National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

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

Yes. Local authorities are responsible for public leisure centres. They provide funding for leisure centres through the revenue settlement and, of course, it is for them to decide the pattern of services across their county areas.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. He is a well-informed chap, and I am sure he knows that there is a public meeting tonight in Knighton to consider the proposal by Powys County Council to close the leisure centre in Knighton. This will be very bad news for the town, of course. Mary Strong, the headteacher at the primary school, says that the school uses it every single day; that it keeps the community together, which is important, as communities like Knighton have lost so much over the years; and also that it is very difficult to travel by public transport in this part of the country, so having this on the doorstep, of course, is a vital local resource. Will he encourage Powys County Council to keep the Knighton leisure centre open?

Indeed I would. I mean, they have had a better settlement that they would have expected. Even if they are not able to continue funding the leisure centre, there are examples across Wales where the local community has managed to take the leisure centre over. Nevertheless, given the fact that their financial situation is better than they would have expected, then I would encourage them to examine every way of providing a service to the local community.

Of course, First Minister, leisure centres play an important role in rehabilitation. People who have had heart attacks or strokes, suffer from diabetes, or have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are people who, very often, will go to a leisure centre after they have done their six mandatory weeks of physiotherapy. How do you square that public health need with the fact that so many leisure centres are under threat by local authorities at the moment? And what do you think that your Government could do to ensure that local authorities realise that this is a very important part of somebody getting better and leading a more secure, happy and integrated life, going forward?

Well, indeed, we know that social prescriptions are hugely important and that pharmaceutical intervention is not the be all and end all for people. That’s why it’s important that a network of leisure centres is maintained across the whole of Wales. While leisure is not a statutory duty for local authorities, leisure is, nevertheless, a hugely important issue, both locally and important in order to enable people to continue to live healthy lives.

First Minister, do you agree with me that we often see very many claims that are disputed afterwards by highly paid consultants about the transference of providing a service. I am talking particularly here about the Unison report against the transfer of the leisure facilities services in Pembrokeshire, which is, in their words, not in the best interests of the people who would want to access those services. Neither would it be, necessarily, in the best interests of those people who currently work within those services. Could I ask you, First Minister, to seek some assurances from Pembrokeshire County Council, when they are trying to negotiate their way through transferring what, in my opinion, shouldn’t be transferred in the first place?

Well, it’s a matter, ultimately, for the council, of course. But, from the perspective of the Welsh Government, we would never want to see a situation occur where staff find that they have inferior terms and conditions as a result of changes to the way a service is delivered. Our preference would be for services to be delivered in-house.

It’s difficult to see how we can achieve the objectives of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 if young people, and people more generally, in our communities cannot access leisure centres, and specifically swimming pools, as swimming is part of the national curriculum. As has just been mentioned, the school council at Knighton school have written to me and many other Members, expressing their disappointment, in a border town that is a long way from other towns, that they should be losing such an important resource. I welcome the fact that you have said that this resource should be kept open. They have had a better financial settlement, partly because of the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Government. So, what can you as a Government do to provide specific advice to Powys County Council on the possibility of moving this resource into the community’s hands, because it is clear that the community does treasure the resource and wants to keep it open?

We have made it clear that it’s for the council to consider in detail the possibility of keeping the leisure centre open, but, if not, they should consider ensuring that there is an opportunity for the community to run the centre itself. There are examples of that across Wales. Of course, what nobody would want to see is the centre closing without those options being explored.

Question 2 [OAQ(5)0247(FM)] has been withdrawn. Question 3, Hannah Blythyn.

The current political landscape around the world means relations with the US are more important than ever—economically, politically and culturally. We do maintain a strong presence in the US, including opening our latest office in Atlanta, and I visited the USA in September and plan to visit again next year.

Thank you, First Minister. Wales has many historic links with the USA, and a number of the signatories on the declaration of independence were Welsh. And I’m sure you’ll agree that there is much to be made of these historic links to promote trade and tourism, the former all the more important in the light of Brexit. Indeed, today is a potentially historic day in the USA, as citizens go to the polls in an election that I will have played just a tiny part in, in Philadelphia, in which we could see, for the first time, a woman make it to the White House as President. Who wins the White House has an impact beyond the boundaries of the USA. With that in mind, I’m sure many here will join me in hoping America chooses Hillary Clinton over the alternative and to see hope trump hate. Does the First Minister believe that, in 2016, it’s time that we saw a woman President of the USA?

These are matters for the US population, of course. But, I can see the strong point that she makes. For me, what is hugely important is that the relationship with the USA continues, that the USA doesn’t become an isolationist, nationalist country, and that nothing happens after the election that imperils the commitment of the USA to NATO. I think these are all issues that concern us, and I can certainly well understand the strong feeling that, with a glass ceiling having been broken last time in 2008, another one needs to be broken this time.

First Minister, I’m sure you’d agree with me that Pembrokeshire produces a great deal of excellent produce that places Pembrokeshire and, indeed, Wales, on the map. It’s crucial that the Government should do everything within its ability to promote our produce in nations such as the United States. I understand that the Welsh Government is reviewing its export support for food and drink companies, but can you tell us what additional support the Welsh Government can provide to small producers who are looking to export their produce to nations such as the United States?

There is advice available through the team here in Cardiff, but also advice from the offices in America. There will be a group travelling to America later this month, on a trade mission, to see what kind of interest there is in Wales from investors, but also, of course, to seek new markets for Welsh producers.

The outgoing President suggested that the UK mind find ourselves at the back of the queue if we voted for Brexit. Given what has happened with the referendum result, the election of a new President today, but also the stalling of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations and the formidable challenges they face, is it actually possible that Wales within the United Kingdom may actually see us take the European Union’s place and go to the front of that queue?

I doubt it. His party has been very strongly against TTIP for reasons that are not European. Now, if TTIP is an agreement that will be presented for the UK, then his objections would still remain. I’ve heard objections from many who have called into question the ability of governments to provide public services with TTIP as it currently stands, so I assume that he will be as vehement in his objections to TTIP if it were to be a UK/US agreement as he would have been if it had been a EU/US agreement.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As a party that broke the glass ceiling nearly 40 years ago, First Minister, I’ll gladly hand the Labour Party the manual on how to elect a female to be leader, should you care to read that manual. But, I want to ask you a serious question on business rates, if possible, please, First Minister. With the recent revaluation of businesses the length and breadth of Wales, many businesses face horrendous increases in their business rates. What is your view on the revaluation that has taken place and the position that many small and medium-sized businesses find themselves in?

Three things—I would expect most businesses to see a reduction in their rateable value, if only for the fact that the last valuation took place in 2008, before, of course, the world economic crisis that occurred after that. Secondly, however, of course, our small business rate relief scheme will continue to reach more businesses—a greater percentage of businesses—than is the case in England. And, thirdly, we are putting in place a transitional relief scheme—£10 million of new money—which will help those businesses that are looking at substantial rises in their rates, following the valuation. One thing I should add, of course, businesses, if they feel that they have been over-valued, should contact the Valuation Office Agency as quickly as possible in order to raise their concerns.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. The leader of the house and I attended a protest in Cowbridge, but, I’ve been to many towns over the last fortnight, and it seems there have been examples coming time and time again of, certainly, secondary retail properties and also hospitality areas that seem to have done pretty poorly under this revaluation, and many are facing a huge increase in their rateable values, well over 100 per cent in many instances.

I hear what you say about the measures that the Welsh Government has put on the table, and they are welcome. But it does seem, certainly in the transition, should the consultation be taken forward by the Minister to the new regime in April 2018, unless more is done in this current budget round to offer more assistance to some of those businesses that find themselves on the wrong end of these valuations, they just aren’t going to be around in April 2018. Can you offer any comfort to the businesses that do find themselves bearing these huge increases in their rateable values, that the budget process will look at trying to release additional funding to enable a softer landing for many of these businesses in the new era of business rates?

Again, I make mention of the fact that £10 million is being set aside in new money for a transitional scheme to help businesses that do face these difficulties.

I regret that you are unable to offer some more comfort than that, because, certainly the businesses I have spoken to, when they’ve looked at the £10 million transitional money that is available, do not believe that that will go far enough to help them to stay in business. And I don’t underestimate the offer that the Welsh Government has made, but there are some very, very genuine concerns out there that, with the new regime that is in place on the valuation, from April 2017, businesses just will not be able to continue. And so I do think it’s regrettable you haven’t been able to offer some comfort, with the budget round continuing at the moment, and that you cannot look at the budget lines and maybe try and find additional resources to help some of these businesses in the transition.

But you also touched on the valuation office, and the appeal structure, which is well understood by many of these businesses. I’ve been told that many businesses have a horrendous time accessing the valuation office and, in particular, just being able to get the process under way so they can challenge some of these valuations. Will you work with the valuation office, to make sure that, when businesses do contact them, they do get a timely response? Because I do fear for the financial well-being of many of these small businesses that have approached me, and many other Members from across the parties in this Chamber, and that they will not be with us after 1 April unless they get some assistance.

I don’t want to undervalue their position in any way. Can I ask the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to write to me with those examples? He’s made mention of one particular town and he’s made mention of businesses that have experienced difficulty through the appeals process and have seen a potentially large increase in their business rates. If you could share his examples with me, I will, of course, look at them in order to inform our position in terms of the next year or two.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Government, a few days ago, announced that there would be a cut to the budget for climate change projects of 36 per cent. As UKIP stood in the last election on a policy of cutting this budget, I am glad to see that the First Minister is coming our way, just as on managed migration. But, I think it’s rather quixotic that the big cuts are coming in flood defences, which are necessary, quite regardless of the theories on man-made global warming.

Will the First Minister accept that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that there’s been no global warming since 1998, and that there was only a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, which is similar to the period between 1860 and 1880, and again between 1910 and 1940? So, is it not good sense, therefore, not to be spending huge sums of money on the consequences of a theory that is mainly conjectural?

I like to look at the weight of evidence when we deal with a particular scenario, and the overwhelming weight of evidence from those who are qualified is that climate change is happening and that human activity has an effect on climate change. If climate change isn’t happening, then clearly we need to re-examine our flood defence policy because we’re spending money on flood defences that apparently aren’t needed, because, of course, we are putting in place flood defences to deal with flooding events that have occurred in some parts of Wales where they’ve not been experienced before. The residents of Tal-y-bont in Ceredigion will provide evidence for that. We’re also looking to provide defences for people based on what the experts tell us will be an increase in global temperatures and a subsequent disturbance of weather patterns over the next few years. Climate change is something that doesn’t happen over five or 10 years: it happens over many, many decades and it is measured not necessarily in the span of a human lifetime either.

The First Minister will know that I believe these are mere oscillations—and all the historical evidence proves that. But I’m interested in the effect upon the life and livelihoods of our electors of government policy. He will know that 23 per cent of households in Wales are in fuel poverty on the Government’s own definition—that’s 291,000 households—and that 20 per cent of the average fuel bill in a house now is accounted for by green taxes. On an average household bill of £1,500 a year, that’s £300 a year. For somebody on a very low income that is a very significant diminution in their real standard of living. Is there not something that the Government can do to benefit the lives of ordinary people by opposing these green taxes and restoring some semblance of sanity in our policy on climate change?

If it’s a question of sanity, then the insanity he displayed along with his party in the 1980s when our coal-mining industry was closed down is testament to that. I welcome his conversion, but one thing I have to say to him is that coal as a source of fuel is not going to return in the UK. The deep mines are gone: they’ve been built over, there are buildings and homes over them. The only option is opencasting. If he wishes to advocate that, he is welcome to join me and the residents of Kenfig Hill in my constituency who have particular views on opencasting and have to live next door to what is, at the moment, a dormant and derelict opencast site. The reality is that we have a choice as a nation: either we seek to import more energy—be that natural gas from, for example, Russia—or we seek to import even more liquid natural gas or we seek to import coal from other countries in the world. That is one choice, or we go for energy security and we develop an energy system that draws on renewable energy but is also secure for us in the future. That, I think, is the perfectly sensible option.

Well, the First Minister will know that the percentage of electricity generated by wind power or solar energy is minute: typically between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. So, the idea that energy security can be obtained by more and more windmills is nonsense and would result in the utter desecration of our countryside as well. But I’m interested in the impact of green taxes upon poor people. His party came into existence in order to fight for the interests of working people, but it’s his party, more than all because of the climate change Act, which his Government introduced in 2008—. In the Government’s own assessment of its costs, it would be £18 billion a year, £720 billion over 40 years. This is a crown of thorns that’s being put down on the heads of ordinary people.

I cannot stand here in all seriousness and listen to a man with his history lecture me about standing up for working people. This is somebody who sat there in Parliament in the 1980s and waved through the greatest act of industrial vandalism that the UK has ever seen: the destruction of jobs in the steel industry, the erosion of the coal industry, communities having their livelihoods destroyed by a Government that did not care. The enemy within—the enemy within—is what the party opposite called the very working people of south Wales and the United Kingdom. We stand up for working people. We stand up for energy sources that are safe and we will continue to make sure, first of all, that people don’t forget what the parties opposite did to them in the 1980s and we will continue to ensure that people have jobs, they have secure energy and fairness, replacing what the parties opposite took away from them.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. Is the First Minister aware of the scale of the problem of former members of the armed forces suffering mental health problems? Does he accept what the predecessor health committee said in describing support for veterans in Wales as being inadequate and inappropriate?

No, I don’t accept that. Of course, every year we have put forward a new package of support for veterans, and that’s exactly what we’ll be doing in this year, too, to ensure that they do have means of accessing mental health care, and for them to receive support with everything that they need once they leave the armed forces.

We don’t know exactly how many veterans are suffering with mental health problems, because those exact figures aren’t published. But we do think that some 4 per cent do suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. We believe that some one in five suffer some sort of mental health problem. This is a minority of veterans, of course, but as we approach Remembrance Sunday, then every veteran should understand that those who served alongside them are appreciated and that they are seen for what they are, namely assets for our communities and for the workplace and so on.

Given what the health committee said in the last Assembly, and what the BMA said in describing support as being inconsistent, what steps is the Government intending to take now to ensure that public services do treat Welsh veterans who need support in the way in which they fully deserve?

Well, in my opinion, this happens now, but having said that, there’s no one system that can’t be improved. The way to do that is the way that we’re doing now—using those bodies that support veterans so that we can strengthen packages put forward for them. We have a good relationship between those bodies and Government.

The question is how much we do, of course, and remembrance week is a good time to remind ourselves that we owe a duty of care to former service personnel, and I have no doubt, of course, that the First Minister would agree with me on that. But the budget for the all-Wales veterans health and well-being service is just £585,000. That’s less than one hundredth of 1 per cent of the overall health budget.

Now, Plaid Cymru believes that a military well-being Act is needed to ensure that support for veterans is consistent and of a high quality across the country, so that all veterans know that public services will have a legal obligation to be there for their former comrades. So, if, as most would agree, what Welsh Government is currently doing for veterans isn’t enough, will the First Minister pledge to legislate during this Assembly to ensure that, when it comes to housing or medical care, no veteran is left behind?

We’d need to examine what the effect of the legislation would be, but nevertheless, the sentiments that the Member expresses are ones that I share. We want to ensure that our veterans get the best package possible, and the best deal possible, once they’ve left the armed forces. That is done through working with veterans organisations such as the Royal British Legion; it’s done through ensuring there is sufficient funding available specifically to help veterans over and above funding for the general population in areas such as health, and we’ll continue to examine what the most effective ways are of improving that service in the future.

The Welsh Government recognises the rights of parents to home educate their children. We also recognise the rights of children to receive an efficient and suitable education, to be listened to and to be safe. Our revised guidance, to be published shortly, reflects this.

Thank you for that response. I’m sure you’ll be aware that the children’s commissioner has called on the Government to introduce statutory guidance to make it a requirement for parents to register the fact that they are home schooling their children. She has made it clear recently in the Children, Young People and Education Committee that she would be willing to use her statutory powers in order to encourage the Government to move in that direction. Would you therefore agree with the commissioner, myself and many others that every day of delay runs the risk that another individual—and unfortunately we do have to say ‘another’ individual—is let down by this Government, because they run the risk of disappearing under the radar?

Local authorities, of course, have the main responsibility here, but I’m not saying there that we don’t have any responsibility at all. We’ll ensure that the guidance that comes out will strengthen the situation of local authorities and will explain what the duties and rights of parents, children and local authorities are. We’ll continue to consider how efficient and effective that guidance will be. We want to ensure that it is effective, and if anything needs to be changed in the system we will do so. But at present, I’m confident that that guidance will go much further to ensure the safety of children.

First Minister, it’s interesting and pleasing to hear that the guidance will be issued very shortly because, in my own authority, there are a known 114 children who are being home educated, but there’s only one part-time officer working with those. Can you also ensure that the guidance is going to enforce and put more pressure on local authorities to have a relationship between the number of children they see and the officer, as 114 for one is not adequate? We need to ensure more officers are actually working with those home-educated children so that they get the best support possible.

Clearly, it’s important that local authorities have enough people to work with home-educating parents and home-educated children. We will consider carefully if there are any further steps that will need to be taken. Regulation might be appropriate in the future, if necessary, in order to support home-educated learners, but our approach is to use this guidance to make sure that local authorities are able to get the clarity that they need to act swiftly where they feel that they have to. We will, of course, continue to work with the professionals in order for them to be able to work effectively with those families who do home educate.

Some families freely choose home schooling while others feel they have no alternative because the alternatives to school education for a troubled child are limited. While the number of the latter has dropped, the number of the former has increased from over 1,000 five years ago to over 1,500 last year. What does that say about the confidence in our school education system that they choose to home school? For those families that enrol but then withdraw their child, how sure are you that budget cuts, as has happened in Swansea, haven’t reduced the child’s entitlement to an appropriate level of education?

There are many different reasons why parents choose to home educate. I don’t believe that the system as a whole is a reason for that. We’re seeing ever improving education results in Wales and, of course, we’re seeing budgets having been protected and investment in schools—unlike, of course, the situation across the border.

How does the Welsh Government ensure that home-schooled children will receive a good standard of education?

The guidance, of course, will help to continue to ensure that, providing local authorities with the clarity that they need to ensure that the education that is provided is of a sufficient standard.

We know that no-cold-calling zones help to make people feel safer in their communities. We know the number of homes covered by zones continues to increase. What we are never sure of is whether no-cold-calling zones include political canvassers.

That’s absolutely true. No-cold-calling zones are popular with residents. When delivering leaflets during half term in areas without no-cold-calling zones, I noticed a large number of houses with ‘no uninvited traders’ stickers on their doors. What can the Welsh Government do to support councils in expanding the areas covered by no-cold-calling zones?

In March 2013, a baseline review established 38,000 homes were covered by the zones. In November 2013, we invited local authorities to bid for funding to support the creation of zones in their areas. I have to say, only 12 authorities requested funding and just under £35,000 was provided. That said, the number of homes covered by zones has now increased to 53,000.

First Minister, I certainly believe that more needs to be done to protect consumers against unsolicited mail and nuisance calls. According to the Office of Fair Trading, these types of scams are estimated to cost the victims around £3.5 billion a year. Can I ask, has the Government considered imposing a levy on the sender of mail, similar to that of the carrier bag charge, of course, allowing that money to be reinvested in different areas such as the forestry industry, protecting rural post offices or helping local authorities to recycle waste?

The difficulty with that is that most of the mail does not originate in Wales. With carrier bags, it’s easy enough; the carrier bags are in the shop in Wales to begin with. It’s an issue that, if we expand it more widely, applies to waste. Most of the waste that comes in to Wales and is generated as waste isn’t actually from Wales to begin with. For me, the answer lies in a UK and European approach to this, because we know that, certainly within the UK, unsolicited mail is still a problem. It’s not as it was because, of course, e-mail is much easier now and, as I’m sure we all know in this Chamber, the scourge of telephone calls by organisations that are outside the telephone preference service. I would be very supportive of any legislation at a UK level that would strengthen the rights of people to avoid these calls in the future, with suitable penalties if needs be.

Our historic place names provide invaluable evidence about the development of our nation. It is one of the requirements of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 that Welsh Ministers create a list of historic place names that will then record this rich heritage for the future.

Thank you very much for that response, First Minister. It’s been noted, as you’ve noted, over the past few years that there are a number of examples of historic place names on old houses, halls and farms. These historic Welsh names have all come under threat and very often some are changed to English names. Do you as a Government agree that there is potential to develop legislation where a local planning authority’s permission will be required before changing historic Welsh place names?

That’s something that we have considered, but when we looked at it—there are more names changed from English to Welsh than from Welsh to English. As a result, in what way, therefore, would it be possible to police this through the planning regime? I’m not in favour of changing Welsh names to English names—place names, that is. Having said that, the Welsh Language Commissioner has established a panel to provide her with advice and recommendations about the way in which we can ensure that our heritage in the Welsh language is safeguarded.

First Minister, it is important that historic Welsh place names are safeguarded so that people understand their local history better, and it also helps to keep that history alive. In order to help in safeguarding historic place names, in addition to publishing a list, what guidance has your Government published to date?

Paul Davies is, of course, talking about what I mentioned earlier about the work of the commissioner, which is something I welcome. As someone who lives in a town where there are huge problems with some streets because of the fact that the names of the streets have been Welsh for decades, then they’ve been translated very poorly into English and nobody now knows where they live. There are several examples in Bridgend where the Welsh names for roads have been misspelled or have been misinterpreted and mistranslated too. So, nobody knows where they are now. So, it is important because there are some people who can’t receive credit as a result of that, and the sat navs don’t work either. But it shows how important this issue is to ensure that we have one name in the Welsh language that is considered as the official name, where that names has been a historic name over the decades and centuries.

I have discussed the Wales Bill with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions—the last time over the phone last Friday. It’s very important that the UK Government responds positively to the reports that have been published recently.

Were you any the wiser, First Minister, following your discussions? Because I and the other member of the House of Lords sitting opposite have been in three sittings already discussing the Wales Bill, and have received some positive responses from the Minister, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, but it’s clear to me that the Wales Office is nothing more than a bolt-on to the Ministry of Justice, and that the UK Government, in the most unintelligent way, is again trying to draft the Welsh constitution. When will the day arrive when we can write our own constitution here in our own nation?

I sympathise with what the Member says, of course. It’s unfortunate that this Bill won’t be a comprehensive Bill to settle Wales’s constitution for decades. That’s not what this Bill does. There are some positive things in the Bill, and we want to see more positive things added to it. I’ve been discussing this with Lord Bourne, too, in the House of Lords, and as a former Member of this place, he has a deep understanding of the matters that are vitally important here. To me, what’s important is that we have a Bill that is moved forward—it doesn’t move us far enough forward, considering the opinion of the majority of the members of this place, but there is work to do to ensure that the Bill is something that we can consider and support ultimately. So, we look forward to seeing what the response of the UK Government is to some of the matters that haven’t been solved yet.

First Minister, as you say, there has been progress made, and aside from some of the constitutional issues that Dafydd Elis-Thomas referred to, this Bill will give power to the Assembly over such things as the name and electoral arrangements. So, progress has been made there.

Can I ask you, First Minister, tax devolution is part of and is indeed running in tandem with the Wales Bill—what progress is being made in the development on the fiscal framework, so important to ensure that Wales receives its fair share of funding when the block grant reduces to make way for Welsh tax revenues?

Good progress is being made in discussions between the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are hopeful that there will be a settlement that will be acceptable to all and is good for Wales. There are other areas, of course, that remain outstanding and we hope to see a positive response from the UK Government in those areas.

Nathan—Steffan Lewis. Apologies. Steffan Lewis.

Diolch, Lywydd, I think. [Laughter.] The existing constitutional arrangements cast doubts on the ability of the Assembly to defend its areas of competence in the context of Brexit, but what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the current incarnation of the Wales Bill in terms of the Assembly’s ability to defend its areas of competence? And will the First Minister, in light of the current incarnation of the Wales Bill, give serious consideration to introducing a great continuity Bill in this Assembly to affirm the Assembly’s competence on matters that may be transferred from the European Union to Wales and the United Kingdom?

Two points: first of all, the Wales Bill itself will not be a comprehensive solution to Wales’s constitution. We’ll still have anomalies where this Assembly will make the law in terms of most public order, but the agencies that enforce public order law will not be answerable to the Assembly or the Government. It would be possible, under the current arrangements, for somebody to be arrested in this city for an offence that is not an offence in Wales but is in England. It would be possible for somebody to serve a sentence in England for an offence that is an offence in Wales but not in England. These are the anomalies that are thrown up with the settlement. So, there’s much to do in making that more coherent, although it will not be as coherent as I would have hoped.

The Bill he makes mention of—really, we must see what’s in the so-called great repeal Bill. If all it does—this is the way it’s being presented—if all it does is simply enshrine existing EU law in all jurisdictions and countries of the UK, then I can understand the sense in that, and we will look at the situation afresh to see whether there’s any need to proceed along the lines that he suggested once the detail of that Bill becomes clear. But the principle will be, of course, that no power should be lost to the people of Wales and that any powers that transfer from Brussels in devolved areas come straight here—they pass ‘go’, but unfortunately do not collect money on the way.

Question 8, Nathan Gill.

We’re committed to supporting small businesses through our small business rates relief scheme and transitional relief.

Thank you, First Minister. Small businesses tell me that they are hanging on by their fingernails. There are some winners as a result of the recent revaluation, but there are many, many more losers. I received an e-mail last night, at midnight, from a small business owner outside of my constituency who had seen that I was going to be asking this question today—she felt so strongly about it tha she contacted me to say that her revaluation has resulted in a 48 per cent increase in her rateable value. I know that many business owners and their employees are desperate for this Government to consider introducing the same terms around small business rate relief that the UK Government have. They’ve responded to the consultation that you guys have asked for and that’s what they’ve said. So, the question, really, I’ve got for you is: are you going to listen to them?

I would argue that what we have in place is more generous now than is the case in England. Why? Because it reaches more businesses. Seventy per cent of businesses will receive some form of support through the business rates relief scheme, over half of eligible businesses will pay no rates at all—that is far in excess as a percentage of businesses than is the case under the system in England, although it would appear on the surface to be more generous. But, in fact, the reach of the Welsh scheme is deeper. That said, of course, we do recognise there may be some businesses that will lose out as a result of revaluation, as there always are whenever there is revaluation, which is why we will be introducing the transitional rate relief scheme.

First Minister, Labour candidates in the Assembly elections this year met with small businesses across Powys during the election campaign and told them, ‘Vote Labour and get a tax cut’. I do quote one candidate who said:

‘Business rates tend to form a higher proportion of the total operating costs for small businesses and…many Powys businesses are under serious financial pressure, and so will breathe a sigh of relief if Labour is returned on May 5’.

Many of these businesses that were being referred to are now facing a business rate hike, so what do you say to these businesses that were told by Labour candidates that they would get a tax cut in their business rates, but will now be paying more in business rates?

