practical pressures—practical pressures—will inevitably arise for those practising law or giving advice on the law in Wales. So, the case for such a jurisdiction will continue to arise. It is regrettable, therefore, that this Bill is likely to perpetuate rather than resolve constitutional uncertainty.

A durable and a workable settlement is crucial to the constitutional integrity of the UK as well as to Wales. For that reason we do consider that politicians in the UK Parliament and the National Assembly will have to return to the Welsh devolution settlement sooner rather than later.

To be a success, constitutional reform necessitates full and open engagement by all: this builds a consensus across political parties and wider society that will underpin a durable settlement, but, unfortunately, this Bill has been characterised by a Whitehall-driven process under tight control by the UK Government, which has lost that opportunity of wider support and consensus. We believe there needs to be a new approach to considering constitutional Bills. This should be an agreed means of co-operating between the National Assembly and our committees and the two Houses of Parliament and their committees. We recommend the development of these new ways of working as a matter of urgency. They should be in place before major constitutional legislation is brought forward—for example, in response to Brexit—and we stand ready to contribute to this work.

So, in concluding these opening remarks, I look forward to hearing other contributions to this debate, and to see what other Members thought of the report that we have brought forward. Thank you.

I’d like to thank the committee for the very detailed and comprehensive work that they’ve done on the Wales Bill, and particularly thank the Chair for outlining so clearly, I think, the concerns that the committee has with the Bill, and that are related to the Bill in going forward, if the Bill had not been amended in the way that the committee has recommended.

We’ve had a pledge, of course, that this will be the Bill that will give a long-term constitutional settlement for Wales. Unfortunately, for the reasons that Huw Irranca-Davies has outlined, the Bill falls very short of achieving that aim. We will certainly be looking at a fifth devolution Bill within a very short period of time.

I think that the Bill extends the opportunity to move forward with devolution on one hand, in terms of this idea of reserved powers, while, at the same time, it stymies the Government’s ability and the Senedd’s ability in the way that it has kept powers back and has created a very mixed picture of what lies where.

There are positive things in the Bill. The fact that the National Assembly is acknowledged as a permanent institution is important; it’s important for a mature way of discussing the constitution of the UK. It’s possible to build on that in the way that the Chair has started to outline, I think. I’m very interested in seeing that there’s some sort of parliamentary protocol established between this place and the Parliament in Westminster, where we can have that joint discussion that the Chair outlined. As we are established now—once the Bill turns into an Act—as a permanent institution, then we can build on that.

There are other positive things in the Bill with regard to changing our own internal processes. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I look forward to having the opportunity to develop new fiscal processes, where we can take a finance Bill through this Parliament and we can genuinely look at the way that taxes are raised in Wales and put that in the context of expenditure. Now, that in itself will add to the maturity of this place, and also to the maturity of the Welsh Government.

But—and it’s a very significant ‘but’—for the first time, we’re seeing a devolution Bill that claws back powers to Westminster and London, and that’s a great shame. First of all, powers that have been recognised by the Supreme Court, as has been mentioned, in the area of wages in the agricultural sector—they’re being clawed back. But, more than that, there’s been an attempt, clearly, in putting together this Bill, by going through the different departments in Westminster, for every department to try and get their mitts on the Bill and to leave their trace on it. Even though there have been improvements since the first draft, the traces of different departments—some of which have never even understood devolution—remain on this Bill.

There are several examples of legislation in the past—the First Minister has outlined them before the Assembly previously—that have been passed by this Assembly that will not be possible, or will be challenged, at least, in the Supreme Court, under the auspices of this proposed Bill.

Now, there’s no doubt about it, as Huw Irranca-Davies said: the referendum was a very clear statement. We’ve heard over the past few months how important it is that you do listen to a referendum and listen to what the people tell you. The referendum back in 2011 was a very clear statement: over 60 per cent of people said very clearly that we want to build on what you’ve been doing as a parliamentary body, and we want you to have full legislative powers, and we want you to implement that. In that context, this Bill goes against that principle and sets a very dangerous precedent, therefore, for the relationship between the different legislatures of the United Kingdom, especially with this additional challenge that we have now of dealing with Brexit—what legislation will be devolved to this place, what legislation will be devolved to Westminster, what funding will come here, and what funding will be kept back by Westminster. This Bill is a very unfortunate template for moving forward on those matters.

Roedd dyfyniad enwog iawn gan genedlaetholwr Gwyddelig, Charles Stewart Parnell, a ddywedodd yn glir iawn nad oes gan unrhyw ddyn—neu fenyw, y dyddiau hyn, ond nad oes gan unrhyw ddyn; Oes Fictoria—

Nid oes gan unrhyw ddyn hawl i ddweud wrth ei wlad “Dyma pa mor bell y cei fynd a dim pellach”.

