National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

Our clerk and chief executive, Claire Clancy, will retire this month, and this is her penultimate Plenary. She has served in the office for more than 10 years, and this will be Plenary No. 643 for her. To acknowledge the value of her contribution, I will invite comments from party leaders. Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I can say that there are few benefits to ageing, but one of the pleasures of serving as a founder Member of the Assembly is having seen the institution grow and develop over nearly 20 years. And, having served for 10 years, Claire has provided leadership for more than half of the National Assembly’s existence, but she will leave, of course, a significant imprint behind.

The post Claire took up in February 2007 was very directly the product of the Government of Wales Act 2006. A key element of that Act, of course, was to separate the National Assembly and the Government—the legislature, of course, from the Executive. It took us forward; it was an important step, in fact, in our maturity as a democracy. And, of course, behind it lay a great deal of work in setting up the Commission and tooling it to do the job that it required. And that will be Claire’s lasting legacy to the Assembly. She supervised the transformation of the Assembly from a somewhat ad hoc body into a pillar of Wales’s democracy, capable of operating as a professional scrutiny body, in both Welsh and English.

We know that security, sadly, is an area where we’ve seen great change during the years of Claire’s stewardship. Working with the police, and her wider team, she has, of course, helped to respond to the changing security environment, while succeeding in retaining the Assembly that is open to the public, literally as well as morally.

I know, Claire, that your stewardship and your role is the culmination of a long career of public service in Wales. Before coming here, you were the chief executive of Companies House. Before that, of course, a long career in skills and training in Wales, at the Manpower Services Commission, and elsewhere. And I know that, in the 1990s, Claire spent two years on St Helena, supporting her late husband, Mike, who is very well and fondly remembered by his former colleagues in the Welsh civil service.

We know, as Members of this Assembly, that we look to the Commission to give us the support and infrastructure we need to do the jobs that our voters sent us here to do. So, could I thank Claire for all that she has done, and, of course, wish her every success and happiness in the future? [Applause.]

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I’d like to place on record our gratitude to Claire Clancy for having served the National Assembly for 10 years. She’s been a constant source of support and guidance for all Members, across the Chamber. And, alongside the current and previous Presiding Officers, she’s developed and improved the Assembly since 2007—a period of significant change in how laws are made in Wales.

We’ve seen a growth in the responsibilities of this Assembly. There’s also been a growth in voter turnout, public engagement and public support, and Claire Clancy has played a leading role in all of those developments. I’m confident that Welsh democracy will develop much further in the future, and that that will be possible because of the contribution that Claire has made to date.

So, diolch yn fawr iawn, Claire, and best wishes to you for the future.

I well remember the first time I walked into this Chamber, in 2007, and Claire was the other side, there, to take the oath of office for newly elected Members. I didn’t realise the mosaic in front of us here—the Heart of Wales—was there; I just set my eyes on the clerk of the Assembly and walked straight across the mosaic, and sent the fear of God into the clerk. I was, at that stage, about 15.5 stone, so it didn’t crack; if I did walk across it now, it might cause a problem.

But, from that day forth, I have come, over the 10 years, as my group has come, to appreciate the advice, the support, and the continuity of that support and advice that you’ve given us as a group, but to the Assembly as a whole. And the Assembly, in that 10 years, has grown in stature to be a Parliament, and a Parliament with legislative and, now, tax-raising responsibilities. And that is in no small part due to the contribution that you have made as the clerk of the Assembly and the chief adviser to the Presiding Officer.

I do thank you for all the support you have given us. I do wish you well, and your family, in retirement. I hope it will not be the last time we see you and that you do come back, on many occasions, to see how we develop over the coming years. But, it has been a privilege and it has been a pleasure, and, on behalf of the Welsh Conservative group, I thank you most sincerely for all the time, effort and support you have given us all. Thank you. [Applause.]

Well, Llywydd, it’s always a pleasure to make a non-controversial speech that is going to command agreement around the Assembly, and to agree with everything that’s been said by all previous speakers so far today. I speak from a completely different perspective, as somebody who is wholly new to this institution, and, indeed, all my group members are in the same position. And we have been enormously the beneficiaries of the quiet efficiency of the clerk’s department, which you’ve presided over with such grace, charm, intelligence and ability. And, without the clerks in any parliamentary institution, of course, it would never be able to function properly. In fact, there are many outside who would probably say that it’s the only part that does function properly. And I’ve seen this, of course, at Westminster as well, where I think the permanent staff are a standing rebuke to all us elected members, in the way in which they conduct themselves and in which they perform their functions.

And so, I would also like to thank you personally for all the help that you’ve given me in the year, now, that I’ve been a member of this place, and I’ve grown to appreciate how important you have been in the development of the Welsh Assembly, and your inheritance will, of course, survive you. We hope that you will have a long, happy and vigorous retirement, and that, as Andrew R.T. has just said, you will come back and visit us as often as you can. Thank you.

And the former Presiding Officer, Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Claire Clancy has filled the post of chief executive and clerk of the Assembly in a dignified and warm way. It is most appropriate for us to pay a worthy tribute to her today, as she has done more than achieve the commitments she made upon appointment, and that feels like yesterday to me, although it was 10 years ago. Through her service to this Assembly, she has also provided exemplary services to the people of Wales and to democracy. It’s no easy task to be chief executive of a democratic body, working with disparate and varied elected Members. Keeping the balance is quite a task in an institution that exists in order to represent different views and to hold the Executive to account.

The greatest resource of any organisation is the character of the people who work within it. Claire’s greatest achievement was to focus on developing the talents all who work here, showing the same respect to all, whatever their role may have been. There is more than one way of providing and showing leadership, and, in my view, Claire’s leadership has been exemplary. Through all the changes that we’ve seen in the constitution of Wales and this Assembly since 2007, Claire has provided firm, balanced, true and person-centred leadership. I wish her a happy and contented retirement from this post that she undertook with such grace. I also hope that she will continue to contribute to public life in Wales and in the United Kingdom in some other way.

A word of gratitude from me to close. It has been a true pleasure for me, over the past 10 months, to collaborate with Claire as clerk, as chief executive and as Claire—the three in one. What springs immediately to mind when one thinks of Claire is her wisdom, her firm and friendly leadership of her staff, and her willingness to laugh. There is also her ambition for this Assembly, this Senedd, and her ambition for all who have been elected to serve the people of Wales in this place. In all the work that has been achieved by Claire, she did it all whilst upholding the highest possible standards of service in a public office. I am sure that that will be her legacy to us as she departs—that we should be wise, that we should be ambitious and innovative, and that we should do that in word and deed with the highest possible standards of public service to our nation and to secure the good reputation of this Senedd in perpetuity. So, best wishes to you, Claire, and I thank you on behalf of us all. [Applause.]

And that brings us to the first item on our agenda, namely questions to the First Minister. The first question is from Lynne Neagle.

Yes. We’re committed to continuing to improve child health in Wales. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ included a commitment to implement our Healthy Child Wales programme, which was launched last October. That programme includes a range of preventative and early intervention measures to help parents and children make healthy lifestyle choices.

Thank you, First Minister. Recent reports by the Chief Medical Officer for Wales and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health had very hard-hitting messages about the impact of poverty and inequality on child health. Will the First Minister outline what steps the Welsh Government is taking to improve outcomes for children from poorer backgrounds in Wales, and what assurances can you give that tackling the impact of poverty on child health will be a top priority for this Government?

Absolutely, it’s a priority for us. In terms of closing the attainment gap we’ve seen, that gap has been closing. We’ve seen, of course, the pupil deprivation grant and the way that has worked for the benefit of so many young people. We’ve seen the foundation phase and the benefits that gives to children in terms of developing skills early that will stand them in good stead for the future. Of course, we always look to see how we can improve outcomes for children in the future, and that is being considered across the Government at the moment as part of our commitment to prosperity for all.

May I also refer to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in Wales? There are 39 recommendations contained here, and the First Minister would do well to consider the report and to reflect on the recommendations as an agenda to tackle the issue of child and adolescent health in Wales. Among the recommendations on one key area in this context, of course, is the additional risk to a child’s health when someone smokes during pregnancy. We know of the impact that that has, in a number of ways, on the development and growth of a child, the risk of stillbirth and the risk of low birth weight, and so on. There are data on the numbers that smoke during pregnancy in England and Scotland, but, for Wales, the data aren’t perhaps as robust as they should be, because we rely on self-reporting from pregnant mothers when it comes to gathering the data. Can I ask you, therefore, what intention the Government has to look at the need to gather more robust data in that area, because how can we know what needs to be done unless we can be sure of the scale of the problem?

Well, we are developing a new child health plan at the moment, and that will look at the priorities that we should pursue and those that the health service should also follow. As part of that, we must ensure that the data that we have are robust, and this will be considered during the development of that plan.

First Minister, will you agree with me that one of the ways to improve child health is to ensure proper access to school nurses across Wales? Will he congratulate the school nursing workforce that we have here in Wales that do an excellent job in terms of immunisation and public health messages in our schools, and, in particular, the unique Judith Jerwood in your own constituency, who serves in Bryntirion Comprehensive School, where they have a unique model of school nursing, which, I believe, we ought to see more frequently in high schools across Wales? You’ll be aware that the school nursing service there is one that is employed by the school itself, and one that gives advice on all range of subjects, not just to the pupils, but also to the staff and, indeed, their families.

It’s a very good example of good practice. I can almost see the school from where I live; it’s very, very close to me. We know that the school nurses do an excellent job. We know, for example—the Member mentions immunisation—that our childhood immunisation rates remain at the top of international benchmarks. We know that, in 2016-17, the childhood flu immunisation programme was extended as well to include all children aged two to seven years of age. It’s an excellent model that’s in place in Bryntirion and one that I would encourage other schools to look at.

First Minister, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health’s 2017 report, ‘State of Child Health’, highlighted the need for safe places for children to play in order to tackle the quarter of the child population in Wales who start primary school obese. What is your Government doing to ensure that young people have access to open spaces and play areas, and what actions are you taking to ensure that every new development provides safe areas for children to play?

In new housing developments, we would expect local authorities to provide those open areas—and I’ve seen them, not just in my own part of the world, but across Wales. Where new houses are built, there is space for children to play, there are often facilities for children to play on as well, and cycle paths, which are increasingly included as part of developments, as they should be. The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 is part of the process of ensuring that cycling is seen as something completely normal in terms of the provision of cycling facilities in new developments in the future. That is certainly much in advance of the situation that previously existed, where housing developments were built and no provision was made at all for either open spaces or, indeed, for facilities for children to play.

A cross-border protocol is in place to ensure relevant patients have access to appropriate services, and all associated matters are handled in an agreed and consistent manner.

First Minister, you will be aware of the ongoing Future Fit process on the future of emergency healthcare services for patients in Shropshire and mid Wales. It’s important for my constituents that emergency services are based in Shrewsbury. To date, the Welsh Government hasn’t taken a public position in this regard. Can I ask what prevents you from taking a view on this matter and making strong representations to the NHS Future Fit programme board on behalf of mid Wales’s residents? Will you take a position?

Geographically, Shrewsbury is closer, and so we would prefer services to be based in Shrewsbury. But it’s important to ensure that services are safe and sustainable, which is something, of course, that we’ve had to deal with ourselves. I know, for example, with ophthalmology and neurology, that the health board—Powys, that is—has secured alternative provision for ophthalmology services through an organisation called The Practice, which does include community outreach clinics within Powys. But clearly, from our perspective, we would wish to see services that are accessed by Welsh people in England as close to those Welsh patients as possible.

First Minister, today we learn that there has been a 16 per cent increase in the number of junior doctors choosing to come to or stay in Wales to train to become GPs. Across the Welsh NHS, waiting times are going down; average response times to emergency calls are now less than five minutes; the British Heart Foundation described Wales as a world leader in cardiac rehabilitation; there’s improvement in cancer performance, with the number of patients treated now 40 per cent higher than five years ago; and for the fourth successive month we are getting people home from hospital faster. First Minister, in England the proportion of patients being treated or discharged in time fell below 78 per cent, with nearly half of hospitals declaring—

You do need to come to a question.

[Continues.]—major alerts because of a shortage of beds. What message do you have for the men and women who work in the national health service and have had to endure the Tories’ attempts to denigrate the Welsh NHS over the last few years?

Well, we all saw what the Tories did in 2015, but the Member makes a robust and comprehensive case that shows the progress that the Welsh NHS has made. Today we see that more GP training places are being filled and it shows that the Welsh NHS is seen as a good place to work, and that good progress will continue in the future.

At the same time as fulfilling a genuine need, cross-border healthcare co-operation can also serve to mask the shortage of specialist clinical staff in Wales, which has been caused by the failure of Government to train sufficient clinicians. When are you going to review the number of self-standing organisations within the Welsh NHS, which receive tens of millions a year, with a view to reducing them so you can spend more on specialist clinicians for Wales itself?

If we look at a rural authority like Powys, it’s inevitable that an authority like Powys will access specialist services from England. Geographically, it makes sense for people who live in large areas of Powys. In fact, there are specialist services in England that rely on Powys patients in order to be sustainable. Accident and emergency in Hereford is an example of that; without patients coming from eastern Breconshire particularly, the numbers going through Hereford’s A&E would cause questions to be asked about the sustainability of the service in Hereford. So, no; from my perspective, the last thing I want to see is any kind of wall come down between Wales and England in terms of healthcare. We know as well that 25,000 people cross the border the other way, to get A&E services in Wales. That’s why, of course, we have a robust protocol in place to ensure that services are available to people on both sides of the border.

I now call for questions from the party leaders. Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First Minister, why did the Welsh Government decide last week to sack the chair of Sport Wales given that, upon his appointment, the then incoming chairman was told by the Welsh Government representative that he was entering a toxic environment and that he was tasked with tackling a dysfunctional and insular organisation? Does all your Government agree that sacking this chairman was the right reproach?

First of all, can I say that Sport Wales was facing great difficulties? That much is true. There is an independent review of Sport Wales, which is continuing at this moment in time, but it was quite clear that the relationship between the chair and the board and the vice-chair had broken down and therefore action had to be taken in order that the organisation could be rebuilt.

I am told that the review has been concluded, First Minister, and, on 13 February, the Welsh Government’s deputy permanent secretary, James Price, dismissed all the allegations made against the then chair and offered him three options to move the situation forward, all of which saw him continuing his involvement in some shape or form within Sport Wales. What happened in the very short intervening period, which altered this situation and resulted in the sacking of Paul Thomas?

Well, as is known, on 14 February the Minister made a statement to Assembly Members on the headline findings of the review. One of those findings was that a clash of cultures had developed between the chair and other board members. It was clear that action needed to be taken in order for the board to become fully functional in the future.

I have the letter here—it is in the public domain, so you can comment on it—that was sent to James Price at the beginning of March that clearly itemises the allegations that were made against the chair and how those allegations were rebuked. There are some very serious allegations levelled against the previous chair and also the current chief executive of Sport Wales. Sport Wales handles a considerable amount of public money and has a remit to improve elite sport and participation sport around Wales.

I would be interested to hear how the Welsh Government will take forward the allegations and investigate the allegations against the previous chair, and also the current chief executive, as the allegations warrant answers, and above all to make sure that Sport Wales is able to get on with its day-to-day functions. But I do reiterate: the Welsh Government told the new chair, Paul Thomas, on taking up office, that he was entering a toxic environment and that he was tasked with tackling a dysfunctional and insular organisation. I do ask once again: does the entire Government agree with the dismissal of Paul Thomas?

The answer to the question is ‘yes’. The Government has taken a view on this. It is quite clear that the organisation remained dysfunctional and that the relationship had completely broken down between the chair and the board. In those circumstances, no organisation could possibly be expected to deliver what it should do in the future. We know that all organisations need to adapt to changing circumstances and the independent review of Sport Wales’s operations is continuing, but it was quite clear that Sport Wales could not continue with the dysfunction that still remained in the organisation and the Minister took the decision that the best way forward was to take the action that was taken in order to make sure that Sport Wales is effective in the future.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the proposed job cuts at the University of South Wales are of great concern, and I’m sure you share that concern. The plan is to cut 139 jobs to deal with rising costs and various other challenges. The University of Wales Trinity Saint David is also looking to downsize its workforce. I’d like to place on record mine and Plaid Cymru’s support for the roles both of those institutions play in our society. But I am concerned about the situation that those institutions are facing and about the prospect of losing what are well-paid jobs. What discussions has your Government held since the two sets of redundancies were proposed? Were the universities’ strategies shared with you and are you satisfied with the explanations they’ve given for these changes?

I’ve not seen any explanations for these changes at this moment in time. I am aware of the situation, however, at those institutions. We expect there to be a period of consultation and that staff and unions are kept informed at all stages in the process. One of the issues that concerns me is that we are seeing a drop in applications, particularly from students from abroad. We know that applications through UCAS to Welsh universities from EU countries, for example, decreased by 8 per cent between 2016 and 2017. The fewer the students there are, the less money there is and the less money there is to pay staff, and that concerns me.

As a former student at Treforest, I know how important this institution is for the Valleys. It’s always played a leading role in upskilling people to do the work that our local economies need doing. Now, there are demographic challenges, which you’ve alluded to, and rising costs facing that university, but I don't think that should mean that we should lose the positive economic impact that the institution generates. Plaid Cymru also believes that the University of Wales Trinity Saint David plays a vital role in the west as well. The proposals are for a 4.6 per cent reduction in staff at USW and the figure for Trinity Saint David is yet to be confirmed. I've had contradictory information on these job losses. On the one hand, we were told that many of the roles at risk will be managers, but from the trade union, I've been told that the roles to be cut could include jobs in IT, library staff and student services as well. Do you think, First Minister, that these job losses are normal housekeeping or are they a sign that these two universities are facing a difficult future?

I’ve not seen anything on this scale since I was in university myself in the 1980s, and that is concerning. It's also correct to say that it’s not quite clear what sorts of jobs would be lost. That’s why, of course, we expect there to be that period of consultation, so that there is greater clarity from both institutions about what they are proposing. But I am concerned—I don't know whether this is correct or not, but I have the figures in front of me—as to whether the drop-off of applications, not just from the EU countries, but other countries as well, is having an effect on those universities’ income, which would be, from our perspective, as a country that welcomes students, something to greatly regret.

Both the institutions are feeling the pinch as well from the decision taken to lift the universities admission cap in England. We know that the situation around European and international student recruitment remains volatile and is likely to be for some time, but the responsibility to navigate through these difficult waters falls to us here in Wales, and it’s you, First Minister, who has overall responsibility for protecting our higher education sector. So, what will the Welsh Government do to support our universities? How will you help to protect these jobs and ensure that there’s no impact in the longer term upon courses? Do you intend to carry on as business as usual or are you going to step in and provide support and guidance to Welsh universities so that they can continue to do the good job that they do, serving our economy and our country?

We’ve provided more money for higher education, but it's about more than that. It's about making sure that Wales is still seen as a place where students from abroad want to come to. That is a point I've been making very strongly whenever I've gone abroad and, indeed, when ambassadors have come to visit us here in Wales. That is hugely important. We also finance schemes, for example, like Sêr Cymru. Sêr Cymru is a way of bringing in the top academics into Wales, attracting, then, the best students as well. That helps with the sustainability of universities. Some universities themselves have invested heavily in capital programmes to improve, or indeed build new campuses, which again are hugely important in terms of attracting in students. But what we don't know at this moment in time is what effect Brexit will have—we've seen some figures already on EU students applying to Welsh universities and, of course, students from other countries such as India, where there's been a significant drop-off of numbers over the past few years—and what effect that will have on the sustainability of our universities. That is something that is yet to be fully seen in terms of the impact.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. It's inevitable, I suppose, a certain amount of posturing takes place at the beginning of any negotiation and the current Brexit negotiations with the EU is no exception to that. The First Minister wants to play a direct role in these negotiations and there is, in fact, a useful role that he can play. He could write to Chancellor Merkel, for example, to say it’s a mistake on their part to disconnect the trade talks from the other issues that haven't been decided, such as EU citizens’ rights in this country and vice versa, and also the question of the dowry that the EU apparently wants the British taxpayer to stump up, which may be as much as £60 billion, which is a bit rich considering we've paid them £500 billion in the last 40 years.

Secondly, there is the other development in relation to Spain and Gibraltar, where it seems that the EU is trying to use Gibraltar as a bargaining chip to try to get a better deal from us. Given that the question of sovereignty in Gibraltar has been decisively settled by referendum, where nearly every single resident of Gibraltar voted to retain its links with Britain, will he write to the Prime Minister of Spain and also to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar supporting the Gibraltarians’ right to self-determination, which is guaranteed by article 1 of the UN charter?