They clearly are, because, as I say, 70 per cent are having a tax cut as a result of a scheme that has been temporary, but renewed every year for some years. There is no permanence to the current scheme. We are introducing a permanent scheme next year in order to make sure that we have a scheme that is durable, because businesses cannot exist on a system where the rates relief scheme is simply renewed every year, without them knowing whether it will be or not. We’ll continue to make sure that the vast majority of Welsh businesses get the relief that they need.

The estimate is that around 200 households in Torfaen will be affected by the UK Government’s lowering of the benefit cap in 2016-17, with an average loss of £60 per week if they don’t respond by moving into work or increasing their hours.

Thank you, First Minister. Unfortunately, yesterday’s extension of the benefits cap will, I believe, ensure that more children are pushed into poverty by the Tories’ welfare reforms. The figures that you have given are absolutely correct—£58 per week is a significant sum of money and there are some 516 children who are in households that are affected. A number of those families are already in rent arrears and, of course, the fear now is that they will have to choose between buying food for their families and paying their rent.

There’s been a very strong partnership approach in Torfaen led by the council to mitigate the impact of welfare reform, and much of that work has been done under the auspices of Communities First. Given the Welsh Government’s current consultation on Communities First, what assurances can you offer that whatever emerges from that consultation, this work will continue to be a priority for Welsh Government?

Clearly, we want to keep the best practice that has been established over the last few years, The Cabinet Secretary has, of course, said that he’s minded to phase out the Communities First programme, but also, of course, to develop a new approach to building resilient communities, which is why the engagement process is so important for us, to hear examples that the Member has referred to in order to in order to make sure that that best practice continues in the future with the new arrangements.

Does the First Minister agree that there has to be a maximum level of financial support that a claimant can expect the state to provide, and that people on benefits should not be able to receive more than the average working family earns in work in Wales?

We’ve got the fact that the UK Government has withdrawn benefits to those in work. There was a time that we said to people that if they worked, their circumstances would improve and their incomes would improve, and they have been hammered as a result of actions taken by the UK Government. The bedroom tax is another example of that. I certainly deplore the actions over the last few years, where those who are the most vulnerable have been the ones who have suffered the most, whereas those, of course, at the very top end of the income stream had a tax cut. If there was anything more regressive as a tax policy, then that was it.

Will the First Minister agree with me that there are many hardworking families in Torfaen who would be delighted with a take-home pay of £400, which may well be the reason why 21 per cent of the unemployed in Torfaen have declared they do not want a job?

I don’t know where he gets that figure from. What I can say to him is that the unemployment rate is—[Interruption.]

The First Minister is answering the question. First Minister.

Our unemployment rate is 4.1 per cent. We continue to provide jobs for our people. I regret the Member’s tone because I don’t believe that’s his true view. His view, I believe, is that there was a time in this country when there was a contract between people and the state, where the state would do what it could to provide housing, education, to provide good healthcare and also to provide people with a safety net if they became unemployed, but that has been whittled away over the years. When he tries to pit people who are unemployed against those who are employed, I think that is the wrong way forward. The reality is for many people that they struggle to get work because of, sometimes, disabilities; they struggle to get work and that is why they need extra help and qualifications, which we are providing; but, ultimately, I don’t agree that demonising people who are on benefits is actually a good way of building cohesion in society.

Thank you, First Minister.

I have accepted an urgent question under Standing Order 12.66 and I call on Eluned Morgan to ask that urgent question.

I thank the Member for her question. I was not notified by the UK Government ahead of yesterday’s announcement, but, given the nature of it, I will be seeking an urgent, early discussion with the UK Ministers.

Thank you, and that’s very concerning to hear that you weren’t even advised of this announcement. The announcement, of course, of the closure and sale of Brecon barracks, Sennybridge storage compound and Cawdor barracks will cause significant uncertainty in Mid and West Wales and beyond. These are areas that have a long and proud military tradition. There’s been a barracks in Brecon since 1805, and soldiers from the barracks have served in every armed conflict since the start of the nineteenth century. Closing these military bases is a huge cause of sorrow and it is devastating to the families who’ve been based there over past decades that these well-loved facilities are going to be sold off. This announcement will cause huge uncertainty for our army families and these closures will have a wider social and economic impact in both Pembrokeshire and Powys.

The defence Secretary said yesterday that his department will work with the devolved administrations to boost local economies in the light of this announcement, and I’d like to ask what provisions will be put in place to assist civilian and military employees who can’t be redeployed from these bases in rural areas, which already suffer with low employment prospects. I wonder if he could enlighten us as to whether he will be writing to the Minister responsible to ask how they intend to put forward this co-operation that they announced yesterday they were going to implement.

The defence Secretary also said yesterday that all the money generated from land sales from the sale of these sites will be invested back into meeting the needs of the armed forces. Whilst this, of course, is welcome news for the armed forces, has the Minister made any calculation as to how much money will be lost to rural Wales as a result of this announcement? The UK Government has also made much of releasing publicly owned land on which to build new homes. Will the Cabinet Secretary outline if it is the intention in Wales, also, to build homes on these sites?

I’m grateful for the questions from the Member. Of course, the area she talks about is steeped in the history of the armed forces and the support for local communities as well. Indeed, I’ve already met with Joyce Watson, yourself and Kirsty Williams, the local Member, this morning, to talk about these very issues that you raise. I will make that part of my letter to the Ministry regarding this. Decisions about defence estates are a reserved matter, but there are other consequences, indirect consequences, of leaving communities. I do believe that the armed forces have a strong connection and must maintain that for many years to come in terms of any turmoil that may have been caused by exiting such a community as yours.

Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure that I speak for many people in Pembrokeshire when I say that the soldiers of Cawdor barracks and their families are an important part of our local community and are a huge support to our local economy. So, I’m extremely disappointed and frustrated that the UK Government has taken this decision. I’m also saddened that the earlier decision to shut the 14th Signal Regiment is now on the Ministry of Defence’s agenda, given that last year we were told that the barracks would remain open. I’m very proud of the support that Pembrokeshire has offered our armed forces personnel and their families at Cawdor barracks over the years. Those families have been fully integrated into our local community, and it’s a shame that that great community cohesion will be lost when the barracks close in 2024.

Therefore, in light of the UK Government’s intention to close these barracks in Brawdy, will the Cabinet Secretary outline what discussions he will be having with his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure regarding the effect of this decision on economic development and regeneration in Pembrokeshire in the future? Given that the proposed closure of the barracks will not take place until 2024, what discussions will the Cabinet Secretary—and indeed his Cabinet colleagues—be having with Pembrokeshire County Council and local stakeholders to plan ahead, and indeed to militate against any negative economic impacts as a result of this decision? Finally, Llywydd, further to Eluned Morgan’s questions, what additional help and support can the Welsh Government now give to civilian staff employed at the barracks through this transitional period to ensure that they have access to a full range of job and training opportunities?

I thank the Member for his questions. I share his frustration and concern about the actions of the UK Government to remove the armed forces’ bases from Wales. The armed forces are valued in Wales, and they bring a lot of economic and social benefits to communities right across our communities—the Member alludes to many of them.

I will start a dialogue with the UK Government Minister with regard to the armed forces in terms of actions that I believe that they should take. I don’t believe they should just walk away from commitments in communities. The armed forces have been with us for many years, and they are very welcome here. I would like to be assured that the exit is not just for the armed forces but actually the support for the local community as well. The residence in the civilian life is an important one. I’ve already started discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure with regard to joint working, with regard to economic regeneration. I know he is meeting with the leader in Pembrokeshire very shortly, and we’ll continue those discussions. But initially we have to start the dialogue with the UK Ministers in order to be fully appraised of the impact in timeline and exit plans that they have proposed.

Cabinet Secretary, this week, of all weeks, we do reflect, actually, upon the connection between the armed forces and the public, particularly in the areas where they live. These plans, by concentrating personnel in fewer centres, do risk eroding that special bond, and that’s one of my fears. As you know, I’ve grown up in west Wales and Cawdor barracks was always part of that community, and the same can be true in Brecon.

One of the things you might not know is that I started my life out as a child of somebody serving within the armed forces, in Tywyn first of all and then in Manorbier secondly. When those camps were closed, it actually denied opportunities of work and money to those communities that had existed for many, many years. You only have to go back to those communities, as I do, to see the negative impact that removing these services and jobs from those communities has had. Because the other thing that happens when you’ve got armed services residing within a constituency is that they also supply children to the local school and they help keep those schools open. They also provide, in some cases, staff to help keep your hospitals open. So, the impact is much bigger than might be originally perceived. As I say, having grown up within that community, I understand full well the impact that will be felt quite clearly, because an awful lot of the personnel there will actually volunteer within those communities and help to run other clubs and societies. Because the one thing that they can do is organise. So, the impact is going to be significant. I hope that, when you do have these conversations, it will be the impact in the round that will be talked about, not just all the other things that have been discussed—and I won’t repeat—already this afternoon.

I’m very grateful for the local Member’s words, describing the issues that will impact on Pembrokeshire and the local community. I also recognise that this isn’t just about the armed forces, in themselves. It is a whole community resilience issue. I strongly believe that all Governments, of whatever political persuasion, have a duty to support communities where the armed forces are based and were based. There is a legacy issue here that I will be discussing with the Minister, and the issues that the Members raise in the Chamber with me today will form part of that discussion.

I’m not overly sentimental about the location of the armed forces, and I recall that the Brecon barracks were used to put down the working-class rebellion in Merthyr Tydfil in 1831 as well, but I think it is important that we see many army bases located in communities in Wales. I think it is important that many of our young people who serve in the armed forces are able to maintain their contacts with their own communities and with their families. And I think that it is good for the soldiers and other army personnel’s welfare that they have that local connection with communities. So, it’s very disappointing that we are seeing a unilateral decision being taken to uproot long-standing facilities that have got the support of the local community and where people are able to integrate in that way.

I am very disappointed as well to hear that the Government wasn’t informed about this. I don’t suppose I expected to be informed as an Assembly Member what the MOD does, but I think it’s very unfortunate that we all hear from the press when these things are impacting directly on the communities that we represent. What discussion now can the Minister have with the MOD regarding the fact that Wales, actually, when you look at the list—whether it is recruitment, or whether it is procurement—overprovides into the MOD, we overprovide into the armed forces, and we get an under-provision in terms of investment in Wales, in terms of expenditure in Wales, in terms of just the physical location of our men and women in the armed forces in Wales? There simply is not the location for them. As the MOD has said that this does not mean the closure, completely, of these facilities—for example, the Brecon barracks are supposed to be moving somewhere else—what discussion is he now having, or able to have, with the Westminster Government about where that location may be? And, what is the maintenance, therefore, of the headquarters—the conceptual headquarters, anyway—of the army in Wales, as it were, which I think is what Brecon barracks, in effect, provide for many?

As a final question, there’s a particular community that has served the people of Brecon long, has served our armed forces long and hard, and is very much obvious in the community in Brecon and, indeed, in the Heads of the Valleys now, which is the Nepalese community, which has been so loyal to the armed forces of the United Kingdom over the years. What discussion is he able to have with that community now? In one sense, uprooting the people from Brecon uproots them from the context in which they are there and enables them—[Interruption.] Of course they’re not in the barracks. I know that. It uproots, however, the location of the support that they’ve had from fellow soldiers in the past, and it uproots the context in which they have come to mid Wales. They need to be assured that they continue to be welcome here and that we will put in place support services to allow them to make their lives in mid Wales going forward.

I thank the Member for his question. He is right to say that communities have been formed around many of these bases, and there are long-standing links between the armed forces and local communities. In many cases, they are very good relationships and they work in the communities—as Joyce Watson said, it is about volunteering and sharing skills and opportunities. We have a very good relationship with the armed forces—the army, the navy and the Royal Air Force—and other emergency services here in Wales. This announcement was made by the UK Government, and we are disappointed also that we weren’t given a heads up regarding this. There are indirect consequences of exit; I am not aware yet of the whole picture. We haven’t had time to establish what those concerns are, but of course people in communities like the Gurkhas, the Nepalese and people in Brecon and Radnorshire are part of the local community. Of course, we will look at what the impact is for that community and for broader communities in Brecon and also in Pembrokeshire. But I do go back to what I said earlier: I believe that the UK Government has a duty to support exit strategies for any communities that they are removing bases from here in Wales.

I share the disappointment and frustration that have been eloquently expressed by the Cabinet Secretary and other Members who have spoken this afternoon. But isn’t this decision one of many that fall to be made as a result of the decision by the UK Government, enthusiastically supported by all other parties in this Assembly, to cut the defence budget and reduce the army to a mere 82,000 serving men and women? And the consequence is bound to be decisions of this kind. Whilst the overseas aid budget is ring-fenced, the defence budget is cut to the bone, so I think all Members, in all other parties, should accept their part in the responsibility for the decision that has been taken.

This is a decision of the UK Government. I’m disappointed that the Member sees fit to attack the overseas aid budget—I think that’s a necessity also. But the impact of this decision will have to be fully considered. I will be in further conversation with the UK Government Ministers in regard to the impact that it has had in Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, I’ve added oral statements this afternoon on ‘Article 50 Intervention’ and ‘Superfast Broadband—The Next Steps’. Timings allocated to other agenda items have been amended accordingly, and, finally, the Business Committee has agreed to postpone tomorrow’s short debate. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could we have a statement from the planning Minister, please, in relation to permitted development rights? Some years ago, when the Member for Newport East was the Minister responsible for planning, there was a statement put out by the Government that said that the then Government was going to try and make these more adaptable and easier to use for developers and people seeking planning permissions and development, especially in rural locations. As we saw in the debate last week, it does seem as if the current Government doesn’t have any proposals to take up the words of the then planning Minister, and actually make a more flexible system around permitted development rights for use in Wales to help create economic opportunities in the building and regeneration business. So, I’d be grateful for clarification as to exactly what the current Government’s thinking is about making far better use for developers of permitted development rights, which would greatly enhance the planning system here in Wales.

Of course, Andrew R.T. Davies knows, and has participated in, taking through very progressive legislation in terms of planning, but, of course, I note his point, and I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would want to respond if asked a question at the appropriate time.

I was wondering if we could have a statement in Government time in relation to your Government’s response to the fact that Theresa May will not be meeting with Tata leaders in India when she visits there. She said that it wasn’t possible for her to schedule a meeting, and I’m very, very concerned about this, considering the fact that the UK operations are vastly important to our economy, as we all know in this Chamber. With a change of leadership at Tata, we need to make sure that we have this as a main focus of discussion in relation to our future economic development with India. So, as part of that statement, could I also ask if you could tell me whether the First Minister, or another Government Minister from the Welsh Government, would see fit to go instead of Theresa May? If she does not deem this to be important enough for her to do, would you as a Government send somebody instead?

Bethan Jenkins raises an important point. It was raised, I know, yesterday in the external affairs committee. I know that the First Minister responded to the point that was made about the fact that Theresa May has failed in her visit to India to make this all-important meeting contact with Tata Steel. It’s certainly been raised by David Rees as well. The First Minister said that this was unfortunate—unfortunate I would say for the Prime Minister, not taking her responsibility, but it’s certainly unfortunate and concerning in terms of the workforce in Port Talbot. But I think you can be assured, as I know you will be, about the action that we’re taking, not only in terms of constant engagement with Tata—and visits have indeed been made by the First Minister, as well as other Ministers—but in making sure that the steel industry has got a sustainable long-term future. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary did write to all AMs on 20 October to update them on activities relating to Tata Steel, and there is a range of potential support that’s being considered to ensure the business is put on a firmer footing. And I know that the Cabinet Secretary will want to update accordingly.

First, there was an excellent launch of Peas Please in Cardiff city centre yesterday, launched by the Food Foundation, to try and get more people eating more vegetables, and to highlight the fact that, despite the five-a-day campaign, people are not eating more fruit and vegetables, and up to 20,000 people in the UK are dying as a result. About 30 organisations were involved, including farmers, community gardeners, supermarkets, and IT specialists, representing everyone from the local grower to the supply chain specialist. So, it would be fantastic if we could have a debate on this and the Welsh Government’s response as to how we can get more fruit and veg grown in Wales, given that vegetables are likely to go up in price as a result of the fact that most of our vegetables are now imported, and, with the decline in the value of the pound, clearly, vegetables are going to increase. That’s one thing.

The other thing is, further to the issue of Bashir Naderi, which I raised with you last week, I’m hoping to organise a blue ribbon campaign tomorrow, on the steps of the Senedd at one o’clock, so that we can all show our support, as well as signing the statement of opinion to insist that Bashir Naderi is not removed from Wales, where he’s making a valuable contribution, and there’s absolutely no reason why he should be sent back to Afghanistan.

The Member for Cardiff Central raises two very important points. The first one, of course, is about the ways in which we can encourage increases in both supply and consumption of vegetables and fruit. This is all part of the integrated supply chain approach the Welsh Government is taking with producers, working with producers, retailers, and the food service sector. But also this links to our rural development programme as well, and links to our sustainable land management agenda. And, of course, this is crucial in terms of our children and young people, and the nutrition that they need and require, and can gain. And Peas Please, of course, is one way towards achieving that.

I think your second point, of course, is very well made, in terms of the support that’s been expressed across this Chamber for Bashir, and the work that you have done, and, indeed, Jo Stevens MP. Fleeing Afghanistan when he was 10, as you say, after his father was killed. It is a matter where it is important that we express our views in this Assembly, and I know people want to know what steps are being taken to express that support more meaningfully. I very much hope, as I’m sure we all do, that the position will be resolved satisfactorily in due course.

Can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for local government on commitment to public sector apprenticeship schemes? Caerphilly council have withdrawn funding from a scheme that offered training and apprenticeship opportunities for young people, to help them into work. The scheme had successfully created 18 permanent jobs, but the council withdrew funding in 2015-16, and have not financed any apprenticeships this year. I am concerned this might be part of a wider pattern of the loss of local authority apprenticeship schemes, and might even be contrary to your expressed policy ambitions in terms of apprenticeships as a Government. So, can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on this very important issue?

This is a very important issue, and, indeed, you have demonstrated how successful it has been in terms of those public sector apprenticeships in one local authority, but, of course, this can be reflected across Wales. It is a matter for Caerphilly County Borough Council in terms of how they are managing what are very difficult times in terms of austerity, but, of course, as we go forward with the draft budget for 2017-18, we see a better settlement than was anticipated by local government, due to careful financial management. So, one would hope that that would enable the authority to look at this in terms of the positive outcomes of that apprenticeship scheme.

Can I give my support to Jenny Rathbone’s comments about Bashir Naderi? I know that she raised this in the Chamber last week as well. And I’ve been contacted by constituents in Cardiff North who are friends of Bashir, asking me to also speak in the Assembly, giving my support to him, and also by his foster mother, who gave him a home here in Cardiff from the age of 10 and is desperate to help her boy from being deported. And I think it is a desperately sad situation that somebody who has so much to contribute and who has benefitted from the services we’ve been able to offer in Wales is now treated in this absolutely inhumane way, and has been taken to a detention centre suddenly and cruelly and now has only got two weeks to make a case to be able to stay in the place that has been in his home. So, really, I’m in support of Jenny Rathbone and also asking if there’s anything that the Government can do.

I thank Julie Morgan for that question, adding her support to Bashir Nadir and also recognising this was raised last week in the Chamber. I was able to express our concerns. This is a non-devolved matter, but we are responsible for and we care about the people who live in our communities and have a very welcoming approach to asylum seekers and refugees in Wales, and use the powers that we have got to support those who are vulnerable and those who we know have already, as has been described so clearly, lived in our communities supported by so many. I think again it’s very heartening to hear Members express their support for Bashir in Plenary again today.

Finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Minister, can I echo the comments from Bethan Jenkins in that 15 years ago today the horrific accident at No. 5 blast furnace occurred in which we saw the loss of the lives of three workers, two from my constituency and one from Maesteg, and many injured? Yesterday’s comments from the Prime Minister, or the reflection on the Prime Minister that actually she didn’t even find time in her schedule to make the effort to go and see Tata—I think it’s disgraceful and I think it’s important that the Welsh Ministers express the views clearly to the UK Government of our feelings on this and how, basically, she is letting down communities and the workforce of those industries. It’s critical that we ensure their survival. It’s critical therefore the UK Government plays its major part, because it has many levers at its control that it should be implementing and not sitting back, and it’s important therefore that Welsh Ministers make those representations on our behalf.

On a second point, can I also ask a question on the relationship between and the guidance to NHS and private partnerships? At the moment, I understand there are discussions between Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board and HMT Sancta Maria hospital in relation to the possibility of land being purchased for development, and it would be important to have clear guidance on the Government’s position in relation to the partnership between private providers and NHS providers, and the working relationship that exists between them, to ensure that we can deliver safe care for our communities, but also care, as much as possible, within the NHS sector itself.

I think David Rees again raises a very important point for memory today, and the fact that it was on 8 November 2001 Corus UK Limited’s Port Talbot blast furnace No. 5 exploded with tragic consequences and three Corus employees lost their lives. It’s the impact of those tragic events that I think we will all want to remember today. Again, the Prime Minister did not—she made no connection. It is this week of all weeks where she could have made that connection. So, you have said, and I’m sure, again, this view is shared across this Chamber, that this is disgraceful, that lack of response—that lack of respect as well, because of, also, the uncertainties, as you say, in your constituency as regards the future for the workforce. The Cabinet Secretary is here in the Chamber with me today. He has heard those points. He’s made that connection again and, of course, heard from Bethan Jenkins earlier on. So, I think this is a point where we will want to make our views very clear.

Thank you very much, leader of the house. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the statement by the Minister for Social Services and Public Health on the Public Health (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was pleased yesterday to introduce the Public Health (Wales) Bill, with its explanatory memorandum, to the National Assembly for Wales. The Bill affirms this Welsh Government’s continuing commitment to taking a lead on public health and doing the maximum we can to further improve and protect the health of people in Wales.

We know the public health challenges we face are constantly evolving and becoming increasingly complex. Tackling them requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted response. While legislation has an important and proven role, it cannot bring about all the improvements and protections we want to see on its own. Instead, it forms one intrinsic part of a broader agenda—an agenda which includes our work across the breadth of Government to address the causes of ill health, as well as our tailored public health services, programmes, policies and campaigns. Taken together, they all make a cumulative positive contribution, helping us to prevent avoidable harm and reach our aspirations for a healthy and active Wales, and all closely linked to the principles of prudent healthcare.

While a single piece of legislation cannot be a panacea to resolve all public health challenges, it can make a very positive and practical difference. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve. It takes action in a number of specific areas for the benefit of particular groups within society as well as for communities as a whole.

Apart from a small number of minor technical changes, the Bill contains the provisions originally considered by the previous Assembly, including those agreed at the amending stages. The only exception is the removal of the provisions that would have restricted the use of nicotine inhaling devices in some public places. This step has been taken in recognition of the need to build consensus across this Assembly and to ensure that the numerous benefits that the Bill seeks to deliver for Wales can be realised.

The Bill covers a number of important public health issues. It creates a distinct smoke-free regime for Wales, with the existing restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces extended to cover school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds—a change intended to benefit children, patients and visitors. It also allows for further settings to be made smoke-free in the future if certain conditions are satisfied and if supported by this Assembly.

The Bill supports the existing protections for children and young people, preventing them from getting hold of tobacco and nicotine products by the creation of a national register of retailers of these products, and a new offence of knowingly handing over tobacco or nicotine products to under-18s. These important measures will help enforcement authorities carry out their responsibilities more effectively and further protect children from harm. The Bill creates a mandatory licensing system for practitioners who carry out special procedures—acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing—helping to protect people who choose to have these procedures from the potential harm that can happen if they are poorly carried out. The Bill also prohibits the intimate body piercing of children under 16, providing another important protection for our young people.

While some actions in the Bill are intended to benefit specific groups, others will benefit whole communities. First, by requiring public bodies to carry out health impact assessments in certain circumstances, we will help ensure that, before key decisions are made, they are informed by a full consideration of their potential effects on physical and mental health and well-being. Second, communities will benefit from the proposed changes to the way pharmaceutical services are planned in Wales to better meet the needs of local communities. And third, communities will benefit from the improved planning of provision and access to toilets for use by the public—an issue that affects everyone but which has particular public health resonance for certain groups.

The Bill has of course already benefited from extensive consultation over a number of years and from detailed scrutiny during the fourth Assembly. The process of scrutiny has already directly strengthened the Bill in a number of ways. It led to extending the smoke-free regime to the new settings of school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds. It strengthened the Bill by protecting children from the specific health harms that can be caused by tongue piercings, and it directly led to the inclusion of important provisions about health impact assessments. Nonetheless, I am sure that the Bill will benefit from further rigorous scrutiny on a range of issues and from discussion on points of detail. So, I look forward to the scrutiny process that will now follow and to the constructive engagement of the many organisations who will have an interest in making this Public Health (Wales) Bill a success, and in maximising the benefits of the legislation for the people of Wales.

Thank you very much. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to see the Public Health (Wales) Bill resurface after the ridiculous farrago we saw earlier this year, and I would restate this party’s commitment to enabling e-cigarettes to be one of a number of tools in the smoking cessation toolbox.

Minister, there is very little in this Bill that I would quarrel with. In fact, given the stated objective of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, which is to use appropriate legislation to improve and protect the health and well-being of the population of Wales, I find that there are a number of areas that I wish to explore to see if we can bring forward more robust legislation in order to achieve that aim. I would also wish to examine better some of the fiscal implications of the proposed Bill.

I note the desire to create a national register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products, and this is a move I support. However, Minister, given the costs this would incur, what consideration have you given to that duty being carried out by local authorities? After all, they already license premises to sell alcohol, and I would suggest to you that most premises selling alcohol, be it a supermarket, pub, corner shop, will also be the ones wishing to retail tobacco and nicotine products. I do accept that there will be some venues that might specialise in nothing but the sale of tobacco and nicotine products, but they can be added, I would have thought at lower cost, to the existing licensing regime.

I note the intent to prohibit the handing over of tobacco or nicotine products to anyone under 18. Minister, have you given thought to what penalties you would apply and upon whom? It would be most concerning if the retailer were deemed responsible for over-18s buying cigarettes and the like and then handing them over to under-18s just around the corner. How will you catch, prove and punish any perpetrator?

I note the very welcome protection for minors you have proposed by banning intimate piercings. Under that same intent to protect a minor, could you give strength to laws around tattooing and body modifications, given that many tattoos and some body modifications are also in areas deemed intimate? I’ve understood your concerns over prohibition making something more attractive, but this is about child protection and my understanding is that, also, the industry would like to see more regulation for their protection as well.

I note the requirement for local authorities to prepare local strategy plans to reflect the need for public toilets. To be frank, Minister, you could drive a coach and horses through this element of the Bill. I’d be interested to know how you think this could deal with arterial routes, tourist areas with high tourism footfall but low community need, and more rural areas. Do you not think that there also needs to be an overarching national plan to tie together the local plans and fill the gaps?