Nid oes gan San Steffan hawl i ddweud wrth bobl Cymru na chânt fynd ddim pellach. Mae gan bobl Cymru hawl i fynegi eu hunanbenderfyniad ym mha bynnag ffordd sy’n briodol iddynt. Gwaith San Steffan, fel ein Senedd unedol ar gyfer y Deyrnas Unedig, yw paratoi’r llwybr deddfwriaethol ar gyfer llais pobl Cymru. Nid yw hynny wedi cael ei gyflawni yn y Bil hwn.

Can I start by congratulating the new Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on leading the committee and the secretariat to produce what I think is an outstanding report? It had to be done very quickly in the earliest days of this Assembly. I think it stands as a powerful document, and I particularly am grateful to all the officials that helped us draft the report. It’s an outstanding sign, I think, of the quality of the Commission’s staff, if I may so, Presiding Officer.

Can I just start by saying that the Bill is actually generous in several respects? The declaration of permanence, I think, takes us as far as we can go in our quasi-federal constitution to establish fundamental law and that the Assembly and the Welsh Government is a fundamental institution.

I think the competence regarding Assembly elections, including franchise and electoral systems, is also really important. We’ve had several references this afternoon to STV in local government and the possibility of reducing the voting age to 16. Well, we will soon have the power to actually determine these matters. Also, the removal of the necessity test in relation to private and criminal law was a very welcome change from the draft Bill. However, as the committee highlights, the Bill could be improved in some key ways to meet the aspiration for a fuller and more durable settlement. I remember, when I was Chair of the committee and we had the then Secretary of State before us, we commended him for that vision of a full and durable settlement—a high aspiration. But, in some respects, as we’ve heard, we have not quite achieved that standard yet.

I think the necessity tests that remain in reserved areas should be replaced by some other test, such as one allowing us ancillary powers to alter the law of England and Wales. This is a technical thing in many respects, but it’s really important to allow our law-making competence to work effectively. Without that scope and flexibility, you can lack the energy to use what appear to be your quite broad powers over, say, housing, education or health. I do fear that we could end up back in the Supreme Court, or bickering with the UK Government, to get that elbow room to have really effective law. The list of reservations is still far too long and it includes, as we’ve heard, the licensing of intoxicating liquors or premises that sell them. As K.O. Morgan, the great historian, points out, Wales controlled its pubs before it controlled its church, or at least disestablished the Anglican church, and now we are going to see a settlement that is not going to give us that power. I do remember, as an aside, Presiding Officer, taking part in the last set of referenda on Sunday opening. There was a vote in Cardiff in 1989, and I believe, in Ceredigion, that was when they finally decided to go wet on Sunday, despite the pleas of the Aberystwyth students union, which found Sunday a particularly profitable day and was very happy with the more restricted arrangements. But, I mean, it is a nonsense, I think, for us not to have powers over licensing. Also, the transfer of Executive powers should go along the lines of the Scotland Act. I’m still mystified why this is not fully the case even now.

But can I just lay a marker as a member of the committee and a former Chair? The real obstacle to a final settlement is the lack of political consensus on the question of a Welsh jurisdiction. We are in this most peculiar and irregular position in regard to the Westminster model, where we have a legislature that doesn’t have a jurisdiction. One does wonder what we are supposed to do here if it is not to pass laws for the benefit of the people. Or, to put it another way: we’re in a single jurisdiction that has two legislatures. This is a very peculiar way to proceed, and it does make a real reserved-powers model very, very difficult to deliver. This reluctance to deal with this question is seen most vividly, I think, around policing powers, where community policing in nearly all these centralised systems is given to the devolved institutions, and then higher policing functions are held by the state. This is what happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is about to happen in the principal cities of England. So, we are going to get overtaken even in our own settlement.

Can I just finish with that I do believe this Bill is workable? I do also believe that it is probably going to have to be replaced. It is not going to be ‘the fourth Bill and it’, as one very senior member of the judiciary put it. We’re going to have to, probably, have a fifth Government of Wales Bill. But, for this Bill to work, it will require the most effective joint working between the Welsh Government and the UK Government to allow this legislature to exercise the powers that the people of Wales want us to possess. Thank you.

I would first like to thank the committee for their work on the Wales Bill and for the comprehensive report produced by the committee. In principle, the move from a conferred-powers to a reserved-powers model is a positive step. However, as pointed out by the committee, the Bill is complex and inaccessible. The move to a reserved-powers model is therefore undermined by that complexity and by the number of reservations included in the Bill. The powers reserved to the UK Government are so extensive as to leave one wondering which areas of legislative competence are left to the Welsh Assembly after all the reservations have been taken into account. The way that the reservations have been drafted lends them to disagreement between the Assembly and the UK Government regarding what is within the competence of the Assembly. The inevitable delay while such issues are being resolved will not aid good or effective government in Wales. That the reservations in some cases do not make sense speaks of a lack of attention and forethought on the part of the UK Government. That legislative competence is being rolled backwards in some cases is particularly alarming. I completely agree with the committee that this Bill does not present a lasting constitutional settlement for Wales. Perhaps if the UK Government had properly consulted this Assembly on the Wales Bill, instead of imposing a new devolution settlement on Wales as if from above, we would not now be greeting this Bill with a big question mark.