Well, firstly, it’s right to say that there’s a lot of posturing, that much is true, and there are issues that still need to be worked through. But the important thing is to discuss the start as soon as possible and that the future of EU citizens all around the UK and UK citizens in the EU is resolved as quickly as possible. I do think there’s been a significant amount of hysterical reporting on some of these issues. It was said that the UK was using defence and security as a bargaining chip. That’s not the way I read the Prime Minister’s comments last week, in fairness. It’s also said that Spain is trying to use Gibraltar. I don’t believe that either. Spain, in fact, has been very quiet on the issue of Gibraltar. It was just one clause that appeared in the Commission’s negotiating document. That has more to do with not sovereignty, but Gibraltar’s status as a tax haven and how that would affect the border with Spain in the future. So, I see nothing malevolent in this. There are issues wherever there are tax havens that need to be resolved when there is a land border with that tax haven.

It’s absolutely clear that the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British and that’s what should happen. That was a decision of a referendum. They also voted 95 per cent to remain in the EU. That’s not going to happen. When I met with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, he was quite clear that the last thing Gibraltar wanted was the closure of the border. It would be disastrous for the economy of Gibraltar. Some 15,000 people cross that border every day. So, it is in the interest of both Spain and Gibraltar that that border stays open, but of course there will need to be a consideration of what effect Gibraltar’s tax status has on the European market, which I’m sure can be resolved.

Well, it’s certainly true that it’s in the interests of both countries—Spain and Gibraltar—for that border to remain open because 40 per cent of the jobs in Gibraltar are filled by people who live in Spain. Given that the rate of unemployment in Andalusia is 30 per cent and in Gibraltar is 1 per cent then it’s massively in Spain’s interest to respect the existing status of Gibraltar and, indeed, its status as a tax haven for that matter as well. So, I’ll repeat my question to the First Minister: will he write to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and to the Prime Minister of Spain supporting the Gibraltarians’ case, both in relation to sovereignty and to their freedom to set what tax rates they want in respect of the trade that is actually conducted within the territory of Gibraltar?

In fairness, the Prime Minister of Spain has not actually laid claim to Gibraltar or indeed commented at all on the issue of Gibraltar. The issue has come from the Commission not from Spain itself. I reiterate what I’ve just said: it is a matter for the people of Gibraltar how they choose what relationships they choose to have. They have voted overwhelmingly to stay British and that’s exactly what should happen. Nowhere should be forced to transfer to another country against the wishes of its population. That’s true of any country in my view. I’ve already met with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. I will be meeting with him in the next few weeks. I’m happy to reiterate that point to him. In the discussions we’ve had, it’s Gibraltar’s concern about what Brexit might mean for their own trade situation and their border, that is what Gibraltar’s been most concerned about, certainly as we look forward over the next two years.

I agree with the First Minister. He’s absolutely right: the border is of critical importance to Gibraltar. But it’s not as though we have no bargaining chips in our hand in this respect. If indeed it is the case that Spain has put its claim to Gibraltar’s sovereignty on ice and is prepared to live with Gibraltar, that’s well and good. But the idea that the European Commission suddenly produced this proposal in a letter without discussion with the Prime Minister of Spain is fundamentally absurd. Clearly, this is something that has been decided in the Council of Ministers between the Commission and in particular the Prime Minister of Spain. It is vitally important for southern Spain as well as for Gibraltar that there should be no interference from Spain in the economic life of Gibraltar at all. I think, given that the First Minister was a strong supporter of remain and, indeed, Gibraltar itself and the people of Gibraltar were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU, I think this is where he can play a significant role in trying to persuade the EU authorities of the good sense of coming to sensible agreements with Britain in the interest of us all.

Well, I’ve never had three questions on Gibraltar, I have to say. I’m not responsible in terms of my devolved powers for Gibraltar, but we do have a relationship with Gibraltar. As I said, I’ve had meetings with the Chief Minister and I’ll continue to have meetings with the Chief Minister in the future, as Gibraltar is in a similar situation to, for example, Northern Ireland, although it’s very different in the sense that Gibraltar is outside the customs union and it has its own arrangements in terms of tax. But what is absolutely clear is that when Brexit happens there must be no destabilisation either of the area around the border on the Spanish side or, indeed, of Gibraltar itself. I’d expect that to be examined as part of the negotiations. I would not expect nor would I support there to be any negotiations about future sovereignty over Gibraltar; that matter is settled.

We have a projected spend of over £700 million on improving and adding to our existing road infrastructure across Wales. That’s in addition to funding held in reserves for the M4 project.

Thank you, First Minister. The public inquiry into the M4 and the route decided on by the Welsh Government is well under way. The Welsh Government’s original published proposals for the M4 black route also included de-motorwaying the existing stretch of motorway between Magor and Castleton, with the possible creation of cycle lanes, bus lanes and speed restrictions. Is this still the Welsh Government’s intention and is this being considered by the public inquiry, given that de-motorwaying could itself have a negative impact on journey times for many of my constituents, many of whom would still continue to rely on the existing piece of road, regardless of whether or not the black route is chosen?

Given that there’s a public inquiry ongoing, it wouldn’t be wise for me to comment on that. However, the Welsh Government’s evidence is of course public and open to examination. It’s hugely important that the inquiry is able to consider all evidence before making a recommendation.

Anyone who regularly travels between north and south knows that it’s not a pleasant experience to say the least. Unfortunately, the most practical way of travelling across Wales for very many people is by car, and there have been no significant improvements to the main road linking the north and south of our country since the days of Ieuan Wyn as Deputy First Minister. What work is being done by your Government to analyse which improvements are needed to the A470 in order to improve this key transport route that links our nation? If the answer is ‘none’ or ‘not much’, will you commit to carrying out this study and to cost any improvements required in full? I would be willing to bet that we are talking about a relatively small sum compared with the investment intended for the M4.

Nid wyf yn derbyn yr awgrym mai dim ond y car sydd ar gael; mae’r gwasanaeth trên wedi gwella ers amser—ers blynyddoedd. Ar un adeg, pan ddechreuodd y lle hwn, nid oedd yn bosibl mynd o’r gogledd i’r de ar y trên; roedd yn rhaid newid yn yr Amwythig. Nid oedd modd mynd lan heb newid trenau. Mae hynny wedi newid; mae trên nawr bob dwy awr yn mynd i lawr. Mae’r awyren, wrth gwrs, yn mynd lawr hefyd ddwywaith y dydd a lan ddwywaith y dydd. Ac hefyd ynglŷn â’r A470, fe welsom ni bethau yn gwella o ran ffordd osgoi Cwmbach-Llechryd ym Maesyfed a’r newidiadau a ddigwyddodd yn Christmas Pitch yn sir Frycheiniog, Dolwyddelan hefyd i Bont yr Afanc, a’r newidiadau yn ardal Cross Foxes ar yr A470. So, rydym wedi gweld gwelliannau sylweddol ar yr heol honno ers blynyddoedd. Ond mae yna gynllun gennym—cynllun ‘pinch-point’ os y gallaf ei alw’n hynny—er mwyn delio â rhai o’r problemau sy’n dal i fod yna. Wrth gwrs, i rywun fel minnau sydd yn dod lawr o’r gogledd o Gaernarfon trwy Machynlleth ac Aberystwyth i Ben-y-bont ar Ogwr, roedd yn bleser mawr i weld y gwelliannau hollbwysig yng Nglandyfi—rhan o’r heol a oedd yn beryglus dros ben am flynyddoedd mawr, ond mae’r heol nawr wedi cael ei gwella yn fawr iawn.

First Minister, yesterday’s report by the British Heart Foundation underlined the links between roads policy and health outcomes. The fact that 42 per cent of people in Wales are physically inactive, leading to long-term ill health and costs to the health service, is directly related to the decline in active travel over many years. When future roads are considered, will the First Minister make sure that interventions to encourage and prioritise public transport and to build cycle design into the road infrastructure are at the heart of considerations?

Yes. I cannot stand here and preach from a position of strength in terms of inactivity, I’m afraid, but what I can say is that the vision that was shown on what was the M4—what is now the A48 at Britton Ferry—in terms of the cycle route that exists over the bridge was incredibly visionary at the time. We’ve seen it rolled out, for example, at the Church Village bypass. When that was built, that had a cycle path running more or less alongside it, and we would expect that where new road schemes are in place that there should be an improvement in cycle routes as well, in order to provide people with a choice in terms of the way they travel, and not feel that they have to travel by car.

Yes. We are committed to ensuring safe and sustainable paediatric care delivered on the basis of the very best available clinical evidence and advice.

The First Minister will be aware of the limitations on paediatric care at Withybush hospital and I have a particularly distressing constituency case that has arisen, where a child was taken out of hours to Withybush in June 2016, in pain that was diagnosed wrongly as a urine infection, treatable by antibiotics. Next morning, the child was taken to A&E with something that was suspected to be appendicitis. The child was then rushed to Glangwili for an emergency operation for peritonitis. The same child, in January of this year, was again taken to the out-of-hours GP in Withybush with a fever. That was misdiagnosed as a virus. The child was then driven the following morning by the parents to Glangwili where the symptoms of scarlet fever were diagnosed, which was correct. I know that an individual case isn’t necessarily representative of everything, but given the out-of-hours limitations on paediatric care, if there had been a paediatric specialist in Withybush at the time that the child was taken to the hospital for the initial diagnosis, it’s perfectly possible, and indeed likely, that those errors might not have been made. So, can the First Minister tell us what the Government may be able to do in order to restore full 24-hour paediatric services at Withybush?

First of all, the situation that the Member’s described is a situation where I would expect the GP to make a diagnosis rather than a paediatric consultant being needed to do that. We’re talking here about an infection, or scarlet fever—a GP should be able to pick up on that. You wouldn’t need a consultant to diagnose that. There are changes that have taken place at Withybush—that much is true—at the paediatric ambulatory care unit. They are temporary, they’re not designed to be long term, and I know that the health board is working hard to resolve the issue and to reinstate the 12-hour service as soon as possible.

First Minister, when children leave hospital, particularly if they have a life-limiting condition of any kind, they’re still going to need medical and, of course, social care at home, and that will affect their carers and other children in the household. In July last year, the Minister said that the Government was refreshing the carers strategy at the end of last year and it is, as far as I can tell, still being currently refreshed in both January and March this year. If your priorities are young carers and carers’ respite, when can they see what you mean by that?

Well, we want to make sure that the strategy is right; that means taking into account as many views as possible in order for the strategy to be robust. The strategy will be published as soon as possible, once it’s felt that the strategy is one that can be presented to the people of Wales.

Yes. It’s met on four occasions and an outline delivery plan will be published in July, addressing three priorities: firstly jobs and skills; secondly, integrated and improved public services; and, thirdly, community and personal well-being. The plan is being shaped, of course, by feedback from the initial public engagement events.

First Minister, depressed wages and high unemployment have been blighting the Valleys for at least three decades, so the obvious question is: what’s taken you so long? Places like Maerdy and Treherbert are desperate for investment and well-paid jobs, and the commute to Treforest, or further afield from the Heads of the Valleys, is a joke. There were two trains cancelled this morning. If the city region and the Valleys taskforce prove to be yet more false dawns for these communities, there’s a risk that real damage will be done to this institution and to devolution, not just to your Government and the Labour Party. How do you intend, as head of this Government, to ensure that actions match the rhetoric and real benefits are delivered to the Valleys? And what will you do if another two or five or 10 years go by with no noticeable improvements in these communities?

Well, transport is key and that’s why the metro is so important. It takes an unacceptably long time at the moment to travel from Treherbert down to Cardiff. The service is also not seen as reliable and the leader of Plaid Cymru has given an example of that happening. From next year, we of course will specify the franchise. We’ve not had an opportunity to do that before. We will also be able to move forward with the metro, to have more convenient, more comfortable and more frequent services and also, of course, to connect the Rhondda Fach via bus services into Porth, for example, to make sure that bus services connect more frequently with the train services going through the Rhondda Fawr.

Now, that is one way of getting people to jobs in Cardiff, but it’s not just about that. We know that 11 million people go through Cardiff Central every year. It is about making sure that it’s easy to get from Cardiff up into the Valleys as well, so that investors don’t see the Valleys as being physically distant from Cardiff, which I’ve heard. They’re not, we know they’re not, but that’s the way, sometimes, they have been perceived and we want to make sure that we have a transport network that shows that our Valleys communities are able to attract more investment in the future, as well as people also being able to access employment wherever that might be.

First Minister, as has been highlighted, the Valleys taskforce is looking at areas of transport that you’ve identified, and, of course, there are Valleys to the west that don’t even get involved in the metro aspects. I’m very pleased to welcome that the taskforce is actually looking at all the Valleys, including those in the west, including the Afan valley, and I know that there’s been a meeting in that area. But tourism is important in the Afan valley, and it’s industries such as that that are going to drive the regeneration of those Valleys and the skills you’ve identified. Will you ensure that the taskforce looks at the development of those skills to ensure that local jobs for local people can happen through the tourism agenda?

Absolutely. We know that Afan Argoed has been a major driver for tourism at the top of the Afan valley. Glyncorrwg, of course, is seeing the benefits both of the fishing lakes and also cycling routes, and that is something we intend to develop further in the future. It’s hugely important as well that we don’t forget that transport links are important wherever the particular valley might be, and that means, when we get control of the buses next year, we’ll be able to look at how we can improve services in the Afan valley and on the buses as well. We know that trains went in 1970, but, certainly, it is an opportunity for us now to create an integrated transport system across Wales, not just in some parts of Wales, to benefit people who live in the Valleys.

First Minister, I’m told that, to date, there have been nine engagement events, five targeted events, and four further formal engagement events are planned, and the Cabinet Secretary has attended, or plans to attend, each and every one of these engagement events. Can you confirm that that is the case? I would ask how these views are being fed back in and possibly whether you could report back some of that feedback to the Welsh Assembly. And, if, indeed, Cabinet Secretaries are attending these events so regularly, I do commend that as very good practice.

Yes, that is the plan. It’s hugely important that people see these events as worth coming to, and, if they have Government Ministers at those events, I trust they will feel that that is the case. I think it’s right to say that, in the initial events, there was a great deal of frustration that people wanted to get off their chests, and that is inevitable. Now, what we’re finding is that people want to move on and see what can be done to improve their quality of life, whether it’s transferrable skills—we know that skills are hugely important across Wales. Skills are the key to raising GDP, and we know that unemployment is, on paper, less of an issue than it was, but GDP per head is still an issue, and that is something that we will focus on very sharply over the next five to 10 years and beyond.

The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015, sets out investment for transport and infrastructure and services for 2015-20 across all parts of Wales.

The south Wales metro gives us the opportunity to deliver real improvements in public transport services in the Valleys, and I welcome the First Minister’s answer last week about the importance of inter-Valley transport links.

At the moment, a return bus journey between Aberdare and Merthyr is £7. A train journey between Aberdare and Cardiff is £8—more than the hourly national living wage. How will the Welsh Government make sure that fares for the metro are set at an affordable level?

I can assure the Member that affordable fares are being considered as part of the procurement of the next rail services that we have and also the metro contract. We want to make sure that we see increased patronage, particularly at off-peak times and on services where patronage is currently low. We want to see discounts to the cost of travel for people working irregular work patterns or part-time hours, and, importantly, it’s hugely important that the system is integrated and has a ticketing system that has electronic ticketing and smart ticketing. That is something that is absolutely crucial to the development of the metro.

First Minister, in an announcement, they claim—here is the quote:

‘one of the most significant improvements to valleys commuters in a decade, since the opening of the Ebbw Vale line.’

Arriva Trains Wales revealed that they are to double the capacity of commuter trains in and out of Cardiff to deal with overcrowding. However, the Arriva contracts mean that it is trying to deal with rising passenger numbers with the same number of trains as they held in 2003. What discussions has the Welsh Government had with Arriva Trains to find ways of increasing the number of trains to provide services between Cardiff and the Valleys?

Well, it’s part of the franchise discussions that will take place next year. We want to make sure there are more trains and more comfortable trains on the network. For the first time, the Welsh Government will have control over these issues, and we intend to make sure that the network is improved and developed for the future.

I just want to speak up for the northern valleys of the Ogmore constituency. We have four valleys, many of which will benefit from better public transport in terms of faster buses, cheaper ticketing, joined-up ticketing, but particularly the Llynfi valley. I wonder: what is the view of the First Minister on the importance of the Maesteg to Cheltenham, as it now is, main line—or community line as it in in the Llynfi valley—in terms of south Wales metro? Because for many people in that valley and adjoining valleys, that is as integral to the Cardiff travel-to-work area as is Ebbw Vale or Merthyr or anywhere else. They believe they are part and parcel of the south Wales travel area, so what role do they play within the south Wales metro?

Hugely important. It was a great act of foresight by Mid Glamorgan, actually, in 1988, to open up that line to passenger traffic. At the moment, of course, it’s an hourly service with no Sunday service—well, that’s not something that in the long term we should be satisfied with. It’s important that we look to increase services on the line and look to see how that can be done, and, of course, to see what can be done to run a Sunday service, although it’s important that we understand what the patronage would be of that Sunday service. But I know full well that those trains are very, very well used. They now run later in the evening than they used to, which is one thing—I don’t spend my entire time looking at rail timetables, may I add, even though I may give that impression at times. But I do know that the service is hugely important to the people of the Llynfi valley, and we will look to enhance that service in the future.

Decisions on the location of branches are matters for the banks but we recognise the negative impact closures can have on communities. Whilst this is non-devolved, of course, we have welcomed the announcement that post offices will be able to provide services to fill some of the gaps left by bank branch closures. If that’s done properly, it may well enhance the service to bank users, rather than reduce the service.

NatWest has announced their closure across south Wales. We’ve heard of closures in the constituencies of Alun Davies, Lynne Neagle, Vikki Howells, and in my constituency, where Ystrad Mynach branch is closing—that comes on top of Barclays closing in Nelson—and NatWest did it without any consultation at all, as far as I’m aware, and I condemn that and I think that there should have been far better consultation than there was. I’m concerned about the impact on elderly and vulnerable people, people who don’t have access to internet banking, and also the message this shows to high streets where there are banks closing, branches closing, and we’re trying to regenerate the northern valleys and build our town centres, and the banks are doing the opposite, and I think it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You mentioned the Post Office: to what extent can you as a Welsh Government and we as Assembly Members ensure that people like the Post Office ensure that those services are properly available?

I’ve seen branch closures in my own constituency as well over the years. I know that, in even branches in Bridgend town itself, the patronage has dropped quite considerably because the reasons for people going to the bank are few in number now compared to years ago. Now, internet banking services are not of themselves a solution. As the Member rightly points out, there are people who either can’t or don’t feel comfortable using electronic services, and provision must be made for them. To my mind, if this is done properly and people can access the same services through the post office, that will give them access to a wide range of branches. It’ll also help with the sustainability of post offices, because I know that they receive a commission for providing those banking services, and the post offices do provide a way of ensuring that services continue for those people who use them.

I have been told by banks that there will be more closures at some point in the future—nothing specific, but it’s just the trend that they have seen thus far. HSBC were the last to resist that trend—they kept their branches open longer than most in some parts of Wales—but it’s absolutely crucial that services are not lost to people and that they are provided by the alternative means of the post office.

A statement by Lloyd’s Bank this week that they intend to shrink a number of bank branches is concerning in a number of ways, particularly in terms of the job cuts that that is bound to lead to, and the erosion in the face-to-face counter service available, but we could also take a positive view of the announcement in part, because what we seem to be seeing is the bank adapting in response to changes in customer habits, rather than taking the step, which has appeared far too easy for them in the past, to close branches. Does the First Minister agree with me that we should urge the banks to adapt rather than close, and that’s best for our high streets in Wales, and that we should seek to use all legislative and regulatory tools possible in order to urge them to do that?

I don’t believe that it’s possible to use legislation to change the situation, but I do agree with him that banks should think of every alternative apart from closure—that should be the very final option, rather than the first option, because, of course, the service is lost to the high street. If that’s not possible, then it’s crucial that the banks deal with the post office so the services can continue in the post office, but we wouldn’t wish to see the closure of branches as a priority for the banks.

First Minister, the NatWest bank, in the last 12 days, has also announced the closure of the Welshpool and Machynlleth branch in my constituency—two very major towns, of course, there, as well. As Hefin David has alluded to, they’ve done so without any public consultation whatsoever. Now, a public meeting was held last night in Welshpool in this regard, and the post office, as you have mentioned, was also discussed as a potential, but a lot of the issues there revolve around privacy and disability access. Is there actually capacity at the post offices, as well, in some particular locations? Now, as you said, I understand absolutely that this is, of course, an issue, ultimately, for the bank—it’s a commercial decision. I have previously raised—and had a fairly positive response from Ministers when calling for the Government to facilitate a discussion with the banks and the Financial Conduct Authority and other partners to explore a community banking model that would see banks share services. I wonder whether this would be something that you’d be willing to explore in more detail.

I will consider that. I’ll ask the Minister to write to the Member with regard to the proposals that he has made. What we don’t want to see is a loss of banking services completely in communities, and there is a danger that, where banks—particularly when they do this very quickly—decide to shut branches, sufficient provision isn’t made in the post offices—that they don’t leave a cash machine, for example, in a community, so people can’t get cash. I know that in Crickhowell, recently, one of the branches closed, but the ATM has remained, which provides some service for local people, although not all services. So, I will ask the Minister to write to the Member in that regard, particularly with regard to the suggestion he makes on community banking.