Minister, Wales is home to some of the most polluted areas in the UK. The A472 road near Crumlin has the highest rate of pollution in any area outside of London, predominantly caused by congestion from heavy-duty vehicles. People living in the area are increasingly being exposed to harmful pollutants, which is denigrating their health. Research is enabling us to have a far fuller understanding of just how harmful long-term exposure to air pollutants is for our health. Damage by air pollutants can be linked to cancer, asthma, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity and dementia. In 2010, harm from air pollutants contributed to 1,320 deaths in Wales, and this plays a major role in many of our health challenges.

Minister, the Government must ensure that local authorities are fulfilling their role effectively. Local government does have a requirement to effectively monitor the local air quality and alert the public when levels exceed guidelines. Equally, they have a responsibility to deliver localised air management strategies. So, it is essential that these are being delivered in tandem with national strategic objectives.

Are you coming to a conclusion, please?

I’m so sorry, I did take guidance earlier, Deputy Presiding Officer, and was told I had time.

Well, you’re in danger of almost taking as long as the Minister to introduce the statement.

My apologies.

Could the public health Bill not legislate to monitor air pollution outside of Welsh schools? My initial investigations indicate that the issue of monitoring pollution levels outside schools could be factored into the Bill and that they could be enacted, providing we’re mindful of EU law and will not cut across the Wales Bill.

Finally, Minister, I would raise the subject of the fact that the public health Bill contains no measures to improve the physical fitness of the nation. With leisure centres under such pressure, Minister, could this public health Bill not look at the possibility of us opening up our school buildings to provide a locus in local communities to enable people, especially those who are receiving ongoing medical help and need to have the exercise regimes that I spoke of when I spoke to the First Minister earlier in questions—. That could be a centre for them to be able to go to where they don’t have to travel so far. I do believe, Minister, that fitness is absolutely key because, if you look at any of the population predictions, then we are in for one heck of a ride in the years to come because of obesity and our general ill health. And if you will be brave and through this Bill take issue on public health through physical fitness, and look at children, young people and adults, then this party will support you in that brave step, because by being brave today we can really make a dramatic difference to the health of our nation tomorrow. Thank you.

I thank the spokesperson for the warm way in which she has welcomed the return of the Bill to the Assembly, and for her constructive comments this afternoon. I look forward to working with Members across all parties as we develop the Bill in the months to come.

Your first question related to the fiscal implications of the Bill, and, at that point, I’d direct your attention to the explanatory memorandum, which also includes the regulatory impact assessment. It does include some detail in terms of what we would expect the cost of the Bill to be for Welsh Government, local authorities and for others as well. We’ve been really keen throughout the development of the Bill to minimise the cost to local government, because we understand the pressures that they are under at the moment. For example, with the part of the Bill that deals with the food hygiene system, the Bill allows local authorities to keep the receipts that they receive when they hand out a fixed penalty notice, for example, so that they can reinvest that in terms of doing their duties to inspect premises, and so on.

You asked about the register of retailers. All retailers of tobacco and nicotine products will be required to be on the national register. There’d be a proposed fee of £30 for the first premises and £10 for each additional premises owned by the business. That register will provide local authorities with a definitive list of the retailers within their areas selling either tobacco or cigarette papers, nicotine products or a combination of these items, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of under-18s accessing these products. We will be naming either a local authority or another organisation as the authority that will manage that national register.

We’re aiming to keep it as simple as possible to minimise the burden on business, so retailers will only need to notify the registration authority of any changes to the details of their entry once they’ve registered, rather than formally re-registering every three years, which is why a formal licensing system would have actually put more burden on business. That is why we’ve opted for this approach. It will also be a helpful resource in terms of local authorities being able to disseminate information, advice, guidance and support for businesses on their register, because, at the moment, they do rely to a large extent on local intelligence, which is quite fragmented. So, now they’ll be able to be aided much more robustly in their enforcement duties as well. I’m glad that you have welcomed that part of the Bill as well.

In terms of handing over of tobacco, what that means in practice is that it will be an offence for an individual to hand over tobacco to somebody under the age of 18. The aim is to prevent young people obtaining tobacco and nicotine products through the internet or through telephone orders, and this Bill is very much about keeping pace with changes that are happening in society and in the way that we access different things. The offence applies to, for example, bags and delivery boxes used by supermarkets, but it doesn’t capture fully enclosed envelopes because we can’t reasonably expect people to know what’s inside a closed envelope when that’s handed over. So, delivery drivers handing over tobacco or nicotine products to somebody who appears to be under 18 will be expected to carry out the age verification check, similar to those that are carried out by shop assistants in such situations as well. This will be enforced by local authorities.

With regard to intimate piercing, we seek through the Bill to prohibit the intimate piercing of a person who is under the age of 16 in Wales in any setting, and it also extends to making it an offence to make arrangements to perform such a procedure. So, for the purposes of the Bill, intimate piercing includes piercing of the nipples, breasts, genitalia, buttocks and tongue, and that was introduced in the amending stages when the Bill previously went through the Assembly. Again, the aim there is both to protect young people from the potential harms that could be caused by an intimate piercing, but also to avoid circumstances where they’re put in potentially vulnerable situations. Many practitioners, you’re right, already choose not to undertake these intimate piercings on children and young people anyway, but this will bring things into line across Wales. We can certainly have further discussions at the next stages in the passage of the Bill through the Assembly with regard to extending the intimate areas to tattoos, for example. I’m not sure whether that was discussed at any length in the previous stages at the Assembly, but I look forward to having those discussions with you as well.

Just to, very quickly, reflect on your concerns about toilets, the Welsh Government will issuing guidance to all local authorities in assisting them in developing their local toilet strategies. Within that, we will be asking them to look at users of highways, active travel routes and visitors to sites for events of cultural, sporting, historic, popular or national significance as well. So, it’s intended to be a wide-ranging and robust piece of work. Again, pollution isn’t included within the Bill, but I’m sure this is something that we’ll discuss in detail in the next stages.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank the Minister for this statement? Even though this Bill isn’t perfect, as I will explain further, I do welcome the Bill as it currently stands. It’s a shame that the content of what is before us wasn’t placed on the statute book previously, but I was one of those people who couldn’t accept the previous Bill because of the restriction on the use of e-cigarettes. Even though we can’t say, of course, that they cause no harm, I do believe that there is a place for them as something that’s less harmful thank smoking tobacco. So, I’m very pleased that that element has been expunged from this new Bill.

We will work constructively on this Bill now, as it stands. Assembly Members, all of us, and those of us who are members of the health committee will do that work. And I look forward to starting that scrutiny process and to seek elements that we can improve and strengthen, despite the fact that this Bill, to some extent, has been through a scrutiny and amendment process already.

Gan fod digonedd o gyfleoedd craffu i ddod, nid wyf am gyflwyno rhestr hir o gwestiynau heddiw. Fe wnaf ddweud, fodd bynnag, ei fod yn achos pryder i mi nad oes dim yma i fynd i'r afael â gordewdra na chamddefnyddio alcohol na hybu gweithgarwch corfforol, fel y clywsom funud yn ôl, ac yn hynny o beth, gellid ei weld fel cyfle a gollwyd. Ond, mae hwn yn Fil defnyddiol. Mae yn cynnwys rhai mesurau defnyddiol a byddwn yn ymgysylltu yn adeiladol gydag ef ac yn parhau i chwilio am gyfleoedd i weithredu yn rhai o’r meysydd eraill hynny.

Byddaf i hefyd yn achub ar y cyfle hwn, yn olaf, i ofyn hyn i'r Gweinidog: a wnaiff hi gytuno â mi y dylai’r Bil hwn, mewn gwirionedd, fod yn llawer cryfach ac y gallai fod yn llawer cryfach a’i fod yn cael ei rwystro gan ddiffyg pwerau? A yw hi'n cytuno â mi y dylai fod gennym ni’r pwerau, er enghraifft, i wahardd neu gyfyngu ar hysbysebu bwyd sothach neu i gyflwyno treth ar fwyd a diod afiach a siwgr ac yn y blaen, a phe byddai’r gallu gennym i wneud hynny, y gallai hwn yn wir fod yn Fil llawer mwy pellgyrhaeddol?

I thank the Member for those comments and obviously share your clear disappointment that the Bill wasn’t passed at the previous stage in the Assembly, but I’m looking forward to working constructively with you as we move forward on it.

You mentioned several items that you are disappointed they aren’t addressed in the Bill, but of course, legislation is only one part of the way in which we address the challenges that you outlined. For example, not everything needs legislation—we’re doing many things in terms of tackling obesity, both at a Wales level and working constructively with the UK Government at EU level as well. Many of the levers that affect the food industry, for example, are held at UK Government level and at a European level, which is why we’ve been supportive of the UK Government’s efforts in terms of the sugary drinks industry levy. We’re keen to see some real progress made on that, and quite quickly as well.

Also, in Wales, we have the Healthy Child Wales programme, which I was pleased to launch in April of this year. This will provide practitioners and health visitors with the opportunity to have real, meaningful engagement with families on a consistent basis across Wales. At those meetings, things such as healthy living, diet, exercise, smoking, substance misuse—all of these different elements can be discussed in order to support the family to make healthy choices, both for the mother and the children, but for the family as a whole, as well.

We have the 10 Steps to a Healthy Weight programme as well, and that, again, seeks to give children the very best start in life in terms of their physical health. We already have other legislation, such as the active travel Act, which we’re implementing, to try and make active and healthy choices of walking and cycling much easier for people.

In schools, we have a Wales network of healthy schools and we have a great variety of school-based sports and physical activity programmes, which are being delivered in schools and also through Sport Wales.

You referred to substance misuse. Again, there’s nothing specific on this in the Bill in terms of alcohol and drug use, for example, but we’re working very hard to prevent and reduce harm through our action plan. You’ll recall that, only a month or two ago, the Assembly agreed our delivery plan for the next two years with regard to substance misuse, preventing harm, for example, through educating children and making sure that the advice and information we give keeps up to date with the modern trends, with the new psychoactive substances and so on, but also reducing harm for those people who already have substance misuse issues—for example, by introducing our take-home naloxone programme, which prevents overdose. I’m hearing great stories of how that is actually saving lives in our communities. Mohammad Asghar mentioned just last week the drug administration rooms and we’re actively looking at whether or not we would want to introduce those and taking advice from an expert group as well.

You and Angela Burns also mentioned leisure facilities and the fact that they’re not in the Bill, but again, there are things we can do outside of legislation—for example, the facilities blueprint, which is recently being produced, in order to make sure that we take a more strategic approach to the availability of sporting premises and leisure facilities in our communities. The sports facility grant we made available for local authorities to have a grant of up to £1 million in order to invest in improving or developing new facilities locally, as well. So, there is a great deal going on in the public health sphere beyond the legislation itself, although I know that there’ll be a keenness to address many of these issues as we move through the scrutiny stages.

I’m also very pleased that we’re reintroducing this Bill, which has some very important conditions attached to it. I’m delighted to hear that Plaid Cymru is urging you to do something about obesity. I just wondered whether there was any possibility of including anything of a regulatory nature in this Bill, because although there are many things that the Government is doing to try and tackle obesity, we know that the full weight of the advertising industry is encouraging people to eat all the wrong things, rather than vegetables. The Olympic Games were used as an absolute fest of junk food advertising—except, in one case, Aldi were using it to promote vegetables and fruit, and they should be commended for doing that. But most advertising is done on things like sugary drinks, not on vegetables.

So, would it be possible to include in the Bill, say, banning advertising of junk food before the 9 o’clock watershed? Do we have the powers to do that? And also, although I welcome the sugary drink levy, it doesn’t go nearly far enough, because sadly, sugar is present in nearly all the processed food that is being flogged at the moment. Is there any possibility of being able to introduce a wider levy on sugary items, which also might take into account the amount of salt and fat also being used to flog goods being presented as food? I appreciate that these are difficult issues because most food is manufactured across the UK, but I’d really welcome your views on this matter.

I thank you very much for raising these issues. With regard to the advertising industry and what we can do there, the Cabinet Secretary and I were very disappointed that the UK Government’s obesity strategy didn’t take any action in terms of addressing advertising aimed at children and young people particularly. We wouldn’t have the powers here in order to legislate in that area, so the Cabinet Secretary and I have written to the UK Government expressing our disappointment and our hope that they will turn their attention to this in due course. I think there are opportunities to support Welsh food and drink businesses through our food and drink action plan, which has been led by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs. Within that department, we have two centres, one in north Wales and one in south Wales, which are able to support businesses to become more innovative. Part of that can be reformulating their products to reduce the salt that they use, to reduce the fat that they use and the sugar that they use, but still maintain the kind of taste that the product is well known for. So, there are ways we can support our home-grown food and drink businesses in order to make more healthy products, which will make them more attractive to consumers as well.

Thank you for your statement, Minister, and for kindly providing a briefing to opposition spokespeople ahead of the introduction of the Bill. Wales has one of the best health services in the world, yet we also have some of the poorest health in Europe, and we must do whatever we can to address this. UKIP welcome the introduction of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and we look forward to working with all parties in the Chamber to scrutinise and improve the Bill.

I welcome the introduction of a national register of tobacco and nicotine products, and its intention to uphold restrictions on selling such products to children and young people. We hope the register will also help to regulate the e-cigarette market. Currently, there is nothing stopping any person from cooking up batches of e-cig fluid in a bathtub and selling it at a local market, car boot sale or from a trolley on the high street. While I believe that e-cigarettes are a much safer alternative to traditional tobacco products and that the vast majority of retailers are responsible, end users have no surety that the product they are buying is safe. They simply do not know what the fluid they are buying contains or the conditions in which it was made. Minister, what consideration have you given to using the public health Bill to regulate the production of e-cigarette fluids?

Bought from a reputable source, e-cigarettes are orders of magnitude, safer than smoking traditional cigarettes, and, while it is preferable that smokers quit altogether, the reality is that many will not, even after accessing the Welsh Government’s gold-standard smoking-cessation schemes. Therefore, it is highly preferable that those smokers move to the much safer e-cigarettes. Public Health England advocate the use of e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking and issue guidance to employers stating they may consider allowing people to use e-cigarettes at work if it is part of a policy to help tobacco smokers kick the habit. As we currently have 19 per cent of the adult population of Wales who smoke, we should be considering every avenue open to us to reduce the number. Minister, Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians state that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than smoking tobacco. Therefore, what consideration have you given to using this Bill to reverse some of the bans we have seen being introduced on e-cigarettes?

On other aspects of the Bill, we welcome moves to regulate special procedures and intimate piercing. The inclusion of health impact assessments is most welcome. I look forward to receiving greater detail on the impact pharmaceutical needs assessments will have in rural areas during Stage 1 scrutiny in committee.

Finally, Minister, we question the introduction of local toilet strategies. Without adequate access to public toilets, many disabled people, older people and people with health conditions are unable to leave their home. The British Toilet Association estimates that there are 40 per cent fewer public toilets in the UK than there were 10 years ago. We should place a duty on local authorities to either provide public toilets or ensure adequate public access to toilets, not simply drawing up a strategy. Minister, will you consider strengthening this part of the Bill? Thank you once again, Minister, for your statement, and I look forward to working with you to ensure that we deliver a Bill that delivers real public health benefits for Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Member for those comments and, again, for the very constructive way in which the party has sought to engage with the Bill at this early stage. With regard to the register of e-cigarettes, I’m really pleased to say that e-cigarettes will be included in the register of retailers. This is the only part of the Bill where you will find e-cigarettes, because you’ll be familiar with the fact that the First Minister made a commitment not to include the banning of the use of e-cigarettes in public spaces within this Bill. However, we are including them in the proposed register because, in the White Paper, a number of correspondents, particularly from the local government sector, said it would be appropriate for registration requirements to be extended to the retailers of nicotine products, including electronic cigarettes. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute conducted a rapid review of the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, which came into force in October of last year. So, this is a new piece of research, which found that a total of 634 test purchases of e-cigarette products were made by young volunteers under the age of 18, and the results showed that compliance with the new regulations prohibiting nicotine inhaling products being sold to people under the age of 18 is still very low, with 39 per cent of young people being able to purchase them. So, I think it is, as you say, right that e-cigarettes should be included on the proposed register. The fact that they’ll be on there will help enforcement authorities with their enforcement duties as well.

I do share the concerns that the previous Minister had in terms of the impact of e-cigarettes on young people and the normalisation of smoking, and the normalisation of smoking whether it is through traditional cigarettes or e-cigarettes, because recent research has shown us that primary school-age children in Wales are more likely to have used e-cigarettes than tobacco. Six per cent of 10 to 11-year-olds and 12 per cent of 11 to 16-year-olds have used an e-cigarette at least once. So, it is an issue. I think it’s fair to say that the jury is probably still out in terms of the health benefits or costs in terms of e-cigarettes. I feel like the weight is moving against e-cigarettes in terms of the advice that the World Health Organization has given just this week. However, just to be clear, e-cigarettes beyond the register won’t be included in this Bill.

You moved on then to talk about special procedures. The Bill seeks to create a compulsory national licensing system for practitioners of special procedures, so defined in the Bill as acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing. This system will mean that to perform any of those procedures an individual must be licensed, and also that premises or the vehicle from which they operate must be approved. So, the aim here is to drive up standards in relation to the performance of special procedures and reduce the associated health risks, such as infection and transmission of blood-borne viruses as well. I know this is an issue that had a lot of interest in terms of scrutiny in the previous Assembly.

Our health impact assessments are going to offer a systematic means of taking health into account as part of decision-making and planning processes. So, this is really bringing life to our aspiration of health in all policies. The Bill includes provisions that will require Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the circumstances in which public bodies in Wales must carry out health impact assessments. So, the aim is that those assessments should be limited to policies, plans and programmes that have outcomes of national or major significance, or that will have a significant effect at the local level as well. The precise circumstances where they’ll be required will be set out in regulations following a process of consultation.

Just briefly there you referred to pharmacy and the pharmaceutical needs assessment and the importance of supporting rural pharmacies. I think that this is part of taking the strategic approach and making sure that people who live in rural communities have access to community pharmacies. I feel, as I’m sure many others do, they are underused resources at the moment. Pharmacists go through a great deal of training. They have a huge amount of expertise, and I feel that in the spirit of prudent healthcare they are able to operate at a higher level to offer more services than many do at the moment. So, the pharmaceutical needs assessment, and then the decisions that follow that, will hopefully make access to pharmacies and pharmacist advice more reliable in rural communities.

Finally, with regard to access to toilets, local authorities will be required to publish that local strategy to which you refer. But then, they will also have to provide details as to how they will propose to meet the population needs assessment. This isn’t just about toilets. This includes changing facilities for babies and changing places facilities for disabled people as well.

As others said earlier, Minister, I think it is very important that we get a more physically active population in Wales. I do believe that community-focused schools, as Angela Burns touched on, are a very important way forward. I also think that air pollution hasn’t had sufficient attention. I met with a group recently, for example, that told me that capital conversion costs for their particular fuel for taxi fleets, for example, would repay itself over a two-year period and make quite a dramatic impact on better air quality in our inner urban areas. I am sure there must be many other examples of how we can get much better air quality in Wales that we could practically make progress on quite quickly.

But what I really wanted to ask about is two things, really. One is smoking. I think we’ve made considerable progress in making smoking less socially acceptable. Smoking rates have come down, and that’s been a huge benefit to health in Wales. You allow in your statement for the possibility of further areas of restriction to be developed. One that I know has quite a lot of popular support in my experience is restricting smoking so that it’s not possible in outdoor restaurant and cafe areas where there’s seating and tables. I think people think that that’s particularly important in the summer, where some people see it as a choice between either not enjoying the fine weather or breathing in second-hand smoke, which for some people is particularly problematic, given their health conditions. And minimum alcohol pricing, Minister: I wonder if you could say something in terms of your thoughts on how that can be taken forward in Wales, again given the impact of alcohol abuse and immoderate alcohol consumption on health in Wales.

I thank you for those questions, and I neglected to address Angela’s point on the community-focused schools issue, so apologies for that. It is one of our manifesto commitments to make sure that we use the resources that we have in communities, particularly with regard to schools and the capital investment that we are making in twenty-first century schools, making those facilities available for the benefit of the wider community. Again, you mentioned the issue of pollution and air quality, which isn’t in the Bill, but I’m sure we will be having more detailed discussion on that issue as the Bill makes its progress through the various stages.

You were right to point out the significant progress that we’ve seen on the issue of smoking: 19 per cent of people in Wales now smoke, with our ambitious target to get to 16 per cent by 2020. I hope some of the measures in this Bill will certainly help us address that. I think it’s important to recognise, actually, that children and young people often get a bad rap, but in terms of smoking and alcohol consumption, actually, levels are at their lowest since records began amongst our young people. So, I think that we and they should be very proud of that as well. The Bill does provide for Welsh Ministers to extend the list of premises where smoking can’t take place. That can only be done through the affirmative procedure on the Assembly floor with a consultation. So, there could be opportunity at future stages for Ministers to extent the list, perhaps, to include the outdoor restaurants or cafeteria areas, for example, that you referred to, although again it might be something that we discuss as the Bill makes its way through the stages.

You referred to the minimum unit pricing issue. As you know, the Welsh Government has already consulted on this issue and had a favourable response in terms of it being something that could have an impact in terms of addressing harmful alcohol consumption in Wales. We do welcome the confirmation that Scotland’s Court of Session has given its approval to the Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. That determination was just a couple of weeks ago, on 21 October, so we’re still digesting what that means for Wales. But we do recognise as well that this might not be the end of the story, of course. It might well end up in the Supreme Court. So, we are keeping a very close eye on that and have a close interest in it, considering the way forward and what might be possible in Wales. We are very much of the view that introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol is one of the key measures that we can take to reduce alcohol-related harm. We are very keen to have similar legislation here in Wales, and we do see it as an essential part of the wider action we need to take within the context of our substance misuse delivery plan, which I referred to earlier. But, as I say, we’re watching the situation in Scotland and considering what we might be able to do.

Your statement refers to the creation in the Bill of a mandatory licensing system for practitioners carrying out special procedures—acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing—helping to protect people and so on. But when I wrote to you regarding the hair industry, you replied, on 27 October, that the regulation of hairdressing will not be included in the Public Health (Wales) Bill at introduction into the Assembly, scheduled for 7 November. Given that the hair industry in Germany must be registered and have a master craftsperson employed, but in the UK anyone can set up, and they don’t have to be qualified, trained or registered, despite providing dangerous procedures, including the use of chemicals on skin and hair, and given that the Bill as it stands does include beauty and procedures such as Botox and, I believe, dermal fillers, will you now give consideration, post introduction of the Bill, to the concerns raised by the industry in this respect?

I thank the Member for the question and I know this is something he has taken a particular interest in, and that the body representing hairdressers has also written to all Assembly Members on this particular issue as well.

It’s our view that industry regulation and health and safety are non-devolved, so it’s not something that we believe that we would have the powers to regulate within this Bill in any case. The reason we’ve chosen those four particular special procedures in terms of introducing the Bill to the Assembly was because these are ones that carry particular harm, or potential harm, I should say, because they puncture the skin and that could lead to infection, blood-borne viruses and so on. So, those are things that join together those four particular procedures. Also, they’re ones that local authorities are already familiar with, and I think it’s important when we introduce a Bill, certainly at this first stage, that local authorities are given a set of responsibilities that they are familiar with and are able to regulate within their current understanding, although I know a lot of training is already going on in anticipation of the successful passage of the Bill.

Just as was the case for no-smoking areas outdoors, the Bill does give power to Ministers in future to extend the list of special procedures should they choose to do so. Again, that would happen after consultation and via the affirmative process within the Assembly.

Most of the points I wanted to make have already been covered, but I did just want to say a bit about the public toilet strategy. I am concerned at how far we’ll be able to move forward the actual supply of public toilets by the Bill and I do think it is such a hugely important public health issue. I was visited in my constituency last week by a 92-year-old constituent who wants to start a campaign to have public toilets, because the last public toilet in Whitchurch has now been closed down, following the closure of the public toilet in Rhiwbina. It does mean that many elderly and disabled people don’t go out, because they’re not able to use the toilet. Schemes that have been brought in, such as to go in and use the toilets in the pub or the café—she said that they really don’t want to do that sort of thing because they get embarrassed going into a pub or a cafe, even if there’s a notice on the window saying that they are willing for people to use it.

So, I just wondered how having a strategy would take things forward, and the other point I wanted to make, really, was people with young children as well—it is very important that they’re able to get access to public toilets. So, I think it’s a vital public health issue, and I just wonder how we can really take it forward with having a strategy.

I thank you for raising that particular issue, and I know that a survey by Help the Aged, as they were when they undertook the survey—now Age UK—found that more than half of older people found a lack of public toilets prevented them from going out as often as they would like, and that very much reflects the kind of story you’ve told us now about one of your constituents as well. I’ve met with Crohn’s and Colitis UK and they’ve said very much a similar kind of thing, that a fear of going out and not knowing whether they would be able to go to the toilet does hamper people’s well-being in terms of being able to access everything that the community is able to offer them. I do hope that this Bill will mean that requiring local authorities to have a local toilet strategy in place will mean better planning at a local level, in order to make sure that facilities do meet the needs of communities. Accessible, clean toilets that are well located in places like parks, promenades, cycle tracks and walking routes will help encourage people to take more active travel, and take more active routes as well, and I think this is all part of the wider public health picture.

In developing their strategies, there is the aim that local authorities will consider the wide range of facilities that are available, both in the public sector—so, public libraries, community and town halls, sport centres, theatres and museums, which perhaps people wouldn’t feel so concerned about going into—but also private sector buildings—those private businesses currently captured under the public facilities grant scheme, for example—when developing their strategy. Because although public toilets are often seen within that context of those standalone public toilets that are maintained by local authorities, the resources out there are much wider. But, I do understand people’s reticence to perhaps use public toilets that they feel that they’re not entitled to use. So, as part of the delivery of the Bill, we would look to do an advertising public awareness campaign, so that people are more aware of the toilets they can use in the locality, and perhaps that might break down some people’s reticence to use the toilets that are there in the community as well.

Minister, many questions have already been asked, and I support fully Julie Morgan’s points on public toilets. I think we need to ensure that the strategy is actually implemented, and that people have access to all facilities. And if there aren’t any there, that they can’t simply say, ‘We can’t afford it’, but that they do something about it because it’s critical that those facilities are available. And signposting to those facilities in the towns is also critical. My simple comment, as someone who sat through the previous incarnation of the Bill, is that I’m very pleased to see the nicotine aspect of registers, because nicotine is an addictive chemical and it’s clearly important to register those as well as tobacco. It’s therefore important because we wouldn’t want anybody selling that type of product, considering the implications that that addiction could have.

Just one point. One of the things we were held up on is the cosmetic procedures issue. We were told very carefully that the 2013 Sir Bruce Keogh report was instrumental in looking at this, and it has been done, it’s been reported on. What are you doing to actually look at whether recommendations from that report to the UK Government can be implemented in this Bill, so that we do cosmetic procedures? I know that there was very deep concern about some of the procedures that did pierce the skin, but were not included in here, and therefore could be under that umbrella, but also had perhaps some serious implications for people, because there is a desire in many young people today to have different looks and cosmetic procedures. Therefore, we need to ensure that all cosmetic procedures are carefully regulated to ensure that young people don’t come across a situation where they face a terrible life ahead of them because they took the wrong decision and there was no regulation in place.