However, the repatriation of legislative power from Brussels to the UK gives Wales a golden opportunity to have a mature conversation with the UK Government about the proper apportionment of legislative competence between the UK legislature and the Assembly. The committee was presented with a sow’s ear, and the recommendations valiantly tried to sew it into something meaningful. I would urge the UK Government to give the committee’s recommendations serious consideration. Although, in my opinion, what is required is a root-and-branch rethink and rewrite of the Bill.

My sympathies go to the Presiding Officer, who has the unenviable task of navigating us through this dog’s dinner of a statute once it’s in force. Thank you.

I’d like to first of all acknowledge the work that was done within the committee by my colleagues. We put in a great deal of effort, but I’d like to highlight Huw Irranca-Davies and just congratulate him on the chairmanship of this committee and the work that he’s done—very professional, and I’m very impressed with it. Thank you, Huw.

As you mentioned, this is the fourth Bill in 20 years, and the question that I think we’re all asking is: will this be the last? Certainly, Simon Thomas and David Melding have pointed out that there’s going to be a fifth Bill. Well, actually, I think that’s a reality; that’s something we can all see. Now, my reasoning behind that is something that maybe hasn’t been touched on, but, of course, we all acknowledge what happened on 23 June and the fact that Wales voted for us to leave the EU, and I’m sure that you’re all groaning about the fact I’m bringing that up again, but the reality is that this Bill does not really acknowledge that fact. Nowhere in it is there an acknowledgement of the fact that we’re going to get some of the areas that are devolved to Wales, hopefully, coming back to us, whether it be fisheries, farming or food production. One of the things that we need to do, certainly, is: as a legislature, we need to be looking at those areas and deciding how we want to move forward with them, what areas we want to change and what EU legislation we wish to, through the great repeal Act, see got rid of and use this as an opportunity for change for all of us for the positive.

The committee report acknowledges the decision taken on the twenty-third, and the First Minister yesterday, in a response to a question that I gave him, said about the fisheries policy that there is a need for Wales to develop its own fisheries policy when the UK leaves the EU to safeguard the future prosperity of Wales’s fishing industry and our coastal communities. Now, we’re leaving the EU, and this is a golden opportunity for us to develop our own policies and laws and to pursue Welsh interests and Welsh prosperity. So, really, as far as I can see, and I think most of us acknowledge, this Bill will need to be amended within a matter of months, really, in order for us to start, once article 50 is invoked.

There is one other area that I myself, personally, have a bit of a beef about, and I’d like to quote from Hansard, from Lord Hain, who, when he was talking about the Bill, said:

‘Meanwhile, my other major objection is that Clause 17 of this Bill removes sections of the Wales Act 2014—just two years ago—that retain the requirement which has existed since 1997 that a referendum will be required to implement the powers to vary income tax under that Act.’

And then he goes on to say that there was no second question in the referendum as to whether or not people wanted income tax devolved. He further goes on to say that

‘to devolve income tax powers to Wales would therefore need another referendum like Scotland had on income tax.’

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Hain in his assessment of that. Thank you.

‘I don’t see this settlement as being any more permanent than any of the others…. Until we reach the point of having some sort of jurisdiction for Wales, then I don’t think that the process of devolution will have been concluded. But, again, I do feel that the way in which these matters are to be reserved are dealt with in this particular Bill is something that can only be a temporary solution rather than a permanent one.’

Those are not my words, but the words of the pre-eminent constitutional lawyer in Wales. And how do I know that he is pre-eminent? Well, he is emeritus professor of law at Bangor and Cardiff universities, and you can get no higher than that.

Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin and others who provided evidence to the committee on this Bill have demonstrated clearly all the deficiencies that have been repeated in this Bill, because it was clear from the outset, when the original draft Bill was proposed, what path we were taking; namely, it was moving from a conferred-powers model to a reserved-powers model. But to me, that wasn’t the question. The question was always how many reservations and exceptions there will be. The crucial thing for me is to compare the reservations in Scotland’s devolution settlement and Northern Ireland’s settlement and to see the rationale, and to ask the question—and I still ask the question: what is the constitutional reason as to why Wales must be treated differently? Now, I asked that question of the previous Secretary of State and asked him whether he had read the appropriate clause in the Northern Ireland Act that includes exceptions and reservations, because, as the First Minister will know, there are but a handful of these. Those in Northern Ireland, in terms of the conferred powers, do provide additional powers to the Government and Assembly of Northern Ireland so that they can deal with the republic on the same terms. So, these aren’t barriers to prevent them doing things, but are enablers.

Therefore it is clear to me that the model that we have followed in developing devolution—. I congratulate the new Chair on his work, and fellow members of the committee, when I was a member, and I was pleased to hear him make this point, and this is a crucial point: we must reach a position where we can legislate jointly with Westminster. If I may say so, we did that the other week, when, under the leadership of our Chair, we met with colleagues who are members of the Constitution Committee in the second Chamber at Westminster. I’ve never felt prouder of being a Member of this Assembly—and I happen also, because of my past, to be a member of the upper House at Westminster—because our performance at that committee was as good a performance as any politician or legislator in the UK or anywhere else in Europe—anywhere I have been, anyway. But again, here we are being restricted from doing that legislative work ourselves.