Yes. My most recent visits were to Brussels and Norway, and I plan to visit Gibraltar in the near future.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Does he have any plans to visit the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg to state Wales’s case for future investment by the bank in projects in Wales like Velindre hospital in my constituency and to put the case for the UK to continue as a subscribing partner after we leave the EU?

Yes, I can say that a senior-official-level delegation visited the EIB in Luxembourg in October to maintain direct dialogue. The vice-president of the EIB visited Cardiff for a number of meetings on 9 February. But we strongly advocate that the UK should remain a sponsoring partner of the EIB. It doesn’t cost anything to the UK; UK contributions loan money, so it’s repayable over the terms of those loans. There is no reason, at all, why, in leaving the UK, we cannot remain part of the EIB infrastructure.

Thank you, First Minister.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I have three changes to report to this week’s business. As promised last week, the First Minister intends to lead a debate this afternoon on the European Union. As such, I will move a motion to suspend the relevant Standing Orders to enable this to take place, which I hope you will support. I’ve also made some changes to the ordering of today’s oral statements. Finally, the debate on tackling poverty through the warm homes programme has been postponed. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

I wanted to ask a question with regard to whether the Welsh Government are able to make representations to the UK Government with regard to the potential deportation of a family—the Rebwah family—who are currently based in Swansea. There are two families who left Iraq in tragic circumstances. Two of the fathers froze to death on their way, and the mother died. One of the families have had—the orphaned children—a reprieve and they can stay for two and a half years. That has been confirmed as an emergency, so we do welcome that.

But the other children have not been allowed to stay, and they are Marwa, who is five years old, Dani, who is 11, and Mohammed, who is 12, along with their mother. They’re currently with their uncle, based in Swansea, who is Iraqi but now has British citizenship. He actually went over to the camp that they were in, in Bulgaria, and demanded that he would not leave until they were granted status to come with him to Swansea. So, they have absolutely nothing to go back to, because they were actually in a camp, having fled Iraq, at the worst of the war in Iraq.

I understand—of course I understand—the fact that we don’t have powers over immigration here, but this family have been put through such a traumatic experience; they’re seeking support through our mental health services at the moment because of those traumatic experiences. And I would urge you, as a Government, to support the family in Swansea and to show that by making urgent representations to the UK Government.

Well, as the Member has said, clearly, immigration and asylum policy isn’t devolved to the Welsh Government. I really do thank Bethan Jenkins for raising this question, for also sharing with us the plight and circumstances of this family, which we’re very sympathetic to, in terms of the circumstances of this case. And, of course, I know that our services, which are available to that family, and to those people affected—to the Rebwah family—will be available. And, of course, this has been noted and shared, and is on the record in terms of your representations.

Last Friday, my constituent, Ronahi Hasan, from Llandaff North, was named as the student journalist of the year at the Wales Media Awards, for a piece she wrote on her homeland of Syria, which was published in the ‘Western Mail’. Ronahi came to this country as a refugee in 2008 with her family, with three children. She had to sell her house to pay people smugglers, and it’s been a very hard struggle to settle here and make a life for herself and her family in Wales. But, now, the family are British citizens and are making a tremendous contribution to life here in Wales.

So, would it be possible to call for a statement about what has happened to the Syrian refugees who have settled here in Wales, which would give us an opportunity to pay tribute to people like my constituent, who have achieved so much? And I know the vast majority of us here in the Assembly would support that.

Again, I’m very glad that Julie Morgan has drawn this to our attention, so that we can also congratulate Rohani Hasan from Llandaff North, who was named student journalist of the year at the Wales Media Awards. And, indeed, this is a real opportunity for us today here in this Chamber, in the Senedd, to acknowledge that and recognise that, and I’m sure we will want to read that piece that she wrote on her homeland of Syria.

We do know that there are many refugees, including those from Syria, who have overcome remarkable barriers, as well as traumatic events, to successfully make a life for themselves in Wales and contribute to our nation. So, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children did issue a written statement last week, providing an update on refugee resettlement in Wales, and he of course will have heard this exchange today.

Cabinet Secretary, Womanby Street is a place famous for live music right across Wales, and I’m sure there are many of us in this Chamber who’ve had some very late nights in those venues. Many renowned musicians have started their careers in Womanby Street. Now, Wales is a musical nation and music is the heartbeat of Wales. It’s also the heartbeat of this city, and we need to encourage live music in Cardiff and across Wales. But the problem is that the current planning regime just doesn’t do that, because it allows developments to be built in areas sometimes just next to a live music venue, and then, when a complaint is made, the venue will have to close down. So, you can have a music venue like the one in Womanby Street, there for 35 years. There can be a development next door, a flat can be put in, and that will justify the closure of the live music venue. Now, what we need in Wales is the agent of change principle written into planning law. There’s a petition, and I understand that more than 3,000 people have signed it. There’s also a statement of opinion, which I’ve put in, and I would encourage every AM here to sign that. Now, what we need to do is designate places like Womanby Street as cultural centres, which need to be protected through the planning law. The Mayor of London is doing this, so will your Government? Over to you, Minister.

The Member has drawn attention to the importance of live music in Wales, which, of course, many of us have enjoyed in both public and private venues across Wales, and you draw attention to one here in the capital of Wales, in Cardiff. Indeed, you also say that there is a petition on this issue that’s coming forward, and I’m sure the Petitions Committee will handle that and make sure that it is then drawn to our attention.

Leader of the house, I’d like to request that we have a debate on the licensing fees for dog breeders and pet shops in Wales. It was recently brought to my attention that the licensing fees for both can vary significantly—dog breeding licences from £23 to £688, and pet shop licences can range from £23 to £782. As a consequence of the UK Government austerity, many local authorities have significantly had to cut their budgets and consequently find themselves with inadequate animal inspectors. There have been, as I’m sure you’re all aware here, some terrible cases of neglect and animal cruelty in dog breeding premises in my area, and I believe that introducing a fair licensing system for all breeders and all pet shops could potentially raise the necessary funds to help bridge the gap, and to ensure that these establishments are regularly inspected so that high levels of animal welfare can be maintained and cruelty and neglect avoided or reduced at the very earliest opportunity.

I also thank the Member for drawing this important issue to our attention today. The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 controls the licensing of dog breeding in Wales. The Pet Animals Act 1951 and Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Act 1983 cover the licensing of pet shops, which, of course, you raised. Local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of these regulations, but there are a number of work strands in relation to the licensing and registration of animal welfare establishments in Wales, and the Welsh Government has indicated its commitment to work streams on responsible ownership and mobile animal exhibits.

Last week, I had the honour of meeting the deputy mayor of Hargeisa, Somaliland here in the National Assembly. It was interesting to hear about the relative stability and peace that has been secured in that country without international recognition. I know there’s been significant support across this Chamber for Somaliland recognition, particularly in previous Assemblies, and, indeed, a vote took place in 2006 to recognise Somaliland. The deputy mayor was keen to see that support continued, and renewed if possible, on a cross-party basis, and I can certainly confirm that Plaid Cymru would be very keen to support again the recognition of Somaliland on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales. Can we have a statement by the Welsh Government reaffirming the Welsh Government’s recognition of Somaliland?

Steffan Lewis also raises a very important point about those close links, and, indeed, questions and points about those links in terms of Somaliland, drawing attention again to the stability that’s been achieved and the recognition of people from Somaliland. Just a few weeks ago, Julie Morgan raised this issue with us. So, certainly, we will look at how we can express our support in the way that you request.

Thank you, leader of the house.

A motion, now, to suspend Standing Order 11.16 to allow the next item of business to be debated, and I call on Jane Hutt to move the motion.

Formally.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders temporarily. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item therefore is the debate on the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion. Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, following the issue of the article 50 letter last week, the UK Government has published a White Paper legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. We were given a copy 24 hours before publication, but no opportunity to respond in draft form. I have commented before, of course, on our frustrations about the process for dialogue within the UK. I regret that the UK Government has chosen thus far to operate like this. It doesn’t have to be this way, but, of course, the Welsh Government will stick up for Welsh interests. We want what’s good for Wales and, indeed, the UK as a whole. It’s correct to say, Llywydd, that parts of the White Paper are ambiguous and need to be unpacked. The central purpose is sensible, but I have very significant reservations on the devolved aspects, which I will come to.

Llywydd, we’ve long argued for a managed transition from EU membership to our new position outside. The great repeal Bill will convert EU law into domestic law across the UK at the point of EU exit two years from now, and that’ll provide continuity and certainty for businesses and employees, as we adapt to new circumstances. We will retain, at least for an interim period, convergence with EU regulation, and this means that exporters to European markets, for example, can carry on exporting in compliance with the necessary standards. Over time, of course, things may begin to change, though ensuring broad alignment of environmental and employment standards is likely to be essential if we are to retain full and unfettered access to the single market. But a transition phase is surely a sensible and pragmatic starting point.

Llywydd, the precise implications of the White Paper will not be fully apparent until we see draft legislation. So, at this stage, we urge the UK Government to share their draft legislative proposals with us at the earliest possible time. The UK itself will have to contend with between 800 and 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation, and we know that there will be primary legislation on both customs and immigration, with a raft of other Bills to follow. It’s more likely than not that this Assembly will have to manage a significant volume of legislation in the years ahead, with considerable implications for scrutiny time.

Llywydd, I want to turn now to the specifics of devolution, as described in section 4 of the White Paper. The White Paper says,

‘The devolved settlements were…premised on EU membership.’

We do not accept that, certainly not as a basis for current and future policy. I do not believe that, in 1997 and 2011, people had EU membership uppermost in their minds when they were considering what response to give to those two referendums. It’s also a misrepresentation of the facts, I believe, to pretend that the UK Government alone has exercised the UK role in formulating EU frameworks on devolved matters. I know that’s not the case, because I was part of the framework that was agreed in Luxemburg when I was rural affairs Minister. On the contrary, the UK Government was, and is, bound to work with the devolved administrations in formulating a joint UK position on devolved issues within the EU decision-making process, such as the common agricultural policy. That is the position while we’re in the EU. We can accept nothing less outside the EU.

Just on that point, does he not agree with me, therefore, that the White Paper does not, in fact, take that interpretation that he has just set out and with which I agree, but rather takes an alternative interpretation that it’s been the UK, i.e. the English Government, that has led on these issues?

Well, that’s what I just said. They take an entirely different view from the position taken by, I believe, the vast majority of Members in this Chamber and, indeed, this Government and Governments elsewhere in the UK. As I said, the impetus for devolution was unrelated to the EU. It’s a matter of fact and history that, when devolution began, we were in the European Union, and the settlement had to take account of that. It’s now a fact that we will exit the EU and, as we do so, we must develop new ways of doing business within the UK to ensure that no barriers to trade are erected within our own internal market. But that’s a very different proposition from accepting that the UK Government should replace the EU institutions when it comes to competences that have already been devolved. We see that as false logic. Devolution is based on the wish of the Welsh people to govern their own affairs. It’s been tried and tested at two referendums, and the UK Government needs to recognise that the impetus for devolution was and is unrelated to our EU membership. The UK Government cannot choose to accept the result of one referendum and fudge the result of the referendum we had in 2011.

We have to be ready to consider the potential for the Assembly to pass its own continuity legislation, as proposed by the Plaid Cymru amendment, but in our view, that should be a last resort. We don’t know yet how much legislation will be needed. Whether it can, in fact, be consolidated in one Bill or not, we do know that this will be an unsettling period for Welsh businesses and organisations, and they will need to receive comfort in that regard. So, with regard to amendment 7, we’ll abstain today, but only on the basis that it’s unclear as yet how much will be needed in terms of legislation in the future.

We do readily accept the need for common frameworks across the UK in certain areas. We’ve got plenty to say about this in the White Paper. The way to ensure that we have policy coherence, where this is needed, is for the four Governments together to sit down and agree frameworks. This has to be done through consensus, not imposition. I’ve said that many, many times. The question—

Of course.

Can he elaborate today, therefore, on what the Welsh Government’s deadline is for clarity from the British Government on its intentions in terms of the repeal Bill and the other legislation that will give the clear indication about whether or not this place needs to legislate on its own constitutional settlement?

It’s when we see the Bill itself. That will give us a better idea of what the UK Government is thinking. When we see what is the self-described great repeal Bill, then, of course, it will be available to this Assembly, and indeed the Welsh Government, to offer an opinion at that time. But I would expect there to be greater clarity, whether that is positive or negative, when that Bill is actually published.

The question is asked, of course: what happens if no agreement can be reached? We accept that, in those circumstances, there must be a backstop arrangement. We believe that the answer is an independent form of arbitration. I’ve said before that we need to ensure that if we have an internal single market with rules, that those rules are agreed, not imposed, and secondly that there’s an independent adjudication mechanism such as a court—it could be the Supreme Court—that polices the rules of that internal single market. We’re open to further discussion about this and what it might look like in practice, but what we can’t accept is that the UK Government should impose itself in areas like agriculture and fisheries, which are fully devolved, in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh people, as expressed through a referendum and legislated for by the UK Parliament itself. It’s further been suggested that there is a case for replicating, through UK legislation, current frameworks provided by EU rules in order to—it is said—provide legal and administrative certainty. If nothing changes, then we will exit the EU in March 2019—it is said—in accordance with the terms of article 50. There are genuine issues about workable arrangements as we transition from EU membership to life outside. That’s why we included a chapter on that in the White Paper.

We note that the UK Government talks about working closely with the devolved administrations, as they say they want to deliver an approach that works for the whole and each part of the UK. I couldn’t disagree with that. We want to work with the UK and our devolved counterparts on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem. The UK Government can help to build trust in two ways. First, it needs to recognise that—to adapt a well-known phrase—devolution means devolution; what is already devolved stays devolved. And second, that any measures designed as transitional should clearly be labelled as such through the adoption of sunset clauses. It’s hopelessly inadequate for the UK Government to make vague promises about potential future devolution and expect this Assembly simply to fall in line, especially when they’re talking about competences that we believe are already devolved to us.

We know, however, Llywydd, that powers mean little or nothing unless they are accompanied by the resources to match the policy. I haven’t forgotten—and the people of Wales won’t forget—that promises were made that Wales wouldn’t be a penny worse off as a result of exiting the EU. We will hold those who made that promise to that promise, because Wales gets around £680 million annually in EU funding. We do not expect that money to stick to someone’s back pocket in Whitehall. We expect that money to come to Wales. We expect that money to come to underpin our rural and regional economy and, of course, other programmes like Horizon 2020, from the point of departure from the EU.

Now, we do want to work constructively. We want a place in the next stage of negotiations. The future of the UK outside the EU is as much a matter for this Government and this Assembly as it is for the UK Government and Parliament. The UK Government now has a chance to live up to its rhetoric and genuinely move forward in ways that bind us together in the common cause of achieving the best EU exit terms possible—the creation of a reformed, dynamic, democratic UK outside the EU—but that will require a fundamental change of Whitehall mindset. If they grasp that chance, then of course we can look to work together as equal partners within the UK in the future.

I turn, finally, to the amendments put forward by UKIP. It will come as no surprise, I am sure, to those that proposed these amendments, that we will today not accept any of them. For most of them, the world is seen from a very different perspective if you are a member of UKIP than from our perspective. But one I will refer to now, before dealing with the others, perhaps, as I respond, is amendment 6, and that’s on the issue of tariffs. The amendment fails to recognise that tariffs are taxes on consumers. The cost of a tariff is simply passed on to the consumer of that good: £8 billion a year in tariffs is money raised by the UK Government from UK consumers, not from those who export into the UK. That is a tax of some £120 or £130 a year per head that would have to be paid as a Brexit tax, in effect, by each man, woman and child within the UK. We do not think that that is a sensible way forward.

Will the First Minister give way?

Of course I will.

Does he not understand that, simply as a matter of economic analysis, how those tariffs will fall in terms of the split between consumers and suppliers, and how much they get passed on, will depend on the competitive nature of that market?

The whole point of a tariff is to protect what is produced in a country. It is to impose a barrier against goods coming into a country by making them more expensive to consumers. That’s the whole point of a tariff. The imposition of tariffs—there are many different tariffs, that’s true—but the most stringent tariffs are on dairy products, at 40 per cent. There is no way that those tariffs will be absorbed by those who sell into the UK market. The cost will be passed on to UK consumers, and vice versa, as farmers from Wales and the rest of Britain seek to export into the EU. At the end of the day, the consumer always pays the tariff, and that would mean, in effect, a huge increase in taxation as far as consumers are concerned. It doesn’t have to be that way.

We have always said that there are a number of different options available that would mean that we can leave the EU—respecting the referendum result, of course—while at the same time avoiding our manufacturers and farmers losing access to a market of 500 million and gaining instead free access to a market of only 60 million. I don’t believe that’s in the interests of anybody, and that is something that I know the UK Government, in fairness, is keen to avoid, and something that we will support them in looking to avoid as well.

There are many challenges ahead. That much is true. This is a very complicated divorce. The people have spoken, and there is no going back to the referendum result last year, but it’s absolutely crucial that, as we look forward, we minimise disruption and we ensure that the growth of the Welsh economy over the last few years is not jeopardised over the decade to come.

I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendments down in my name.

There is little that one could disagree with in what the First Minister has just said. Clearly, we are going to be in a very different world administratively and legislatively outside the EU than within it, and I will say this right at the outset: that there must be no going back on the devolution settlement, and the powers that have been devolved to this Assembly should not in any way be eroded or obscured by whatever happens as part of the Brexit process. It is a matter of law what has already been devolved to the Assembly, and certainly agriculture and environment are going to be very important powers for us to exercise in years to come. It gives us greatly enhanced power in Wales to make for ourselves an agricultural policy or an environmental policy that better suits our needs. As the First Minister, and, indeed, the Government’s White Paper, together with Plaid Cymru, point out, there are many differences between the Welsh economy and the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular there is, as we know, a trade surplus in goods between Wales and the EU, whereas for the rest of the UK it’s very much the other way round.

But we can’t see this purely in a Welsh context because it is the United Kingdom that is going to be leaving the EU, not just Wales, and Wales has to see itself in the context of the United Kingdom, from which there are massive benefits in terms of fiscal transfers that it would lose if we were to take the nationalist position and become an independent nation politically. That’s not a dispute that we want to argue at length today. But what I want to say, as a result of this debate, is that the world is full of opportunities, not least for our own country to take advantage of them.

The First Minister referred to our amendment in relation to tariffs. We put this amendment down not because we want to move to a protectionist policy—we are a free-trading party. We think tariffs are a foolish way in which to try to protect your industries because, at the end of the day, all you do is institutionalise inefficiency and make yourself less competitive in the world. There’s a wealth of academic analysis that proves the truth of that.

The figures that are mentioned in the amendment are not our figures. They’re produced not, indeed, by a Eurosceptic body. They were produced by Open Europe, which was rather dispassionate and neutral on this issue and was actually in favour of Britain remaining inside the EU. The net effect of the tariffs that we refer to reflect the massive imbalance in trade between Britain as a whole and the rest of the European Union. We have a £60 billion a year trade deficit with the EU overall and, if we were to revert to WTO tariffs in two years’ time, on account of the intransigence of the European Union—. Because the British Government has made its decision perfectly clear: that it wants to see tariff-free trade, frictionless trade, between Britain and the rest of the EU after we leave. But, if the EU prevents us from doing that, then the impact will be felt more in terms of pounds on the European Union than it will be on Britain. If tariffs are introduced, then the net impact will be as described in our amendments. We will be very much in pocket.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Do you believe the likely outcome for the people of the United Kingdom will be a tariff tax on goods?

Well, that assumes rationality on the part of the European Union negotiators. I very much hope that we will not have. I have to say that the evidence over the last week is not encouraging, with Chancellor Merkel wanting to detach negotiations on trade from other issues that divide us, which is not sensible given we have only a two-year timeframe within which to reach a trade deal. The gratuitous addition of Gibraltar to the negotiations is another irritant that is not likely to assist a sensible resolution of the arguments between us. But it must surely be massively in the interests of the EU, as well as for this country, for us to facilitate trade rather than to obstruct it.

Given that, for Germany alone, we have a £20 billion a year deficit in cars, just in that one sector, then it’s clearly in Germany’s interest, as the motor of the EU, to use its weight and influence to achieve the outcome that would be mutually beneficial—one of free trade. What goes for cars goes for all sorts of areas of trade between us, even in agricultural products, which the First Minister quite rightly refers to, because agriculture is a balkanised market all around the world. Even where we do have free trade agreements with other countries, very often agriculture is marked out as being different and remains subject to all sorts of trade restrictions.

Even in the case of lamb, for example, we actually have a trade deficit in the UK in sheep meat. Therefore, although for Wales this is a massively important issue for agriculture, because we export such a huge proportion of our production of lamb, in the UK as a whole, which will be negotiating for us, we have an opportunity to ensure a sensible outcome.