Thank you for that question, and for your welcome for the nicotine register particularly. But with regard to the special procedures, I know that during the public health White Paper consultation, and through the previous Assembly scrutiny, many Members and Assembly Members suggested a list of special procedures that should be extended to include things such as those you suggest, like dermal fillers, colonic irrigation and tattoo removal, and all body modification procedures, such as tongue splitting, scarification and branding. I know these are all things that were explored by the committee at the last Assembly. These haven’t been included within the definition of special measures within the Bill, but as I say, the Bill does allow Ministers to amend via regulations the list of special procedures in due course. And I’m sure that we will revisit some of the eye-watering discussions you had in committee at the last stage.

In order to be added to the list though, Welsh Ministers must consider that the procedure is performed for either aesthetic or therapeutic purposes, and that the performance of the procedure is capable of causing harm to human health. Those would be the boundaries within which we could take these decisions under the Bill. And the amendment might add to or remove a type of description of a procedure from the list, or it might vary a description that is already contained within the list as well. The reason for that is to allow us to remain flexible and be able to respond to those changing practices, which you referred to, because this particular field is one that moves very quickly, and trends happen very quickly and change quickly too.

Thank you. Thank you, Minister. That’s it, no more speakers; thank you.

We move on to the next item on our agenda, which is a statement by the Counsel General on article 50 intervention. I call on the Counsel General to introduce his statement.

Thank you. As Members will be aware, the High Court handed down judgment in the matter of Miller, last week. And, as I said in my written statement on Friday, I consider that this case raises issues of profound importance, not only in relation to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, but also in relation to the wider constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom and the legal framework for devolution. It is for those reasons that I propose to apply to intervene in any appeal before the Supreme Court.

Llywydd, I think it is of paramount importance to emphasise at this point that, despite the political furore surrounding it and the frankly alarming tone of much of the press coverage, as the High Court itself said, this case involves a pure question of law. It is not concerned with the merits and the demerits of leaving the European Union, and the politics surrounding that.

Either through a lack of understanding of the UK constitution, or for other reasons, the judgment of the High Court has been misrepresented by some. In addition, there are those who have deliberately chosen to misrepresent the facts to challenge the independence of the judiciary—one of the cornerstones of our democratic parliamentary system. The reporting of the judgment in some newspapers was, frankly, a disgrace and an insult to the good name of journalism.

The democratic structure of the UK and, indeed, this Assembly, is built on a foundation of the rule of law and independence of our judicial system. The tragic recent history of Europe is littered with examples of countries that overthrew the rule of law and undermined the independence of the courts. That road is not a democratic one and it leads only in one direction, and I would hope those who may have made comments and statements in haste will want to reflect.

The sole legal question at issue is whether the United Kingdom Government can, as a matter of constitutional law, use the prerogative powers to give notice of withdrawal from the European Union. In seeking to intervene in any appeal, the Welsh Government will seek to reinforce the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law—core, established principles of British constitutional law. On parliamentary sovereignty, the judgment quotes from the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill that,

‘The bedrock of the British constitution is…the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.’

On the rule of law, the court confirms that the subordination of the Crown, that is, the Executive Government, to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. So, put simply, this case, in finding that the prerogative cannot be used in the absence of a clear authority to change the law enacted by Parliament, is about the essence of our representative democracy. As the court said,

‘The United Kingdom is a constitutional democracy framed by legal rules and subject to the rule of law. The courts have a constitutional duty fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic state to enforce rules of constitutional law in the same way as the courts enforce other laws.’

Having outlined what the case is about, I should also make a comment on what it is not about. The First Minister has made crystal clear, and I repeat that sentiment now, that the Welsh Government respects the result of the referendum and this is absolutely not about overturning that decision.

Whilst the case has, to date, focused on the impact of triggering article 50 on individual rights, the proposed use by the UK Government of the prerogative in this manner is relevant to the legal and constitutional relationship of this Assembly to Parliament. The High Court judgment refers to the European Communities Act 1972 as a ‘statute of major constitutional importance’ and as a result found that it should be

‘exempt from casual implied repeal by Parliament’

or its legal effects removed through the use of prerogative powers. It is beyond doubt that the Government of Wales Act 2006 is also a constitutional statute. The use of Executive powers should not be used to override its provisions unless there is a clear and express statutory basis to do so. The use of the prerogative is not, in my view, a lawful basis either to firstly bring about changes to the competence of this Assembly where compatibility with the European treaties and the law created by them is currently a test of legislative competence, or secondly to bring about changes to the powers of the Welsh Ministers that cannot be exercised in a way incompatible with European Union law. Notification of withdrawal from the treaties on the basis of the case put by the Secretary of State will inevitably therefore bring about changes to the competence of the Assembly and the powers of the Welsh Ministers.

Llywydd, the link between the historical principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the Assembly as a modern, devolved legislature is equally clear. As Parliament has enacted the scheme of devolution in Wales, it should be for Parliament and not the Executive to oversee any changes and to do so with the assent of this elected Assembly. The wider constitutional relationships that have been established and continue to develop should not be bypassed. Indeed, one of the challenges posed by the UK leaving the EU will be to develop more effective relationships between the UK Government and the devolved administrations, on the basis of mutual respect for each other’s rights and responsibilities.

Finally, the proposed action of the United Kingdom Government is relevant to the legal and constitutional relationships of the Welsh Government to the UK Government. Any process should respect and build upon inter-governmental relations. That is why I have taken the decision as Counsel General to seek to intervene in any proposed appeal.

Counsel General, you’ve outlined in your statement what the court case is about and clearly an independent judiciary is vital to our constitution and to our freedoms. However, the UK Government does also have a right to disagree with the court’s decision and that is why they’re appealing the High Court’s ruling where the process of law must be followed. As they state, the UK

‘voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.’

Clearly, it will now be for the Supreme Court to determine which of the two arguments it considers should take primacy. It’s not for me now to suggest otherwise. But I hope you’ll agree that constitutionally it has always been the first duty of a Prime Minister of a Government to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of the UK where the people entrust sovereignty—being the authority of the state to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies—to a Prime Minister and Government and expect them to hand it on intact to their successors unless the people consent otherwise. Given that and given, as we heard in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee from witnesses yesterday, that technically parliamentary sovereignty hasn’t applied since the European Communities Act in 1972 and can only be restored by withdrawal from the European Union, is the UK Government not correct to state it is its duty not to question or quibble or backslide on what they’ve been instructed to do, but they have to get on with the job of leaving the EU? As they say, they want to give UK companies the maximum freedom to trade and operate in the single market and let European businesses do the same here, but they’re not leaving the European Union only to give up control of borders or return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The great repeal Bill, which I think is at the essence of the actions you now propose, seeks to end the European Union’s legal supremacy in the UK by converting all EU requirements to British law as soon as Britain, or, should I say, the UK, exits the block. It will pass through Parliament at the same time as negotiations with Brussels and will activate the end of the authority of the European Communities Act 1972 in the UK on day one of EU exit. Critically, the process will be separate from article 50 negotiations, which will activate the formal mechanism to leave the EU.

Given that your written statement to Members last Friday, when you first announced your intention to make an application to be granted permission to intervene in the proposed appeal before the Supreme Court, listed the reasons you gave for that, based on the judgments by the High Court and the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, and that the matters you raise will be subject to bilateral or quadrilateral negotiation between the Welsh and UK Government or the four UK home nations, and not article 50 negotiations, does that not invalidate your involvement in a legal case that applies to whether or not the UK Government can invoke article 50 negotiations, a separate matter, without having parliamentary approval?

The existing convention between the Welsh and UK Government is detailed in ‘Devolution Guidance Note 9: Parliamentary and Assembly Primary Legislation Affecting Wales’. It says:

‘The UK Government would not normally bring forward or support proposals to legislate in relation to Wales on subjects in which the Assembly has legislative competence without the Assembly’s consent. If the UK Government agrees to include provisions which are within the Assembly’s legislative competence in a parliamentary Bill, Welsh Ministers will need to gain the consent of the Assembly via a Legislative Consent Motion.’

How, therefore, do you respond to the statement to the external affairs committee yesterday by Professor Michael Keating that, in evidence to a committee in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland said the great repeal Bill would not be an opportunity to roll back on devolved powers? Professor Keating expressed his view that the UK Government were very unlikely to do this.

Yesterday, in the same committee, the First Minister expressed his view that the free movement of people, having to make financial contributions to the EU, and being subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice, were secondary to full and unfettered access to the single market.

How, therefore, do you respond to the evidence given yesterday by Professor Roger Scully to committee that, for many people who voted ‘leave’ in Wales, their priority is to prevent free movement of people or to control EU migration, and, he added, something politicians must be aware of?

Finally, in respect of the First Minister’s evidence to committee yesterday, he stated that, if the great repeal Bill encroaches on devolved Assembly powers, there would need to be a legislative consent motion. Would you agree that that means that, if the great repeal Bill does not encroach on devolved Assembly powers, there would not need to be a legislative consent motion and that, therefore, might question the justification for your intervention on this matter?

Thank you for that large number of very complex and very detailed questions. I hope you wrote them all yourself. They do raise a whole series of important points, though.

The first one, with regard to the sovereignty of Parliament—that is exactly what this case is about. The sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law is important not just to the United Kingdom Parliament, but also to the devolved Assemblies. That is why Northern Ireland is actually going to be involved in this case and is why Scotland has announced that they will be intervening in this case, and I’m glad that we’ll have the support of Scotland to the decision that’s already been taken within Wales to intervene in this particular case, because it is fundamental that the devolved Governments do have a voice, a clear voice, within an enormous process that is going to have significant constitutional change.

Let’s deal with the issue of the great repeal Bill to start with. We’ll obviously review that when we actually know what is in the repeal Bill; I have no knowledge whatsoever. But, taking on board the point you made about legislative consent motions, of course, if the great repeal Bill does encroach on areas that relate to the devolved settlement for Wales then, obviously, that will require the assent of the Assembly and, obviously, the lodging of a legislative consent motion.

If it does not encroach on anything that is to do with devolved responsibilities, there may be other constitutional relationships and impacts that are of concern. It is just that it is impossible to say, until I actually know what is in the content of any great repeal Bill, what its structure is, what its objectives are, and what the timescale is. So, it certainly does not invalidate involvement, and, in fact, I think I would be failing in my duty if, as the law officer for Wales, with one of the prime responsibilities for the rule of law—if there was not a clear Welsh voice in the Supreme Court when all these matters of major constitutional importance are considered. And let’s be honest about this—this is probably the most important constitutional case since the trial and execution of Charles I.

With regard to the views of Michael Keating and Professor Scully with regard to the issue of the free movement of people, the issues around the nature of any Brexit or the consequence of triggering article 50 were not a matter before the court, and will not be a matter in the Supreme Court itself. This is solely about the process and who actually has the authority. I would also draw the Member’s attention to the fact that the curtailing of the royal prerogative over the past 300 years has been one of the most important constitutional developments in the development of the United Kingdom’s constitutional position, establishing the sovereignty of Parliament and ensuring that there is an Executive that is accountable to an elected representative Parliament.

I thank the Counsel General for his statement this afternoon, and for his intervention in this significant issue. I’d also like to associate Plaid Cymru with the sentiments he’s expressed regarding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

That there is and will be far-reaching consequences of this judgment and the final determination of the Supreme Court is beyond doubt, and it is clear that a consequence of the triggering of article 50, however that occurs, will bring about changes to the competence of the National Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 are enshrined in the Welsh constitution, and must not be interfered with or amended without the expressed will of this country and its democratically-elected legislature. I would be grateful to the Counsel General if he could elaborate further on the exact nature of this proposed intervention in the appeal to the Supreme Court, specifically on what formal role he is seeking for either Welsh Government or the National Assembly in the process of triggering article 50. Given his proposed intervention, is it his view that, if upheld, the High Court ruling calls for primary legislation at the UK Parliament on triggering article 50, or, as some have suggested, that a resolution of Parliament would satisfy the demands of the High Court ruling?

Secondly, would he agree that there are potential dangers in upholding the principle of UK parliamentary sovereignty above all other considerations, as far as Wales is concerned? For example, if triggering article 50 occurs through primary legislation at the UK Parliament, then the UK Government will be able to supplant such legislation with secondary legislation that may infringe upon devolved matters, but will not be privy or be required to legislative consent motions of this Assembly or other devolved Parliaments. Is the Counsel General concerned that the principle that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly might be abandoned as the UK Government hides behind the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and may argue that these are not normal circumstances?

Finally, Llywydd, article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 establishes that Acts of Parliament must be accepted entirely by the courts. This would make it impossible for Welsh Government to retrospectively challenge any infringement on devolution as a consequence of UK parliamentary legislation. That, of course, does not apply to Bills of the National Assembly, as we discovered in the previous Assembly term, when a Bill was challenged by the UK Government in the Supreme Court. What avenues, therefore, is the Counsel General considering constitutionally and politically in order not simply to uphold the principle of so-called parliamentary sovereignty, but the sovereignty of the people of Wales?

Again, thank you very much for those thoughtful questions, some of which I will be able to comment on to some degree, but not able to give you a full answer on, because there are many unknowns. The nature of the intervention is really as I have set out. On what will be my intentions in the intervention, it will be to make representations about the role of Parliament in determining any changes to the devolution settlement, it’ll be the specific implications of the UK Government’s proposed use of prerogative powers to bring about changes to constitutional arrangements, and it’ll be in relation to the engagement of the devolved institutions to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully taken into account. Those are the underlying principles of the intervention.

Now, as this is a matter of ongoing litigation, my proposed detailed arguments are being developed on a comprehensive evaluation of the court judgment. I’m limited in what I’m able to say concerning the full details of the proposed involvement, and, if my application to intervene is agreed, further details of the case will be made available in due course. As part of the process, it will be necessary to file our own details of the case, of the issues that we intend to raise within the Supreme Court that we are concerned about that relate to the judgment or to any other matters that the Supreme Court may raise during the course of the hearing. So, it will be very much an ongoing process, but we are setting out the principles, which are, essentially, that there is a constitutional settlement within the United Kingdom, that the impact of triggering article 50 does have a significant impact on that, that it is the role of Parliament to trigger by means of the exercise of its legislative powers. There is an issue, as you raise, indeed, as to whether this could be done by a formal vote of Parliament or whether it would actually need to be legislation. That, of course, is one of the issues that will be put to the Supreme Court in order for guidance, depending upon what the outcome of its actual judgment is. There are constitutional experts who’ve expressed a variety of views on that. And, of course, there is always the potential that the Supreme Court will overturn the High Court judgment. That having been said, as I have outlined the constitutional legal position, I am confident that that is a solid position that certainly gives a very solid basis for us to actually be present and to intervene.

With regard to the issues of Sewel—well, of course, Sewel is a non-justiciable convention. But, as with all constitutional law, in an environment where we do not have a written constitution, it is more than just a custom or an agreement—it has a constitutional status. The position that’s been outlined by the First Minister is very much one that, where there are going to be impacts on the devolution settlement, then that is a matter that should come before this Assembly. I think the First Minister’s also made it very clear how the Prime Minister’s position will be considerably strengthened by having the assent and the support of the devolved Governments.

With regard to—I think it was the article 9 point; it’s really with regard to the role of the court and with regard to legislation per se. As has been made very clear within the judgment itself, the role of the court is to interpret the law. The law, if passed by Parliament, is sovereign. The courts cannot overturn that law—they have no role within that whatsoever—but what the courts do have is the responsibility, the duty, and the role of interpreting the law, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment in the moves towards the Supreme Court.

Will Counsel General agree with me that it’s perfectly lawful to challenge the independence of judges? Indeed, the Bill of Rights of 1688 specifically provides for this because a judge may be removed from office upon resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In the Supreme Court case involving General Pinochet, on whether he had immunity from prosecution as a former head of state in Chile, Lord Hoffmann was held to have disabled himself from hearing the case and the decision was overturned on grounds of his potential partiality. So, there’s nothing whatever wrong in politicians expressing views either on the judgments to which judges arrive, or indeed, their competence or other interest in doing so. Having said that—

There is in this place and we are governed by the Standing Order, as I noted this morning.

I’m merely talking in terms of constitutional principle and I’m not expressing a view on any individual judge. For myself, if I may say, I don’t personally have any problem with this judgement in the High Court. It seems to me that there shouldn’t be any difficulty in Parliament providing a means for a vote on the issue if that is what is required, and it’ll be interesting to know if Labour, Plaid Cymru and the other parties will give effect to the will of the people, as expressed in a referendum, in such a vote. Because although this case has been on the question of the royal prerogative and the extent to which that may be used to begin the process of effecting our withdrawal from the European Union, what we’re actually talking about here is the people’s prerogative, as expressed in a vote in the referendum, which was on the simple question of should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU—no ifs or buts and no qualifications about whether we have a successor agreement with the EU or remain in the single market, or whatever. The people have decided this issue and Parliament is under a moral duty to respect their wishes. I’d be grateful to know if the Counsel General accepts that.

I note from the judgment that, although the Counsel General was represented in the High Court proceedings, the counsel, on his behalf, didn’t actually didn’t play any part in the proceedings. Is it his intention, in the Supreme Court, that he should be represented not by a mute, but by someone who will play a full part in the proceedings? Therefore, will he be supporting the Government’s view that, in triggering article 50, it’s the people’s prerogative that the Government is giving effect to?

I’m quite surprised by the judgment in some ways, because although it is settled law that the Crown may not, by the use of its prerogative, change the law of the land and the rights and obligations imposed upon or given to private individuals—and that goes back as far as the Case of Proclamations in 1610, and was fully brought up to date in a case in 1916 called the Zamora, which was also referred to in the judgment—the mere fact of giving notice of withdrawal from a treaty does not, in itself, impliedly repeal any legislation. Therefore, in order to give effect to withdrawal, the European Communities Act itself will have to be repealed and therefore that will go through the normal parliamentary processes. And all legislation that hangs upon it that we want to retain, even if only on a temporary basis, therefore, has to be legislated for by means of another positive Bill. So, primary legislation is the inevitable by-product of this trigger of article 50, and therefore parliamentary propriety is to be respected and will be respected throughout the whole process.

So, I’d be interested to know if the Counsel General agrees with me on that point and that, therefore, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament, as he referred to, in the words of Lord Bingham, will not only be respected but facilitated, because, as it is at the minute—this is the last point that I want to make—as a result of our membership of the European Union, we have created a new legal order in Europe, which is actually superior to the Crown in Parliament. Therefore, the whole of this process, which we’re now beginning to engage in, is to restore the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament, and ultimately, the power of the British people to determine who they are going to be governed by.

Thank you for those questions and suggestions, some of which, I have to say, were contradictory—and some were confusing. But, just dealing initially with the issue of the independence of the judiciary—which, I’m glad to say, I think the Member was saying he does support—it is a good idea, since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, for example, states very clearly that

‘the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers of the Crown and all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary’.

That is the statutory position. So, you will not be surprised—and I hope the Member will then disassociate himself from the comments that were made by his acting leader, Nigel Farage, who said that they would be leading a march of 100,000 people to the Supreme Court and people were so angry that there might well be violence arising as a consequence. That, all I can see, is an attempt to intimidate an independent judiciary. I hope he will disassociate himself from any such suggestion, and also disassociate himself from the statement that was made by the UKIP leadership contender Suzanne Evans, who suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the article 50 case. She warned about judges intervening and the conflicts of interest and, basically, made it very clear that, unless judges agree with UKIP, they would want to see mechanisms for them to be actually sacked.

It seems to me to be a complete contradiction that what actually happened during the referendum, which was partly about the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament—but it appears to be the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary, so long as you actually agree with us, otherwise, it can actually be bypassed. I hope you will make very clear in statements you subsequently make that you actually disassociate yourself from those inflammatory comments that have been made.

The judgment will not be—whatever decision the Supreme Court comes to—it will not be anything to do with the European referendum debate, the merits or demerits otherwise. I’ve said that very clearly in the oral statement I’ve made. It was made very clear in the judge. This is about what is the legal, democratic, constitutional mechanism for actually triggering article 50, the consequence of which—as a consequence of the statement by the UK Government that triggering article 50 is an irreversible process—means that, at the end of that process, statutory legislation would actually become defunct. It was around the issue of what the mechanism to supplant primary legislation that Parliament has actually created and how can that be done—can it be done by an executive or can it be done by Parliament itself? The Supreme Court has accepted the arguments that were made that this can only be done by Parliament itself because of the constitutional principles that have been established over 300 years that are actually about the protection of the will of the people and preventing usurpation of our democratic institutions.

I thank the Counsel General for his statement, which, if I may say, is a very welcome statement of fact and good judgment in the debate, over the last few days, outside this Chamber, that has, too often, lacked very much of either. Today of all days, you might recall that the second President of the United States, John Adams, described Great Britain as a nation of laws to which the Crown is subject. In any other circumstances, the notion that rights conferred by Parliament could disappear at the stroke of the Prime Minister’s pen would, rightly, be an outrage, and this is no different.

I’ve understood his comments today, in the statement and on responses, to suggest that there are circumstances, in his view, where the parliamentary trigger of article 50 could lead to a legislative consent motion in this Assembly. I wonder if he could confirm that. Secondly, will he tell us whether, in his judgment, the Lord Chancellor has complied with her statutory obligations, which he’s read out in the Chamber, which are so fundamental to the proper administration of justice—to defend the independence of the judiciary? Because, in my opinion, she’s shamefully failed to do that.

Thank you for those questions. The nature of the laws to which the Crown is subject is the very essence, I think, of what has emerged from my statement and emerged from the judgment of the High Court, and is going to be the prime matter that is going to be considered by the Supreme Court. If we really want to put this in a historical perspective, it is a principle that has led to two monarchs being removed; it is a principle that led to a civil war, a glorious revolution, a bill of rights enshrined in legislation during the period of the first world war, but was also a fundamental issue where this country stood against the abuse of the rule of law and the abuse of the independence of the judiciary during the second world war. So, there is a constitutional structure—a democratic purpose—to all of this. I would say that those who attack those thought-out constitutional principles do so at the peril of the democracy of the United Kingdom and of the devolved governments.

While the Counsel General is listing the historical precedent, let’s go back to the Magna Carta, which said that the laws of Wales should be applied in the lands of Wales. Let us recall that, therefore, the triggering of article 50 will have a very real impact on the domestic law of Wales. Therefore, I fully support his decision to apply to be part of the case in the Supreme Court. I think he’s done the correct step for the people of Wales, and for this Assembly as well, as a Parliament in Wales. And can I say how great it is that he’s done it before Scotland has? Because, usually, it turns out we do it after Scotland, but this time he was leading the way. Can he just confirm his reading, which I think is in his statement, and my interpretation of what the High Court had to say very clearly—that it was because this has an effect on domestic law that this should be a decision taken by Parliament? I would have thought that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament would want to defend that to the hilt, whether they are a Member of this Parliament or the Westminster Parliament now. It’s a very clearly worded decision, and it could be potentially done by a motion before Parliament rather than a Bill. I’m slightly surprised at Westminster’s rush to say this must be a Bill. Can he confirm that a motion, in his view, because he has to put in a detailed argument as part of this case now—will he be arguing that this could be done by a motion as well? Because I think it is very important that the MPs who called the referendum as a non-binding advisory referendum take cognisance of that and interpret the referendum in the best political way, but I don’t regard a Westminster referendum as binding on myself as an Assembly Member. So, I think we have to defend what’s best for Wales in this process. Certainly, what’s best for Wales is that, before article 50 is triggered, there’s proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the likely outcome of that triggering will be, and what its impact will be on our domestic legislation.

Can he just say a little more about the defence of the judiciary? He read out from the 2005 Act just shortly, which said that the Lord Chief Justice and officers and so forth were defenders. It was a bit difficult for the Lord Chief Justice to defend the judiciary on this occasion, as the Lord Chief Justice was one of the three judges that actually came to the decision—and a very good decision by a good Welshman as well. So, I think it is very important that we hear more from Westminster. Is he having discussions with people like Liz Truss, who should be saying a lot more about the independence of the judiciary? She should be explaining to people. Maybe there’s an educational aspect here. People need to understand why we have a separation of powers and why it is that the judiciary acts in this way to uphold the rule of law, because without it we will have the situation that we’re getting now today in America with people like Donald Trump saying that Mexican judges should be thrown out of office because they make judgments against his own political and commercial interests. That’s the kind of thing that we want to protect against, and that’s why it’s so important to have the independence of the judiciary upheld.

Finally, can he just say a little bit—because I think it’s important that we ask him this question—what the likely cost of this will be in being party to this decision, which I support? I think we need to know what the cost is, and what the likely implications are for that. Who is he likely to use in terms of engaging with an eminent QC in order to take this case forward?

Okay. If I deal first of all with the legislative consent motion point, again, which I think the Member Jeremy Miles has raised as well. I recall now I didn’t actually answer that specifically. I think it depends very much what is in the great repeal Bill. We won’t know that until there is much more substance to that. There’s a broad range of additional issues, and that, of course, relates to once article 50 has been triggered, and that is the issue of the repatriation of powers and how those may be impacted as well. So, the Supreme Court won’t be dealing with those specific points. It will be dealing with the point of principle, and that is: what is the appropriate constitutional mechanism for triggering article 50. You make the point, also, in terms of the role of the Lord Chief Justice in protecting the independence of the judiciary. Of course, as you say, he was one of the three judges. But of course, section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, makes it very, very clear that the Lord Chancellor and the Ministers of the Crown, and a whole range of others who are associated with, and involved with, the judiciary and the administration of justice, have that as a responsibility. What the Act is doing is establishing a legal pre-eminence of the independence of the judiciary. I think it is going to be predominantly a matter for Parliament, I think, to actually raise issues with regard to the points raised with regard to the Lord Chancellor’s role. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment further, but I have read out the section, and I have made additional comments about what I think is important about the independence of the judiciary.

In terms of what the cost will be, we will be able to provide that information in due course. I don’t have that information and, of course, it depends on a number of factors in terms of the amount of work, the number of conferences between now and the fifth, the actual length of trial, and whether there are any cost orders at the end of that particular process.

In terms of representation, I will provide in a further statement details of that. Obviously, we will arrange for expert representation in court, and that will be direct intervention and the submission of papers that outline what our specific areas of interest are in the intervention. I will make a further statement to this Assembly. I think that probably covers all the questions that have been raised so far.

I welcome this statement by the Counsel General, and also his stated intention to intervene at the Supreme Court. But, before I turn to some matters of detail, it’s been an interesting week, and there have been undoubtedly some attempts to cast aspersions on the integrity of this High Court decision and on the independence of the judiciary. I’m a fan of social media, and I don’t think anybody could have summed it up better for me than a former captain of the 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, who served in Afghanistan and who also happens to be a serving Conservative Member of Parliament, who tweeted:

‘I spent half my life in countries where the judiciary do what politicians tell them to. You wouldn't want to live there. Grow up.’