I have taken advantage of the work of this committee and have tabled a number of draft amendments that will be discussed at the Committee Stage in the upper House the week after next. My colleague Baroness Morgan of Ely will be there with me. I don’t know what her feeling is, but I am not particularly hopeful that the Government will listen. I’m not particularly confident, in terms of the conversations that I’ve had with the Government, that they are truly interested in responding to what we have said, which raises a very grave question in terms of the prejudice against this house in the rest of the UK. We must seek a totally different way of dealing with constitutional issues, and that must mean that the National Assembly for Wales, in my view, must be able to legislate jointly on its own constitution with Westminster and anywhere else.

I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank Members for their contributions to this debate and also acknowledge the ground that UKIP has shifted? I put that in terms that are entirely neutral for a party that, at one time, was not in favour of devolution. Today, we heard UKIP saying that the Bill was not sufficient and truly saying that this institution needs to have more clarity and more powers. And that I acknowledge.

We have to remember, of course, that this Bill must be compared with the original Bill. The original Bill drove a coach and horses through the 2011 referendum result. It is said that referendums should be respected, and I agree with that, but apparently for some in Whitehall, they are respected when it suits them.

That Bill originally would have meant that we would’ve lost the power to legislate according to the very strongly expressed will of the people of Wales in 2011. This Bill is better; it would be difficult for it to be worse, but it is, nevertheless, better. There are some parts of the Bill that Members, I’m sure, would agree with. We get substantial control of our constitution as far as the Assembly is concerned, in terms of the numbers, in terms of the method of election and, of course, in terms of us being able to govern ourselves as an institution, rather than be told how we should govern ourselves by others. It contains a substantial amount of devolution of the criminal law; it makes progress in terms of water—some progress—energy and other areas that Members will be very familiar with. But, of course, there are other areas that are not properly dealt with, which means that it is absolutely inevitable that there will be another Bill that will have to be dealt with in the future. And it’s a shame, because instead of acting like an over-fussy mother hen, the UK Government could actually show the vision of bringing forward a settlement that would be more lasting and more durable. That is not the way they operate in Westminster, sadly.

Two of the issues in particular that have caused Members concern are the issue of jurisdiction and the issue of policing. It is not coherent to have a single jurisdiction with two legislatures in it. This is the only place in the world that has a system like this and it is not one that is durable. Why do I say that? Because with the devolution of the substantive criminal law, it will mean that it will be perfectly possible for somebody in the future to be arrested in Cardiff for an offence that is not an offence in Wales. It will be perfectly possible for somebody to spend time in prison in England for an offence that is not an offence in England. Already, I’ve been told—the Lord Chief Justice has said this to me—that lawyers have come into courts in Wales and argued the wrong law, because they believe single jurisdiction means a single set of laws. This confusion can only continue in the future. We also find ourselves in the situation, because of the failure to devolve the police, where most of the law governing public order will be devolved—indeed, most of criminal law will be devolved—but the agencies responsible for enforcing and prosecuting that law will not be devolved. Now, that makes no sense at all, as Members will see in the future.

On the issue of licensing, the opinion of the Welsh Government has always been that licensing is a health issue. That wasn’t accepted by the UK Government; they said it was a public order issue. Yet, now, most public order legislation is going to be devolved, but licensing isn’t. So, the reasoning behind the failure to devolve licensing disappears. That’s the problem: there is not logic in this Bill at all. Why should Scotland get control of air passenger duty but Wales not? I know the answer to that question: they regret the fact that they gave Scotland air passenger duty in the first place. They are damned if they’re going to make sure that we have the same rights. Why is it that the ports are devolved, except the treaty port of Milford Haven? The reason, actually, is because of the flow of liquefied natural gas to the port. I’ve been told that by the UK Government: ‘Well, it controls 25 per cent of the LNG’. As if we would cut that off. Why is there an intervention power in water, which negates anything the Assembly might want to do in the future? That intervention power would mean we could not have control over our water resources; it would mean that another Tryweryn could be imposed on us. That is not right in terms of the need to have a mature relationship between Governments. Again, it comes back to the fact that they are obsessed with the fact that we will, in some way, turn the taps off if we have control over water. I’ve had experience of this. When I was environment Minister, we wanted to put the political border in place when it came to flood defences. The argument that was thrown back at us was, ‘Yes, but you might do something to the Severn in Newtown that causes Gloucester to flood.’ Now, why we are seen as some kind of hostile power, I don’t know, but that is the way, sometimes, the UK Government sees it. It’s a shame, because, as I say, there is an opportunity here to get things right.

It is inevitable, I think, that we will end up back in the Supreme Court, and that, again, undermines the argument that this is a durable settlement based on the St David’s Day agreement, which isn’t an agreement and never was. Again, we are in a position where there is no logic behind why some areas are reserved and others are devolved.