I see the red light is on, Llywydd, and I’ve not been able to develop my argument because I was seduced by Rhianon Passmore into going down an avenue that I hadn’t intended to. But the main point I want to make is that this is an opportunity for us and not a threat. It’s a challenge, of course, but life is full of challenges. Any business worth its salt knows it has to change. Nothing ever stands still. Let us grasp this opportunity and make the best of it for the people of Wales.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 7, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Plaid Cymru believes that the act of leaving the European Union will have a profound effect on Wales as a nation. Last week, we witnessed two major events that will enable the UK Government to take Wales and England out of the European Union. The fact that only two parts of the UK want to, and are definitely going to, leave already speaks volumes about the tectonic changes that are taking place, and it demonstrates that we in Wales must protect and defend our national interests. We cannot be a silent bystander or spectator. We must use whatever leverage we have to create our own voice and to carve out a distinct position if Wales is to have its own future, distinct and different from that of England.

Both the article 50 letter and the repeal Bill White Paper refer to Wales. But, to Plaid Cymru, the UK Government isn’t acting as if Wales exists at all. Plaid Cymru continues to give its strong support to the joint White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, as the most comprehensive outline of the Welsh national interest for the Brexit process, but we don’t see enough evidence that the UK Government has listened. We are not convinced that, to date, consultation has been genuine.

The article 50 notification makes clear, once and for all, that the UK Government will take us out of the single market. The question for us now is what a free trade agreement will look like and whether it will include tariff or regulatory barriers. Will there be some sectors of the Welsh economy that face tariffs and others that don’t? Business doesn’t want this uncertainty. Employers will need to know the playing field well in advance of Brexit taking place.

Llywydd, perhaps the greatest challenge arising from the UK Government announcements last week is the future as to how the UK works internally. The original motion recognises this to some extent, and the Plaid Cymru amendment today confronts that challenge and offers a solution: a continuation bill for Wales to uphold our current constitutional status. That constitution has been endorsed by people in Wales as recently as the 2011 referendum. The common EU frameworks are discussed in chapter 4 of the UK Government White Paper. Those frameworks are the foundation upon which this Assembly operates. The replacement of those frameworks with new arrangements to protect the UK single market is a recipe for a Westminster power grab.

The repeal Bill White Paper gives the UK Government the power to create new UK frameworks. They say they will consult with the devolved Governments, and, at best, they will work intensively with them, but we aren’t here to be consulted with. As the First Minister has already said, Wales already co-decides the UK position on EU frameworks. These responsibilities rest with Wales and they are for us to share and negotiate, not for Westminster to impose. That’s why Plaid Cymru wants this continuation bill. We should act in the most decisive way possible to make sure that the balance of power within this state does not shift even further towards Westminster, and I would encourage the Welsh Government to look seriously at this option.

If you share our analysis, then I urge you to take action and support this amendment. This can’t be a last resort. We have a relatively small window of opportunity here; don’t delay in taking it. Don’t wait for the Tories to change their mindset and don’t abstain. Please back Plaid Cymru’s amendment on this today.

Llywydd, we will be opposing UKIP’s amendment. They offer nothing whatsoever in terms of protecting the Welsh national interest. They would delete the need for agreement and consensus between devolved and Westminster Governments. They also talk of EU intransigence at a time when Wales needs friends and allies in the rest of Europe. And isn’t it interesting to note that UKIP is the only party talking about the referendum in their amendments today? Why do UKIP seem so obsessed with the referendum? Is it, perhaps, because they have no vision whatsoever beyond that result? And we’re still waiting to hear their plan. The debate has moved on. [Interruption.] It’s now about securing the Welsh national interest during the negotiations ahead of us.

The original motion today describes and analyses that situation. There’s nothing in that motion that we can disagree with; it’s just a description. On the other hand, the Plaid Cymru amendment proposes action. A continuation Bill is the next immediate step we should take to secure that position. Future UK frameworks covering the single market, agriculture or any other fields that interact with devolution must be co-produced and co-decided. As far as the Party of Wales is concerned, nothing less is acceptable and I would urge the Chamber to support our amendment today. I’ve run out of time, sorry.

I’m very pleased to take part in this very important debate today. It makes absolute sense for the powers in the devolved areas that lie in Europe, such as agriculture and fisheries, to be transferred back to Wales. I think there’s absolutely no case for the UK Government to in any way take back any of those powers, because I think, as the First Minister said in his introduction, that these powers have been devolved, a referendum has been won, and I agree with the First Minister that EU membership had no role at all in the votes in the devolution referendums. In her letter, the Prime Minister says that the UK Government

‘will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.’

I think it is very important that this issue is cleared up as soon as possible because the Prime Minister is obviously hinting at what may be the outcome for Wales, but there also is the hint of holding something back as well. So, I think it’s really important that this is cleared up because it’s very hard to see, if the powers didn’t come back to Wales, where on earth they could sit in the UK Government because it’s not possible to recreate the Welsh Office. All of the Secretary of State’s powers were transferred to the Welsh Assembly in 1998 and devolution was won and the transfer took place. It would be ludicrous to add Welsh functions on to the equivalent English departments for agriculture and fisheries, for example. So it makes absolute sense for them to come to Wales. If, of course, as a result of negotiation, additional responsibilities do come to Wales it is essential that the money comes as well.

It’s obviously more complicated where a field is not devolved, like scientific research, for example, which I wanted to refer to, where there is a lot of devolved spending by the Welsh Government, but responsibility is with the UK-wide research councils. Obviously, this is the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the UK is a net beneficiary. It’s absolutely key that Wales does not lose out on any of this funding. I repeat, as others have said today, we were promised that we would not lose one penny by leaving the EU and we do expect to see that promise fulfilled. There are key figures in the UK Government who are negotiating on this who campaigned strongly to get out of the EU and they said all these things, and we do have to hold them responsible to make sure it happens. Of course, there are key figures here in this Assembly who also campaigned for us to leave the EU and I think they bear a heavy responsibility for this and we expect them—those people who did campaign so strongly—to make sure that this does actually happen. I think this is absolutely vital.

In my constituency, research funding is a key issue so I wanted to mention that, but I also wanted to mention, before I finish, the real importance of human rights and the hard-won rights that we have gained from Europe. I know that the Government is committed to making sure that the same laws apply, including equality laws, at the point of the UK’s exit from the EU. Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee has recommended that the great repeal Bill is an opportunity to make real the Government’s promise to give the same or better protections on equality after Brexit, and recommends there should be a clause in the great repeal Bill saying that there should be no going back on equalities. Maria Miller, who is the chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, said:

‘If the Government wants to maintain the current level of equality protection for vulnerable groups including pregnant women and disabled travellers’—

there’s been a news report on issues there today—

‘it must take active steps to embed equality into UK law.’

‘There are two concrete priorities which the Government should focus on: first, to include a clause on equality in the Great Repeal Bill saying that there will be no going backwards on current levels of equality protections, and second, to amend the Equality Act 2010 to empower Parliament and the Courts to declare whether new laws are compatible with equality principles.’

I think it is absolutely essential that we keep all those hard-won rights, that we keep all the equality rights that we have got, that they are embedded in the law, and I think we must make absolutely certain that happens. So, as I said earlier, I think there’s a heavy burden on some of our Assembly Members to make sure that Wales does not come out of this any worse. I urge everyone here in the Chamber to use all their influence to make sure that we do manage to survive.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister formally notified the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. As her letter began, the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU

‘was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans.... the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper…. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe—and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.’

The First Minister promised to deliver this debate on this issue. It is therefore regrettable that the Welsh Government motion instead begins with reference to the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper, despite this already having been debated here and having been overtaken by events since. As I said in the 7 February debate on this—.

Will you take an intervention, Mark?

Yes, of course.

I thank you for taking the intervention. Are you therefore disappointed that the UK Government has actually not responded to the Welsh Government’s White Paper to show how it’s been included in the considerations for the negotiations?

Unfortunately, the timing of the Welsh Government’s White Paper came after events, as you were following rather than leading.

As I said in 7 February debate on this, although their White Paper

‘calls for full and unfettered access to the EU single market, and although EU rules make this impossible after border control is restored to the UK, this is not inconsistent with the UK Government’s desire for a free trade deal without membership.’

‘We will continue to attract the brightest and the best, allowing a sovereign UK to determine and meet the workforce needs of our economy and society, be they engineers, scientists, health professionals, carers or farm workers. But the voice of the people was clear; there must be control.’

The UK Government is closely engaged with a high-level stakeholder working group on EU exit, universities, research and innovation, to ensure that the UK builds on its strong global position in research and innovation excellence after leaving the EU. There is already agreement between the UK and the EU that guaranteed rights for EU citizens living in the UK, and for UK citizens living in the EU, will be a priority for the negotiations. The Prime Minister stated that supporting integration and social cohesion means fully respecting and, indeed, strengthening the devolution settlements, but, she said, never allowing our union to become looser and weaker, or our people to drift apart.

Speaking on the article 50 process in the House of Commons, she expressed her expectation that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making powers of each devolved administration. Although uncompromising on core principles, the EU draft negotiating guidelines have flexibility to allow for a deal acceptable to both sides. In response to that, the UK Government reiterated that it is seeking a deep and special relationship with the EU on trade and the many other areas where we have shared aims and values, and that it is confident that such an outcome is in the interests of both sides.

As the Assembly’s chief legal adviser briefed yesterday, when we leave the EU, restrictions on the ability of the devolved administrations to legislate in areas not reserved to the UK Government will disappear. The Labour-Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for a UK framework to provide legal underpinning for effective regulation of issues such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries, which are heavily governed by EU law. And the great repeal Bill White Paper outlines a holding pattern to deliver certainty on exit day by preserving repatriated law, and allowing the UK Government to work with the devolved administrations on UK frameworks.

As the National Farmers Union states, an agricultural framework should prevent unfair competition between devolved administrations, and secure and protect adequate long-term funding for agriculture. And the Farmers Union of Wales has urged the Welsh Government to be ambitious in reviewing EU-derived legislation that adds unnecessarily to the bureaucratic burden faced by farmers.

The UK economy was the fastest growing G7 economy last year. A survey published yesterday found that global central bankers favour sterling over the euro as a long-term stable reserve investment.

When our great union of UK nations sets its mind on something and works together, we are an unstoppable force. No-one in the UK or the EU—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I’m sorry.

[Continues.]—wins if everyone ends up weaker from this process. So, let us condemn and reject any single-issue bandwagon-jumping enemy within who seeks to undermine the development of a new relationship with the EU in order to weaken and divide our islands and destroy our United Kingdom, whether they’re in Scotland or whether they’re simply mimicking their heroes from Scotland. With optimism, we can embrace this opportunity to build a dynamic, global future, but this will only happen if Carwyn’s doomsday cult climbs off its one-trick pony.

If anyone ever wonders why I’m a Welsh nationalist, they should listen to the comments of the previous speaker. Llywydd, it was correctly foreseen by many that the UK repeal Bill or related legislation might pose a threat to the current constitution of Wales in terms of our competence as democratically mandated by the people of Wales in two referenda. The concern is based on the fact that, if the UK withdraws from the European single market, as intended by the UK Government, then, for the first time since 1973, there will be a UK internal market and it will require frameworks in order to operate effectively. Of course, in 1973, there was no devolution and a new UK internal market will inevitably have frameworks that impact upon devolved policy issues.

The Welsh national White Paper makes constructive and practical proposals for how such frameworks can be established through a UK council of Ministers, with each Government of the UK acting as equal partners and agreeing between them shared frameworks where appropriate. At present, where European frameworks impact upon devolved functions, a common UK position is agreed among the Governments of the UK before a European council meeting, and that common, pre-agreed position is presented.

Paragraph 4.2 of the UK Government’s White Paper on the repeal Bill, published last week, misrepresents that current practice and it does so as a pretext for centralising powers over the UK internal market at the UK level. We know that much because the Secretary of State for Wales last weekend said that the governance of the UK’s internal market is reserved to Westminster, and, upon leaving the EU, UK frameworks would be determined at Westminster and divvied up afterwards to different levels, as they in Westminster see fit. The devolved administrations will be little more than consultees on matters that are clearly under their jurisdiction already.

In pre-empting this, the Welsh national White Paper, on page 28, says, and I quote:

‘We await sight of the detail UK Government’s Bill to inform further thinking about whether the Parliamentary Bill adequately reflects the devolution settlement. If, after analysis, it is necessary to legislate ourselves in the National Assembly for Wales in order to protect our devolved settlement in relation to the Bill, then we will do so.’

Llywydd, it is my view and that of my party that the devolution settlement has not been adequately reflected in the UK Government White Paper. Indeed, that is recognised by the Welsh Government in point three of their motion today, and it is now necessary for this National Assembly to legislate. I do not underestimate the work that will be required to achieve this, but, given that it is the intention of the UK Government to bring forward their repeal Bill by mid-September, the window of opportunity we have to act is very limited. Within a few months, we may have lost not just the opportunity to act; we may have lost responsibilities that have been entrusted to us by the people of this country.

I urge all Members here on all sides who believe in a genuine family of nations in these islands, and who want fair governance of the UK’s internal market, to uphold the provision of the Welsh White Paper by supporting our amendment today calling for a continuation Bill. Whether we were ‘leave’ or ‘remain’ last year, and whether we are nationalists or unionists today, we all promised the people of Wales that we would not allow this country to be worse off either financially or in terms of powers. Let us deliver on that commitment to them today by backing Plaid Cymru’s amendment.

Let’s be clear about one thing, that there is little to celebrate—nothing to celebrate in fact—about the actions of the UK Government in the last couple of weeks. The only virtue of serving the article 50 notice is that it puts to bed the question of whether or not we are embarking on a process of leaving the European Union. What we now have an opportunity to do is to fight for the kind of Brexit that we want in Wales’s interests, and, unlike Mark Isherwood’s somewhat partial recollection of the paper between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, I think that sets out a very clear direction of travel for the kind of Brexit that we want for Wales.

But we also need, in tandem with that, to be addressing the kind of Wales that we want to be after Brexit. For those who campaigned to leave, leaving the European Union was the first step, not the last word. And they have a very different vision of Wales and of the UK than most of us in this Chamber. We’ve heard Philip Hammond talking about a new economic order, and Theresa May arguing for fundamental change as a result of the decision. The majority in this Chamber do not want to see that, and vast though the task is of handling Brexit, we all need to engage in that bigger battle against those values as well as that version of Brexit and argue for the kind of Wales that we want to be beyond that.

Turning to the issue of the Plaid Cymru amendment on the continuation Bill, this comes down to a question of powers and a question of funding. In a sense, the proposal for a continuation Bill is an alternative to putting our faith in the UK Government to protect our interests in the European repeal Bill. It would have the effect of putting into Welsh law the body of EU law in relation to devolved areas, giving Welsh Ministers the right to amend that in technical terms and asserting the right of this Chamber as a body of accountability and also asserting its legislative competence. In a sense, it would be a made-in-Wales version of the repeal Bill, designed to protect the Welsh devolution settlement. It seems to me, for reasons that other speakers have already given, that that settlement is very likely to need protecting.

Both the original White Paper and the paper we saw last week describe powers coming to Wales ‘where that is appropriate’. What neither of those two documents say is that powers will come to Wales in accordance with the current devolution settlement. Now, you might argue that a continuity or continuation Bill in relation to the devolved areas might be seen as a first step rather than as a safety net, and I suppose that is the case in some ways, unless you reflect on the fact that, in this Chamber, it’s not just about the powers that we have, but the funding that we have, and that, actually, is a much bigger question.

We focus on receiving our powers from statute and that’s right, but we still receive our funding, basically, on the basis of a handshake. We know that Barnett is broken; we’ve known that for a long time, and though the fiscal framework takes forward issues around reflecting need and independence of adjudication, that is not enough. Surely, what Brexit has done is throw into stark relief that now is the time to put our funding on a statutory basis, both in terms of the baseline funding—what we get through Barnett—but also on a fair deal for European funding, for the lost European funding.

I think we need a funding statute—a kind of small constitution, if you like—that sets out the obligation to fund, the principles on which we will be funded, which would be redistribution and reflecting need, and the judicial mechanism for resolving disputes between different parts of the UK. Most modern states find that pretty natural. The UK Government finds it something that they have to struggle with, but I think, coming out of Brexit, the one thing that people do understand is the importance of funding for the future of Wales, and I think—

Will the Member give way on that one?

Yes.

Would the Member agree, just on that point, that what he is, in fact, advocating, is a federal system for the United Kingdom?

I don’t know if it’s a federal system, but I’m advocating a system that has a statutory fair funding mechanism to protect Wales. And I believe that, coming out of the Brexit argument, people understand the need for that, and we should argue for that future.

In June 2017, the citizens, by a small but sufficient majority, said two things, I think, to us. They did not want to remain part of European governance. I know we hear often about we’re still European—of course we are, and we’re part of that great cultural inheritance, but we did vote to remove ourselves from European governance and we will face consequences for that.

Secondly, I think they said that we need to take care much more of those left behind. It was a huge message, shared in many western societies, it has to be said, but it seems to me that message is that our society’s not cohesive enough, and many people feel they don’t get a fair deal. This has been a particular crisis, really, to have hit since the financial difficulties of 2008, which sparked the great recession, and it’s this bit we really need to concentrate on as we, in the National Assembly, get to grips with Brexit, because it’s our whole governance at the moment that many people feel is not producing at the level it needs to produce, so we must remember those that are left behind.

So, a small majority voted to leave the European Union, but I think for all of us unionists in this Chamber—and I respect those that are not—we must realise that it will require a large majority to rejuvenate the UK’s union. This is not about preserving Britain, it is about rebuilding Britain, and that work will require great vision, generosity, and an awareness that we now need a new relationship between the UK’s nations. We are in a very different position to the one we were in in 1973, and that is certainly the case, and, indeed, this is why, broadly speaking, I’m prepared to back the idea of a council of Ministers to take forward now the JMC process and make it more predictable, formal, and much more at the heart of our governance arrangements. I have to say I’m an optimist in terms of—I think a lot of the language is fairly austere at the moment in terms of ‘we must protect our patch’, and in this time of great change and uncertainty we don’t fully trust our other partners, be they in Scotland, London, wherever, and I think we need to get over this. We need to think of what functions we need. We need to ask ourselves what is required for the UK market to operate, not just over the economy, which, broadly, is not contested, but over areas like agriculture and the environment.

We need to be very, very cautious about what we wish for, because I think any argument that is basically saying that current competences, which were examined a few years ago in that foreign office study, and basically decided that what was at the EU level was appropriately at the EU level—. To argue that those current competences that underwrite the European frameworks that we are now leaving, that those competences go from the supra-state level straight down to the sub-state level without stopping in-between—really, I think we need to be cautious about these very purist arguments that remind me of the medieval church’s debates on the nature of the hypostatic union; I mean, you missed the big picture. We need the UK to work as an integrated—

Will the Member give way?

[Continues.]—enterprising market. Yes.

I think the point is that the powers are already here now and they are pooled at the moment to European Union level, and, when we leave the European Union, the powers will remain here. There isn’t a repatriation of powers; we have competence in these fields now. It is not a matter of them being transferred to London or Brussels or Cardiff, or wherever else; they are here now, that is the fundamental point.

Well, a wise civil servant once told me that the true test of maturity is the ability to live with paradox, and I really think that we must recognise that what—. You know, the great truth here is that in 1997/8/9, when we moved to decentralised Government and devolution in this country, the framework was that we were within the girdle of the European Union. No-one thought at that time—apart from our friends to my right, and it was a distant dream then—that we would leave that framework. That was the foundation, really, of the devolved settlement, and had that not then existed, I think very different arrangements would have been required in terms of the environment and many other policies. But you are right, one can read it the way you do, but I don’t think functionally it gets you very far, because you’re basically saying, ‘Yes, we want all these powers, we may give some of them back to the—

No, we have them. We have them already.

Well let me just use the language as I choose.

‘And by the way, what we do want London to have are all the obligations to finance the policies that we will now put in place.’ Frankly, if we don’t have functional competences at the levels we need them, which has always been the pro-European argument—now you’re a little Brexiteer in saying, ‘No, no, we’ve got to go micro and get everything back and defend it’. We need to pool these things; we need to work effectively.

But here I do—and I conclude on this, because my time is running out—we do need effective, inter-governmental structures. And it is something that the UK Government is going to have to work very hard on, and sincerely on, and with great vision, and with give and take. Thank you.

I’m delighted to follow David Melding. I apologise to him for my inability to engage in the debate over the hypostatic union of the medieval church. Perhaps we can discuss offline.

Can I say that I hope that the process of the two-year withdrawal will help bring people together, within our United Kingdom and within the Assembly? I believe that the article 50 letter, as delivered by the Prime Minister, was a masterpiece of diplomatic language. I don’t know whether the First Minister has been convinced that it’s better than a straight, ‘We hereby withdraw the United Kingdom under article 50 of the treaty of the European Union’, but as a diplomatic piece of setting the basis of our discussions and our desire for a wide-ranging trade and security—and beyond—relationship, I felt it read in a very compelling way.

I think there was—

May I just carry on for a little while?