But if I could turn to the issues of substance here, it is very welcome, on the timeliness and clarity of the statement, to see his explanation that the use of the prerogative in the Counsel General’s view is strictly limited in terms of what it can effect on changes to the competence of this Assembly, and also about changes to the powers of Welsh Ministers. That clarification is very good to see. One area that I would appreciate some further clarification on is both the process and the means by which the assent of this Assembly is sought. The Counsel General has been quite clear that it should be for Parliament, and not the Executive, to oversee any changes, and to do so with the assent of this elected Assembly. Can he, at this stage—appreciating that we have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court—cast any further light on that process of gaining assent, and the means by which we in this Assembly would give that assent as well?

I will do my best to at least set some parameters in an environment where we don’t quite know what all the parts of the jigsaw are, so we won’t see the complete picture for some time yet. But you raise issues about what the legal consequences are of withdrawal and the role of legislative consent. The legislative competence of the Assembly and the powers of the Welsh Ministers are both currently directly linked to the continuing application of the European treaties. When the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union, it may be that the Government of Wales Act 2006, our framework for devolution, will need to be amended. The established constitutional arrangements for legislative consent motions will apply in relation to any legislation by Parliament to amend the Act. The Welsh Government would expect to be consulted on any such amendment, and the role of the Assembly will be carefully considered. The constitutional arrangements concerning legislative consent motions do not refer to the prerogative because it was something that just could not have been contemplated—that it would be used in this manner. As Parliament has enacted the scheme of devolution in Wales, it should be for Parliament, and not the executive, to oversee any changes, and to do so with the assent of this elected Assembly.

In a way that was unexpected to all of us, I would have thought, this Assembly has come of age, constitutionally, legally, and in all other ways, on this question facing us today. I believe that it’s very significant that the Welsh Counsel General here today has spoken more clearly than I heard any official of the UK Government speaking on this particular issue in Westminster yesterday. I am proud of that, because it does demonstrate that we have not only the individual intellect, but also the constitutional robustness to stand up for ourselves. I do think that these questions that the Counsel General has placed before us in the written statement on Friday and also today are very acceptable issues that we will have to follow to support him through this process. So, I do welcome the fact that he is participating in the process and agree entirely with his analysis of the questions before us.

But what I would like to ask specifically is one further question: what would the possibility be of this Assembly taking powers contained within European legislation, which would continue to be in force here, if the UK Parliament were to try to repeal them? That is, would be the possibilities for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland to create continuity in terms of European legislation and its impact on citizens, within those devolved areas, in the situation we currently find ourselves in? I don’t expect him to answer that question today, but I would ask him to ponder it.

Can I thank the Member again for his thoughtful comments, because these are deep and fundamentally important issues for our constitutional settlement and for the constitutional arrangements for the UK for the future? He’s correct that I can’t give a full answer to that. There is actually a very interesting publication that came out recently, ‘Brexit and Beyond’, where I noticed this comment:

‘Brexit will have a big impact on devolution. It may lead to a recentralisation as the UK reconstitutes itself as a sovereign polity; or to further decentralisation with the devolution of EU competences. In either case, the process will be difficult and controversial.’

Of course, there are those issues, once we go down this process, which I think inevitably we will do, then these are these issues that will come about, and in my view this is exactly the whole point as to why this is a matter for Parliament in terms of the legislation, but then the scrutiny of that legislative and those constitutional processes.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is the statement by the Minister for Skills and Science on superfast broadband. I call on the Minister to make her statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Lywydd. Following my written statement yesterday I want today to just restate those plans for further investment superfast broadband following the completion of Superfast Cymru next year. We’ve been very clear about our ambitions in ‘Taking Wales Forward’ to bring fast, reliable broadband to every property in Wales. Our achievements to date should not be underestimated. Superfast Cymru is a massive project bringing access to superfast broadband to now nearly 614,000 homes and businesses, and having invested over £162 million of EU and public funding. To be clear, that is 614,000 premises that would not have been able to access fast fibre broadband without our intervention.

We are not finished yet. The final year will see a further 100,000 premises being given access to fast fibre broadband. This will involve investing up to a further £62 million. But we’re not going to stop there. We are currently assessing the responses to the recent consultation with the telecoms industry in relation to an additional £12.9 million to extend the reach of the Superfast Cymru project next year. This is the amount that BT had forecasted will be returned to the public purse through the gainshare clause within the current Superfast Cymru contract. We still need to carry out a detailed analysis and dialogue with BT and we expect that this additional funding will enable additional premises to be reached through the Superfast Cymru contract by December 2017.

Given that the Superfast Cymru contract will end next year, we have already embarked on the preparatory work necessary to establish the successive broadband investment project. To reiterate, the gainshare clause allows the Welsh Government to benefit from the success of our investment in BT’s network via the Superfast Cymru project. Our share is invested in a fund to be either reinvested in the project or returned, with interest, to the Welsh Government in 2023.

We anticipate, based on detailed modelling, that the Superfast Cymru investment fund will eventually yield between £30 million and £50 million by 2023 as take-up of fibre services funded by our investment reaches between 35 per cent and 50 per cent over that period. We will support this activity through our commitment to provide £20 million over the next four years to support this activity and to leverage significant additional investment.

We are in the early stages of discussions with the Welsh European Funding Office to secure a further £20 million of structural funds to continue the roll-out of superfast broadband. We remain confident that the funding will be available, subject to WEFO approval, as a result of the UK Treasury’s guarantee to honour EU bids approved prior to the UK’s exit from the EU. We will continue to press the UK Government for additional investment in Wales that builds on the success of Superfast Cymru and contributes to UK Government policy goals. We also have an outstanding commitment from the UK Government of £2 million towards a new superfast broadband project.

Taken together, Superfast Cymru will be underpinned by a public sector budget of up to £80 million, which in turn will leverage private sector match funding to further extend broadband coverage to the hardest-to-reach premises across Wales by 2020. The Access Broadband Cymru scheme will continue to play a part, with a further £1.5 million over the next two years to ensure that this vital lifeline operates in parallel to Superfast Cymru and successor projects, with equivalent funding in place to extend for a further two years beyond 2018.

We will launch an open-market review this month to establish, at a premises-by-premises level, where superfast broadband has been delivered to date and where the market plans to invest over the next three years. We will also engage with the telecoms market over the next weeks and months to help shape and inform our intervention area and procurement strategy. In developing the next intervention, value for money will continue to be a priority, and I need to remind Members that we cannot provide fibre connectivity at any cost.

We currently aim to launch the procurement process in February 2017 so that a contract can be awarded in January 2018. Getting to the final few per cent is going to be challenging and will take time, but by starting now we will be in the best possible position when the Superfast Cymru project comes to an end next year. Thank you. Diolch.

I’d like to thank the Minister for her statement today, and it was very welcome to have that written statement yesterday, which, of course, is useful ahead of today’s statement. I’m very grateful for that. I’d like to think that the result of today’s announcement is a result of the contributions made at the Welsh Conservatives’ debate last week.

Many of those very frustrated residents who are yet to see the benefit of the Superfast Cymru project I hope will be encouraged that the further funding has been allocated to deliver universal access and extend broadband coverage to the hardest-to-reach premises by 2020. People will be suspicious as previous commitments have been missed—I’m not going to rehearse last week’s debate—but I welcome the new investment today.

As the Superfast Cymru project progresses, the debate, I would say, is moving away from access to take-up. Its priority, I would say, for value for money from the public purse and in bringing fast, reliable broadband to every property in Wales, is to devote much more attention to encouraging widespread take-up. I would say, regrettably, I think we haven’t had very much today in regard to concrete measures that the Welsh Government is going to take to stimulate demand. I’d say it’s all very well having first-class infrastructure, but if no-one uses it, it’s a wasted opportunity.

One of the criticisms that I had of the original contract was that only 0.6 per cent of the original budget allocation for the Superfast Cymru project was dedicated to encouraging take-up. The evaluation of the next generation broadband Wales programme also highlighted the lack of coherence and strategic approach to marketing and communications. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Welsh Government intends to encourage universal take-up.

In your statement, Minister, you refer to the fact that the Welsh Government will benefit from the gainshare clause in the Superfast Cymru contract, which means that between £30 million and £50 million will be available by 2023 to reinvest. Given the fact that the availability of this funding is incumbent on improving take-up, what proportion of the £80 million public funding will be attached to specifically encouraging the exploitation of superfast broadband in the intervention area?

You’ve also confirmed that the all-Wales take-up is 29 per cent of the intervention area. However, can I ask you to provide a breakdown of the figures by local authority? The latest take-up figures that I have seen showed that in spite of 96 per cent and 93 per cent in Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr respectively, take-up only stood at 17 per cent. That’s hardly a great conversion rate.

And finally, I’d also have to say that the projected take-up of between 35 per cent and 50 per cent is insufficiently ambitious. A recent report for BT suggests that superfast take-up could approach 80 per cent of all premises in the UK by 2020. So, can I ask you what intention you have of revising your 2015 target upwards?

Thank you for those questions. Russell George didn’t mention the fact that in committee last Thursday morning, he pressed me as to when my next statement would be, and I promised him it would be before Christmas. So, I was rather hoping you’d give me credit for having got there really quite rapidly, only two days later.

In terms of the take-up, we have independent research to show us what is possible and ambitious. And with all new technologies, there’s a standard curve that these things take, so around 29 per cent at this point in time is about what you’d expect, and then that accelerates as technology beds in. Our independent research shows us that somewhere between 35 and 50 per cent is a realistic estimate of what we might expect. Obviously, we have a marketing campaign and we have a business take-up campaign. These complement, obviously, all the private campaigns undertaken by all the internet service providers—we’re all bombarded with them every day. They’re in addition to that. So, I think you’d be hard put to say that people weren’t aware of broadband. And Russell George will also be aware that we’re being a little bit sensitive in some areas of Wales, because we don’t want to be pushing the expectations of people who don’t yet have broadband.

So, what I would urge Members to do is to play their part right across Wales, as I said in the debate only last week, in encouraging take-up with their constituents who do have broadband, and encouraging constituents who are, very understandably, frustrated at not having broadband, to encourage their neighbours who do have it to take it up because, obviously, the gainshare increases for all of the percentages of that that we get. And so, it’s a very positive message that if you can persuade your neighbours who have it to use it, then the Welsh Government will have more money to make sure that we can get it to other people.

As the campaign spreads out across Wales, as I said last week, we will share with Members where it is in their particular area, their constituency or their region, and we do hope that Members will get on board with helping us with that marketing, as, obviously, the more money we’re getting, the better. If we were to reach 80 per cent then that would be marvellous, because we’d have that much more money to get the fibre broadband or any other technology out to people.

And on that point, the point is, of course, that for some of the hardest premises to reach in Wales, it will not be fibre broadband in the sense of a cable to your house. But the technology moves apace, and so we will get very fast broadband to people; it might be microwave or satellite technology. On that basis, I’m not saying that we will let a single monolithic contract to match up to the end of the Superfast Cymru project; it may be that we let individual contracts in different areas, so that SMEs and other technology providers can take part in that procurement, and we’d be very anxious to make sure that that could happen.

Thank you very much, Lywydd, and I thank the Minister for her statement on superfast broadband. You mentioned in your statement that some modelling work by the Welsh Government and the UK Government suggests that the Superfast Cymru investment fund will produce some £30 million to £50 million by 2023, as between 35 per cent and 50 per cent choose to use these services. So, what emerges from that? According to an evaluation of the next generation broadband programme in Wales, the level is expected to reach 80 per cent by 2020. What assessment has the Government made of any additional funding that will be generated if this assessment is correct? And following on from that question on why not everyone who can access broadband does choose to access broadband and the need to raise awareness on occasion, can I ask whether any part of the additional investment that has been announced today will be allocated to raise awareness and to encourage people to make use of the provision if and when it’s available? Thank you.

Reiterating my answers to Russell George then, we have a £1.15 million local broadband campaign and a £12.5 million superfast business project, which are marketing the scheme for take-up and to businesses. We work closely with Business Wales as well to make small businesses in particular aware of what superfast can actually do for their business. So, it’s not just about the take-up for us, it’s about driving the economic growth of Wales, because until you’ve got fast broadband, it’s sometimes very hard to envisage what actually can be done with it. So, we have a project where business advisers assist people to understand what other things they could do in their business should they have superfast.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to visit Puffin foods down in Pembrokeshire, a very good company, and see their incredible technology that they utilise in the production of basic foodstuff, obviously. They have actually gone from having superfast—which is why I was there to make the announcement—to buying into our ultrafast connectivity voucher, because as they’ve understood what the thing can do for them, they’ve realised that investing in ultrafast for their business is a very sensible business investment. So, that’s what we’re aiming for really. We’re aiming to get people to understand what it can bring to them and that, therefore, it might be worth them investing in additional capacity.

In terms of what estimate we’ve made of the gainshare, the gainshare is just exponential, so if we get more of a percentage take-up we get the same level of gainshare. We’re basing it on 35 to 50 per cent because that is a reasonable estimate. This isn’t a target, bear in mind—I’m not setting myself a low target—this is a good prudential estimate of the money that it might raise. If it raises more then we’ll ensure that we have the contractual provisions in place to spend the extra money, and that’s all to the good. Obviously, in setting the contract out, again, we don’t want to be over-ambitious, so we’re setting it out in what we’re told by independent research is a reasonable level of take-up to expect over the next four years, given the standard curve for new technology take-up that I mentioned to Russell George in his earlier question.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. I welcome the Welsh Government’s aim to provide the infrastructure necessary for the supply of superfast broadband to every property in Wales. It’s good news that 614,000 homes and businesses now have access to superfast broadband if they choose. However, your statement doesn’t indicate what your priorities are regarding which properties will receive superfast broadband first in the next roll-out. Loneliness is a major issue for many elderly people and access to superfast broadband would improve their chance of social interaction and keeping in touch with loved ones. Will the Minister please explain which properties will be prioritised for the roll-out of the next stage of superfast broadband and in particular whether supply of that broadband will be prioritised for the elderly and people bound to their homes?

What we’re going to do in the next stage is that we’re working on the specifications right now, in terms of whether we’re going to have priority areas, whether there are going to be geographical priorities and so on. As I said, I anticipate that we will probably let a series of batched contracts really—although please accept that I’m not in a position to say so categorically at this stage—but with a view to stimulating SME markets, to stimulating small local companies, for example, and so on. In that way, also, we can target a number of priority groups at the same time rather than having a single roll-out. Bear in mind that this will also be on a premises-by-premises basis. We’ll actually know which house, rather than which post code area, that we’re talking about. So, we will be able to do some things individually that we aren’t able to do with the current contract. As we do that piece of work and as we become aware of it, I’ll make sure that the Assembly’s updated accordingly.

I welcome the Minister’s further update to Members on this issue. I should be familiar with, and I’ve raised before, access to superfast broadband is something of significance to constituencies and businesses in Delyn. However, I recognise the lead that the Welsh Government has taken in rolling out and ensuring access to superfast broadband, in spite of the logistical challenges that my inbox and my postbag make me all too aware of, with the Government on track to enable 96 per cent of properties in Wales to connect to superfast broadband by 2017—something that the other nations won’t be able to match. You’ll be aware that this potentially brings huge social and economic benefits for businesses and citizens in what is increasingly the digital world that we live in. Can I ask, Minister, with respect to the open market review and consultation outlined in your statement, I’d urge that this reaches out across the country and communities in order to meet the needs and ever-growing expectations of the future.

Exactly. One of the things that we’ll be looking to do in the next stage of the project is to futureproof it, and, as I said, make sure that we can spend any gainshare money on making sure that that futureproofing exists. So, one of the things we’re very keen on doing is making sure that we use all of the available new technologies and that we set up the new procurement with a view to maximising some of the new technologies. An example I could give is that if you’d had satellite broadband three years ago, the likelihood of your getting a maximum speed of over around 30 Mbps was pretty low, whereas now I’m aware of microwave and satellite systems that produce 100 Mbps both up and download. So, the technology has moved extremely fast in the last three years.

Also in Wales, we have a large number of very innovative SMEs and I’m very anxious to make sure that they have the chance to participate in the procurement, as I said. Obviously, the procurement will be done properly and the bidding process will be invisible, and so on, but what we want to do is ensure that we package it in such a way that the largest number of innovative SMEs from around Wales get a chance to bid for that contract, and so we can maximise value in that way. Also, that we use Government innovation funding to assist with some of the technologies that we know might help for more remote areas. In particular, one of the things we’re doing with our business exploitation project, as I said earlier, is making sure that small SMEs actually understand what they can, in fact, do once they have superfast broadband.

In the Member’s own constituency, for example, a large number of SMEs that I know use broadband at the moment, but are perhaps not aware of some of the things that you can do with automatic downloads overnight, for example, and automatic invoicing and billing and so on. So, what I’m asking all Members to do is to co-operate with Business Wales, and as we roll it out across the areas, Members can get involved. They can get their constituents active in that area and I hope that your postbag will change to a nice, positive, happy one, and not people who are anxious, understandably, to get on to the programme as soon as possible.

You state that, given that the Superfast Cymru contract will end next year, you’ve already embarked on the preparatory work necessary to establish a successor broadband investment project. Obviously, Superfast Cymru is at 96 per cent. I referred last week in the Chamber, and I think in committee, to the UK Government’s £10 million innovation fund pilot, which ran throughout 2015, looking at their implementation for the final 5 per cent there. That reported its findings in February. Was Wales included in that or not, and if not, will you be basing your roll-out on that, or if not, why are we two years behind England?

Finally, last week, I asked you questions in the debate to which you’ve already referred regarding FibreSpeed north Wales. I wonder if you could answer how many millions of public money was spent on a Welsh Government project, resulting from a Welsh Government tender, which went horribly wrong, which went nowhere, and why FibreSpeed were placed in that position.

In terms of FibreSpeed, I think it would be best if the Member and I have an e-mail correspondence. If you want to write to me and set out the exact questions you want answered—we’ve had this conversation in the fourth Assembly as well—I’m more than happy to set it out again for the Member.

In terms of whether we’re taking the innovation research into account, the answer is ‘Yes, we are’, but it’s not specific to Wales. As I said in a response to an earlier Member’s question, the new final stages, if you like, of superfast roll-out, will be very much on a premises-by-premises basis, because we’ve now got down to so few numbers that we can address individual problems. I’m afraid it will come down to that in some areas of Wales. We’ve got properties that have an individual problem and they can’t be solved with the roll-out of a cabinet or a fibre network in that way. So, yes, we have taken into account that, but we need specific research for some of the issues that we’ve got in Wales and specific communities of interest. So, for example, we do have a number of farmers who are not yet connected, and they’ll have very specific problems associated with their farm businesses. We have some businesses in remote areas that are not connected, and they’ll have very specific problems connected with their business needs. So, we’ll be looking to be very individualised in our approach in the new contract, and, as I also said, to package it up in such a way that we can get the benefit of all of the new technologies at once.

Welsh Government reports on the progress of Superfast Cymru are always glowing and, of course, you can’t deny the percentage increases that have been gained over the Superfast Cymru programme and, of course, it was through the One Wales Government that the superfast programme was launched. So, obviously, in principle, it’s great to have Superfast Cymru in motion. Unfortunately, we all know from our postbags as Assembly Members that, for far too many of our constituents, Superfast Cymru certainly hasn’t delivered fast broadband and certainly hasn’t delivered anything close to being super.

You mentioned the few farmers that are still left without a fast broadband connection. It’s far more than just some farmers; it’s whole rural communities that are still not connected. Even when that fabled green cabinet is in your village, you still may not have connection to superfast broadband. We need to make sure, and this is a point that I’ve raised on numerous occasions here in the Chamber, that there is much better communication between Openreach and Welsh Government and those customers and potential customers of the future who are told time and time again, ‘No, you’re not quite there yet, but you will be soon.’ But when? Can I appeal to the Government to make sure that any contracts on the son of Superfast Cymru have written into them the need to make sure that communication is watertight with those people, who are hugely frustrated?

We all know here as Members—I speak from a personal point of view; I’m desperate to get superfast broadband. But the problem that I have in seeing the ducts hanging on the telegraph cables is much less than those communities that haven’t seen those visual signs of superfast and know that they’re not going to be connected by this programme. So, please, communicate. Make sure that those communities who want it know why they’re not getting it, what needs to be done in order to get it to them, and make sure that those problems that we’re all aware of will be overcome when we move on to the next stages of roll-out.

The Member eventually got around to a very good point, I think, which is we are very frustrated by the information that has been available. I hope the Member thinks that the website has improved very recently. If he doesn’t, then I’m happy to look at individual issues and so on. I make the same offer to Rhun ap Iorwerth as I’ve made to many other Members: I’m happy to come to your constituency and have a look, individually, at some of the issues there. We have worked very hard with BT and we supervise them very closely over the raising of false expectations and then the moving of the goalposts, which I am as frustrated about as he is.

Absolutely, I will say to you that making sure that we communicate properly with those premises that are in the last stages of our ambition to get to 100 per cent—that they are properly communicated with and understand the issues that we’re dealing with in getting to them. As I say, it will be on an individual, premises-by-premises basis by then. So, we will know exactly what the issues are.

The problem, as you know, and I’ll just reiterate it, is that superfast is getting to a number of premises in order to get to specific ones, and that’s made it a lot cheaper and the money’s gone a lot further, but it has led to the frustrations of those who seem to be in the programme and then drop out because it turns out that there’s a geographical or blocked duct or some other difficulty in getting to them. So, I understand and share the Member’s frustration with the information that’s been there.

However, we must be careful not to talk up as a defeat something that is actually a very good programme indeed. It has reached a very large number of people. It has another 100,000 premises to go in this year. There are people who are in the end of the programme and, obviously, it’s frustrating to be in the end of the programme, but we will get to all of them and we will make sure that Wales is 100 per cent connected as a nation.

I thank the Minister for statement.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on the childcare offer for Wales, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement, Carl Sargeant.

Diolch, Lywydd. The last few years have been very difficult for working families. Many have struggled to make ends meet and manage the consequences of the austerity imposed by the UK Government. One of the concerns working parents have raised with us time and time again is the cost of childcare and the impact that has on them, their finances and their quality of life. Since early summer, we’ve been talking to parents. In September, I launched our Talk Childcare campaign, and we’ve received feedback from over 1,500 parents so far. We’ve also held focus groups, and this engagement will continue through to the spring. From the engagement to date, it’s clear that parents want childcare: to be less of a strain on family income, so they can make their budgets work; available at times and in places that make it easier for them to work; and more accessible, closer to home and work, with support for their children’s needs.

This Government is committed to supporting working families across Wales, and, as a direct response to the issues and concerns families have raised with us, we will provide 30 hours of free early education and childcare to the working parents of three and four-year-olds across Wales for 48 weeks per year—the most generous childcare offer for working parents anywhere in the UK. This will reduce the strain on family income and help ensure childcare is not a barrier to parents getting a job or continuing to work. I want to provide Assembly Members today with further details of our plan for delivering the new childcare offer.

Our new childcare offer will include our successful foundation phase provision during term times, with supporting childcare. During the weeks of the year when the foundation phase is not provided, qualifying children will receive 30 hours of childcare, supporting working families with the costs of holiday care. Helping parents meet the cost of childcare is only part of the picture. We also need to address availability and accessibility, and in particular look at the support needed to help children with additional learning needs take up their entitlement under this offer. We will work with childcare providers to ensure as much flexibility as possible in delivering this offer. To ensure this is possible, we are looking at the capacity of the sector and how it’s going to deliver this.

We know that there are parts of Wales where there is already a shortage of childcare, and we’ll work with the sector to help it grow and to thrive. I’ve recently commissioned research in partnership with the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure and economy, looking in detail at the childcare sector, the support it needs, and the costs involved in providing quality care. We’re also looking at the outcome of the recent review of the sector by Qualifications Wales. Good childcare requires a strong, skilled and effective workforce, and we want to ensure we have a clear pathway and a training plan in place. To that end, we will be launching a 10-year plan for the workforce next year, which will set out the priorities for the sector in the short, medium and long term. Accessible childcare also means looking at childcare choices.

Our plan is to work with the sector to ensure that there is enough provision for parents who want access to Welsh-medium care, and to make it a more attractive option for those who have not previously considered this. This is important in the context of our commitment to 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.

It also is important to ensure that there is sufficient provision for children requiring additional support to learn and develop, helping them to develop and thrive. But, in all this, we must not lose sight of the children themselves in the balance between education, care, play and time with their families. We will need to work through this with parents, providers and other stakeholders to get the balance right, but I’m also keen to get the work on the ground. So, I am pleased to be able to tell Members today that we will begin testing this offer with six local authorities from September of 2017.

Testing the offer will allow us to make sure we align the hours of childcare with the early years foundation phase in a way that works for parents and for children, have the right number of childcare places in the right parts of Wales, develop and expand the workforce, with improved training, support the sector to grow, providing the flexibility parents need, and learn what works and what doesn’t, building on experiences and evidence to deliver for all working parents here in Wales.

Joining us on this journey from September 2017 will be Anglesey and Gwynedd, Flintshire, Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Swansea. This gives us a mix of geographical areas across Wales in which to test this offer.

I’d also like to thank those authorities who expressed their interest in working with us but are not included at this time. I want to expand the reach of early adopters in the future and will bring more of you and the interested parties along with us as we go. Delivering this commitment will be challenging, and I don’t underestimate what needs to be done. We need to put the right infrastructure in place, and doing that will take time.

Llywydd, we will work with parents and providers to ensure the system supports our children, as well as helping working parents. The barriers childcare presents to parents, stopping them supporting their families as they wish, must be addressed head on. It makes no sense for parents to be earning less than their childcare costs. It makes no sense to have to turn down a promotion, or a better job, losing opportunities to improve your family’s circumstances, just because you can’t access childcare when and where you need it. We want parents to have employment choices. Working with key partners, and listening to our citizens, will allow us to deliver real change.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your statement this afternoon. This is an area that, obviously, we looked at in committee last week, when you were suffering with a heavy cold, so it’s good to see you looking in better form today, Cabinet Secretary. I am grateful for the statement that you have given today. Obviously, childcare was an important consideration at the recent election. All the parties had different offers that were contained in the manifestos, and, obviously, your good selves as the governing party now are charged with implementing the particular offer that the Labour Party had before the electorate. I do note from your committee presentation last week, Minister, that you did say that you did feel that this was, most probably, one of the biggest challenges—if not the biggest challenge—that sits in your portfolio for delivery, and for very good reason, in fairness. The financial implications, as well as just the logistics of delivering this across the whole of Wales, will consume a considerable amount of your time and, indeed, a considerable amount of your resources as, in fairness, I think you’ve acknowledged.