On the issue of reasonable chastisement, I don’t believe it’ll interfere with our ability to deal with that, because it’s quite clear to me that the offence of common assault will be entirely devolved and so the defences follow that. We will be able to chart our own course when it comes to that offence.

It is right to say that there are some areas where devolution goes backwards—areas such as employment, for example, and areas where Minister of the Crown consents are still needed in areas that are not really that important, and why they seem important to Whitehall is difficult to fathom.

On some of the other issues that Members raised, the issues that Nathan Gill raised are important ones. The issue of sea fisheries—again, because of Brexit, a number of issues now have to be addressed. First of all, with sea fisheries, we have control over the 12-mile limit, but not beyond. Everyone else does: Scotland does, Northern Ireland does, England does, but Wales doesn’t. Now, in the days of the common fisheries policy, it didn’t really matter. It does now, because it interferes with our ability to have a proper fisheries policy that enables the Welsh fishing fleet to have access sustainably to Welsh waters. That will not be possible as things stand as they are. The UK Government will take the view that where powers come back from Brussels, they will end up in Westminster. That is not the case. If they’re devolved, they’ll bypass Westminster and come straight here, and the concern that some of us have is that, somehow, an attempt will be made to stop that from happening with farming and fisheries. Otherwise, of course, they would be automatically devolved.

On the issue of the referendum, my argument has always been this: that, in some ways, the argument has moved on. Scotland has far, far stronger fiscal powers than we have, and that’s happened without a referendum. As a result of that, I don’t see the need for a referendum now in Wales, given what’s happened in Scotland and the powers that have been devolved there.

We have to understand that we are not yet in a situation in the UK where, bluntly, the UK Government is mature enough to treat the other Governments in the UK with respect. In this Bill, there are many things that can be supported; there are others that will cause Members great concern. We will be putting down amendments as a Government to reflect the concern of Members in a genuine attempt to improve the Bill, to make it clearer for us to understand properly what the boundaries are between what is devolved and what is not, whilst respecting the result of the 2011 referendum. We wait to see what view the UK Government will take on that. Our support of the Bill is still conditional on what we will see coming through the various stages in the House of Lords. I hope the UK Government take on board the views not just of the Welsh Government, but of others, in other parties around this Chamber, and work genuinely to ensure that this is a Bill that meets Wales’s constitutional needs, that recognises the view expressed by the people of Wales in 2011 and, more than anything else, means we don’t have to come back again in a few years’ time and argue the same points over and over again. That’s been missed so far and I hope it’s not missed in the future. The message has gone from this Assembly today, from all sides of this Assembly: there is still work to do in order to produce a Bill that is acceptable.

I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank everybody who’s contributed to this debate? I’m struck by the degree of consensus. There may be differences in emphasis and nuance, but the consensus, as expressed by the First Minister then, is that, first, we will be back here again, and in our report, we’ve said sooner rather than later. But, also, I note that the First Minister said it’s inevitable we’ll be back in the Supreme Court. Surely that is not the purpose of a good and clear legislative and constitutional settlement.

Just on one item of detail, Llywydd, in terms of the issue that was raised by Julie Morgan, it may be something again that we want to seek clarity on because, certainly, the evidence that we received from people such as Emyr Lewis was—well, I’ll quote him:

‘it’s quite clear now that the National Assembly has the power to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement when a child is struck. Now, if this Bill were to become law, I do think that that would disappear, because of the changes in relation to criminal law.’

But the simple fact is that we shouldn’t be having to dance around this and, in this confusion, to try and clarify what is happening. That’s what this Bill does to us.

But I thank all those who have contributed. Simon Thomas, with the contribution here, touched on the issue of the respect between two mature institutions. We may be a young institution, but we are capable, we are confident, we have a body of law, and we have a body of legislators. In the development of constitutional law—it’s a point that we made very clearly—we need to act in greater parity in developing it, and greater parity in the outcomes between the two Governments, and the Assembly and Parliament, and so on. He highlighted, as others did, the danger of rollback, which is something that we have highlighted. He mentioned the Charles Parnell quote. If I have time, I might trade him a quote in a moment from somebody else.

Could I pay my great tribute to the former Chair of this committee, David Melding, and also for his contribution to this as well? I’ve been very fortunate to have a very engaged committee. All of the committee members have contributed, but certainly the experience of some senior Members who have chaired this committee, or who have long experience within constitutional matters, has been a great asset to it. I echo his remarks, and about our support team and the clerks as well, and also on the good elements of the Bill. I’m absolutely convinced that if this Bill can be modified as it goes through, it is worth capturing the good elements of this Bill. But there is a big onus on those people—in ‘the other place’ as we used to call it in Westminster—in the House of Lords and in the Commons in the final stages to make those necessary improvements. But it can be improved. It is worth improving in these remaining weeks ahead.