I think there was probably much to and fro between the UK Government and the European Council in terms of seeing each other’s drafts and commenting, and already a degree of, if not of negotiation, at least mutual feedback. That doesn’t appear to have happened with the devolved administrations, and I share some of the First Minister’s regrets about that. But he must understand that there is no Government in Northern Ireland, and that the Scottish Government is an SNP Government whose leader is committed to breaking up the United Kingdom.

I urge him once more to protect the interests of Wales: please seek substantive, wide-ranging, bilateral discussions, in private, between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, to try and push some of these issues in the interests of Wales. I’d also encourage him to take up Julie Morgan’s plea that not just UK Ministers but key Members of these Assemblies, who have made commitments or at least suggested certain things would happen for the benefit of Wales outside the European Union, particularly on the financial side—I would urge him to work with those people who campaigned for ‘leave’, not just those who campaigned for ‘remain’, including those who may have influence with the UK negotiating partner.

I’m encouraged by the draft negotiating mandate that came back from the European Council, as well as by the article 50 letter. It refers to the fact that negotiations under article 50 will be conducted as a single package. It then says that the framework for the future relationship could be identified during the second phase of the negotiations under article 50, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the first phase. And yes, financial discussions are part of that, but there’s a whole range of issues, including the rights of EU nationals in this country, which we’re very keen to settle and push forward and show good progress on. So, I think the link of those is encouraging.

I also think, in terms of the role of the European Court of Justice—. The relevant paragraph on that is paragraph 16:

‘The withdrawal agreement should include appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms’.

But the council then refers to these ‘bearing in mind’ the union’s interests, and the ECJ, which I think is something we can work with in discussing what would be an appropriate settlement procedure.

We then have the section on Gibraltar, which there’s been a lot of coverage of. I actually think people may be missing quite a key implication of this paragraph 22 of the negotiating mandate: that, after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, no agreement may apply to Gibraltar without the agreement of Spain.

Now, that phrase would be otiose, unnecessary, unless it were considered that agreement would be by qualified majority, at the European Union. If it is to be, as the First Minister is afraid, a mixed negotiation, post-exit, that would leave the unanimous agreement to member states, and, potentially, of regional parliaments, then there would be no need to give that specific protection to Spain, who would already have a veto over such agreement.

So, I think it is encouraging that the European Union is looking at those trade and related arrangements post Brexit as potentially being negotiated by qualified majority. And I think the fact that these negotiations, at least after a bit, can proceed in parallel is good, to the extent, say, the Canada agreement was a mixed agreement that had to go the regional parliaments and be unanimity. But the mixed elements in any trade agreement we could potentially deal with with article 50, and the trade one would be where the European Commission had exclusive competence. So, again, that would be by qualified majority voting. I think that does make agreement potentially easier.

I also think it’s interesting that the EU is saying that it’s the successor to all the agreements. Even where we as 28 or 27 member states negotiated on behalf of the EU because it lacked legal personality, the EU says, well, that’s its agreement and it doesn’t bind us. So, for example, on the WTO EU commitment in terms of the quota free of tariff for New Zealand lamb, they are implying that that’s a matter for the EU, and they want us to take our share of international agreements, but that’s for us to agree with them, and isn’t something that they consider to be binding on us. So, I think that’s promising.

Finally, like the First Minister, I don’t want to see tariffs, but on most standard economic analysis, it is just wrong to say that the whole of any tariff is borne by the consumer. You have a demand and supply curve, and as the price rises, consumers buy less, so that squeezes out marginal supply, with the remaining supply being at a lower price from the overseas supplier. Now, how much of that tariff is increased price to the consumer, and how much would be a reduced price for the supplier to hold on to their share when there’s actually less being supplied in the market, will depend on the dynamics of the market. But I really am optimistic we will see a free trade deal that doesn’t see tariffs, and I hope the First Minister will work with everyone in this Assembly, as well as the UK Government, and continue to look at this all in a positive way.

I will make some comments that are relevant to the whole of Wales, and then look at my constituency of Anglesey. We’ve all heard people discussing the importance of taking back control. What we’re not clear about is what exactly we’re talking about: what kind of control we’re talking about, and what will the cost of that be. The risk that we face in Wales now is that we could lose control as a result of the UK Government’s intent through the great repeal Bill, and we’ve heard some of my fellow Members discuss that already. For example, I’m very concerned about the agricultural industry in my constituency if the UK Government do what they’ve threatened to do in terms of European framework powers, taking them to themselves—temporarily at least—with no pledges in the longer term, rather than doing what is just, and constitutional, in my view, and is crucial for our rural economy and our rural communities, namely to ensure that the Welsh Parliament continues to have full responsibility on issues in this area, an area that is clearly fully devolved.

But I will mention one other area where control will be lost as a result of the issuing of the article 50 letter: not losing control for constitutional reasons or legislative reasons, but because of the practical implications of the kind of Brexit that the UK Government seems intent on seeking. Anglesey is the main port for trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Over three quarters of the trade on lorries between Europe and the Republic of Ireland passed through Welsh ports, and 79 per cent of that went through Holyhead port. Over 2 million people passed through the port: hundreds of thousands of cars and thousands of buses. I hope I’m painting a picture of just why the port of Holyhead is so important to Wales and so important to the island of Anglesey, where hundreds are directly employed in the port, and far more in businesses related to the success of the port. My concern is that the UK Government is voluntarily losing control of the prosperity of that port by deciding to give up its membership of the single market and the customs union. If, for obvious reasons—to save the peace process—we need to secure a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, that wouldn’t be the case between Wales and Ireland, and Holyhead/Dublin would be a hard border, quite possibly. There would be a major temptation to develop direct links from the Republic of Ireland to France—routes that currently exist at the moment, of course. Now, I am gravely concerned as to the impact of turning Holyhead from the swiftest and easiest route, and the most efficient route between Europe and Ireland, into one of the most difficult.

In the White Paper drawn up jointly between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, we attempted to state what kind of control we would wish the UK Government to retain in terms of the relationship between Britain and Europe in the future. Playing a part in the single market is close to the top of that list, if not on top of the list. I don’t want to leave the European Union—I never would. But as that is the direction of travel, we do have to seek mitigation measures, and the single market is crucial to that, and we must continue to put pressure on for that.

To conclude, I will turn to the continuation Bill, which is the subject of our amendment. The First Minister said that he thought that a continuation Bill should be a last resort in terms of securing the constitutional future of Wales, and ensuring that the Parliament of Wales express in legislation our expectations that leaving the European Union wouldn’t undermine our ability to take action on behalf of the people of Wales. He added that we would have to wait for the great repeal Bill first. I will say this: surely now is the opportunity and the time for us to take action, because we can’t wait to see if the UK Government is going to act in a way that reflects the needs of the people of Wales, because the signs currently aren’t there that the UK Government will do that.

I thank the Member for giving way. Would he also agree with me that it’s even more a matter of urgency that we legislate as soon as possible because the UK Government’s on record as saying it will not publish a draft of the great repeal Bill? So, whatever is published and whenever it is published—by mid-September—we will not have the time to respond to it, at least legislatively.

The Member certainly emphasises, again, the narrowness of the window that we have in front of us.

Mae Ysgrifennydd Cymru, rydw i’n meddwl, i gloi, wedi ei gwneud hi’n berffaith glir nad oes ganddo ddiddordeb mewn cynrychioli barn Cymru yn y Cabinet, ond yn hytrach mai ei rôl o ydy cyfathrebu wrth Gymru beth mae’r Cabinet yn Whitehall wedi ei benderfynu ar gyfer Cymru, p’un a ydy hynny er ein budd ni ai peidio. Bachwch ar y cyfle yma, Lywodraeth Cymru, i osod ein stondin deddfwriaethol ni. Gwarchodwch yr hyn sydd gennym ni. Unwaith y bydd y ‘repeal Bill’ ar y llyfrau statud heb ddeddfwriaeth i’w herio fo mewn lle yn y Senedd yma, mi fydd llinell amddiffyniad Cymru yn un denau iawn.

Colleagues have already highlighted this afternoon that, after much walking through the darkness, the UK Government has actually, finally, come to a point where it’s now getting on with the outcomes of the referendum on 23 June. However, that referendum, as we all know, only said one thing: that we had to leave the EU institutions. It did not determine the terms on which we leave and it did not discuss the new relationships with the other 27 member states. This is why it is important now to get our objectives on the agenda, as the process about that begins.

I’m disappointed that, prior to this point and the invocation of article 50, the Westminster Government’s handling of this matter has not shown sufficient respect to the institutions of the devolved nations in moving forward, even though the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government both submitted their own proposals for consideration. It’s now critical that the UK Government delivers on its stated commitment to fully involve the devolved nations. This needs to go beyond merely meeting with Ministers through the JMC, or the JMC(EN), but actually taking on board what each Government has put forward and involving Ministers from devolved nations in the negotiating process, where appropriate, and creating a new constitutional mechanism for our nations.

This was highlighted in the report by the Exiting the European Union Committee, published only today, in, for those who want to read it, paragraph 10 and paragraph 13—have a good look at it—but also a report from the Lords Constitution Committee published in March, which states, and I quote:

‘This will mean that the UK Government and the devolved administrations will need to manage new interfaces—and potentially overlapping responsibilities—between reserved matters and devolved competence in areas where the writ of EU law no longer runs. The UK Government and devolved administrations will need to agree, before Brexit, how those new interfaces will be managed.’

In other words, everyone is saying, except the UK Government, ‘We need a constitutional structure that is based upon statute, not simply upon a good handshake.’ Llywydd, there are some in the UK Government who actually accept devolution. Some even get it, but too many don’t and have a belief that everything must be driven by Westminster and Whitehall. We must do all we can to actually collaborate strongly with our colleagues in other devolved nations to ensure the UK Government delivers on its words and sentiment in both the article 50 letter and the great repeal Bill White Paper. They say it; let’s make sure they deliver on it.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government’s White Paper also placed the economy at the top of the agenda, and understandably so, because we need prosperity across this nation and the ability of Welsh businesses to trade without barriers—whether financial or regulatory—is critical to allow it to grow. And manufacturing plays a great part in the Welsh economy, more than any other nation in the UK—it’s actually 16 per cent of GVA. And so, we must ensure that a difficult divorce, with the WTO Brexit rules, does not happen, because it would mean crippling tariffs placed upon our exports.

I noticed UKIP’s amendment 6 highlights that they want to say, ‘It’s £8 billion; we can use the money.’ I just think that’s an excuse to actually justify why they can’t deliver on their promises of £350 million a week going to our public services. They want to hide the fact they can’t do it, and therefore they’re now saying, ‘Oh, let’s get from the EU another £8 billion or so.’ So, that’s something we need to address very clearly. The White Paper’s priority, actually, is for unfettered access, and it’s one that we should all embrace. We know that—. We understand that free trade agreements are important, but we also must understand the EU-27 position as well, because very often we talk about our position, but there are negotiations.

Mark Reckless talked about the ‘mastery’ of the letter on article 50. I saw a veiled threat in that letter about security. I don’t call that ‘mastery’; I call that ‘threats and intimidation’, and that’s not good negotiation.

Can I just say, almost all my speech was dedicated to the draft negotiating mandate, and I identified about three or four things that I thought were really positive, and actually could allow a good negotiation in our mutual interest and showing respect to the EU position?

I take that point, but when I asked to intervene on the point he raised at the very beginning, he didn’t allow me to have one. So, I took the chance now to tell him what I think about it—quite clearly.

Now, we understand there are risks. There are risks because we’re leaving. We must address those risks in the coming negotiations, and I believe strongly that the direct involvement of Welsh national Government Ministers in those negotiations will be important. We have to move forward. I’m conscious of time, so—. On the amendment, I wish you’d actually said we would actually ‘prepare’ a Bill, not ‘lay’ a Bill, because I think the preparation of one is, at this point, important. It’s semantics, but it’s important semantics. The laying of a Bill, perhaps, at this stage is presumptuous because we haven’t seen the Bill yet. We haven’t seen the Bill yet. We need to see that. But I won’t deny that preparation is important in that situation.

The UK Government has a mandate for us to leave the EU, but no mandate to use Brexit as an excuse for change in ideological approaches in the way in which we look at our economy and our public services. As they negotiate our exit and our future relationship, they must accept constitutional structural changes, and they must ensure that the interests and priorities of the devolved nations are actually not ignored.

Thanks to the Government for bringing today’s debate. I thought the First Minister raised some reasonable points today, and in a balanced manner, and it hasn’t actually been as heated today, which is perhaps a welcome development—but maybe that will change. [Laughter.] After Brexit, the UK will need an independent arbiter to rule over issues such as legal competence and what is being called ‘the UK internal market’. It’s been suggested that, ultimately, the main arbiter could be the Supreme Court. The First Minister has said before that, in constitutional terms, the UK Government can’t be both judge and jury. I’m sure most of us in UKIP are not too frightened of our own UK Supreme Court being the ultimate constitutional arbiter. We are also keen on empowering the Supreme Court, which is why we in UKIP want Brexit to encompass the UK’s departure from the European Court of Justice. Hopefully the First Minister agrees with this outcome.

The First Minister says that what is devolved must stay devolved. This sounds reasonable. The problem is that the issue of legal competence has been rather fluid—rather nebulous—in the post-devolution world. For instance, the Trade Union (Wales) Bill is currently being discussed by the relevant Assembly committee, of which I am a member. We are being urged by the Welsh Government Minister, in this case, to back this Bill even though he accepts that legal competence in this area will revert to the UK Government after the Wales Bill becomes law. So, these things are rather fluid and are not written in stone.

The demand that every penny lost from EU funding to Wales must be replaced by UK Government funds: Julie Morgan raised this today, quite rightly. We agree with this demand, and we always have done. But Jeremy Miles did make a constructive suggestion today, and he saw an opportunity—. Oh, he’s gone, but he did make a constructive contribution, I felt. He saw in Brexit an opportunity, in that it could be a chance to put Welsh funding on a statutory basis, and that may be worthy of exploration in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, as usual, this debate is held with that fallacious concept that the European Union and its governing institutions has been a huge benevolent factor for the countries it holds in its sway. The European Union has, in fact, proved itself to be to the advantage of just two groups of people: big business and the political elite. If you challenge the veracity of that statement, just ask the views of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, where unemployment is running at some 50 per cent, and whose only hope for work is to emigrate. I won’t ask you where they tend to emigrate to. Time after time, we see the political ambitions of the European politicians put before the well-being of the working people of the EU. You may argue ad infinitum about the commercial consequences of Brexit from the EU, but the truth is that the European Union has been an economic disaster for many of its members. We have members of the European Commission making decisions in the full knowledge that they themselves will in no way suffer financially from those decisions. I wonder how many of them pause to contemplate the appalling spectacle of the Greek pharmacist setting himself alight because their policies had caused his financial ruination.

Time and time again in this Chamber we’ve heard arguments that ‘They will not allow this’ or ‘They will not allow that.’ Well, who is the ‘they’ you talk about? [Interruption.] Well, politicians, of course. But I reiterate what I’ve said in the past: it will not be politicians—

You’re a politician.

[Continues.]—for all their posturing, who will decide on the terms of our exit from Europe; it will be the businesses of Europe who will decide, and it is those that will demand that there is free and unfettered access to our markets.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course, David.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Do you agree that the end outcome of any negotiations has to be put before the council, which is all the heads of state—politicians; has to be put before the Members of the UK Parliament—politicians—

Absolutely.

[Continues.]—and also to the UK Government—politicians? So, actually, it’s politicians that will make the decision, not what you’re saying.

Well, just listen to the next few paragraphs and perhaps you’ll change your mind on that, David.

I don’t think so.

Anyone who believes otherwise—[Interruption.] Anyone who believes otherwise has no understanding of international trade. Governments don’t sell goods to other nations; businesses sell goods to other nations. It is merely the function and duty of every Government to remove as many impediments to that trade as possible, and that, at the end of the day, is what the Governments of Europe, and hence the European Commission, will be forced to do. If we are to debate the European Union, let’s not look at this institution through rose-coloured spectacles, pretending that it is an institution without huge drawbacks. Its policies have had catastrophic consequences for a large part of the population of Europe. The true pragmatists among us recognise that a divorce—any divorce—from Europe is preferable to being manacled to a union destined to slip further and further down the tables of economic trade.

Thank you very much. I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate. Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Members for their varying contributions to the debate. If I could begin, first of all, with the leader of UKIP. I’m not keen, in the course of my response, to rehash some of the discussions we’ve had before, but to deal with some of the newer issues that have arisen. First of all, there are great dangers that the UK Government will try and use Henry VIII powers in order to avoid scrutiny by the UK Parliament, and indeed to prevent this institution from taking its own action with regard to Brexit, and that is something that would subvert democracy, to my mind, actually—to avoid that kind of scrutiny.

On the issue of the market, we have to remember that the European single market is one of the world’s biggest markets and it’s on our doorstep. If we were looking for a new relationship with the EU, it would be the first market we would look at, because we have a land border with it, and will continue to do so in the future. Yes, free trade agreements with other countries may be important, but Australia and New Zealand are not going to replace the European single market in terms of what it’s worth to us.

Nobody argues for tariffs. I’ve not heard anybody argue that tariffs should be imposed. I don’t agree, necessarily, with Mark Reckless’s view that tariffs somehow can have minimal effect. Some will have more of an effect than others and the more inelastic the demand for a product, the greater the effect tariffs will have. The stronger the brand of a product—for a German car manufacturer, I don’t think they’re particularly concerned. They know people will continue to buy BMWs and Mercedes even if the price goes up, because people want to buy them because of the brand. The consumer will pay the price as a result of it. But he will know that the whole point of a tariff is to make foreign goods more expensive in a domestic market in order for domestic goods to appear cheaper to the consumer. So, therefore, it is a tax that consumers have to pay if they’re going to buy goods from outside of that market. The worry I have is that if there is no agreement in an incredibly short time frame—by, really, the autumn of next year—then tariffs appear by default. No-one wants them, but they appear by default at that stage, so we end up in a situation that’s unsatisfactory for all involved in these negotiations.

I’m concerned about agriculture, because, as was rightly said by the leader of UKIP, agriculture has a special place in the hearts of people. People are particularly protective of agriculture, and it is often the case that agriculture is excluded from free trade agreements. Can I make it absolutely clear that we would not under any circumstances accept a free trade agreement that excluded the ability of our farmers to sell into their biggest market? Ninety per cent of what we produce that is exported goes into the European market. We would not accept any barriers to trade with regard to that.

But I do urge those who wanted to leave to move beyond re-arguing the referendum and to come forward with plans of their own. The supreme irony at the moment is that those of us who wanted to remain are actually taking forward plans to leave whilst those who wanted to leave don’t quite know what happens next. Some have ideas, some don’t—I don’t want to put everyone in the same category—but I do urge all those leavers to come forward with a plan rather than saying, ‘Well, the referendum result has happened, and therefore we must leave.’ We need more than that.

In terms of the continuity Bill, look, I have no objection to continuing discussions on this. For me, what I would want to know is: what would the Bill do? Is it a declaration rather than a Bill? What would the shape of the Bill look like? And how would we avoid such a Bill being overwritten, in effect, by Westminster anyway, as a result of the great repeal Bill? So, let’s continue with those discussions. We’ll continue to abstain today, but in terms of—[Interruption.] In a second. In terms of the principle of such a Bill and what it might deliver, I think there are further discussions to be had.

We note very much—everybody in the Chamber notes—that the First Minister is not ruling out a continuity Bill, although perhaps we should call it the great continuity Bill; if there can be a great repeal Bill, there can be a great continuity Bill. But it should be there as a backstop, because surely the first thing we need to do is to see whether the UK Government is genuine in its desire, set out in that vague terminology this week, to achieve a good outcome for the UK and for Wales with that parity of esteem. If that is the case, we do not need a great continuity Bill; we just need to get on with it for the good of the people we represent.

I’m more than happy to help with the discussions or the Bill itself, and to see what such a Bill might deliver. I have to say, in terms of the issue of the single market, I made this point to the Prime Minister that if we have rules for an internal UK single market that we did not have a role in drawing up, then we will do our best to drive a coach and horses though them. We will look to avoid them. We will have no sense of ownership of them. If there is no court—and the Supreme Court will do fine in terms of being the court that polices those rules—then how on earth will the UK Government enforce the rules anyway, because it would have no legal powers to do so? Absolutely right: the Supreme Court should be the adjudicator rather than the arbiter in that regard. It’s fairly easy to do, and it’s something the UK Government should accept pretty early on.

In terms of what Mark Isherwood said, I do remind him that the Welsh Government White Paper predates the UK Government White Paper, not the other way round, and again, he said ‘border control’. There’s not going to be any border control. We will have an open border with the European Union in Ireland. There will be no control at that border, and that issue is yet to be resolved. I’ve heard some say, ‘Ah, well, we thought Ireland would leave as well.’ It’s not going to happen. The people of Ireland are not known for taking their cue from what the UK does, and that issue is still unresolved. So, I do urge people—when they talk about controlling our borders, it’s a myth. It’s an absolute myth. Because, unless we are prepared to accept the political consequences of a hard border on the island of Ireland and all that entails, then that issue is not something that is going to happen.