I’d like to pose several questions to you in relation to the statement that you have made today, starting with, obviously, the financial considerations of delivering this policy area. There have been various observations made that, potentially, if it is universally taken up across Wales by the maximum amount of individuals—families, should I say—who could benefit from it, the actual financial consideration could be somewhere north of £200 million. I think in your evidence that you acknowledge that somewhere between £100 million and £125 million is a more realistic figure. I’d be grateful if you could give some certainty as to the budgeting proposals around this commitment. Because, whichever way you look at it, in the disposable income, shall we say, that is available to the Welsh Government, that is a considerable sum of money to find on an annualised basis. I would be interested—especially as you have linked in the foundation phase here, which obviously sits in the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s portfolio—in how the resources will be allocated to deliver this commitment. Is it specific to your budget, or will there be budget lines in both portfolios to deliver, and exactly how will those budget lines be accommodated, going forward?

I would also like your comments on the Public Policy Institute for Wales’s consideration as to the merits of the policy and the net benefits, given that the Government is keen to implement this policy—and understandably so, because, obviously, it was a manifesto commitment—and are going to put considerable resources behind it. The Public Policy Institute for Wales clearly identified what they believed were very small gains both in employment opportunities and other gains back for the money that you’d be investing. Do you recognise the observations that they have made, and how would you rebut the potential limit of the gains that they see in policy and delivery of this initiative?

I’d also like to know how the successful councils were chosen for the pilot areas—six, I believe this statement alludes to. Seven, sorry. No, six it is, sorry—six, the statement alludes to. How many authorities did actually tender or express an interest that have been unsuccessful? Because you do allude to the fact that there were other authorities that weren’t successful in being taken into the pilot. And how long do you envisage the pilot running for? You indicate that it will start in September next year. I’m assuming it is a 12-month pilot, or is it longer? Again, I think it’s important for us to understand how long the pilot will run. Because, again, in committee last week, you did indicate that this commitment will be fully implemented and delivered by the time of the next Assembly election, which, obviously, as we all know, is May 2021. So, that sort of timing will, I would suggest, pose a real challenge to the Minister to actually get the pilot done, undertaken and implemented.

I’d also like to know exactly what work the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and Infrastructure and himself have done in assessing the current position for the capacity to deliver this, because your statement talks about the work that you have undertaken to date, and I’m assuming that, as a party, and as a Government, before making this commitment, you did undertake some preparatory work so that you could see what the capacity is. What is your understanding of the current capacity that is available to meet this commitment, and then how much extra capacity does the Government believe that it needs to build into the system to deliver this 48 weeks of 30 hours of childcare here in Wales for families with children that are 3 to 4 years old? So, with those questions, I look forward to hearing the answers, in particular around the resourcing and the capacity of the care sector to actually deliver on the commitment the Government has made.

I thank the Member for his questions on this particular issue. The Member will be aware from the statement that we intend to launch the pilot schemes in September of next year, partly because of the questions that he raised about capacity and opportunity within the sector. We are engaging currently, and have been for some time, working with both local authorities and childcare providers. I met with childcare providers last week and my team have been meeting with them on a regular basis.

While the proposal has very broad principles in what we’re seeking to deliver, the manifesto commitment was very clear. There are an awful lot of complexities around that, and the unknowns that the Member recognises—the amount of take-up, the amount of opportunities to have seamless transition between foundation phase and childcare—these are all complexities where my team are working with the sector and interested parties to deliver. That’s why the pilots are really important.

We have a £10 million programme kicking off in September with six authorities. The six authorities again were part of a bidding round. We invited all authorities to compete and show interest. Not all did respond. I don’t have the list with me; I will write to the Member providing details. We do have a mixture between urban and rural settings. There are some that only provide within the school setting, and some use private and public sector delivery.

On the rural setting, there is a joint bid from Anglesey and Gwynedd, which was welcomed. There was another joint bid from Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and Carmarthen—it was one or the other, effectively. It’s just about making sure we have a learning process behind this as well. It works out that we’re about—with the applications that came back, and the consolidation of two of those bids making five authorities into two bids, effectively—with the authorities that we’ve brought forward, it’s about a quarter of the authorities that we’ve started the pilots in. It won’t be the whole of the authorities that it will be delivered in; it will be very specific areas that will be testing the system to see if it works.

With regard to the budget lines, the scheme is made up of foundation and childcare, so the foundation still sits with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and that’s something that we’re very keen to ensure continues. But as we learn from the delivery, what’s really important in this is that it embeds the principles of the future generations Act—it’s about asking people. Rather than Governments issuing processes for people to try and work backwards into, we’re actually talking to parents to see what works for them and their children.

The PPI programme was based on assumptions of a 40-week programme. This is a 48-week programme that includes the holiday period. That was a big stopping point for people and the ability to enter back into the workplace, because the seven-week period during the summer is really difficult to manage. We think that this, along with the very popular—and I’m sure the Member has also found it extremely popular, the commitment from his party in his manifesto as well, talking to people on the doorstep—we believe this will bring many benefits, including the economic, social and educational benefits of the family unit. So, there are things in the PPI report that we recognise, but actually we think there are far more positives on the basis that it’s a longer, bigger programme than was originally assessed.

In terms of the overall principle of childcare provision, the local authorities have got a very good handle on what they have in terms of childcare locally. We’re trying to talk to the sector about delivery. Rural settings are more difficult. We’re trying to make sure we’ve got facilities there, but also the Welsh language as well, and how we embrace the Welsh language and bring that to the forefront. I’m confident, given the discussions I’ve had with the finance Minister, that by May 2021, we will have delivered this programme in full. While the Member is right to recognise the challenges that we face, I’m confident that we can do this.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and welcome it? You will know that Plaid Cymru was committed to offer full-time childcare for all, but I do accept that this is a positive step in that direction, and one that we clearly support. And it’s good to see the Government beginning this work on the ground, as it were.

One thing I would like to raise about the tone of the statement is that it does suggest that the approach and focus of the Welsh Government is an economic one, mainly. You mentioned in your statement the drain on family incomes and releasing parents to go back to work, and looking at the impact of the childcare sector in economic terms. These are all valid considerations, but I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that the core motivation for this policy is to ensure the best possible start in life for children and to ensure the influence and best early learning opportunities for them. Yes, there are other benefits, but surely that is what drives this policy and, perhaps, that hasn’t been given due attention in the statement as it currently stands.

There are two aspects that are centrally important to the success of this policy, in my view. First of all, quality—and I don’t think I actually get up and speak to the Cabinet Secretary without mentioning that—but also accessibility to the provision. One would expect that these pilot schemes would be a means to test the accessibility of the provision, as we’ve heard, in various contexts—the urban, the rural, the linguistic differences, and so on and so forth.

But, in terms of quality, that perhaps is a little more problematic, and I would acknowledge what the Cabinet Secretary said at committee last week, that there’s a great deal of thinking that still needs to be done in terms of what good provision looks like and what quality looks like in reality.

Clearly, the workforce plan will make an important contribution to that, but I would like to hear, Cabinet Secretary, whether you anticipate that these pilots can also provide us with some guidance when it comes to understanding what quality provision looks like and how we can create more of that and build on the strengths that are identified.

Any childcare policy should, of course, as the Cabinet Secretary has acknowledged in his statement, contribute and create firm foundations for the Government’s aims for a million Welsh speakers by 2050. It’s an opportunity to start children on that journey in becoming bilingual. I understand that some 86 per cent of those who attend ‘cylchoedd meithrin’ go on to Welsh-medium education, and the majority of the others don’t because there isn’t provision in their particular area. But, we have to be proactive now. We have to move from being reactive and responding to demand to being far more proactive and ensure that that growth does happen in a more dynamic manner.

So, we do need to generate that demand in a number of ways, and I would like to know—. They say that if everyone who had a right to take advantage of this when it’s fully implemented were to do so, then we’re talking about some 20,000 children. So, I would like to hear, not necessarily the numbers today, but when the will Government start to outline how many of those 20,000 children the Government wants to see going on to Welsh-medium provision and how many of those who they want to see going on to primary Welsh-medium education.

That’s important, because that will determine how much additional workforce is required to provide for those children, and if we don’t get answers to that—and I don’t expect answers today—but unless that is aired and discussed, how can we be confident that it is a co-ordinated part of the Government’s aim to move towards that 1 million Welsh speakers?

Finally, of course, in developing new provision, we have to recognise that there is concern about something that could undermine the current provision. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will be aware that HMRC are going to insist that all childcare providers and all playgroups, and so on, have to have their own pay as you earn reference number, and without that, parents who use those services won’t get the vouchers, which correspond to £2,000 on the cost of childcare per annum. Now, that has far-reaching implications, particularly for many of our smaller providers here in Wales. May I ask, therefore, what the Government is doing to assist these providers in light of that threat, although it’s a non-devolved issue? There are serious implications, I would have thought, to what we’re trying to achieve here. Because it would be regrettable as we try and create new provision on the one hand that the sector that is the foundation on which we will build that new provision is going to be undermined by something else.

I thank the Member for his generally positive comments that he brings to the Chamber today. The Member’s first question was whether there was a strong emphasis on economic opportunity within the statement. It’s unintended if there was, because we believe that there are cross-cutting themes about what the statement does and the delivery of this programme does. It certainly is a great advantage for the economic revival of communities; allowing parents to go to work is a good thing. But there is also the social, quality and educational outcomes, and the principles of the WFG Act, which we’ve embedded in this principle of how we take this complicated policy forward.

In terms of some of the actual details of the workforce, we’ve started two pieces of work in more detail; first of all, the workforce plan. The children’s commissioner and the future generations commissioner are helping us in terms of trying to look at this intelligently through planning for the future. And the other element following on from that, once we understand the workforce programme, is around a deep dive into childcare and early years, looking at what actually works better and how we are able to flex the programme to maximise the issues. So, it isn’t focusing just purely on the economics of this, but actually it’s the best outcome for the learner as well, and how we maximise the whole process. So, the pilots will enable us to have some flexibility as we move forward as well. So, what the pilots may start as may not be what they end as, and that’s the whole principle of why we’re learning through the introduction of this programme.

I have spoken with the sector, the workforce care council and the skills Minister. We’re already having a discussion about what’s needed for the future. The Member is right; he always brings up the issue of quality. It’s an aspiration of mine, and I share his view in terms of how can we professionalise the quality of the workforce to make sure that this is a long-term, career-progressing opportunity for the workforce as well. It’s really important for our young people, and it’s something that we are considering as we move forward.

The issue about HMRC is one I’m familiar with. This is just one small part of the problem that we’re looking at—about the declaration of the 16 hours of an individual being able to qualify for the offer. So, we’re working with HMRC, the providers and local authorities to see what the best route is—is it a Welsh solution, or is it a more general position of HMRC and some of the records that they keep.

I’m really pleased that this very complex, very expensive piece of work could actually have long-term huge benefits for communities across Wales, and that it’s something that I’ve been able to bring forward. And the Welsh language is part of that, too. I’ve met with Alun Davies in terms of how we deliver that particular issue within the sector. Developing the Welsh language provision in early years is an important role, and the childcare sufficiency assessments—for some parents, those gaps in the Welsh-medium and bilingual provision are a real concern. They are a concern to us, too. I don’t think it’s helpful to put a number on this, because I think it’s what parents and families want to access in the first place. If we’re saying that there are 20,000 units should parents want Welsh language provision, then maybe that should be the number we should be aspiring to, but what I’m very keen to ensure is that what we learn through these pilot schemes that we launched is about the accessibility in the first place: can we actually deliver what we’re saying we’re hoping to deliver long term, or are there some things that will place barriers in the way? I look forward to working with the Member to make sure that we can deliver this for his constituency, and many across Wales.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and I’ve got four questions. Firstly, I recognise that, when he says that 30 hours of provision a week, 48 hours a year will be the most generous offer available in the UK, he is right. The delivery is still to come, but I would credit both him and his party, and the Welsh Government, with the ambition and what they’re trying to achieve in this area. He mentioned UK Government-imposed austerity; would he in turn recognise that the relative lack of generosity of the childcare provision to date has also been something that has held back and made things more difficult for at least some families in Wales?

Second, the quality of existing provision has generally been considered to be good, with two and a half hours a day, five days a week in a school environment. I just wonder, when he says in his statement,

‘Our new childcare offer will include our successful foundation phase provision during term times, with supporting childcare’,

does that mean that any expansion of provision in school settings will be a different type of childcare added on to that two and a half hours? I had perhaps hoped that, in some areas, the two and a half hours of often good-quality provision in schools might perhaps be extended to six hours per day. Is that going to be happening in at least some of the pilot areas, or is it envisaged it would be a less educational emphasis and perhaps a cheaper childcare wraparound in addition to the existing provision?

Third, he speaks about capacity and shortage of capacity in some areas of Wales. What is the Welsh Government’s view as to where those areas of shortage are? Speaking from a personal capacity, I’ve been impressed by the range of choice and available capacity that there is. When he talks of the pilots, and six from autumn next year—is it his assessment of lack of capacity that is the limit on how quickly and widely he can roll out these trials or is that a constraint of finance within the budget that’s available to him?

Finally, and picking up, really, on the previous speaker, the issue of quality I think really is important here. Certainly, my impression, too, reading and listening to the statement, was of a was a very strong emphasis on the economics of the benefits of childcare and how much working parents will appreciate this offer, as indeed we will. But there was certainly less in his statement about the impact on the children of the expanded childcare provision, and one of the arguments some put forward for state-supported childcare is that the quality of provision, particularly for, perhaps, children from less well-off families, can be something that improves their life chances. I think, with the pilot projects he proposes, there’s a real opportunity to both focus on that but also test that. As well as looking at what do parents feel about the provision, how do councils cope with the logistics, what’s the interface with the Welsh Government, what’s working best from that logistical-type standpoint—could he also make some provision for some academic study of the pilot programme, so we actually see whether the availability of the pilot programmes in some councils, or in areas of some councils compared to others, feeds through down the road to improved outcomes and particularly, perhaps, early test scores for the children who have benefitted from those pilots? Thank you, I’m grateful.

I thank the Member for his positive comments. He’s right to raise the issue that this is the most generous programme being delivered in the UK by this Government. The UK are indeed having great difficulty introducing their general programme across England. I think it was York that had significant issues around the strike price for agreeing what childcare would be with the private sector, and the private sector actually refused to deliver some of the services in the end. So, there was a big issue there—we are learning from that experience. I think, you know, we’ve got to make sure that we understand what the complexities are with the sector that delivers this and with the parents. That’s why it’s easier for us to introduce a much slower programme into that system.

It fits quite nicely into the third point that the Member raised around capacity and the reasoning why we’re phasing this in the six authorities. One is partly due to capacity and understanding what we can deliver on the ground. The sector are saying to us, ‘Don’t rush this because we can’t deliver on this at this point’—the English experience has been a good one but he’s also right to raise the issue of the fiscal elements of this as well. The finance Minister has kindly introduced a £10 million programme for next year, which I’m very grateful for, but it’s also a controlling factor in our ability to move the programme forward. We think that will equate to around about 10 per cent of the programme, so it’s a good pilot learning opportunity for us within the boundaries of fiscal and capacity opportunities that are presented there.

The Member raised the issue around foundation phase split with childcare; that doesn’t change. We’re in discussion with the Minister with regard to some consistency across authorities, because some authorities deliver foundation phase on different timescales, on a different approach, and add hours. But there is also evidence to suggest—. It’s been presented both ways to me. Some people are saying, ‘Why don’t we just have a 30-hour foundation phase programme, as opposed to a 10 or 20-hour or a 15/15 split?’ There are many pieces of evidence that suggest that full-time education, foundation style, is not beneficial to the child. The issue of alternative play as well is an important one. But we will learn through that programme and what I can say is that some of the settings may not change for the child, so it may be partly foundation and then moving to a childcare setting, but it would be in the same building, perhaps, as some of the units. I know Rhondda Cynon Taf were familiar with introducing a scheme for two and three-year-olds, full time, in a previous administration, prior to this current administration, and it’s something that I’m really interested in to see how that works, what the opportunities are there, and, more importantly, in RCT, how they can deliver that through the summer period as well, when foundation isn’t there, and what the way that they’re going to be able to manage that is.

The Member is right—and it’s shared by my Cabinet colleagues and many Members in this Chamber—about what quality looks like and what is the opportunity for the young person. There are huge economic benefits for communities on just the ability for parents to get back into the work stream, and I think that also adds to the issue around tackling poverty when you’ve got pay coming into a healthy household—it embeds opportunity for the family. But what we will not be doing is warehousing children. I can give you that assurance. We are very keen to ensure that there is a provision of good foundation and good-quality childcare, which we expect to be delivered.

I’ve also been questioned about whether the provision of childcare should be delivered by our families—grandparents or family members—in terms of how they can access the system, because that’s what they do. There will be very clear guidelines on what the expectation is. The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales inspection is part of that process in terms of delivering good childcare. There’s a large working group we have looking at this. These are external people and some of my team working on how we are able to deliver this. The outcome of the learning will be an important one for how we shape the full programme, moving forward.

The children’s commissioner and the future generations commissioner also sit on that and while they are the—I should be careful how I say this—commissioner police, they are our critical friends who are helping us shape the way that certainly children’s voices and parents’ voices are brought into this policy agenda. So, we are learning a lot from the opportunity of the pilot, too.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, for the statement. Obviously, this is a very important area of our manifesto commitments. I’ve got over 20 schools in my constituency—primary schools, that is—all of which provide foundation phase early learning from the age of three. But all of them are providing part time. So, that is the reason why, Mark Reckless, you can’t simply be providing full time, because there’s one lot coming in in the morning and there’s another lot coming in in the afternoon. This is the capacity issue that we face in an urban area like Cardiff, because the city of Cardiff has been growing with about 36,000 people, and all our schools are completely full.

We have quite a lot of private and voluntary childcare providers as well, and that’s fine, but I want to probe how we can get more of the sort of arrangements that we have at Ysgol y Berllan Deg, which happens to have a private bilingual nursery at the bottom of the garden, which enables them to provide that wraparound care. Similarly, at Roath Park school, they have a private nursery—Ninian Nurseries—that takes children to and from the school to provide them with both the wraparound care and the education. How else does the Cabinet Secretary see us being able to move forward in a very built-up area like Cardiff, where land is, obviously, at a premium?

In a former life, I was very much involved in the creation of integrated early-years centres, which provided different levels of both education and childcare, charging people on a different scale, depending on their circumstances. That is, obviously, a model that we, perhaps, want to revisit, because just because we’re going to give free childcare to three and four-year-olds—it wouldn’t do any harm to expand the service of paid care to other parents who feel they would be able to do that and still be able to keep their job.

So, I think that, in relation to our capacity to expand, what change does he envisage us having with our voluntary and private sectors? Because, in Cardiff at the moment, the rule is that you can’t place your child in a nursery provision in the voluntary or private sectors unless there is no provision in the state sector. That, it seems to me, is probably not going to enable us to create more voluntary sector nurseries. Unless they know they’ve got a certain number of children, they’re simply not going to be able to operate. So, I wondered what discussions you’ve been having with, in particular, my local authority on that to perhaps change the way we look at the voluntary and the private sectors, given that we’re going to have to work together with them.

Otherwise, when we’re building new schools, what commitment can I get from you, Cabinet Secretary, that we will no longer build schools that don’t have sufficient capacity for wraparound care in the schools? Because that, clearly, is going to be the way forward. It’s far better for the child to be able to stay in the same room as where they started off with their nursery education and also have their childcare. I absolutely recognise that that isn’t possible at the moment from where we are starting in Cardiff. But if we’d truly had community-focused schools 10 or 20 years ago, we wouldn’t be where we are today, because it’s perfectly obvious that everybody in the community would want free childcare and available at their local school.

I thank the Member for her contribution—it poses some very interesting questions: what if, 20 years ago, we were able to change the way of our future? We’d be looking very different, perhaps, today. But she raised some important points during her contribution.

The issue around wraparound care is an important one that we are working with the private sector, the voluntary sector and the public sector about what does that mean through our Talk Childcare programme. We’re understanding that it’s not the nine-to-five, always, that helps parents. Actually, they want some flexibility around each side of that. That in itself poses a problem, because most of the heavily reliant, good delivery of public services models are generally working in that space, and where there is heavy reliance on that particular programme, there isn’t much capacity in the private sector, because there aren’t many children in that space. So, we’re trying to flex that, and I absolutely understand the questions that the Member raised about how that looks in terms of working outside the norm. That’s why we’re working with a variety of organisations and a variety of local authorities that will test this system for us in both a rural and an urban setting. Swansea, I think, is the urban setting of a city base that will use an opportunity to work with the voluntary sector as well.

The issue of capital is one I have already had discussions with the finance Minister and with the education Minister about. We are considering what levels of capital are required. The Cabinet Secretary has kindly introduced £20 million per annum from 2018-19 into the education main expenditure group for capital investment in childcare settings, alongside the twenty-first century schools programme. So, this is about planning for the future, exactly what the Member raised, about what we can do more about that—having a flexible setting that is built for delivery of this most ambitious childcare provision.

This is very ambitious, but we can deliver this. I’m confident we can, but we can’t deliver it as a Government on our own; we have to work with other sectors as well. I’m very encouraged by the amount of interest from outside, looking in. I must say that of the 1,500 responses, in one of the biggest responses we’ve had in our engagement programme talking to parents, most of the questions are saying, ‘When are you going to start delivering it?’ So, there is enthusiasm, both from our side in terms of wanting to deliver but also from parents wanting to receive—and children wanting to receive—this great investment from this Government.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, I must say how pleased I am to hear that Rhondda Cynon Taf will be one of the pilot authorities in this scheme. I’m sure it will bring enormous benefits to my area. I have three questions for you today. Firstly, Cabinet Secretary, I wonder what consideration you have given to flexible and alternative models of childcare delivery that fully take account of and complement the differing models of nursery education and childcare provision currently on offer in the different local authorities in Wales. In addition, while I very much welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s reference to the provision of childcare during the school holidays, I wonder what consideration he has given to the importance of really drilling down into the logistics of this school holiday provision, which is so important. Because the enhanced wraparound offer being put forward really has the opportunity to make a real difference in tackling, for example, the scandal of children going hungry in school holidays, but in order to do that we really need to make sure that we get the offer right.

Finally, I’d welcome a more detailed update from the Cabinet Secretary on the Talk Childcare strategy. I think this is a very good way to engage with parents and with providers, but I’d be keen to know how the Welsh Government is engaging with the hardest-to-reach groups who may perhaps need more urgent intervention.

I thank the Member for her positive contribution. The Member’s right with regard to, in many local authorities, there is a raft of services delivered in different ways across the 22 local authorities. This has given us the opportunity to look at what works best, where, and how, maybe, we can broaden that. I don’t envisage that we’ll have one scheme as we move forward to the end of the programme. I think there’ll have to be some flexibilities in how we’re able to deliver some of those. But the proof of concept will be taken forward over the next couple of months.

The issue of logistics, and particularly the one around the summer period, is one that we challenged RCT on, because we know that they can deliver this through the school period, but can they and how will they do that through the summer period, or the holiday period? That is a matter for them, and they are signed up and enthusiastic to go. I spoke with the leader today about the opportunities that this will pose. He’s very enthusiastic, and I’m sure you’ll increase the pressure of opportunity within the authority as well.

Talk Childcare has been very successful. We’ve got #TalkChildcare on Twitter and Facebook. We’re also using other methods of engagement, through Mumsnet and other programmes. My team have been out talking to private sector companies. So, they were in a large company in Caerphilly only a few weeks back, talking to parents in that company about how and what their needs may and may not be for the future. To be fair, my team are working incredibly hard with externals to deliver this programme, but they’re fed up of me saying, ‘Go and talk to real people’, as opposed to ‘Government’s doing this to people; let’s get some feedback about what works for them too.’

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on Historic Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have four great national institutions, the National Museum Wales, the National Library of Wales, Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, acting as custodians for our rich heritage and culture. Together they preserve evidence of the entire span of human activity in Wales, from the tiny fragments of bone that attest to the presence of humans in Wales more than 200,000 years ago, through the greatest monuments of architecture, literature and art, to the books and ordinary objects of today that will become the treasures of the future.

As a nation, we should be immensely proud of these institutions. They not only guard our cultural heritage, but also make it accessible and enjoyable for our own citizens and for visitors from across the world. These institutions are fundamental to our nation’s identity, so we must respond to the challenges that they already face and help them become more successful, more resilient and, ultimately, more sustainable in the future.

UK Government austerity has stretched heritage sector budgets over the last few years, and a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report warns of increasing pressures to come. We have done everything possible to protect our national institutions from the worst of these cuts, yet a fundamental question still remains: how can we, working in genuine partnership, improve services, provide sufficient capital investment and ensure that Wales still has vibrant cultural and heritage institutions when the competition for central resources is more challenging than ever before?

There are four pressing issues that we must address if we are going to secure a viable future for the whole heritage sector. First, we have to find new ways for our heritage and cultural institutions to innovate and be ambitious about the role they play in our national life. We need them to work together to form a compelling vision of that future. Institutional boundaries should be no barrier to the quality of service offered, whether that service is to visitors, our own communities or indeed the heritage assets themselves.

Second, we have to increase the number of people using our heritage and cultural institutions. This will mean setting stretching targets for visitor numbers and developing novel ways to attract new audiences. We have to accelerate our work to widen access to arts and culture for groups traditionally excluded from it. We have a proud record of widening access and engaging more people in cultural activities by supporting free admission to our national museums. I'd like our national heritage institutions to lead the way in social tourism for example, and play a bigger role in tackling the intergenerational gap. We know we can achieve amazing results when we set the bar high. Cadw, for instance, has had its most successful year ever in terms of admissions numbers and, as a consequence, generating commercial income. This has been achieved by restructuring itself to maximise the opportunities presented from managing some of Wales’s most iconic visitor attractions. It has run several award-winning marketing campaigns, invested in major improvements to the visitor experience, doubled its events programme and, in doing so, helped open up the monuments to families and younger people in a way it has never done before.

Third, we need to market and promote our cultural and heritage institutions more vigorously and effectively. Our national institutions will need to have clearer, more powerful and more engaging brands and offers if they are to be noticed in a world where competition for people’s time and attention is growing ever fiercer.

The final challenge involves people. The skills, passion and expertise of people working in our institutions bring them to life just as much as the cultural assets that they contain. We need to give greater respect and recognition to these people and offer them greater opportunities to develop their careers in the field. The skills required to care for our heritage are precious and we need to retain our specialists to conserve and interpret our inheritance for future generations.

I don’t have all of the answers, but of one thing, I am absolutely certain: our national heritage institutions will be stronger if they work together, sharing their experience and expertise to find innovative pathways to a more secure and sustainable future. This will require institutions to collaborate and work together in new ways and perhaps, where necessary, pool resources. I know this is contentious, but it is possible to do without compromising the unique identities and independence of our institutions.

I believe that part of the answer lies in the creation of a new body, which we have provisionally called Historic Wales. I am convinced that we have here a real opportunity to bring a sharper focus and clearer identity to the commercial work of our national institutions. Bringing their commercial functions together will not undermine the independence or identity of the individual institutions, rather it will enable them to market their world-class cultural assets more effectively to the people of Wales, Britain and the world. A truly joined-up commercial approach amongst our national institutions will give them the ability to become financially resilient and engage further with the public. That is why, in September, I published the report ‘Investing in the future to protect the past’. The report, chaired by Baroness Randerson, sets out options for giving a stronger, unified identity to Wales’s national heritage institutions. The options considered in the report range from improved partnership working to more radical solutions, such as the creation of a new charity or the merger of organisations.