I thank as well Michelle Brown who was here for most of the duration of this Bill, and she touched on the need for collaboration in developing constitutional settlement. It’s a key theme of our work. Nathan said that, quite presently, a fifth Bill is a reality. That is absolutely right, and there is a consensus around that from all the contributors today. This is not the long-lasting, durable settlement. It isn’t close to it, but we may be able to take a few steps forward if we can just get these improvements in place.

Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas, who will continue his engagement on this at the other end of the M4 or the Great Western rail line, said, ‘If we’re going to have a reserved model, let’s have a proper reserved model’. I won’t mention who it was, but I’m sure that one of my committee members, when we went to the House of Lords constitutional committee said, ‘Let’s have that reserved-powers model, not a reversed-powers model’.

There has been strong consensus today. Let me just, in closing, very briefly say that one of the interesting examples is to do with road traffic. It’s an example that highlights so much that is inadequate in the Bill. It would appear that the Assembly could pass legislation that sets the speed limit on a road, but it could not specify the road traffic offence for breaking that speed limit. That’s preposterous. So, in closing, could I just share with you the thoughts of one witness, Dr Diana Stirbu, whose eloquent comments resonated with the committee? She said,

‘a constitutional settlement should be also aspirational. And I think what we fail to see is a clear ambition and aspiration for the constitutional status of Wales and for how Wales will be constitutionally repositioned within the UK.’

This echoes the comments of the First Minister, previously, and others. And she said,

‘I think constitutions send messages about what kind of politics you are conducting in a country, what kind of society you want to live in, what kind of aspirations you have for your future generations. And all these messages, symbolic or not, at declarative level or at a very technical level—I think the constitution should go further than just technical and legalistic expressions of political reality.’

I genuinely, and all the committee members, wish this Bill well. We hope it gets the improvement it needs, but we will be back here sooner rather than later, and we need to work collaboratively to deliver that clear, workable, lasting settlement that not only Wales needs, but the UK needs as well.

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

The next item is voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time.

The vote, therefore, on the Plaid Cymru debate. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote.

Close the vote. For seven, 44 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 17, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 27, 11 abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 34, 11 abstentions, six against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

Can I ask Members, if they’re going out of the Chamber, can they go quickly and quietly please? Thank you.

We now move to the short debate and I call on Neil McEvoy to speak on the topic he has chosen, which is bringing lobbying in Wales out into the open. Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Lobbying in Wales—this isn’t something that we should talk about; it’s something that we need to talk about. My aim today is to reopen the debate that was started here on lobbying some years ago. For the health of Welsh democracy, we must regulate commercial lobbying and bring it out of the shadows. We must protect this institution of the Welsh Assembly.

Lobbying is an industry that has grown hugely in recent times. In the UK, it’s now worth over £2 billion. That sum of money alone should tell us that regulation is needed. In the previous Assembly, the Standards of Conduct Committee undertook a review into lobbying, but the recommendations were weak and fell short of providing any kind of regulation. The First Minister thinks that rules for lobbyists are not needed. This seems to be a wider part of the culture in the Assembly, refusing to acknowledge the lobbying that is going on here. The last Presiding Officer went as far as writing to Westminster to ask that Wales be left out of any legislation on lobbying. She said, and I quote,

‘we were not facing the same kind of negative issues surrounding access to elected members that Westminster was’.

Well, from my short time in the Assembly here, it’s clear to me that we are facing those same issues. My requests for Ministers’ diaries have been refused. I think that’s worth saying again: Welsh Ministers refusing to disclose who they are meeting with. Why? Why is that? It’s impossible to see the calls made by Ministers on their public phones—their public phones—which we pay for.

In the autumn, an anonymous whistleblower alleged that a decision was made not to approve Welsh Government funding for GlobalWelsh. The business was notified of this by a letter dated 5 July. It was alleged that the lobbyist, who I won’t name at this stage, got in touch with the Minister and he reversed his decision. I was told that there was no paperwork or analysis to support any such change. On 7 July, the Welsh Government published a decision notice stating that the Cabinet Secretary had agreed to support the establishment of a community interest company, GlobalWelsh, to develop a network, and that seems to contradict the letter of 5 July somewhat. The whistleblower seemed to be correct in that the freedom of information request shows that there was no basis on paper for any change of decision. Now, I’m not alleging any wrongdoing here; what I do think is that this kind of allegation shows there is a great need for greater transparency and openness. Regulation will protect everyone—lobbyists, Ministers and the public.

After May 2011, when I was deputy leader of Cardiff council, I couldn’t get a meeting with the Minister—just couldn’t get a meeting. And I was told by people who know what they’re talking about that if you pay £3,000 to a lobbying firm, a meeting with a Welsh Government Minister could be organised. Now, I do stress that the cash is not for the politician, it’s for the lobbying firm. Therefore, I’m alleging that cash for access does exist in Cardiff Bay. And I challenge any Minister here, any Minister present, to say on the record that no lobbyist has ever facilitated an introduction to them. They won’t be able to say it, in my opinion. So, for the former Presiding Officer to claim that lobbying of a particular nature doesn’t go on here is not only inaccurate, but fairly insulting to the Assembly and the Welsh public. The last Presiding Officer also said that it should be for the Assembly to decide how to regulate lobbying, and on that we agree. But, so far, there is no legislation. I think the point of being left out of the Westminster legislation was not to leave Wales completely unprotected, but it was so that we could confront the lobbying industry that surrounds this institution and introduce world-leading legislation on lobbying ourselves.