Will the First Minister give way?

Of course.

I do acknowledge your White Paper was before, but it was only one week before, and I suspect theirs was at more than final drafting stage by then. But, in terms of the border, that matter is addressed in the UK Government documents, and it’s also been acknowledged in the response from the European Council. So, whilst recognising the need for the border around the rest of the UK to be compliant with proposals, the Irish border situation is recognised by all parties.

Yes, it’s recognised as a problem—that’s the issue. I do remind him that the White Paper was not drawn up in a pub one night between two parties. There was a great deal of work involved in drawing that up as well, and it did pre-date the UK Government White Paper.

The reality is that, as things stand, when we leave the EU, if somebody wished to come into the UK without being detected, they’d just come through Ireland. There is no check at all. That is something that is yet to have a resolution. Nobody wants to return to a hard border, but it is a problem I pointed out before the referendum, and it’s a problem that still remains.

In terms of the UK drifting apart, that’s exactly what I think will happen if the UK Government doesn’t wake up to this—that tensions will be created where the UK Government steps on the toes of devolved administrations, so the UK itself falls apart. That doesn’t need to happen, but that is something the UK Government must be wary of as far as the future is concerned. That means there must be a deal, to my mind, that is ratified by the four Parliaments. Why should it be that the Parliament of Wallonia will have a greater say over Wales’s relationship with the EU than the Parliament of Wales will have? That makes no sense at all. Where is the democracy in that?

I do say to him that, often, people say to me that red tape will be cut as a result of Brexit. I never have any examples of what that means, but he says it. Again, I say to him: in 1997, when we had the referendum here and a similar result happened, I did not call those who voted against the establishment of devolution ‘the enemy within’. I do urge him to reconsider his comments—48 per cent of people voted to remain. It was an honest view. They’re not the enemy within in the UK itself. They had their views. They’re not in some way traitors to their country—[Interruption.]—which is the implication of what he said.

I’m running out of time, I’m afraid, Dirprwy Lywydd; I’m trying to deal with a number of these issues.

There were a couple of interventions, so I will give you some extra time.

Okay, right. Steffan Lewis made the points that he did. He mentioned the issue of the single market. I don’t believe that the issue of the single market is reserved. Developing David Melding’s points, the UK relinquished control over certain agricultural powers in 1973 to the European Community, then the European Union. It then relinquished all its other agricultural powers to this Assembly. It cannot say, on that basis, that powers coming back over agriculture go back to the Westminster Parliament. The reason why I say that is this: our devolution settlement says quite clearly that agriculture is devolved. There are no caveats. It does not say that powers that are currently held by the European Union would revert to the Westminster Parliament if those powers were to return. Perhaps we shouldn’t expect it to; it’s silent. On a reserved-powers model, where there is silence, the presumption must be in favour of devolution, and that is the way that I read it. I respect his views hugely, but that is the view that I take on that, with the reserved-powers model in place.

In terms of some of the other issues that were raised—. I don’t agree with Mark Reckless. He sees the reference to Gibraltar as something that is to do with a move towards qualified majority voting. In fact, I take the exact opposite view. The fact that it’s mentioned is a way of trying to provide assurance for Spain in terms of tax competition, in order for Spain to support any future deal. So, I take the exact opposite view to him there on that.

Rhun ap Iorwerth raised an issue—. We have before, in this Chamber, talked about the potential loss of trade if it’s seen that Northern Ireland is an easier route into the Irish Republic in terms of trade, and what that would mean for Holyhead, Pembroke Dock, and, indeed, Fishguard. He raises the point, quite rightly, that there is trade between Ireland and France. It’s a seasonal service, which runs in the summer, into Cherbourg and into Roscoff. But there is a danger there that freight operators going to Ireland will want to avoid Dover at all costs, because of the problems with getting through Dover and then problems with getting through Holyhead and the other Welsh ports into Ireland, therefore losing trade on the French routes as a result of that.

David Rowlands, finally—. David, I have to say, the European Union is not an extension of the Third Reich. It contributes £680 million a year to the Welsh economy. Unemployment is not 50 per cent in southern Europe. The UK was desperate to join the European Community—desperate, because the UK's economy was tanking at that time. We need to make sure that doesn't happen in the future. We know the people decided that we should leave the EU. Actually, David, if business had had its way, we’d still be in the EU, because British business wanted us to stay in the EU. And I say to him: it's not businesses—[Interruption.] It’s not businesses—[Interruption.] It’s not businesses who will decide what the nature of a free trade agreement is; it is Governments. German car manufacturers don’t have a seat at the table. They do not determine what their Governments do; their electors do. So, more than anything else, it is hugely important not to give an impression of arrogance, saying, ‘The EU needs us more than we need them.’ We need each other. We need each other to ensure that we have peace on the continent, we need each other to make sure that we have trade, we need to make sure that we share a common purpose to increase prosperity and equality across this continent, and, whatever happens with Brexit, that is something that this Government will continue to do.

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

We'll now move on to item 4 on our agenda, which is a statement by the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, ‘The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act—One Year On’. And I call on Rebecca Evans, as Minister for Social Services and Public Health, to move that statement. Rebecca.

Thank you. It’s now a year since the landmark Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 came into force and we are seeing the way care is being delivered on the ground being transformed to meet the needs of the individual. People have a stronger voice in improving their well-being and deciding what support they need to help them live independently. Care is being co-ordinated with the person at the centre, recognising that they, and their family, know the situation best; they live it every day.

The Act has provided the opportunity to focus on the things that matter to people and to organise the support that is needed through real conversations that build on the skills, strengths and abilities of the individual. The Act was the culmination of many years of hard, collaborative work following the 2011 publication of the Welsh Government White Paper, ‘Sustainable Social Services for Wales: A Framework for Action’.

The White Paper highlighted a number of challenges faced by public services in Wales, including an ageing population and increased demand on services, as well as considering the continuing harsh economic reality. It set out a new vision for the sector, which offered the best possible outcomes for those who need care and support, while also making social services sustainable for the future.

From the very beginning, the Act was developed and delivered in true partnership with local authorities, the third sector, care providers, and health. Its implementation is further strengthening this integration.

Seven regional partnership boards are now leading the change in services, undertaking their own area population assessments to enable them to plan tailor-made solutions based on firm evidence of what the people in that region want and need. As well as multi-agency representation, the citizen voice is increasingly present in the decision-making process, ensuring solutions are being co-produced with input from all of those involved.

The population assessments will set out the range and level of preventative services necessary to meet the care and support needs of differing population areas. To support this, last September I allocated £15 million from the intermediate care fund to provide a range of preventative services in communities, and we will continue to develop these types of services, as well as others required by the changes made through the legislation, through the rebranded £60 million integrated care fund.

Recently, I visited the Bridgend community resource team at its base, the Trem-y-môr residential care facility in Bettws in Bridgend. Through bringing staff together from reablement, physiotherapy, nursing, social work, and the occupational therapy teams, integrated services like this one are making a real difference to the lives of people in the area.

It’s these types of preventative, integrated services in the community that can address people’s needs and intervene earlier to help and support individuals before their needs reach a more critical stage. They can keep people out of hospital and in their homes, living the life they choose safely and independently for longer.

It would be impossible to describe all of the strides being taken in the sector under every part of the wide-ranging Act in this statement today, but to give the Chamber a flavour of the real benefits we are seeing as a result of the social services and well-being Act, I’d like to highlight the success of the National Adoption Service for Wales, established under the legislation. Since its inception, we have seen the waiting time for looked-after children to be placed for adoption nearly halved to 13.5 months from 26 months.

We are proud also that the Act has given enhanced rights to carers. As a Government, we recognise the vital role that carers play across Wales. Now, for the first time, thanks to this legislation, carers have an equal right to assessment and support as those who they care for. We have always made it clear that we will monitor the progress of the Act and the difference it’s making to help people who need care and support achieve well-being. The national outcomes framework was published in March 2016, listing 50 national indicators to measure the well-being of people in Wales who require care and support and carers who need support.

We’ll be setting a baseline through our first annual report, which will be published following the release of the national survey data, this autumn. This report will then be produced annually every autumn from 2017-18 onwards. An independent long-term standalone evaluation will commence in the third year of implementation of the Act, with a stakeholder evaluation group to inform the specification for the evaluation and steer it.

At this first anniversary point, we are only at the end of the beginning of the transformation of social services in Wales, but it is already clear to see that the sector is rising to the challenge to support people who need it by doing what really matters to them. As a Government we will continue to support our partners to deliver this ambitious agenda to its full potential. The journey also continues through the implementation of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the companion Act to the 2014 Act, which brings regulation into line with the principles of its sister legislation and strengthens protection for those who need it. Yesterday, and as a result of the regulation and inspection Act, the Care Council for Wales became Social Care Wales. Social Care Wales will build on the work of the care council, continuing to be responsible for workforce regulation and development, but also taking a lead role in improvement of the care sector, which we recognise as a sector of national strategic importance.

This spring, after extensive stakeholder engagement, I will also be putting the second phase of regulations and associated guidance under the 2016 Act to full public consultation. It will include the requirements on providers and responsible individuals in domiciliary and residential care, and also now the requirements in relation to secure accommodation for children. A third phase will follow, focusing on fostering services, adoption support, adult placements, and advocacy providers. At the end of this process we will have a regulation and inspection system at the forefront of making sure that care and support in Wales is the best it can be. I look forward to working with our partners to further deliver real differences to the lives of some of the people in Wales who deserve it most. Thank you.

Yes, 12 months have passed since the legislation came into force, but, in reality, a large part of the Act related to giving powers to the Government to make regulations over a period of time in various areas. So, there’s been less than a year of action in a number of different areas, if truth be told.

In order to retain focus, I want to concentrate on carers, because the Act took the place of the carers Measure, and we heard you mention there that the Government recognises the crucial role that carers play across Wales, and that, through this legislation, there is a right to have an assessment and support for those carers. The Government, you say, wants to monitor how improvements are being made as a result of this Act, and the difference it’s making to those people who need care, but there is still no mention here of the kinds of outcomes of any monitoring. Carers Wales have published their own performance monitor since the Bill, and I will remind you of some of the things that they found: 17 of the 22 local authorities can’t provide any data on the number of carers that contact them over the phone; the majority of councils don’t know how many carers they’ve referred to other organisations; 16 of the 22 local authorities can’t provide figures as to how many people they had referred to other organisations, and so on and so forth.

Now, simultaneously, I will highlight the 24 per cent reduction in the number of nights of respite care over this period. Eighty per cent of those people that completed the Carers Wales survey stated that they hadn’t been offered a needs assessment. Now, the question in my mind, a year on, is: has there been a real practical and measurable change, or is the Government still declaring a year on what they aspire to happen as a result of this piece of legislation, which has already been in force for a year?

So, in response to the concerns raised by Carers Wales—and I’ve raised them also in this Chamber—you said that you’ve written to every local authority in Wales on the issue, and had asked officials to look in more detail at the findings. Can you give us an update on what actions local authorities will take as a result of your letter, and also can you express your view on the findings of Carers Wales, which are quite striking in terms of what has happened in the past 12 months?

You also said that you were discussing a national model in terms of dealing with the issue of respite care with the third sector. Can you give us some details as to when we will see that national model developed, and whether you will aim specifically at overturning the reduction that we have seen in the number of nights of respite care provided? Because my constituents, and I know the constituents of Members across this Chamber, will hear a great deal from constituents on the impact of those lost nights of respite care.

I thank you for those questions. I’m very familiar with the Track the Act campaign from Carers Wales, and I actually really welcome the input and the constructive challenge that they are providing us, and the positive engagement of the third and voluntary sector in the whole co-productive approach that we have through the social services and well-being Act, working in partnership with us and with local authorities to improve particularly outcomes for carers, and also those who are cared for.

I think it is early days yet, and I do acknowledge there is variation in data collection across Wales, but also I recognise that there is also some excellent practice developing. As part of the developing performance management framework for the new Act, a lot of effort is going in to ensuring that there’s a consistent approach to the use of data on a national basis as we move forward. ADSS Cymru has dedicated a specific work stream to secure a national consistency in the implementation of the performance management framework, because I do recognise the importance of having comparable data right across Wales.

With regard specifically to the report that Carers Wales provided—and I do acknowledge it has been useful—the data was generated through a freedom of information request in relation to the first six months of implementation, so we have moved on a further six months from that. But local authorities and, indeed, Carers Wales themselves recognise the variability and inconsistency of reporting against this particular freedom of information request, and that is disappointing. So, in order to get some stronger and more comparative data in future, I’m pleased to update you that local authorities and Carers Wales have agreed to work together in partnership to better shape the request in order to secure more consistent and robust information, as we move forward in the coming months. I would expect improvement in both recording and reporting and, certainly, this work will help inform the implementation of the Act.

So, in terms of my response to the report, I do think it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions from it because of the quality of the data, and it’s worth noting as well that the chief exec of Carers Wales has stated that carers and wider individuals concerned don’t always necessarily recognise that they’ve participated in an assessment as well, so we’ve certainly got some work to do there. And carers are more likely to respond positively if they’ve had or participated in a ‘what matters’ conversation, which is our way of taking forward the social services and well-being Act.

So, to summarise on that, the data do not demonstrate that carers are being denied their right to assessment, but what they do demonstrate is that engagement through the information and advice service isn’t being recorded effectively and consistently across Wales. So, further work is definitely needed in order to embed that consistency. I’ve set out proposals to evaluate the short, medium and long-term impact of the Act as well. Mark Drakeford, the previous Minister, actually set out the process for the evaluation and monitoring of the Act in a statement on 31 March back in 2016, and it will be explicitly linked to the work that’s already been established on the national outcomes framework, which I referred to in my statement as well, which has 50 different outcomes that we will be measuring against. So, the intention is that we will have some really robust data to demonstrate not only where we are now but actually to demonstrate improvement over time in a way that’s consistent right across Wales as well.

I just reiterate the commitment to the national approach to respite. Work is ongoing with that with partners in the voluntary sector particularly, also looking at models that are in place elsewhere. Of course, I am completely open to views and ideas and input from Members in the Chamber on this issue as well.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. This legislation, of course, was supported by us and we want to see it succeed. I was pleased to hear the good news on adoption as well, because that was actually a model with which we were pretty sceptical, if I’m honest, so I’m pleased to say that we may have been persuaded otherwise on that now that we have the evidence.

I think we do agree that an ageing population increases likely demand on social services and so we look forward to an indication of the milestones thta the parliamentary review on health and social care integration may have reached. I’m wondering if perhaps you can exercise some influence there about when we might hear about some of those milestones.

You claim in the statement that you’ve given today that the implementation of the Act is strengthening integration further. Now, bearing in mind the points that have already been made on data capture, can you at least give us a flavour of the type of evidence you’ve already had to support the expectation that the seven regional partnership board assessments have begun to improve prevention, rehabilitation and care in their regions, and the evidence that the citizen is in fact leading the way, contributing to the design of their care? I suppose, in short, what I’m asking is: what do you think co-production currently looks like, and what can you do to reassure me, if you like, that the duty to promote social enterprises and co-ops, and the duty to promote the involvement of the person for care or preventative services, are to be provided, which was imposed on local authorities by the Act? Those two duties—are they actually being observed?

We support your investment in the intermediate care fund—that £60 million and now the additional £15 million. However, I am a bit surprised, especially as you’ve indicated that you hope to develop those services further, from your statement, that you’re not really willing to publish the new independent report you commissioned on how to identify good practice and effective use of funding. Now, that’s not just useful for the regional partnerships. That’s actually useful for us as an Assembly to scrutinise and, of course, support you in making good decisions. But I think it’s also useful for those social workers who, at a conference in Swansea last month, were concerned that they were missing clear indicators of what practice actually looks like. So, if you would be prepared to consider releasing that report, I think I’d be very grateful, because I don’t really see why I should wait three years for a full report on what the intermediate care fund is looking like.

I’m happy to acknowledge the potential of the multifaceted care centre and share your interest in Trem-y-môr. I’m not sure why its success would lead to Bridgend council cutting the social care budget by £2.2 million as a result, but I am keen on hearing more about other successful, locally relevant models. I appreciate this is additional work, but if you are prepared to perhaps produce another written statement with some good examples, I think that might help those of us who are trying to scrutinise you.

Carers—I don’t need to repeat what Rhun ap Iorwerth said—but that refreshed strategy is now overdue, I would say. Again, accepting this issue of data capture, can you give us an indication now about how many carers have been told they are eligible for assessment? I’m quite astonished that some might have been assessed without their knowledge. I really wonder how that was allowed to happen. But then on the back of that, do you have any idea of the proportion of those who’ve been told that they could be assessed who have actually exercised that right; the approximate proportion of those who are still waiting to exercise that right; and again, roughly the proportion of carers who have exercised that right and been assessed and had a statement of their needs who have actually had those needs met? For this to work, it’s got to be more than about smiley faces and frowny faces. There’s got to be some realistic and firm measure of whether those needs have been met.

And then finally, even though I could ask you loads more, I’m afraid, the Act introduced an obligation on local authorities to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN principles for older people. Now, my party believes that all local authority activity should pay due regard to those, but this is a start. So, how are you monitoring the observance of the due regard obligation, and how do you intend to monitor compliance with various codes being issued under the Act, not least that they’re in compliance with those due regard obligations? Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions. I’ll start by recognising, as you did, the great, important strides that we’ve made in terms of improving adoption services in Wales. Also, just to update Members, the National Adoption Service, as one of its priorities, is seeking improvements in life story work and adoption support as well, because we know that those are things that are really important and have a really significant impact on children who’ve been adopted, and the families who adopt them, as well. So, it’s undertaken a root-and-branch review of life story work, leading to an action plan to improve the quality and number of completed life journey stories that children have. Also, we’ve provided significant grant funding to the development of the new framework for adoption support as well, so there’ll be an action plan setting out how this framework will be delivered later on this year, as well.

I’m also glad that you recognise the difference that the intermediate care fund is having. I gave the example of Bridgend, but there are many more and I’m more than happy to share them with Members. Suzy might be interested—particularly in the Western Bay area, the ICF funding supports a specialised nursing team that has consistently improved hospital admission avoidance. So, this year, the service has resulted in 70 admissions being avoided. Other examples are the Pembrokeshire intermediate voluntary organisations team, which improves opportunities for independent living in the community, reducing social isolation for individuals. And, to date, 1,090 bed days have been saved to the NHS and 109 hospital admissions avoided. Just one more, although I do have others: the Cardiff and Vale regional partnership board has implemented a variety of services provided to support independent living, including the health active partnership and the independent living services schemes. To date, the health active partnership has enabled 365 people to remain in their homes and the independent living service has provided 350 interventions, removing 83 people from a life of isolation, as well. So, lots of great examples. Behind every one of those numbers, as well, there’s obviously a story to tell.

One of the things that excites me most about the figures that we’re seeing at the moment is the delayed transfers of care. We’ve had four months now of declining figures, and our figures at the moment are some of the lowest we’ve ever had in Wales, which is absolutely fantastic, especially as we’re in the winter period, still, at the moment. Our figures are now more than 20 per cent down on where they were last year—for the latest figures. It’s too early, really, to make that link completely, but I think it’s certainly a positive sign that the intermediate care fund is making a real difference.

In terms of setting out, I suppose, an understanding of where we are—our starting point—well, under the Act, all of the regional partnership boards have been required to undertake a joint assessment of the care and support needs, including those of carers, within their population areas, and there are regulations that provide for the production of combined population assessment reports on that health board footprint. So, the first of those reports have been published on 1 April, and they provide some real clear and specific evidence bases on which to inform a range of planning and operational decisions for the future, as well. So, I’ll be exploring with Social Care Wales how we can use these regional assessments of population needs to actually create a national assessment of population need as well. I think that’s going to be really important in terms of helping us understand where we move forward with our preventative services, particularly.

The Act also requires the production of area plans, so setting out the range and the level of preventative services that will be put in place in response to those population needs assessments. So, in the first year of the Act, there has been a lot of work going on to try and understand the level of need, and the next phase now is to complete those plans in terms of meeting those needs. And it’s been made very clear in legislation and the guidance, as well, that we have to be focusing on integrated services in terms of meeting the level of those needs.

The citizen has always been at the heart of this legislation, and the citizen is leading the way right across the piece, really, from the individual conversations that the person will have with the people undertaking the assessment, right through to the whole co-production of things on a larger scale. The principles of co-production are actually set out in the code of practice relating to the Bill, and these are: seeing people as assets, building on capabilities, developing mutuality and reciprocity, investing in networks to share information, and blurring distinctions between providers and people who need care and support, and also facilitating rather than delivering the services as well. We’ve put our money where our mouth is by providing funding for the Wales Co-operative Centre to lead on this work, particularly with some work to help local authorities with that duty to promote alternative models of care. I think that there’s a lot to be excited about in terms of not-for-profit organisations, co-operatives and so on, and how they can start meeting the needs of people across Wales as well. Because I do think the more diverse a market that we have in terms of provision, probably the more healthy it is, given our starting point from where we are at the moment, as well.