The report was not the start of the process. As part of the development of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the future delivery of public historic environment services was considered, including the amalgamation of Cadw and the royal commission. We have reviewed the views expressed at that time, many of which concluded that structural change was timely and necessary.

The next step is to prepare the detailed business cases and analysis required to test the viability of the options in Baroness Randerson’s report. That is why, at the beginning of September, I established a steering group made up of senior management from the national museum, the national library, Cadw and the royal commission, and, of course, trade union representatives. It is chaired by Justin Albert of the National Trust. I have asked the steering group to examine options critically and to determine how Historic Wales can best be constituted so that our national heritage and cultural institutions can harness their collective expertise and resources to best effect. I have asked the group to give me its initial advice in January. This advice will put me in a better position to develop a detailed plan for Historic Wales, which, as I have said repeatedly, will be subject to public consultation in due course.

I don’t underestimate the challenge ahead and I want to work with the heritage sector to make Historic Wales, in whatever form it is constituted, a dynamic and innovative entity that can help Wales sell itself to the world. I am, therefore, willing to listen and engage with anybody who wants to contribute constructively to the developing vision for Historic Wales. However, as I have said before, the status quo is no longer an option. This is no time for the short-term protection of empires: the stakes are simply too high. We must not fall into the trap of knowing the value of what we have, but wilfully ignoring the tough choices that need to be made to protect it.

Can I thank you as well, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today? We prefer statements in this Chamber, rather than written statements, particularly when we have matters that are, as you alluded to, rather controversial. I think we’re all proud of the institutions—you’re not unique in that—and I think we’re pretty proud, too, of the people who populate those institutions and make them the unique institutions that they are. I don’t even have a huge problem with your analysis of the four pressing issues that you raised in the statement. My issue is, rather, with your approach to finding an appropriate response to those.

You say that you don’t have all the answers, but it’s become clear that you already have a preferred answer, which is the last of the four options put forward in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report referred to in your statement. That was confirmed in your letter of 27 July to the director of the national museum, and, I understand, in response to a freedom of information request from Plaid Cymru, although I might be wrong on that. If this is indeed a manifesto commitment, as you said in September’s statement, I’d like you to point out where I might find it. If it’s hidden behind a Labour Party e-mail capture wall, I’m not sure that you can claim that the people of Wales actually voted for this, particularly as the PwC report, which offers alternatives, appears to have been confidential until this September.

So, my first question is: how have you personally concluded that an option 4 Historic Wales is your preferred outcome? You may cite the improvement in Cadw’s income generation as a result of the collaboration between Cadw and Visit Wales, but, as far as I can tell, you haven’t merged the functions of Cadw and Visit Wales. Any restructuring, you’ve just said, has been within Cadw.

My second question is: as the steering group knows your preference, how can we be confident that it can approach the evidence in the PwC report with a completely open mind? I want to make it clear that I don’t say anything about the integrity of the members of this group—I absolutely don’t—but you have sent a strong signal that, in your view, and despite the contents of the PwC report, an option 4 version of Historic Wales, representing significant merger, would, by implication, be better than the other options offered in that report.

My third question is this: your statement and evidence to the culture committee make it plain that you have a strong belief in the necessity for collaboration. I don’t think, actually, any of us disagree with you on this. Certainly we are happy, as Conservatives, to see stronger collaboration on commercial activities. But, just over a year ago—this is according to the director of the museum—Cadw, the museum, the royal commission and the national library came together and formed a looser, option 1 style partnership to collaborate on a number of issues, including commercial activity. In your view, where did this fall short to the extent that you consider a formal merger has now become necessary?

Finally, because I appreciate that there are lots of people who want to ask questions on this—there are a lot of concerns—I’ll just repeat two questions that I asked you a few weeks ago that you didn’t answer. The first was: what did you learn from the Welsh Government’s aborted attempt to merge Cadw and the royal commission? You say that there was support for structural change. What I remember is an awful lot of opposition to that structural change and, in fact, the Welsh Government capitulating on that. Secondly, if you get a steer from this Assembly, which is in balance, that an option 4 Historic Wales model is not acceptable, will you take it off the table? Because the First Minister is fond of repeating that, when it comes to Brexit, he expects the UK negotiation position and post-exit arrangements to be agreed by all the nations and not imposed by a UK Government, and I see no difference in the principle here. If the steering group reports in favour of transfer, rather than delegation, to a new body of a wide range of functions, despite the level of campaigning activity that we have already seen, then this suggests that an option 4 style Historic Wales will be a matter of imposition rather than agreement. Thank you.

I’d like to thank Suzy Davies for her questions and for acknowledging that, in terms of commercial activity, it is important that all organisations that receive public funds look to what they can do more themselves to make themselves more resilient. It’s absolutely essential, especially for many people who may be watching today who can’t make ends meet who look to national organisations to help themselves become more resilient, to give more back to the country. I know there are presidential elections today; well, national institutions should be asking more of what they can do for their country through what Government is able to allocate in their resources, rather than just look for more resources to do the same.

In terms of processes—and largely your questions relate to processes—the letter of 27 July relates to comments that were made, I believe, in committee by the CEO of the national museum, when he said that he was surprised that option 4 had been selected. Actually, if we look at that letter of 27 July, and I’m sure the Member has it—if not, I’m very happy to publish that letter, but also, Presiding Officer, I’m very happy to publish the letter, with the CEO’s agreement, that came ahead of my letter of 27 July. My letter was in response to his and I’d happily publish that letter as well. My letter of 27 July states that

‘the report sets out a number of different options for growing the sector and makes it abundantly clear that there is much cause for optimism if we work closely together and realise the synergies that clearly exist. In view of this’—

and this is the crucial line—

‘option 4 may provide a solution to some of the issues and indeed opportunities that you raise in your letter.’

Why is it so bad to look at the opportunities that were raised in that letter? That letter, as I say, I would happily publish—not the letter of 27 July, but the letter from the CEO of 29 June. So, I am still open-minded, but what I would suggest to Members is that it is important to look at those options, as the steering group is going to do, in an open-minded fashion, and to assess them dispassionately for how they could benefit the entire sector.

You ask about Historic Wales and its place in the Welsh Labour manifesto. It was in the Welsh Labour manifesto. We live in the digital age, so the manifesto was online. If you go back and have a look at it, download it online, it is in there. It is in there, where we talk about the importance of Historic Wales bringing together commercial activities. I know that we name specifically within that the national museum and Cadw, but of course on the steering group there is also the royal commission and the national library. There may be synergies there as well. But this is for the steering group. This is for the steering group. I put on record again my assurance to you that I have an open mind. But what I will not accept is a status quo or a tinkering around the edges. Now, the Member in another question asked about a loose arrangement that was operating. Well, I’d ask back in return: if that was successful, why not make it slightly more robust—strengthen it? If that was successful. But I don’t think it was, because, over the years, we’ve heard many, many organisations talk very warmly about the need to collaborate more. But, often, they do not collaborate enough; they just don’t carry out what their promise is.

In terms of evidence, let’s take a look at it. In terms of evidence, we can look at the actual attendance figures, because the effectiveness of any marketing operation—of any commercial operation—is how many people you are engaging with, how many you are attracting. I’m sure that we would agree on that. So, if we look at the National Museum Wales, it’s done a good job in attracting people to the sites and in educating people, but not good enough. I want more. I want the people of Wales to be more active culturally and in terms of physical activity. I want more people to be more active in the arts, and, at the moment, while it’s good, it’s not good enough.

If we look at the figures, first of all—and these are the most recent figures—the most attended site is St Fagans, with 531,000; the second, 491,000 for the Cathays Park national museum, Cardiff; third, the National Waterfront Museum at 261,000; Big Pit, 144,000; the National Slate Museum, 142,000; the National Roman Legion Museum, 71,000; and the National Wool Museum, 31,000. We then take a look at the most attended historic attractions in England and Wales. We’ll see that comparable figures would have the most attended national museum site just fall behind the bus tours of Edinburgh, which is a paid attraction; half the number of people that visit the Riverside Museum. The Roman Baths is a comparable site in terms of cities—Bath to Cardiff—and it’s paid for. They attract 1,044,000. I’ll just go on a little bit more in terms of similar sizes. In Sheffield, the Museums Sheffield Millennium Gallery, which is free, attracts 764,000 people. Brighton’s bigger, granted, but Brighton Pier attracts 4,600,000 people; the National Museum of Scotland, 1,567,000; the Scottish National Gallery, 1,377,000.

Look, that historic environment of Wales is crucially important in terms of visitor numbers, in terms of its ability to educate and to engage people in skills training. It is doing good, as I say, but it’s not doing good enough. I want to make sure that in the years to come we can look back and say, ‘We did all we could to bring together the sector to promote itself collectively for the benefit of all’ and that the key players within the sector operated as a team for one another’s benefit. At the moment, I do not think that that degree of collaboration is sufficient.

In terms of the second question, again this related to whether people on the steering group are approaching the work that they are conducting in a sufficiently open mind, based on the assertion, which is wrong, that I have a preference for one option over another. Well, actually, today I can assure the Member that members of the steering group are very keen to participate in any way they can in achieving an outcome that will be of benefit to the entire sector. I can say that because of the letter that’s appeared today in the ‘Western Mail’. The Member may be aware of the letter, but I’ll just read it out. It’s from the president of the national museum. It’s also from the president of the national library. It’s also from the chairman of the royal commission. It reads:

‘we know it is timely and essential that we look for new opportunities to ensure that heritage is as relevant, as accessible, and as resilient as possible, and that it is based on working in collaboration…it is in this spirit that we are working pro-actively, as members of a Steering Group, with the Welsh Government’.

We are working together. Let’s all play to win, and let’s not see sabotage at the game.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? Having said that, I would much prefer it were we having a debate in Government time, as I have requested twice in this Chamber previously, because the matters before us are of crucial importance, as the Cabinet Secretary has already suggested. They are crucially important to us as a nation, and I agree with him on that.

In those bleak days of the political wilderness pre devolution, we looked to institutions such as the National Museum Wales and the national library as the pillars of our nation’s memory, as a definition of Wales, as an independent representation and an independent voice that spoke up on behalf of Wales to say that it still existed, despite the other bleak and black circumstances. People were asking questions in the 1980s such as ‘When was Wales?’ and you could walk into the National Museum Wales or into St Fagans and say, ‘This is where Wales is: this is where Wales is in the midst of everything else.’

The national museum was established by royal charter in 1907, which incorporates and assures its independence. You are aware, Cabinet Secretary, of all the letters and e-mails that we as members of the culture committee and as individuals have received, each one of them criticising your intention of establishing Historic Wales. I am very pleased that you’ve been able to point to one letter that is not critical and that appears in the ‘Western Mail’ today, because every other letter I’ve seen is damning in its criticism. So, we need to address this issue.

To return to that royal charter of the national museum, the intention was, in English:

‘To tell the world about Wales and to tell Wales about the world.’

That is the mission of our national museum and that holds true today. Yet you seem to have created the idea over the past weeks that this decision to establish Historic Wales is almost a fait accompli, without listening enough. That is what people are telling us: this has been rushed through; nobody is listening and nobody is communicating.

I do believe that it’s important, because I do believe that Government plans are affecting the independence of the national museum in an unfavourable way, which means that amalgamating the museum with Cadw, and Cadw is part of the Government, is most certainly going to endanger the independence of the National Museum Wales. We’ve all been to visit St Fagans recently; £25 million is in the process of being spent and St Fagans has been innovative and a world leader in its field. All of that will be put at risk if we insist on amalgamating the national museum with Cadw.

We’ve had numerous prominent people in the field, including the Labour historian, Dai Smith, being extremely critical. I’ll quote him in the original language:

‘Income generation, commercial exploitation and partnership working are not dirty words or false concepts, but they should be entirely secondary to the rooted role we have given to our cultural bodies for more than a century.’

And he goes on to say that this is

‘precipitate implementation without the due diligence of informed discussion and evidential investigation.’

I tend to believe and to agree with Dai Smith. Obviously, I don’t agree with Dai Smith on every topic, but on this I do agree with him.

Looking at page 4 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, in the purpose and objectives section, there is a suggestion of establishing a separate commercial institution, which does suggest that conclusions had already been reached, even at the beginning of the year, and PwC were asked to secure evidence that would actually bear out that intention to create a separate commercial institution. This is not an objective process.

Following a freedom of information request I submitted recently, it’s become obvious that there were no minutes of Baroness Randerson’s review group. Why weren’t there any minutes from her group’s meetings? This is incredible when you think about the implications and importance of these recommendations to the sector.

As I’ve already mentioned, there are also concerns about the lack of consultation with both the sector and the public. And, of course, we’ve heard that the idea that this is contained in the Labour Party’s manifesto is also rather odd, because we all publish printed manifestos and it wasn’t included in the Labour Party’s printed manifesto, this intention to create Historic Wales. Why keep this commitment so quiet, if you have to actually go into an online annex to find it? It hasn’t been an open or a transparent process.

Nobody would disagree with collaboration, further collaboration, or the need to develop the marketing and business side. Everybody agrees with that, and there’s always work to be done. But you are going a step too far in endangering the whole existence of our national museum.

Felly, i wrthsefyll y teimlad hwnnw, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a wnewch chi heddiw ddiystyru uno llawn y sefydliadau hyn—

I already have done.

[Continues.]—the full merger of Amgueddfa Cymru, National Museum Wales, with Cadw? Will you rule out implementing option 4 of the PwC report during this Assembly term? Because, Cabinet Secretary, in another context, when we’ve been discussing the national infrastructure commission for Wales, NICW, you have shown admirable flexibility and a want to listen to concerns and a walking towards even agreement. You’ve shown that flexibility, admirable as it is, in our discussions that we’ve had, that you are willing to move, and I would commend that approach once again, here. Because as National Museum Wales once inspired many of us, years ago, in a barren land without an Assembly, I feel it is incumbent now that this Assembly stands by that National Museum Wales now in its hour of need. Please do not do this; please think again.

Well, I’d like to thank the Member for some kind comments and points that he’s made. You’ve recognised that I listen, that I can face challenge, and that is exactly what I am doing, and that is exactly why I will listen to the steering group and those experts that sit on the steering group that represent our national institutions—not just the museum. And I know you talked a lot about the museum, but it’s not just about the national museum; it’s about the great institutions that we have that represent the entirety of the heritage sector that I feel passionately about. And so I will listen to those experts. Yes, I can rule out that there’s going to be a full merger of the institutions, as you asked me to do, but, in terms of those options, I’m going to leave it to the steering group to produce a well-informed set of recommendations.

The Member makes many points, but let’s just establish a starting point: that we all are passionate about the future of our heritage sector. We all want our cultural institutions, not just national institutions but the local ones as well, to be stronger. That’s why I commissioned the expert panel review on museums, that’s why I’ve established the community learning libraries fund as a transformation fund, not just for libraries but for museums as well. It’s a shame that the national body that represents community museums didn’t actually realise that I’d done that when I outlined in April, during the election campaign, that that was our intention with the community learning libraries fund. We’ve established that as a transformation fund, because I said at the time we can’t wait for the creation of an entirely new fund if community and local museums are going to go to the wall in the meantime. So, I extended that from £1 million to £1.4 million. That’s done.

We commissioned the expert panel review on libraries. Now, let’s just look at libraries. Let’s just look back to 2008, when a former Secretary of State suggested that, with the impending problems that public finances would face, local libraries had to diversify, there had to be some co-location of resources and services. He was accused of being a cultural barbarian, wanting to put fish and chip shops—and that is an exact quote, fish and chip shops—by people who, yes, were well meaning, who cared about libraries, but their care ultimately led to the suffocation of hundreds upon hundreds of libraries in England, because they were traditionalists of forces of resistance who refused to accept that there had to be change, that society had moved on, that we have to appeal to people in a new and innovative way. And if we look at the barrage—a tsunami—of commercial messages that people are hit with every day, surely you must recognise that now, more than ever, to be relevant, you have to have strength in the branding, you have to make sure that your advertising, your marketing, is as effective as it can be to cut through what I have called ‘fast food for the soul’—that pop culture that is hitting people every moment of the day through social media and so forth.

So, it’s essential that we do more for the heritage sector to market itself, but they need to make sure that they work closely together as well. You say everybody agrees on collaboration—yes, they do, but some don’t actually carry through their warm words, and I am placing the emphasis on the delivery of collaborative efforts, not just talk about collaboration. In terms of the manifesto, as I say, we are living in a new age now and Welsh Labour decided to go digital first to recognise the fact that most people now themselves operate digitally first. So, we placed our entire manifesto on the internet and I will happily print off sections that cover culture and that refer to Historic Wales. I do recognise that some people did struggle to access those pages, but I would be able to talk and walk through the process of downloading and printing off the manifesto. I’m aware of the many letters that have been submitted, but I hope my comments today reassure many people who are concerned, and have genuine concerns. I think some of the letters, and I’ve read many, are based on misinformation or simply fear that cannot be accounted for.

Independence cannot be a barrier to working more closely together, and, where necessary, to pooling resources. The Member rightly identified one of the core purposes of the museum: about selling what is Wales to the world. And that’s my whole purpose. It’s about selling what is great about Wales together. Yesterday, I was down in London—I was at the world travel fair—and there were countless halls with huge numbers of regions and institutions and companies represented from a whole manner of countries, some of whom had put millions into their stands. The middle-eastern ones in particular, they were phenomenal—some were giving away pens, Bic biros; I’m sure they were giving away Montblancs. It was incredible how much money they were putting into it. So, they were able to present a really strong brand for their areas, what they stand for, the highest quality of what they represent. I was pleased that, on our stand—we don’t have quite as much in the way of resources as some countries, but, on our stand, we had heritage institutions represented; we had Cadw and the national museum together. They weren’t promoting what they were as individuals; they were promoting heritage in Wales, one of the No. 1 factors that people come to Wales to experience as visitors. I want to see more of that sort of activity.

I’ve heard some people say, ‘Rather than focus on change, or rather than force collaboration, why don’t you just give more money, why don’t you just focus more on resources?’ Giving more money won’t necessarily get more people through the doors, and that, at the end of the day, is the No. 1 objective for the national institutions that serve the people of Wales: to be accessible and relevant and welcoming. And, in terms of what Government has done to make sure that places are welcoming, are well maintained, we’ve given an increase in revenue and capital in the next financial year of 33 per cent. I’ll say that again: it’s 33 per cent to the national museum and national library collectively. It’s a huge increase in resource. And if you look at—because some like to compare England and Wales—revenue changes from 2010-11, you’ll see that, for the national museum, it’s 7.1 per cent. For the national library, it’s not quite so good; it’s 9.69. I would love to be able to be in a position in future years to give better settlements, but anybody who has heard commentary about the way that public finances are going to go will recognise that we are going to face even more tough decisions in the future. So, it’s incumbent upon all of us who genuinely care—we all care about the culture sector—to help them become more resilient in the most difficult of financial times.

In comparison with England, by the way, equivalent cuts in England were 15 per cent. Let me just find a few specific examples, as I did with visitor figures. If we look at revenue decreases, and this was up to 2015, albeit, the Imperial War Museums, for example, saw a decrease of 13.8 per cent, compared to, as I say, the decrease of 7.1 per cent for the national museum. If you want any indication, that’s it—of Welsh Government’s commitment to our national institutions, but, for me, I want to see more done together.

No-one listening to him this evening could deny the Cabinet Secretary’s desire and passion to get these institutions to work to the best of their ability. But I have to echo some of the concerns voiced by Suzy Davies and Dai Lloyd this evening. Whilst UKIP is in broad agreement that we utilise all possibilities with regard to generating income from these unique national assets, it is worrying to see that we are talking of yet another body, possibly viewed as another quango, even if this body were in-house. So, firstly, will this body be in addition to the four bodies that now exist? Secondly, as you have mentioned, paragraph 3 on page 2 of your statement points out that Cadw had its best revenue year ever last year. So, given that you admit that the setting up of a new body may be very costly, would it not be better to set targets for the existing institutions or simply merge some of these institutions in order to achieve the required results? Will you step back just one step from what seems to be the line that you’re taking—that’s the fourth option that’s available—so that you review again all the other options? Thank you.

Thank you. I’d like to thank David Rowlands for his questions and just to reflect, actually, as I know that this has been contentious, and Dai Lloyd quoted Dai Smith in his contribution, and perhaps I’ll reflect on another quote of Dai Smith’s, when he said that culture should be disruptive. Perhaps these proposals are disruptive, but in the right way because they are focusing attention clearly on how the sector can collaborate more for mutual benefit right across libraries, museums and potentially archives as well, drawing more attention to the fantastic heritage sector that we should be able to boast about in Wales. Indeed, Dai Smith, just as Dai Lloyd said, identified that commercial functions are secondary. Yes, they are of secondary importance, but it doesn’t mean that they are anything but vital, especially during a period of such severe financial hardship for many people, for many organisations, for the entire country.

In terms of the options and whether this would be another quango, I’ve been very clear that it should be the steering group that brings forward recommendations for us to then assess and then to consult on publicly. I am conscious of the need to avoid any additional administration or bureaucracy. The whole point of this work is to make sure that all institutions are as free, as flexible, as nimble, but also as creative and determined as possible to benefit from an increase in commercial income and to be more proactive and engaging with more communities and more people who, traditionally, have felt disengaged or distant from cultural institutions for all manner of reasons, whether it be physical or psychological barriers—to overcome those barriers must be a primary objective of the institutions. That’s why we set up the Fusion programme, which was aimed at fusing together institutions—cultural institutions—with community groups to harness the power of culture to tackle poverty. I would like to see more of that activity carried out with more partners as well. That’s why still I am saying, ‘Collaborate more’. At the moment, it’s just not good enough. We’ve got examples of where collaboration has worked, but it’s just not enough, I’m afraid. So, we do wish to see a greater degree of collaboration, but it’s going to be for the steering group to bring forward recommendations. And you’re absolutely right—Cadw did have its best ever year. And it was because of the success of Cadw that we were then able to allocate additional resource to the national museum and the national library. Let’s all play to win together, rather than compete within the same team. This is about one sector wanting to be the best in the world, so let’s do it as one united team.

We’re out of time on this statement, but I have a few more Members who wish to question the Cabinet Secretary. If we can have succinct questions and succinct answers, that will help us a lot. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Lywydd and thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I’d like to place on record my full support for the proposal that you outline today. We all know how important tourism is as a sector to the Welsh economy, and it’s absolutely vital that we market that strongly moving forward, if it is to retain and enhance the presence that it currently has. My first question relates to the importance of heritage tourism to local economies. A figure of £19 million per year has been suggested previously. Obviously, we need to make sure this benefits all of Wales, so, will the Cabinet Secretary make one of the priorities of Historic Wales that they look to promote historic opportunities across areas of Wales that are not traditionally associated with tourism? Secondly, linked to this is the promotion of otherwise unknown histories, for example, the real working-class histories, the grass-roots histories, that belong to so many people in Wales. How will Historic Wales promote these narratives, such as the story of Tower colliery in my constituency, for example, which would then have the potential to act as a catalyst for further economic growth?

My final question relates to skills and training, and I recall, Cabinet Secretary, your ambition, as stated to the economy committee just last week, for Wales to have a reputation of incredible customer service. But what assessment has been made of the skills gap to make this a reality? In particular, when community groups are involved in the delivery of heritage experiences, such as Cynon Valley Museum in my constituency, how would you ensure that Historic Wales prioritises providing volunteers with the training and skills support that they need?

I’d like to thank Vikki Howells for her very important questions, in particular the significance of the heritage sector insofar as attaining skills is concerned, because I was recently pleased—I’m not sure whether this is for disclosure just yet, but I’m going to say it anyway—to support an application worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds for skills training within the heritage sector, which I know my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills as well are very pleased with. It will see opportunities created for young people from disadvantaged communities to take part in heritage projects to gain the skills necessary for careers within the heritage sector, and I am very keen to make sure that, as we move to the future, we move beyond the point of talking merely about the heritage sector and the institutions within the sector surviving, and we actually start talking about how they are thriving. That means we’ve got to get more money, more skills and more expertise developed within the sector, and we can do that by bringing them together.

I don’t see why—and it doesn’t require any sort of a merger of institutions, but in terms of the outward facing activities, it would benefit from far closer, meaningful collaboration—we couldn’t have people, for example, with great skills from the library operating in Cathays Park at the museum, or vice versa, working together to promote those unique skills that many people employed in the institutions have, and which simply are not evident in other parts of western Europe. And I think it would be brilliant to be able to promote those skills and those career opportunities right across Wales, because the Member is right—there are some part of Wales, there are some communities in Wales, where the national institutions are not present, but where Cadw may be present. There are some where Cadw, the national museum and the national library are not physically present. And in those circumstances, and those communities, it’s essential that local museums, local libraries and local archives are given support and have strong national leadership, with the skills to be able to back them up, and to make heritage real, tangible and accessible for all people in all communities, regardless of where they live.

In terms of some of the work that’s being done on a national basis, I think the pan-Wales heritage interpretation project was a great success, but there is no doubt we need to do more in terms of promoting our industrial heritage. This is one area—I know Jeremy Miles spoke for 89.9 seconds last week about the value of industrial heritage in many communities. There is no doubt in my mind that we can and could do more if we lever in more resources, grow skills within the sector and grow the number of job opportunities that there are.

Cabinet Secretary, I had the opportunity at lunchtime to visit the plethora of societies and trusts in the Oriel upstairs dedicated to protecting our historic environment; to name but a few, the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and also of course the Friends of Friendless Churches, often mentioned in this Chamber. They have concerns about this process. They are optimistic as well about some aspects of it, but they do have concerns. How are you working with these smaller organisations to make sure that this process is as smooth as possible, and that these organisations are reassured?

Secondly, I will be frank, I’ve not always had the best of relations with Cadw. I think Cadw do some things very well. I think there are other things, certainly in the archaeological field, that they do less well. I remember in this Chamber in the last Assembly questioning the previous Minister for culture on the discovery of the prehistoric lake in Monmouth. A local archaeologist was telling me that there was evidence of prehistoric boat building on the shores of that lake. That was refuted by Cadw for months and months until they finally accepted it. They didn’t listen to the local expertise.

So, when it comes to your new proposals, will you ensure that, whether you go down the line of a new larger body or retain smaller bodies, that that larger body does tie in with the local community, does tie in with locally based organisations, and does listen to their expertise, which is often very extensive and very important to the local community? I don’t think that the current structures have always done that. As I say, in some cases, they’re particularly good at conserving what we already know, but in terms of valuing what we are just about discovering, they’re not so good at that. So please will you ensure that the new structures do take account of those aspects?