We need to arrive at a place in the Assembly where it is open to the public, but not wide open for lobbyists. And that is why I’m proposing that the Government introduces legislation on lobbying with a register of lobbyists that will achieve three things. We would simply know who the lobbyists are because they would have to sign the register. We would know who was lobbying who and for what, so if a registered lobbyist met with a Government Minister, that would be officially recorded, and the purpose of that meeting would be known. Thirdly, we should know how much is being paid to the lobbying firm for that access. That’s crucial. If we don’t do this, then lobbying will continue to go on in the shadows, which is a recipe for corruption.

During the EU referendum debate, the EU was perceived by many as not being for them. There are 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels—75 per cent of European legislation being affected by them. And from what I’ve learned from people who work in Brussels, it’s impossible for anybody with any importance to go hungry at lunchtime, because there are so many free dinners, free lunches, thanks to the lobbyists’ business cards—their business credit cards. And if we look at what happened in the EU referendum, clearly in Wales, it’s on a smaller scale here. But if you look at the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party, and the support they got, then it should be a cause for concern, because we cannot take things for granted, and we cannot ignore the Bay bubble lobbying culture.

In many ways, Wales is absolutely ripe for lobbying—we run our own health service, the school system too, we make laws. We’re fortunate at the moment because lobbying firms have been more interested in England than they have in Wales. But when they’re done privatising England’s public services, where will they focus their attention next? And, worryingly, where lobbyists have pressed the Welsh Government, they’ve met with considerable success. In 2013—the Welsh Government set about introducing home energy efficiency targets, with a 40 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. Now, instead, the Government opted for just 8 per cent after intense lobbying from the housing developers. At the time, Friends of the Earth publicly said that they were gobsmacked by the way that developers had rolled over the Welsh Government. Later, it turns out that major developers, like Persimmon Homes, are clients of lobbyists in Cardiff, and that is why we need a register.

It’s true that some lobbying firms voluntarily register with the Association of Professional Political Consultants, but a quick scan of the register shows what we’re up against. The British Soft Drinks Association is represented by lobbyists. They’ve been arguing against any kind of sugar tax, which is a key proposal in my party’s manifesto to deliver 1,000 extra doctors. The World Health Organization has also been urging countries to introduce this tax. The British Soft Drinks Association has also fought against any plans to ban the sale of highly sweetened and caffeinated energy drinks for children.

The problem with a voluntary register is that we know little about what is really going on and who is influencing what decision. The banking collapse showed that self-regulation just doesn’t work. Many firms also operate across the UK, which means it’s impossible to know whether they’re actually influencing Northern Ireland, Scotland or, indeed, Wales. One of the most dangerous aspects of lobbying is the revolving door that has been established between this Assembly and the lobbying firms trying to influence it. These firms are increasingly filled with familiar faces—former AMs, special advisers, former Government officials—and we should all realise that information is a valuable currency, and once gleaned, sometimes informally, information is sold to the highest bidder.

One of the arguments that lobbyists made against the Welsh register in the Standards of Conduct Committee report was that it’s impossible to define what a lobbyist is. But mandatory registers of lobbyists exist in several countries. The Australian Government has legislation that means, and I quote,

‘Any lobbyist who acts on behalf of third-party clients for the purposes of lobbying Government representatives must be registered on the Register of Lobbyists and must comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code’.

It’s the law.

The Canadian House of Commons has mandated that a commissioner of lobbying maintains a register of lobbyists with regulations prescribing the form and manner in which lobbyists must register their activities when they communicate with federal and public office holders.

In France, the National Assembly has a register that is maintained by the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the National Assembly. In the US, mandatory lobbyists’ disclosures must be filed electronically every quarter when lobbying a member of the US Senate and lobbying firms are required to file separate representations and registrations for each client. Closer to home, Scotland is currently passing a lobbying Act that will lead to a register of lobbyists and also sets out what regulated lobbying is.

The legislation at Westminster, which the former Presiding Officer asked that we be left out of, created a register of lobbyists. In Wales, we have nothing and we actually need to go much further than a register—we need to know the nature of the contract between commercial lobbying firms and the clients so that it’s clear who they’re trying to represent and for what purpose. I think it’s quite straightforward. It is time that we joined Australia, Canada, France, the United States and even Scotland and Westminster in introducing robust legislation on lobbying.

We can bring lobbying out into the open and ensure that there’s a transparent culture in this Assembly and that’s why I’m calling on the Welsh Government to introduce lobbying legislation without delay because it’s the right thing to do. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Have you indicated that you may allow a Member to have a minute of your time?

Yes.

And is it Jayne Bryant?