I’ve dealt with data capture. So, with regard to the UNCRC and the other obligations as well, there’s regular reporting mechanisms from the regional partnership boards to Welsh Government, and obviously we’ll consider all of the duties that the regional partnership boards have, both under that legislation and their wider duties as well, in that reporting mechanism.

Can I thank you, Minister, for your statement today? This is a landmark piece of legislation and I think it’s good to have these reports, and I hope that this is something that you will commit to doing regularly for Assembly Members. I would associate myself with a number of the concerns raised by Rhun ap Iorwerth around adult carers, and I do pay tribute to Carers Wales for the work that they’re doing on Track the Act, but I am also really pleased to hear what you’ve said this afternoon about there being a much more in-partnership approach now between Carers Wales and local government. So, I wanted to ask specifically, really, about the impact of the Act on children.

You will remember, because you were a member of the committee at the time, that a lot of concerns were raised with us that the people-focused nature of this Act may lead to a weakening of support for children. That was in general terms, but also in relation to the repeal of section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which came about as a result of this legislation, and I do have some concerns in that area that we are already seeing some evidence of less support perhaps being provided to children as a result of the Act. I know that Carers Wales, as part of their Track the Act work, have identified a possible problem with carers of disabled children not being recognised by all local authorities as carers, and I’d like to ask whether you have any evidence of that and what you were doing to communicate to local authorities that they most certainly are. I know that you are aware of my concerns about the impact of moving the family fund money into the sustainable social services grant. There’s also been a cut to funding for Contact a Family. Those are two important mechanisms to support disabled children and their families. So, I wanted to ask: the evaluation you’ve referred to of the Act is very, very welcome, but how specifically will you ensure that the needs of disabled children and their families are taken into account in that evaluation?

Finally, I wanted to ask about safeguarding, which I know falls under the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for children, but the decision to put adult and child safeguarding together came as a direct result of this Act, and I know that there is a lot of concern that we are still waiting for the all-Wales child and adult protection procedures to be disseminated in Wales. I understand that a statement is expected very soon, but I wondered if you would be able to comment on that, but also whether you could explain how the relationship between yourself and the Cabinet Secretary for children works on this vital area of safeguarding, with you being responsible for the Act, but the actual delivery of the policies on safeguarding falling under a different Minister. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for those questions, and I’ll start on safeguarding. Carl Sargeant and I work really closely on all aspects where our portfolios do have crossover, and there are quite a few, particularly with regard to the Act. But on safeguarding particularly, I most recently met with Carl Sargeant last week to talk about safeguarding, particularly, actually, within the sporting field. We had some discussions on that, and also safeguarding children in the home environment, as well. So, we did have some regular contact and regular discussions on those issues.

I think the Act did take a big step forward in terms of safeguarding, especially with that duty to report, so if, as you know, a professional in various fields has a concern about a child, they have a duty to report to the local authority, and the local authority then has a duty to investigate. I think that is a huge step forward in terms of what we’re doing to safeguard children in Wales. You’ll know about the national independent safeguarding board as well, which takes a Wales-wide look at safeguarding issues and advises both myself and Carl Sargeant on the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements in Wales, and I had a very good meeting with them recently as well.

Our officials do meet regularly with the safeguarding board’s business unit managers to review progress as well. Volumes 1 to 4 of ‘Working Together to Safeguard People’ have been published, and they’re available on the Welsh Government website. Volumes 5 and 6 on handling individual cases are currently out to consultation, and that ends on 25 February.

I’ll have to write to the Member with the date in terms of the production of the child protection procedures, and the adult protection procedures for practitioners, because I can’t give you an exact date on that at the moment.

You mentioned several issues in terms of whether or not the Act is truly delivering for children. I was concerned when you said that you were aware of evidence of less support for children. So, I’d be really keen if we could share that information, because I’m really keen, at this very early point in the Act, to find out if there are any barriers or any unintended consequences that we can actually get on with and deal with now, rather than getting to a point where it becomes something that’s ingrained within the legislation. So, whenever issues are brought to my attention, either I or my officials will liaise with the appropriate authority to try and break down the barriers that we are finding in the early stages of the Act.

I know that we are hearing that the Act is making a real difference to many families, particularly those of looked-after children. I’ve been told that families who have been known to social services for quite some considerable time, both in and outside social services, have found that ‘What Matters’ conversation really empowering and refreshing. For the first time in a long time, apparently, some of the parents have really opened up about the family situation and have been much more open to receiving support for the family as well. I think that it’s having remarkably better outcomes for those families, and that’s certainly what the Act is designed to do.

Part 6 also sets the framework for improving outcomes for looked-after children and young people at the edge of care, and it seeks to safeguard and promote the well-being of looked-after children as well, and make sure that they’re able to achieve their personal outcomes. So, those aspirations are very much the same as the aspirations that we have for adults under the Act as well. The Act also has a real focus on diverting children from care in the first place and putting support in place so that families can stay together when it’s in the best interest of the child to do so.

Another feature of the Act that is consistent across adults and children is the individual’s voice being at the centre. It’s so important to listen to children in terms of what kind of well-being outcomes they want to achieve. They need to have advocacy, and we had a debate, just yesterday, on the importance of advocacy and taking a national approach, as well, so I think we’re taking good steps in terms of advocacy.

It’s important to us that looked-after children have the same life chances as any other child, and that’s got to be a priority for all of us across Government, which is why I’m really glad that Carl Sargeant has asked David Melding to chair the improving outcomes for children ministerial advisory group, and I know that that group is taking forward quite a challenging programme as well. But I would say that, at this early stage within the Act, if there are issues that you or any other Member are aware of that might be unintended consequences or barriers to the Act fulfilling its potential, then please let us know and we’ll work together to find solutions.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. The social services and well-being Act was the biggest shake-up in social care in decades, intended to put the people receiving care and their carers at the heart of the system. These changes were absolutely necessary. Social care has been hugely under-resourced and is likely to be put under increasing pressure in future decades as our population ages. So, therefore, additional funding is welcomed.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to improving social services, with care being totally focused on the individual’s needs, rather than the needs of service providers. I look forward to reviewing the annual report later this year, so that we can ensure the delivery is meeting its intentions. The national survey for Wales found that, last year, just over half of the public thought that their local authority was delivering good social services. So, I would like to see a vast improvement when the national survey results are published again in the autumn.

I have just one or two questions for you, Minister, and I recognise that we are at the start of the journey of transforming social care delivery, but to those waiting for care assessments or home adaptations, we can’t simply tell them that change is coming. So, what is your Government doing to reduce waiting times for home adaptation? And, Minister, you mention you’re proud that the Act gives enhanced rights to carers, so what is your Government doing to ensure that the funding and facilities are in place to deliver those carers’ rights?

Minister, your statement highlights the fact that the Act is a partnership approach between carers and providers from all sectors. And your predecessor was keen on the co-operative model of direct payments, so what success have you had in encouraging people with care needs to set up and operate co-operatives to make better use of direct payments?

And finally, Minister, the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act will go a long way to put an end to appalling abuses in care, and I look forward to working with you to ensure the social care regime in Wales is as safe as it possibly can be. I would be grateful if you could update us all on the work undertaken to ensure that all of those undertaking care work are suitably trained. Thank you once again for your statement and for the positive way you are working with all parties in this Chamber to improve social care in Wales. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much for those questions, and I’ll deal with the last issues you raised first, in terms of what we’re doing to ensure that social care in Wales is safe, and that has to be absolutely the starting point in terms of ensuring that care is safe. CSSIW does a series of inspections and undertakings in all care settings across Wales, and they do a very good job in terms of ensuring that the care and support that people receive are safe and of a good standard, and they provide an annual report, which I would recommend Members read in terms of understanding the issues in the sector. It’s very important that we have a workforce that is well trained and well paid and well motivated, and one of the exciting things that we’re doing through the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act is registering the domiciliary care workforce by 2020. Not only will that give those workers the kudos and the recognition that they deserve, but it will actually give them the opportunity to have a career structure as well, and Social Care Wales is doing some excellent work in terms of looking at the future for domiciliary care. They recently published a five-year plan, which I recommend to Members who are interested to have a look at, as well. That looks right across the homecare system and what we can do to make improvements, both in terms of quality, but also in terms of ensuring that the workforce is much more stable. Because, as we know, the turnover in the workforce can be around a third in some providers, which obviously is bad for business, but more importantly is bad for the individual receiving the care as well, because we know people like to have consistency in terms of the workforce that is looking after them.

You mentioned direct payments, and direct payments are really important in terms of giving people autonomy and giving people choice, and I think there’s a lot of potential there. We have actually seen the numbers of direct payments increasing, because they can be used to meet any eligible need that is a care and support need under the Act. It does give people that voice and choice and control that the Act is all about as well. Local authorities are embracing the concept, but I think it’s fair to say that there is some variation across Wales, and so, to ensure that we maintain the momentum, I’ve asked officials to bring together a cross-sector group of practitioners from local authorities, as well as service providers and direct payment recipients, to look at what more we can do to promote uptake across the sector as well. And there are co-productive models that we can use to encourage people who might be nervous or might not want to take on an employer kind of role as well. So, there is some work going on in that sector, or in that field, as well. That new group will also further raise the profile of direct payments and explore alternatives to the traditional solutions of meeting people’s care and support needs as well.

I think it’s also important to say that we have removed a number of the historic restrictions limiting the use of direct payments. So, now, we permit direct payments to be used to pay a relative living in the same household for the provision of care and support, or to help in managing the payments, if appropriate, for promoting the well-being of the recipient as well. So, direct payments are much more flexible and responsive to people’s needs than they have ever been before. I think that’s to be welcomed.

You mentioned co-operatives. As I’ve said before, I think this is one of the really exciting parts of the Act, in terms of giving new impetus to the sector, looking at different models, different—you know, models that can be really responsive to society and to the different needs of different communities. I do have some good examples of those, which I’m more than happy to write to you about—different things going on in different parts of Wales within that kind of work as well.

Thank you very much. And, finally, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Thank you. You might recall that in the last Assembly I brought forward a private Bill proposing a community care (direct payments) (Wales) Bill. The then Minister, your predecessor, Gwenda Thomas, said that, if I withdrew it, she would work with me, because there was much common ground. And reference to, for instance, the co-operative care she referred to, came from my Bill, which, in turn, had come from lobbying from the sector, and also reference or agreement that there would be the need to acknowledge the need to promote and support direct payments. That wasn’t on the face of the Bill, but I was told it would be put into the codes. How, therefore, would you address concern raised with me as recently as Sunday, at a World Autism Day event, that not only are some people still not receiving the promotional support, but people who receive care are still, in some local authorities, being told they can’t have direct payments, even when they ask for them? This is managing expectations, managing understanding, and ensuring that local authorities’ officers at a senior level understand this is no longer an option; it’s Welsh law.

Secondly, and finally, the social services and well-being Act places a specific duty on local authorities to promote the involvement of people in the design and delivery of care and support services. Code 2 to the Act

‘recognises that disabled people can achieve their potential and fully participate as members of society, consistent with the Welsh Government’s framework for Action on Independent Living’,

which expresses the rights of disabled people to participate fully in all aspects of life. Your statement says,

‘the citizen voice is increasingly present in the decision-making process, ensuring solutions are being co-produced with input from all of those involved.’

However, in north Wales alone, since this has come into play, and over recent months, I’ve had members of the deaf community saying they’ve had their British Sign Language support and wider support taken from them; a haemophiliac being denied employment by the local authority after a medical; a person with Down’s syndrome not being involved in the decisions over their supported living; wheelchair users being denied access to public footpaths; and people on the autism spectrum facing officers who don’t have the basic autism awareness needed to understand them. As chair of cross-party groups on neurological conditions, disability, autism and others, I’m aware there’s a Wales-wide issue with some local authorities over how the introduction of integrated generic access teams is being used as an excuse to withdraw that personalised condition where condition-specific support is needed. How, urgently—not waiting for the review, but how, urgently, will you intervene with local authorities now, or perhaps after the election, to ensure that officers and the new elected executive members understand that this is your requirement, the requirement of your Government, and the requirement of this whole Assembly?

I thank you for those questions. I’ll begin on the point that you made about access teams. Access teams are really important in terms of the gateway to all that the Act can offer individuals, especially through the assessment for all care and support needs, and so on. I’m aware that various different organisations have expressed concern that perhaps the access groups aren’t fully aware of an individual condition. For example, I met with organisations representing deaf people recently, and they felt that the access teams weren’t fully aware of the various adaptations that could be available for those individuals. So, I made an undertaking then to make sure that our access teams were made aware. If there are other conditions where people feel that access teams need more training and so on, then I’ll certainly explore doing that.

People can apply for direct payments, and local authorities should know that. We discussed it recently at the national partnership boards—the variation in terms of the way in which direct payments are being promoted across Wales—and that new direct payments group that I referred to has been tasked with ensuring that we do have a more consistent offer being made across Wales and that people are being made aware of their right to have direct payments. When people do have direct payments, local authorities must ensure that the value of that payment is equivalent to the estimate of the reasonable cost for the care and support that the person needed, and they must ensure that the value is sufficient to enable the recipient or their representative to secure that care and support as well. So, there’s no limit on the maximum or minimum amount of direct payment, and it must be sufficient to meet the outcomes. So, if we are hearing that people are being either denied the opportunity to access direct payments, or that direct payments are being offered at a level that isn’t realistic in terms of meeting the identified care and support needs, then, again, we’re the early stages in the Act—please let me know, and we’ll take action in order to address that.

Thank you very much, Minister.

We now move on to item 5, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on ‘The Future of Heritage Services in Wales—A New Strategic Partnership and the Future of Cadw’. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, to introduce the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will be aware that I published a written statement on 2 February to inform them that I had received a report setting out a road map towards success, resilience and sustainability for the heritage of Wales. I confirmed that I’d considered the recommendations in detail and that I would respond to each in due course. I have now written to Justin Albert, chair of the steering group, to set out my response to the nine recommendations made by the group, and I wanted to share my thinking with you today.

Firstly, I would like to record my thanks to the chair of the group, and to each of the institutions, trade unions, and my officials, for working so constructively together to produce such a measured and well-considered report. I am heartened that the suite of recommendations has been produced with the agreement and consensus of all organisations involved, and I’m excited about the opportunities they will create for the benefit of the sector as a whole when they are delivered.

The nine recommendations fall into two broad themes, which cover the future of Cadw and the establishment of a strategic partnership and its future work programme. The first recommendation proposes a new national institution for Wales, outside of Government. Cadw’s core role is to conserve our national heritage and to make it available for our current and future generations, and it should be immensely proud of its achievements. Cadw is performing exceptionally whilst being in Government, and I want to ensure that success continues. My aim is to allow the organisation as much freedom and flexibility as possible to enable it to fully realise its commercial potential and also build on its impressive improvement to the visitor experience and increase in visitor numbers and membership.

I’m particularly pleased with the progress Cadw is making in attracting new audiences to our heritage, by targeting families and younger people through superb marketing campaigns and through embracing new technology. However, I believe it is timely to assess whether the existing governance arrangements are truly helping Cadw to fulfil its potential, as there could be potential benefits of moving the organisation to a more arm’s-length status. This could enable Cadw to adopt an even more commercially focused approach to support the vital work that needs to be done to continue to maintain and protect the heritage of Wales, as well as provide greater scope for Cadw to work in partnership with other institutions.

That said, I would not, at this stage, want to focus simply on the two options identified in the report. There are other models worthy of consideration, such as an internal realignment or Welsh Government sponsored body, and, as such, I have asked my officials to produce a business case to identify and explore the whole range of options before being narrowed down to a preferred option. It is imperative that we test all options thoroughly against the status quo and ensure that we consider retaining Cadw within Government. There will need to be clear and demonstrable benefits for proposing any change. I hope to be in a position to indicate the Government’s preferred option by 30 September of this year.

As part of the business case, I’m also asking my officials to consider the second recommendation regarding Cadw’s statutory duties. The preferred model for the future of Cadw will dictate how this recommendation is taken forward. Cadw’s statutory duties are fundamental to the conservation of our national heritage. The importance of these functions—along with the provision of advice and guidance to owners of historic assets—should not be diluted by any change to the status of the organisation.

Moving on to the strategic partnership, I am excited by the recommendations for much greater collaboration between our leading heritage institutions and the vision for a strategic partnership as the solution to protect the heritage of Wales when public finances are under severe pressure. I want to see the establishment of this partnership as soon as possible.

The steering group has convinced me that the recommendations highlight a real opportunity to bring a sharper focus and a clearer identity to the commercial work of our national institutions, but that it is right that we test these opportunities and evaluate their impact before exploring whether a formal merger may be effective. Bringing commercial functions closer together will not undermine the independence or the identity of the individual institutions. Rather, it will enable them to build on the strengths of each organisation and share the expertise within each for the benefit of the entire sector.

There are recommendations on collaborative delivery of commercial functions, collaborative delivery of back-office functions, cultural tourism, and development of the Blaenavon world heritage site. These are at the heart of my own vision. We have to find new ways for our heritage and cultural institutions to be ambitious about the role they play in our national life, working together to form a compelling vision of that future.

We also have to increase the number of people using our heritage and cultural institutions and develop novel ways to attract new audiences. By working more closely, and marketing and promoting our cultural and heritage institutions more vigorously and effectively, it will create wider opportunities to open up all of our sites to families and younger people in a way we never have before.

I’m also eager to pursue the recommendation to develop a cultural skills strategy. 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. I believe that we need to give greater respect and recognition to them and to offer them greater opportunities to develop their careers in the field. And we need to retain our staff to conserve, protect, and interpret our inheritance for future generations. I want to see this strategy in place by October 2018.

I also want to touch on the fact that many of you have raised in the past, that Cadw and the other national institutions are well known and respected brands, whilst Historic Wales has been a working title for this significant initiative. I agree with the steering group that it should be tested alongside alternatives before any changes are implemented. Whatever the outcome, I want to see a strong brand that represents the sector and enables it to market our world-class cultural assets more effectively, not just to the people of Wales, but to the world.

I recognise that a formal agreement is needed for a strategic partnership, and this approach has my full support. The Welsh Government will play its part in supporting and contributing to the partnership, but I believe for it to reach its full potential it needs to be led and be driven by the institutions involved, with their adequate resources put behind it. I, therefore, look forward to discussing the establishment of the strategic partnership and its forward work programme with the national institutions at the earliest opportunity. And so, to close, I accept all the recommendations of the steering group report, with the caveats I have set out today. I am committed to enabling our heritage institutions to maximise the economic benefit that they bring to the people of Wales and I look forward to updating the Chamber on progress in the autumn.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement here today, which follows a previous statement on this issue, of course, as we all know? Following publication of the recommendations made by the steering group in early February, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the recommendations fairly quickly, and the reason for that was that I felt the sector needed assurances going forward. In thanking the Cabinet Secretary for bringing the statement before us today, there are still some questions that need to be answered.

Following earlier discussions, the Cabinet Secretary is aware that I'm quite happy to support the idea of co-operation between bodies in the sector, but I definitely think there is a need to safeguard the independence of these organisations as well. In fact, I'm glad to see that the steering group also recognises the importance of this point. Point 3.1 of the report by the steering group says, in English:

Oherwydd y gyfraith elusennau, siarteri llywodraethu a gofynion statudol eraill, bydd yr argymhellion yn parchu hunaniaeth, gonestrwydd, annibyniaeth a dibenion craidd y sefydliadau cenedlaethol.

PwC's report also talks about the risks associated with merging these national bodies to create a single body across the sector.It was disappointing, therefore, to read again about merger in the Cabinet Secretary’s letter on 30 March to Justin Albert. Specifically, in talking about the recommendations of the steering group, the Cabinet Secretary said, and I quote:

mae’n iawn ein bod yn profi’r cyfleoedd hyn ac yn gwerthuso eu heffaith cyn archwilio pa un a all uno ffurfiol fod yn effeithiol.

Why the talk of formal mergers all the time? It’s mentioned in the statement again today. From my perspective, the steering group’s message is clear, namely, that there is potential for these bodies to work together in a strategic partnership, but that there should be respect for the freedom and independence of these organisations at the same time. Does the Cabinet Secretary not understand that talk of formal mergers generates uncertainty among staff members throughout the sector and that there is a need to stop using that term?

Regarding CADW, a number of reports have talked about the need to move the body out of the direct control of the Government - the Professor Terry Stevens report, the PwC report, and now the report of the steering group. So, we were disappointed to see the Cabinet Secretary propose in his letter to Justin Albert that other options should be considered for, in his own words,

ailadliniad mewnol neu Gorff a Noddir gan Lywodraeth Cymru.

All this creates a perception that the Government wants to control as many things as possible centrally.

Of course, it is important that the Government monitors the effectiveness of any investment in the sector. That's what taxpayers would expect. But it is important that the Government does not restrict the freedom and independence of these national organisations, which play a unique and important role in the life of the nation. In talking of investment, it is not clear how the Cabinet Secretary sees the strategic partnership working and whether additional financial resources will be provided to deliver the wide range of recommendations that the strategic partnership will need to address.