I’d like to thank Nick Ramsay for his questions. I’m very pleased that he enjoyed the event here today. I hosted the event and I took the time myself to speak to a number of the groups that came along with fascinating information about Historic Wales. There were some concerns raised. I was able to dispel them, and I think that is a task for me in the weeks and the months to come—to assure that we’re doing this to grow the sector to make it more sustainable. This isn’t a threat to any institution or organisation. This is an opportunity. To work together will be of huge benefit to the smaller organisations, and of those organisations here today, we fund many of them, and I think they would also recognise that, although our support is absolutely crucial, what is even more important in the years to come is that they themselves find other ways to lever in resources as well.

I recently visited, with my colleague Lynne Neagle, a museum in her constituency where I heard that there had been in recent years a loss in the number of paid staff, and whilst they were replaced by volunteers, the situation has now arisen where they are just under immense pressure, financial pressure, to maintain the service that is vital to that community. They actually said the opposite to what I’ve heard in some quarters, which is that we have to make sure that we have strong leadership, we have to make sure that we have strong national institutions, but above all we have to make sure that there are means of levering in additional resources to make the entire sector stronger. It’s very difficult for me to say to small, community museums and community libraries, ‘We cannot afford to fund you’, and yet they then say to me, ‘But you’re increasing the resource for national institutions’. What I would like to see emerge is a culture in which everybody collectively in society is contributing more through being more active in the culture sector, so that small organisations lever in more resources and large institutions do likewise. That’s the vision, and I would urge any Member who is opposing what we have outlined, and our position, to come forward with an alternative vision. Because the problems that the sector faces will not go away simply by ignoring the need to change.

In terms of Cadw’s engagement with communities, the first thing I did with regard to Cadw when I was appointed to my previous role was to write to all community groups within a certain radius of Cadw sites, to ask them whether there are any functions that they would like to use those sites for. We provided the names of the custodians at each site, and, as a result of that, I am now aware of new festivals that have taken place at Cadw sites, and new community activities. I’d like to see more of that activity right across Wales.

But Cadw serves two functions, and I think, sometimes, those two functions, as far as people—the customer, the population—are concerned, are conflated. The two functions are, of course, the statutory function and the commercial function. And, sometimes, the commercial function can be inhibited, or the commercial success of Cadw can be inhibited, by virtue of being in Government. It can’t operate quite as flexibly sometimes.

So, this is not a power grab from me. I do not want to take the national museum into Government. My portfolio is wide enough as it is. And, actually, I want to liberate—if anything, I want to give power away to people, so that people are able to embrace their assets locally. Because I know that historic assets are often what defines our communities in Wales. They’re what make people most proud of where they live, and I want to make sure that they’re better utilised, and that they are visited by more people.

I just wanted to come in briefly, to try and analyse some of what’s been said today. You will know that, as Chair of the culture committee, I’ve have had quite a lot of communication from people. You raised a question over the content of some of those letters. I would like to say that, perhaps, they are written as they are because they have, in my view, some level of confusion as to your intentions. I say this because, in your previous statement, you mentioned about merging the commercial functions of the national museum with Cadw, and that seemed to be your focus, and then, today, we have a statement that includes more institutions.

So, if you are not in favour of a full merger, can you tell me how a partial merger would be able to then satisfy what you want to happen, in relation to people working closer together, but then also ensuring that the independence of those institutions is respected, in the context of the fact that they will not then have power over the commercial functions, as outlined in previous statements that we have had here today?

The other issue I had was that you refer to this report—I’m sorry to be pernickety about this—as the Baroness Randerson report. But my reading is that it is a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, but then there’s an advisory panel by Jenny Randerson. So, I’d like to understand whether Jenny Randerson has endorsed the whole of what the PricewaterhouseCoopers report says, and whether you have her full backing in this, because it wasn’t my understanding that this was the Randerson report, and I think we need to clear up that confusion.

I also want to understand, because you’ve now said that it’s up to the steering group to decide upon, whether the public consultation will be on their preferred option or whether it will be on the various options that they discuss. Because, of course, it’ll be at that point when the institutions, when the people who’ve written to my committee, will be able to engage with the process. So, I think that is part of their fear—that they’re going to be engaged after this, as opposed to being engaged prior to some of the announcements that you’ve made.

I’d also like to agree with what Suzy Davies said in relation to the discussion that we’ve had previously over the royal commission and Cadw. It is not my version of history that there was wide, timely and necessary support for that to happen. In fact, when I talked to your predecessor John Griffiths, he did park the issue of the merger after many of us—and noises from the sector—campaigned against that. So is this your way of coming back to it, but with a different edge?

You also mentioned Cadw and marketing. I would just like to understand what that budget was. Did you put this out to an agency? I think it was called Equinox. How much did you pay that agency to do that marketing work? Because they may have additional benefits that potentially the national museum didn’t have. Would you not agree with me that the numbers are down at the national museum due to the redevelopment of St Fagans and that that may then pick up when that redevelopment has seen the case through?

My final question is: we’ve had quite a lot of debate recently in the environment committee about the issues surrounding Natural Resources Wales. I would urge you to look at what is happening there and to reassure yourself that any future decision that you make on how national institutions are potentially merged or encouraged to work together in the future are able to do so in a way that they feel comfortable with, so that there aren’t the same problems that are in the staffing arrangements at NRW currently. That is the last thing that we need—we need to have a happy and productive workforce, regardless of anything else, to make sure that they then can deliver effectively to the people of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I’d like to thank the Member for her questions. I think it’s absolutely essential that anybody who feels confused about the proposals reads what the options are and assesses carefully what the options are, because after assessing what those four options are, I think it will be abundantly clear to anybody that wholescale merges are not on the table. The Member asked—and I’m sorry I didn’t pick up on the question that Suzy Davies asked about what lessons have been learnt about the proposal many years ago to merge fully Cadw and the royal commission—well, the chief lesson that was learnt from that is that you don’t fully merge institutions. What you can do is encourage those institutions to work together more for mutual benefit. So, I’d invite anybody who feels confused about the future to read what those four options are and to be assured that the steering group will propose recommendations that will be consulted on as part of a public consultation where people and organisations will be able to make observations, not just in terms of the recommendations but also the four options. I wish this process to be transparent and I wish as many people as possible to be engaged in it. But when I say that as many people as possible should be engaged in it, we should be doing more to reach out to those individuals, those families, those communities who, as I’ve repeatedly said, in the past, and still to this day, feel excluded from cultural activity for one or a number of reasons—whether it be psychological or physical, it doesn’t matter, too many people still do not feel that they are part of Wales’s culture. That needs to be addressed. The relevance of our institutions must be addressed—[Interruption.]

I thought you’d finished, Cabinet Secretary.

Sorry, just two more quick points. I do apologise for overrunning.

Cadw’s budget—if you look at last year’s budget rounds, you’ll see that Cadw’s budget, I believe, was reduced by more than the national museum, so in terms of marketing, it’s actually done more with less by driving up income and figures. In terms of St Fagans—oh, and I also believe that there are many contracts that the national museum has with external partners who carry out marketing functions and catering functions. So, it’s not as though everything is currently delivered by the museum itself. So, if there are already companies in the private sector that are carrying out some of the work on behalf of the museum, what would stop those companies or companies that operate on behalf of Cadw from actually doing it together—again, just joining up, making sure that we have efficiencies of scale? In terms of St Fagans, I hear what the Member said—I think it was Dai Lloyd who suggested that this operation could harm the St Fagans project. As the Member has suggested that, I am quite happy to carry out an investigation—an inquiry into the work that’s been conducted so far at St Fagans and an assessment of whether any move to create Historic Wales would impact on the scheduled completion of that project. I am absolutely certain that project will drive up numbers, as Bethan Jenkins says.

But in terms of visitor numbers, I think it’s also important not to set targets that are lower—future year targets—lower than what you are currently achieving, and I’m afraid, in the past, we have had just that from the museum. That must stop. I think David Rowlands is right, we do need to set more stretching targets—not just to get the same people repeatedly visiting our national institutions, but actually to get new people as well visiting national institutions.

And finally, Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

I won’t keep you for too long, Llywydd. I just wanted to ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that heritage doesn’t belong to the past, but it belongs to the future. We are talking here about institutions that mainly came into being—. That’s why they have royal charters—that was the only way to create national institutions during that pre-devolution period. We are talking about institutions that were established in the first part of the last century, and therefore I am entirely supportive of the Minister's vision, and I thank him for what he has done in Harlech, and Owain Glyndŵr agrees with me on that.

I cannot thank the Member more, and I would never, ever question his wisdom or his ideas. He is, to me, something of an Obi-Wan Kenobi to my slightly naive Skywalker. But in all seriousness, I think it is about protecting our heritage and protecting the institutions for the future, but ensuring that the institutions serve the people of Wales first and foremost, and that we do not take our eyes off the horizon.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary?

The next item on the agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on marking Remembrance Day and supporting our armed forces community. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. This time of year particularly reminds us of all those who have fought in conflicts to preserve the way of life we have today. This year we have commemorated some of the biggest battles of the first world war. We remember those who lost their lives at Jutland and during the battle of the Somme, especially in Mametz Wood. Thousands of Welsh servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice. Next year will mark the centenary of the battle of Passchendaele, one of the key battles of the first world war, which cost the lives of 70,000 British soldiers, many from Wales, including the poet Hedd Wyn.

We must not forget those who courageously gave their lives to protect the freedom we have today, and we will continue to commemorate them. I’m sure you will all be aware of the stunning Weeping Window of poppies at the Tower of London. This remarkable work of art will be on display at Caernarfon castle—the first venue in Wales to host the display—until 20 November. I encourage you all to visit it. Through the Cymru’n Cofio—Wales Remembers programme we will continue to mark significant first world war events.

The Welsh Government will continue to support Armed Forces Days in Wales. They give the people of Wales the opportunity to show their appreciation and gratitude to those currently serving and to ex-service personnel. Through our programme for government we remain committed to providing ongoing support and services to our present armed forces community. Since my last statement, in June, we have driven forward the armed forces agenda. I would like to update you on a number of initiatives we have created.

We have refreshed our package of support and have produced a separate guide for serving personnel and their families, called ‘Welcome to Wales’. Together, these documents set out the support available in Wales for both serving and ex-service personnel and their families. They were launched at our covenant conference in September, and were well received by our partners.

I’m committed to supporting vulnerable young adults, too. Welsh Government has provided £50,000 to the 160 Infantry Brigade and HQ Wales towards delivery of their armed forces employability pathway. This is aimed at giving young men and women an insight into the army, together with the civilian work-based vocational training to enable them to build their skills and confidence and gain qualifications and secure employment and apprenticeships. Llywydd, a good example of the pathway’s success is the story of a homeless young man from Merthyr, who often had to forage for food and sleep rough. This programme has helped him turn his life around and he is now on his way to forging a career with the Royal Logistic Corps.

The Supporting Service Children in Education Wales project continues to go from strength to strength. Digital stories and films have been developed to provide additional training for staff and raise awareness of the challenges faced by service children. The digital stories provide a unique insight into the life of armed forces children here in Wales. We are well aware that housing is one of the biggest challenges facing veterans and their families. We have consulted with our key partners to provide and develop a housing referral pathway. This will enable veterans and their families to make informed choices of an option most appropriate for them. I’ll be launching the pathway on 10 November.

Keep Safe Cymru for veterans is a good example of how working together has made a difference to the lives of those most vulnerable in our communities. Veterans with specific health needs, and who may need additional support from emergency services in times of crisis, can register their details with the police whose response will be modified accordingly. I’ll be launching this scheme on 23 November.

Llywydd, we frequently hear about the invaluable support provided by service families and spouses, many of whom have given up their own choices and opportunities in order to support their loved ones. There are times when they, too, need help and the opportunity to have their own career and develop their skills.

As I said earlier, our childcare offer will be helping working parents of three and four-year-olds by providing free early learning and childcare. The offer can give parents choices about their employment, how many hours they wish to work and the location. I’m delighted to tell you that D.J. Rees Decorating Services from Merthyr have been awarded a gold award in this year’s employer recognition scheme—the first in Wales for supporting and helping members of the armed forces community to find employment here in Wales.

Llywydd, we will continue to support the Veterans’ NHS Wales service. In the future, we’ll be looking to create a more seamless approach with our key partners such as CAIS and the Royal British Legion to afford our veterans the support that they need. We’ve come a long way, Llywydd, but there is more to do. In challenging times such as these, it’s important we move forward together, and with our key partners, we can make a difference for this community.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement in what is an important week and for many, a hugely emotional week and a week that we should all take time to stop, think and contemplate upon, bearing in mind that, often, the further back we look, the further forward we can see.

In your statement, you referred to the employability pathway, which, again, I welcome and it can be a critical issue. Data from Veterans’ NHS Wales show that only a third of the veterans assessed in 2014-15 described themselves as being employed either full-time or part-time. It’s also been found that only 52 per cent of early service leavers were in education, employment or training six months after leaving the armed forces.

In 2012, CTP Future Horizons was launched with the Ministry of Defence to help early service leavers, and after six months, 63 per cent were in employment or training. How, therefore, do you address the concern that, although there are resettlement centres in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Germany, there are currently none in Wales?

You referred to the Supporting Service Children in Education Wales project, however, in a related matter in Wales, there’s no separate pupil premium for children of service personnel, and where Welsh Government instead provides the pupil deprivation grant, it’s only available to children eligible for free school meals, to which few service children are entitled. In contrast, the service pupil premium in England provides extra funding for schools to support children and young people with parents in the armed forces. In evidence to the defence committee in 2013, service families felt that they’d been disadvantaged by the lack of a pupil premium until then, identified as an important tool in helping schools to identify and support service families. How, therefore, do you refer to this? It was an issue raised by the Royal British Legion in their 2016 Wales manifesto, and their call on the Welsh Government to implement a Welsh service pupil premium.

You referred to housing being one of the biggest challenges and the development of a housing referral pathway for ex-service personnel and their families. The pathway, I know, has been welcomed within the sector, but there are concerns—although it’s not published, I know it’s due publication imminently—that it just details in one place what someone is already entitled to or not entitled to without offering extra, and emphasises the need for the Welsh Government to ensure front-line housing staff receive training about that. I wonder if you could, again, respond to that concern.

You referred to Keep Safe Cymru for veterans and I welcome the fact that veterans with specific health needs can register their details with the police, whose response will be modified accordingly. You’re no doubt aware, and I had an update on this at the weekend in meetings, that CAIS, working with North Wales Police, introduced a custody suite form, which asks, ‘Are you a veteran?’ when people enter the custody suite. It’s now being rolled out, I understand, to Gwent. I wonder whether you’re engaged in discussions regarding that reaching all of Wales’s forces. Or have you got some good news to share with us to that effect?

At the end of your statement, you referred to the Veterans’ NHS Wales service. You might be aware, and I’m sure you are, that, further to my raising issues with you in July, I received a letter from the Welsh Government in August. This referred to the first appointment for those meeting the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder averaging 42 days, but in fact the waiting time that the Royal British Legion campaigned for in the UK Government election manifesto was 126 days—18 weeks—and the figures are outside the Welsh Government’s own 28-day target for a primary care service, where the 28-day target is referral to assessment only. The reality, I understand, is that the latest figures for last month show that waiting times in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, Betsi Cadwaladr and Aneurin Bevan health boards were up to 38 weeks for referral to treatment, which is what the concern had related to.

Are you drawing to a conclusion, please?

You refer at the very end to CAIS and, of course, they do some brilliant projects, Change Step, particularly. They also run Listen In for family support. The funding for that has ended. They are providing lower tier support within Change Step, but, again, given your reference at the end to providing veterans and their families with the support they need, how, if at all, is the Welsh Government engaging with CAIS to discuss how that gap in wider support for families can be provided for?

I thank the Member for his questions and his commitment to the armed forces. Obviously, devolution poses challenges, but also opportunities and it would be wrong for Mark Isherwood not to raise the good things that are happening in Wales that aren’t happening in England. He raised the issue of the pupil grant. I’m not going to shy away from the pupil deprivation grant in Wales; it’s a great enhancement to the educational attainment of our most vulnerable pupils and we should continue to fund that. Of course, I listened carefully to his concerns about the aspects of armed forces’ children here in Wales and the opportunities we present there. Supporting Service Children in Education Cymru is a programme that was established in 2014 by the Welsh Local Government Association with funding from the Ministry of Defence’s education support fund. We are learning from that programme. Indeed, in Brecon, in Kirsty Williams’s constituency, the Supporting Service Children in Education initiative has helped Nepalese families, as part of the Gurkha regiment, settle into school and the wider community. So, we do have some good practice here in Wales.

With regard to Veterans’ NHS Wales, we are proud of the work that we are engaged in. The veterans NHS service provides a dedicated veterans therapist in each of the health boards and it’s the only national service for veterans of this kind in the UK. The Member failed to mention that. We provide £585,000 per annum of funding to support Veterans’ NHS Wales and over 1,670 veterans have been referred to this service so far. I do recognise also the pressure in the system: I don’t deny that and there is more work to do, and I said that within the statement. But it would be wrong of us not to celebrate the good work that goes on in our communities, supporting individuals as we move forward. Indeed, the relationship with CAIS and the Royal British Legion is one that I welcome and will continue to engage with.

The Member made reference on several occasions to the Royal British Legion and their views on this. The Royal British Legion is part of my armed forces expert group, and I’m surprised that some of the points that the Member raises haven’t been raised directly with me by the Royal British Legion or other organisations in that respect. The Member says they have, but I can assure you that in the meeting that I had last time, none of the points that he raised here with me today was on the list that was raised with me.

I met with the expert group in July to determine our future priorities and how, by working together, we can deliver these. I think the expert group is a great opportunity for us to learn, to disseminate information and to understand the multi-agency membership of this group, where we can be well informed. Rather than the anecdotal evidence that Members sometimes produce, actually, I’m really interested to understand the facts and figures from the presentations that are brought to me by the armed forces and the support agencies around them.

I think the statement today from the Cabinet Secretary is a positive one and as I’ll say tomorrow during the Conservative debate, Plaid Cymru is supportive of the work that the Welsh Government is doing with veterans, provided that they are properly measured and the outcomes are transparent for us all to see. But there is a growing problem around Remembrance Day, and my questions today are going to focus on these issues and how the Welsh Government reacts to them.

We’ve all seen the furore over FIFA’s refusal to allow the home nations to wear poppy armbands for international games. None of this is helped by the fact that FIFA has shown itself to be corrupt to the core in recent times. But does the Cabinet Secretary believe that, despite the fact that this rule is in existence, the team should mark the commemorations in a different way, potentially by having a minute’s silence or, as we have done in other football matches—we’ve held up cards in support of the team—by holding up a picture of a poppy, as opposed to being potentially made a point by FIFA in relation to our efforts to reach Russia in that football tournament? I am at heart a rebel, but I think sometimes we need to obviously think about how our nation does in these circumstances, as opposed to potentially engaging in this political football that FIFA no doubt wants us to engage in.

It seems we cannot get anywhere near this date without fictitious stories of staged arguments with imaginary offended Muslims or other minorities who are claimed to stop poppy wearers in the street and demand their removal. The purpose of this is clear: the story is designed as some kind of commentary on how the country is being taken over, how British values are under threat. Anyone who lives with Muslims for neighbours knows this is not the case, but would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that this is little more than racism that is allowed to bleed out into the public arena on the grounds that it is somehow acceptable, and that it does nothing other than ascribe stereotypes on the basis of no evidence whatsoever?

Would he also agree with me that most people will approach Remembrance Day through the prism of their own personal experiences and values? We shouldn’t tell anybody what to do in this regard. For example, many people give because they support the idea of contributing to the care of veterans by the Royal British Legion and other charities in the sector. I myself gave my salary increase to a charity in my area, in Port Talbot, Step Change, which helps provide services for veterans with mental health problems, because they recognised that, sadly, waiting times are still an issue for those with mental health problems, and that families often get forgotten when their loved ones leave the military. Many of us choose not to wear a red poppy and wear a white poppy, or no poppy at all. It shouldn’t be for anybody to judge other people if we decide to commemorate and think about our history in our own individual ways. I use, again, the football analogy. I don’t often wear the Welsh top to a football match, but that does not mean that I’m not a fervent football fan, and I’m definitely a fervent nationalist. I think that’s how we have to see these things sometimes.

And does the Cabinet Secretary agree that it is unacceptable that we now have a political climate in which those that do something as small as wear a white poppy, or none at all, can find themselves vilified on the internet and then in a media that has lost all proportion on what we are there to mark—the still breathtaking loss of life—in favour of something altogether more political? Because I think, at the end of the day, we have to understand that, while we are commemorating those who have lost their lives, we should be commemorating everybody who has lost their lives due to war, in whatever circumstance, and in whatever way they are implicated. We should also be remembering those conscientious objectors who did take the stand to not engage in war, and who have also through history been criticised. Actually we should understand why they made those decisions and how they came to make those decisions, and not let that get lost in the debate around Armistice Day and the future of how wars may be conducted in our name. Thank you.

I thank the Member for her important contribution today and demonstrating her approach to the way she respects the armed forces and veterans, and remembers the people who have lost their lives in service, and also the families in that way, too.

A couple of points I’ll respond to: on the FIFA principle, I know the Member is an avid Welsh fan. I’ve seen her with my own eyes in a Welsh top, as with many other people in this Assembly, and long may that last. But I think the issue for me is that the great success in the UK is the power of freedom of speech, and I think if people wish to do this, they should be allowed to do that. And I certainly won’t be the one to condemn individuals if they wish to wear a poppy or they don’t wear a poppy. Respect is of the heart of the individual, and whether that’s by respecting somebody and commemorating Armistice Day and Sunday, whether that be within the confines of their own home or whether it be at the Cenotaph to take a moment of time, that is down to the individual and I fear that, often, we are too critical of each other in terms of the presentation of respect.

I share the Member’s views in terms of the overt way that people are criticising other faiths. I know many Muslim communities myself who have a lot of respect for the armed forces and the way that they go about this, but people do use this as a false pretence of racism, and we have to do everything we can in our power to stop that. The Member had some very strong views on many of these issues, and I’m grateful to her for bringing those to the Assembly’s attention today, but ultimately people will respect each other in the way that they feel fit, and long may that last.

Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, but actually Bethan Jenkins has already asked the question I was going to ask in terms of the issue around FIFA, and I think the Cabinet Secretary has responded to that. But, while I’m on my feet, I would like to just add my congratulations to D.J. Rees Decorating Services of Merthyr, which won the gold award for supporting the employability of our armed forces.

A very quick contribution, but a great press line for the Member. I also will pass on my congratulations again to D.J. Rees Decorating Services. They’ve done a tremendous job, actually. This isn’t easy, and they should be congratulated. I hope that you do visit them and pass my best regards on to them, too.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary spoke for us all when he said we must never forget those who courageously gave their lives to protect the freedoms that we have today. And this isn’t an occasion for making party political points, in my opinion, on the eve of Remembrance Day, and if we are, from time to time, constructively critical of the Cabinet Secretary, it’s only because we’re trying to help him do his job even better than he does already. And we know his heart is in the right place.

One of the great privileges I’ve had in the short time I’ve been in this place was to go on behalf of the Assembly to the commemorations in Mametz Wood a few months ago, which was a very affecting occasion. I would like to commend the Government for the many initiatives that they’ve taken, and which are enumerated in the statement: the package of support and the various other things, like the armed forces employability pathway and Supporting Service Children in Education Wales in particular. It’s very important that we help service families and those who are ex-service, particularly, to reintegrate into civil society. They often have very specific difficulties to cope with and need a lot of official help. So, I don’t propose to make cavilling points of criticism about the extent to which any of these packages may be improved on this occasion; I’m sure there’ll be plenty of other opportunities for us to that.

I would just like to draw attention also to the housing issue. Again, 25 per cent of all the individual cases that the Royal British Legion gets are related to housing problems, and it is a national disgrace, I think, not just in Wales but in the United Kingdom, that there are 8,000 veterans who are homeless at this moment and not properly catered for. I very much look forward to hearing the details of the health referral pathway on 10 November. Presumably there’ll be another statement where we can explore the details of that, because one of the problems that servicepeople have is that there’s very often a great deal of uncertainty about the content of their entitlements under local housing allocation policies and, perhaps, his pathway statement will throw some light upon that.

There’s only one issue that I would like to raise, because it hasn’t been raised hitherto, and that’s in respect of social care costs for injured veterans. The Cabinet Secretary will be well aware of the discrimination against those with pre-2005 injuries, as opposed to those afterwards in relation to the disregards of social care costs. I know that the Government has made great strides to improve the situation by raising the disregard from £10 to £25. But there is a particular injustice, I think, in as much as also this personnel, in comparison with the civilian pensioners, are at a disadvantage, because civilian pensioners can invest their compensation awards in a trust fund, which is fully disregarded. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary might give us some reflection on that, but, otherwise, that’s all I propose to say this afternoon.

I’m grateful for the comments of the Member, and, of course, I think we can come together on many of these issues, like the commemoration, as we have in front of us today. In regard to some of the detail of his question, he’s right in saying that I will be launching the housing pathway on 10 November, and more details will follow. We’re finalising the development of a pathway consultation with our key partners, predominantly from the expert group, the panel that understand these issues that veterans and families require, and I’ll make a statement or a written statement to the Chamber appropriately.

It must go without saying, though, that I think for far too long the armed forces—the Government, the armed forces. Once service personnel leave the acquaintance of the armed forces, it troubles me that, actually, we set them on a journey of, often, failure. I think, actually, once you sign up to be a service person, you should have a much longer–lasting relationship with that, post service. Because we pick up the pieces; communities pick up the pieces of the effects of trauma through war or through other issues experienced. My family have all served in the armed forces, and, for the two elections prior to this one, my brother served in Iraq—he left in the final week of preparation for the election—which was very traumatic for his family, but for all of the family. Fortunately, he was one that was lucky and came back, but it does have an effect longer term, and I think we should have a longer-term relationship with the armed forces, and that’s something I’m very keen to take up with UK Ministers in that respect.

The issue of social care costs, I think I’m correct in saying—if I’m not, the Minister will correct me by letter, but I understand, from April of next year, we will be introducing a full disregard for armed forces here in Wales. So, it’s something that I hope, again, the Member will welcome. There are many discrepancies; indeed, as a Member, I’ve got an issue with the war widows pension. When a widower remarries, they lose their war pension. I think there’s an equality issue here, and I think it’s something, long term, the UK Government should address too.

I think today has been a really useful opportunity to express, across the Chamber, our commitment to the armed forces and families here in Wales. There are challenges in the system and we must continue to strive to make that better, and I hope that, in the non-partisan way that we have been able to have this discussion this afternoon, we can continue to embed a better quality service for people who have put themselves and their families on the line for us and many prior to this. Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

I have been informed by the leader of the house that she wishes to move a procedural motion under Standing Order 12.32 to postpone the next statement to another day. I call on the leader of the house to move the procedural motion—Jane Hutt.

Formally move.

Thank you. Does any Member wish to speak to the procedural motion? The proposal is to postpone the next item of business. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, that item of business is postponed to another day.

That concludes today’s business. Thank you.