Jayne Bryant, yes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I’m pleased to contribute as the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee. In the last Assembly, the standards committee undertook an inquiry into lobbying and the report was compiled by representatives of all parties and unanimously agreed by the fourth Assembly.

Since this report there have been changes to legislation in Westminster and Holyrood and as a consequence of this, and to ensure we guard against any complacency, the standards committee agreed to undertake a new inquiry into lobbying in the autumn term. We have asked the commissioner for standards to undertake some initial work on this. He will discuss with other UK Parliaments their arrangements and how they’re working in practice, and I think how they’re working in practice is a really crucial point. So, the commissioner will report back to the committee in November, at which point we will agree the next steps for the inquiry and I’d like to assure all Members here today that the committee will maintain a watching brief on this. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. I call on Jane Hutt to reply to the debate.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I do welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate as it does allow me to reiterate the Welsh Government’s position on the issue of lobbying of Ministers. It is a very straightforward position. I’m very glad to make it clear today that Ministers do not meet commercial lobbyists and I’m grateful that you allowed the Chair of the standards committee to update on the committee’s work, with a new Chair in the fifth session, and on the important work that they’re undertaking in this area.

Of course, it has been subject to scrutiny over recent years. But I’m glad that now more work is being undertaken by the committee and that the commissioner will be responding in due course. And, of course, you have drawn attention to previous work. The Members here will be aware that in May 2013 the Assembly’s Standards of Conduct Committee published a report on the Assembly’s arrangements in relation to lobbying and I think it is worth reflecting on that report. It followed an extensive consultation and a review of the arrangements by the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards undertaken in 2012. He reported

‘that it was the unanimous view of all those consultees who operate in Wales and/or in the National Assembly, that lobbying practices are essentially transparent and adequately policed and regulated’.

But he also said—and this is the independent standards commissioner for Wales—that it was a fact that no complaint against a Member relating to lobbying had been made in recent years or, indeed, as far as the commissioner could ascertain, since the National Assembly was formed. So, it is not surprising, therefore, that the commissioner did conclude firmly, and I quote,

‘that the arrangements currently in place for regulating lobbying, as it relates to Members of the National Assembly, are essentially sufficiently robust and fit for purpose.’

That was a conclusion that was endorsed by the Standards of Conduct Committee at that time. And the committee directly addressed the question of a possible register of lobbyists but concluded that it was neither a reasonable or proportionate response in Wales to the concerns that had been raised at that time about lobbying activity—concerns raised solely at the UK level but not at all in Wales. When the committee published its report, the First Minister considered it carefully in the context of how Welsh Ministers operate and Ministers don’t and didn’t meet commercial lobbyists then, just as they don’t now, as I said in my opening remarks. And since neither the standards commissioner nor the committee had found evidence of a problem, the First Minister concluded that there was no case for action in respect of Welsh Ministers and that continues to be the case today. Nothing that I’ve heard from the Member today causes me to question that decision.

Members will also be aware that public affairs professionals in Wales are committed to operating professionally, responsibly and transparently, and their membership organisation Public Affairs Cymru has demonstrated this by proactively developing and implementing a code of conduct to which all of its members are committed to and must uphold. I welcome this code and the evidence it provides that the public affairs profession in Wales is determined to be, and is seen to be, both professional and ethical.

Of course comparisons will always be made with what happens elsewhere and, yes, the UK Government has established a register of consultant lobbyists. And that’s perhaps not surprising, given that it has always been in Westminster that lobbying controversies have arisen. However, the register only covers consultant lobbying and that means it covers only a small proportion of the UK’s lobbying industry. In fact, it currently has only 114 registered. So, the UK arrangement doesn’t represent a model of comprehensive public access to information about lobbying. I’ve already said that Ministers do not meet commercial lobbyists, but they do, of course, meet many people and organisations and consider a wide range of views as part of the formulation of Government policy, but the ministerial code makes it clear that the basic facts of all such formal meetings between Ministers and outside interest groups should be recorded. All Ministers are required to comply with the ministerial code, and the First Minister is accountable for their conduct. And, as he has made clear on many occasions, the First Minister will not hesitate to act if he has evidence of a breach of the code in any respect. In turn, the First Minister is accountable to this Assembly, and this Chamber would no doubt require him to defend his decisions here on any matter referred to him under the code that had not been addressed satisfactorily.

A further assurance of openness and transparency is the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee, with its remit to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are employed in the discharge of public functions in Wales. It has an important role in holding the Government to account. And I do respect the Member’s right to raise this question as the subject of a short debate, but there isn’t evidence to justify introducing new arrangements in Wales on lobbying. I hope I have reassured the Member that the history of this Assembly and Welsh Government demonstrates a shared commitment to monitor this effectively and appropriately. And the Welsh Government is committed—and I think this is the most important point in response to the Member’s short debate today—the Welsh Government is committed to making transparency and accountability to the public a fundamental principle of how we operate.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

No, I think the Minister has finished. Thank you. That brings today’s proceedings to a close. Thank you.