In closing, may I welcome recommendation 4.8 by the steering group on the creation of a skills strategy for the cultural sector, and could I also ask the Cabinet Secretary about his vision regarding local museums as part of this statement? I have visited several local museums recently, including, naturally, those in Swansea time and again, and also Tenby, and there are questions arising about how those organisations are interwoven with the national organisations. An update on this would also be welcome. Thank you.

Yes, can I thank Dai Lloyd for his contribution and his questions? I believe I’ve said on numerous occasions now that this Historic Wales initiative could have huge benefits for local museums, not just in terms of skills—I’ll come to that point in a moment—but also in terms of promoting the sector more widely and attracting more people with an interest in heritage to visit not just national institutions, but also local museums as well. And I think, in particular, there are potential benefits with regard to skills development within the workforce, and I do believe that we can build on the recommendations of the Edwards review of local museums to link professional skills between the national museum and local museums. I do think that this is something that the national museum would like to embrace. I think it’s something that local museums very much need.

Moving on to other points raised by the Member, I think generally the outcome of this exercise has shown that many of the fears that existed at the outset of this process were largely unfounded. The steering group has members representing all of the national institutions and, crucially, the steering group has members representing all of the trade unions. I believe that the steering group has done a fantastic job in engaging meaningfully and thoroughly with the workforce in each of the institutions in reaching these recommendations. And I do not fear having an open mind as to what the future might hold for the sector, other than to say that that future must be bright and positive for all involved. That’s why I remain open-minded about the specific means of ensuring that Cadw is given the freedom that it requires to operate more flexibly and more proactively, and to build on recent successes.

If we look at where Cadw is today, it’s got a record number of members, a record level of income and a record number of visitors, but that’s down to a number of factors: one, giving the right people within the organisation the freedom and the flexibility to be as creative and inspiring as they can be. I want to make sure that the organisation is futureproofed, though, to make sure that there is not the potential for interference at ministerial level that could damage visitor numbers, income or membership numbers. For that reason, I wish to explore every option for giving the organisation maximum opportunity to be as innovative as possible. For that reason, I’m open to considering not just the options that have been presented in the review, but also to other options that I think should be explored as part of the process of examining what is best not just for Cadw, but for the entire sector.

In terms of the strategic partnership, I know that the Member welcomed one of the recommendations in the report. Based on the sentiment that he was conveying, it was my inference that he was welcoming a number of the recommendations, including a recommendation for far closer collaboration insofar as cultural tourism is concerned, as far as the promotion of world heritage sites is concerned and, of course, insofar as the sharing of back office duties is concerned, not least because there is already some degree of collaboration taking place, but it’s simply not enough. And I think what should be borne in mind by all Members, particularly those who opposed this initiative from the outset, is that we would not be here today, with agreement from all of the national institutions and the trade union representatives, had it not been for this Government proposing novel but radical action to put the sector on a more stable footing, and that is our objective—to make sure that the sector as a whole is able to weather the storm that will continue insofar as public finances are concerned.

In terms of talking about a merger, I think it’s just as dangerous for Members to rule out any potential pathways for the future for our national institutions as it is for Members to insist that one pathway over another should be pursued. What is best for the sector will surely be judged by the sector and by those who are involved in it, not just by those who run institutions, but by the whole workforce. But let’s agree on something: that whatever the future holds, we would all wish the sector to be in a far stronger, more resilient position in the years to come than it has been during this period of difficult austerity.

Thank you very much for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and for, as you say, sharing your thoughts. I thank you for confirming your acceptance of the steering group’s recommendations. I detected from your earlier statement that you’ve not written off completely the idea of an arm’s-length Cadw, not least in recognition of the freedom to improve the commercial potential—something that’s been repeated in the statement today here. And, of course, it’s a view shared by your hand-picked steering group—it’s a hand-picked steering group which, of course, judging from your statement today, has offered you what seems to me to look like a bit of an inconveniently narrow piece of advice. I suppose what I want to ask you is: wasn’t it their job to come up with the options of which models should be developed through a business case? Of course, they’ve concluded that there are other models that weren’t worthy of being built up into business cases. So, I’m quite curious about why you’ve decided to, effectively, not pay due heed to that advice, and this is one major caveat here. To me, it looks rather like you’re ignoring their advice rather than accepting their recommendation.

In terms of Cadw’s statutory duties, at this stage I’ve got nothing specific to add, except to say that I agree with your point of view that their duties shouldn’t be weakened in any way. But, of course, the freer Cadw would be freer to make partnerships that aren’t limited by their current statutory duties as well, and I’m thinking in particular of potential powers that could help them offer more than advice and guidance to owners of historic assets, many of whom are small and not even as well financially supported as Cadw.

Moving on to the strategic partnership, I don’t think there’s any serious question about the benefits of collaboration here; there’s a definite movement towards that anyway. I agree completely that all relevant parties should be given the opportunity to test and, I would say, capitalise upon those opportunities before even considering the prospect of merger. Personally, I would like the option of formal merger to be taken off the table now. But if you are going to employ this kind of sword of Damocles, you will need to be crystal clear—absolutely crystal clear—about what success looks like and what will stave off the prospect of merger. With that in mind, I wonder if you can tell me your early thinking on what kind of targets you consider appropriate for the strategic partnership. What kind of KPIs would be appropriate to measure their achievement? Who will set these KPIs and targets—who will you be consulting with on that? How will you balance the institution’s core functions with its commercial potential? What will you do to ensure that Cadw, if it is out of Government, comes to the table as an equal partner and not as a sort of big bossy sister? But, if it remains in Government, I think you will have a very difficult job persuading us that Welsh Government can then operate as an impartial judge of whether the work of the strategic partnership is successful or not, because there will be a blatant conflict of interest.

Then, can you tell us what support and guidance Welsh Government will give to the partnership? You rightly mentioned in your statement that you expect the institutions to put, and I quote, their ‘adequate resources’ towards the work of the partnership. So, how do you or, indeed, they, identify what is adequate for the purposes of this important work? I’m wondering whether you can identify anything in your own budget line that might be allocated to this.

On the cultural skills strategy, yes, I think this is a great way, actually, of helping young people understand that studying science subjects is a route into a career that they may not have considered— culture and heritage are warm friends, really, of anything to do with archaeology and conservation, and I look forward to hearing a bit more about that.

But, finally, on branding, how realistic do you think it is that the institutional brands, which are well recognised, as you acknowledged, can operate side by side with Historic Wales or whatever the name is actually going to be? I hope you’re not talking about a case of one of these cancelling out the other. Thanks.

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her questions? First and foremost, no, the advice on recommendation 1 is not being ignored. I’ve already assured Members that the inclusion of those two other options that I highlighted will form the work that officials are going to be undertaking in compiling a business case, but I do think it’s important to consider every option. Also, the Member suggested that the membership of the steering group was hand-picked by me. Those organisations were able to nominate who sat on the steering group, and, so that Members are in no doubt, I’ll just run through the membership: we had the chair of the steering group, who is the director for Wales of the National Trust—it’s true that he was appointed by me and he carried out a superb job; the director of culture, sport and tourism within Welsh Government; the chief executive of the national museum; the chief executive of the national library; the chief executive of the royal commission; national officers of Prospect, PCS and FDA; and also supporting Welsh Government officials from Cadw.

So, the steering group was composed of experts from across the institutions and also their most senior staff, but it was also composed of members of the trade unions that represent workers across all of the sector. I think that makes the steering group something of an inclusive body that was able to consider in great detail the opportunities for the sector in the future, and as a consequence produced a report that, again, I state my support for entirely—all nine recommendations.

The Member asked what I might see success as looking like in the future. Well, let me run through some of the factors that I consider could demonstrate success as part of this initiative. First, an increase in the number of people who participate in heritage-driven activities. Secondly, the number of visitors, not just to Cadw sites, but to the museum, to the library, to the commission, and indeed far wider—the number of people who visit heritage venues that are not managed or cared for by the national institutions, because the whole point of this project is to generate more enthusiasm and to liven up public interest in the heritage sector. Also, resilience; I would consider it a success if resilience in the sector is improved as a consequence of this initiative, but also the reach of the organisations in terms of widening access. At the moment, I’m afraid there are still too many people, particularly within lower socioeconomic groups, who feel that heritage institutions are not for them. I think there is still a task in hand to break down barriers, psychological or otherwise, in attracting a more diverse customer base, and I do think that that will be a key measure of success.

Also, the economic impact of the sector. I recently visited a very small company just near Corwen, Corwen Glassblobbery. My friend and colleague the Member may be aware of the company, which makes blown glass sculptures that we currently sell in Cadw sites. Whilst I was there, they asked whether there was any chance that we could get in touch with the national museum and ask whether they could stock them there. Of course, I think it makes perfect sense, because if they can double their sales by operating from twice as many sites, then surely that’s good for the local economy in and around Corwen, it’s good for that business, it’s good for the sector, because it shows that—. And, of course, the problem at the moment is that trying to navigate your way through different institutions, for a small business—as I’m sure the Member is sympathetic to, because a lot of small business owners are very time starved—it can be exhausting. Whereas if you were to only operate through one commercial function, bringing together Cadw, the museum, the library and the commission, and if you were only having to deal with one, but you had the benefit of selling through all, then surely, that’s something to be welcomed. That’s good for business, that’s good for the economy, that’s good for growing jobs and for economic growth. So, that will be a feature in what I consider to be a successful outcome.

Both Members who’ve spoken so far have asked about budget lines and whether additional resource can be allocated to this initiative. Well, first and foremost, we’re looking at the cost of the business case being put together, and I do believe that that additional resource will be well worth it, because we need to have the best possible outcome for Cadw and the sector, and so I am prepared to contribute more to this exercise. In the longer term, the whole point of bringing the sector more closely together is to maximise the commercial potential of the sector and therefore I do not see a reason why additional resource would be required. Indeed, I would hope that as a consequence of this great step forward we’ll be able to increase profits within the sector, increase income, and therefore strengthen the sector and potentially grow many, many more jobs and secure the skills that are within the sector at the moment. Again, I make the point that the vision that we have for the heritage sector is one that sees growth and widening access right at the heart of everything that it does.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your considered statement and response to the nine recommendations of the steering group. I want to start by noting the comments you make with regard to Cadw and what you say about impressive improvement to the visitor experience and an increase in visitor numbers, alongside embracing new audience and technology. I think that stands out to me because it chimes with my own experience recently in my constituency in terms of how Cadw has been working with Flint castle and the local community, not just to create interactive visitor boards, but a new staircase in the north-east tower for what I believe is probably the first time in contemporary history, or contemporary memory, anyway. But, what stands out for us in the community is the way, actually, Cadw has taken quite a forward, outward-looking approach in terms of involving the community and looking at a new visitor centre, which actually isn’t just going to be a visitor centre per se, but actually brings other community organisations in the community together as part of it, and gives them ownership, which I think in turn is actually increasing people’s engagement and visiting of the castle and the surrounding area.

Just returning to today’s statement, on that, I think—are there lessons we can learn for Cadw across Wales too, in terms of building on that experience of how they can be innovative and engaging with the community? But returning to elsewhere in today’s statement, I’d be keen to know how the recommendations for greater collaboration and a vision for strategic partnership as a solution to protect our heritage would help enhance our heritage offer across Wales, in particular in north-east Wales, which is currently fairly poorly represented by the national institutions. Finally, in addition, I’m pleased to hear you mentioned trade unions a number of times in your initial statement and in your responses to colleagues and that commitment to the spirit of social partnership here in Wales. But I’d like to actually ask you if you can clarify today: what would the potential implications be for workers in the sector of any greater collaboration?

Well, can I thank Hannah Blythyn for her questions, an also for her observations? The presence of trade union representatives on the steering board added enormous value, and also ensured that the workforce of each of the institutions, and indeed those who were employed through Cadw, were well represented at every stage. I’ve been determined throughout this process to ensure that workers in all institutions right across the sector can look forward to a better tomorrow, not just for themselves and their colleagues, but also for those young people who would wish to have a career within the sector but at the moment, given how fragile the sector is, not just within Wales but across the UK, are wondering whether it would be worth acquiring the skills and going to university in order to get qualifications that would ultimately lead to worklessness in trying to find a job within that particular sector. And so, we’ve always been concerned with the outcome for employees, just as much as we’ve been concerned with the outcomes for the people of Wales—the visitors, the customers, the users, the participants. And talking about users, participants and customers, the Member is absolutely right; north-east Wales is currently poorly represented by national institutions in terms of actual physical presence of any institutions at the moment. There is no national museum, there is no, as such, national library presence there, or commission. However, there are very, very prominent Cadw sites in north-east Wales including, in the constituency of Delyn, Flint Ccstle. I see a great opportunity in the future in bringing together commercial functions of all organisations to deliver more opportunities, more events, more activities within regions that are like Delyn and the rest of north-east Wales that are relatively poorly represented or do not have the concentration of visitor attractions that other parts of Wales have.

In terms of what Cadw has done and what Cadw continues to do, I was pleased to see the Caerphilly dragon visit Flint castle, amongst many others, over the course of summer 2016. It’s interesting that that dragon helped to generate the largest number of visitors during a summer period ever—about 600,000 people visited Cadw sites where the dragon went. That’s a huge increase on the previous year, and it shows what can be achieved when you do have the most creative people in charge of the promotion of our heritage sites. I do think that the institutions that Cadw will now be working with as part of the strategic partnership will hugely benefit from having that degree of innovation and creativity working alongside their current staff.

Our aim is to make sure that Cadw sites are appealing and exciting, that they are inclusive and that they are welcoming, and I do think that, as part of the strategic partnership’s work on cultural tourism, there is a potential, through the strategic partnership, to agree to a ‘warm Welsh welcome’ initiative that could bring a consistent, high standard of welcome across all heritage sites in Wales.

I think it’s also worth mentioning that the Welsh Government has, as a programme for government commitment, a desire to see a very strong social tourism offer developed across Wales. This will require the heritage sector to work closely together, because social tourism will largely be based on our finest heritage assets. So, to get the best for the people of Wales, who will benefit from the social tourism initiative, we do need the partners within the heritage sector to work closely together.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and his comprehensive comments so far. There can be no doubt as to the importance of our Welsh heritage to the economy of our country, and, indeed, its pivotal role in attracting the 1 million plus tourists we welcome to Wales each year. I’ve noted your comments and your words recognising the work of Cadw and would add my appreciation for the work they’ve undertaken to retain the rich heritage of Wales on our behalf, and that, of course, of future generations.

But perhaps now is the time for a different approach that establishes a body that encompasses all the aspects of Wales’s heritage. However, I feel it is imperative—and I echo Dai Lloyd’s comments here—that those institutions within that body retain the authority and independence that will enable them to effectively discharge their respective remits. Notwithstanding that caveat, a strategic partnership with a body that has an overview is, in my view, the most effective way forward. There should also be a programme of continuous improvements in identifying the skills and leadership that such an organisation requires in order to maintain and improve this vital sector. I understand the concerns you have regarding the structure of this governing body and your due diligence with regard to whether it should be within Government or at arm’s length, and this, of course, is to be welcomed.

So, Cabinet Secretary, I see this statement as a positive move to increase the awareness and profile of the wonderful heritage of which we in Wales are so proud. UKIP will support your ambitions in this direction.

Can I thank the Member for his generous statement and for the support that he and his colleagues are giving to this initiative? I am very grateful for that. Our aim is to make sure that there are net economic benefits from this initiative, not just for the sector, but, again, for the whole economy of Wales. I do believe that, whilst we can retain the independence of the institutions, we should also recognise the interdependence of those institutions and the benefits from working more closely together. To pick up on a point that was raised earlier by Suzy Davies in terms of promotion of our institutions and heritage assets, if we just put ourselves in the position of the citizen of Wales seeking information about heritage assets, surely it’s easier to access information about all of the sectors through one portal, first of all—through one gateway that can capture all of the richness of our heritage and history, and then to find and to discover the various components of Historic Wales: our museums, our castles, our abbeys, our library, our royal commission. Surely, that is the best way for the citizen of Wales, and indeed the citizen of any country, to discover and to learn about Wales’s fantastic heritage.

Well, I find myself in a very unexpected situation—I agree with every word that David Rowlands said, and regret the negative attitude coming from other directions, and the Minister already knows that. But may I just ask two questions? Firstly, the fact that the Minister has accepted the recommendations made by the steering group, chaired by the excellent Justin Albert, having got to know him through the trust, does mean that the Minister is progressing, in general terms, to implementing those recommendations. Is that the case? That’s the first question. The second question is: what is the timetable that the Minister hopes to follow in this regard? Because those of us who share his vision have aspired for many years to seeing the major national institutions being reborn for the twenty-first century as they were born initially at the turn of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century. And the excellent work that Cadw does—and I have referred to this in the past—particularly in interpreting sites such as Harlech castle recently, and the way that has impacted the economy of the area directly, does demonstrate what can be achieved in having more collaboration. So, more wind in the sails of the Minister and David Rowlands.

Well, can I thank the Member for his positive and kind comments, and say that the Harlech castle investment has delivered huge benefits for the community? We’ve seen a very significant increase in the number of visitors visiting the castle, and it’s also won—I’m pleased to say—a number of national architectural awards. It’s helped to put Wales on the global map during the Year of Adventure, and continues to do so this year through the Year of Legends. It’s exactly the sort of investment that I’d like to see steered towards many more of our venues and assets in the years to come. I would like to confirm that, yes, I will be implementing all of the recommendations, and I wish to do so at maximum speed. The steering group has given an indication of the dates by which I should be in a position to implement the recommendations, or indeed the dates by which we should expect the strategic partnership to be established. I wish to see those dates met. I do think we have an opportunity now to take our past into the future in a way that opens it up to more people—people who, until now, have not had the opportunity, perhaps the interest or the desire, to visit a heritage site, but whom I am sure would do, given the opportunity to explore it in a way that meets their intrinsic interests. So, I look forward to taking forward this work, as I say, at maximum speed.

I think starting with the idea of a strategic partnership is definitely to start in a better place. We do, in other areas of public policy, look at the advantages of strategic partnership, but I do want to emphasise just the need for intellectual independence and the ability to think creatively. These are at the heart of heritage organisations, particularly the national museum and galleries and the national library. I think any test of how these strategic partnerships will work will come down to this because these institutions, above all, must fully explore the world of ideas and how those ideas are represented. Sometimes, their mission—let’s face it—is to challenge received views and to challenge interpretations that have become rather like statements of faith. That can make them very unpopular with politicians. And I have to say I was pleased to hear the Minister say that too active an involvement by Ministers can be damaging, and that’s why. It’s nothing against him or indeed any of his colleagues; this would go of the soundest Conservative Government I could conceive of.

I’ve just been looking at the national museum’s blog for an example of what I mean, and there’s an excellent piece there on ‘Cymru Yfory’, which was the exhibition they ran in 1969 as the official event they held to mark the investiture. It was about reflections on that, but particularly on the space age, Apollo 11, and the whole visual experience that was being changed with these contemporary designs and whatever. There are fantastic photographs on that blog site, which I hope people will look at.

This was an astonishing breakthrough—the first time something really contemporary was in the main hall of the museum, and it emphasised that museums are not just about interpreting the past. I can imagine that if this institution had existed then, some of us may have been saying, ‘What on earth is the museum doing, when we should be marking the wonders of the investiture in a more traditional way?’ You know, ceramic commemorations, or whatever, of past royal events. I would have a lot of time for that sort of exhibition if anyone’s out there wanting to run it, but it’s not for us to make those choices. We need to be tested and we need to be challenged.

Can I just end by saying that there’s a real need for intellectual excellence here, as well as the very sound things that you’ve said about the need for accessibility? Because all people can benefit from seeing events that are great interpretations and testing our views. But the national museum and gallery, and the library, have been instrumental in promoting the reputations of David Jones and Thomas Jones, amongst others, in the twentieth century—two outstanding figures who had been overlooked and are now regarded as towering members, really, of the creative artistic pantheon. There’s a new biography of David Jones just published, which is reviewed in ‘The Economist’, for example, and ‘In Parenthesis’ has obviously been reinterpreted by Owen Sheers. These are fantastic achievements, and both of those figures, if it wasn’t for our heritage institutions, may still be languishing in undeserved obscurity. That in itself does a great job for Wales and getting our message across and allow us to flourish and enjoy fully our national life.

Can I thank David Melding for his contribution and say that I agree entirely that there must be intellectual integrity, and that that integrity should be maintained and protected? There should be the freedom to challenge, to be disruptive and also to be innovative. I believe it was Professor Dai Smith who said that it was the role of culture and cultural institutions to be disruptive of the establishment and the status quo, but equally I think sometimes government needs to be innovative and to challenge as well. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re making sure that those who currently enjoy the freedom and the independence to act creatively, swiftly, dynamically continue to do so without being protectionist.

Actually, what I’m doing is the complete opposite of what you’re warning us not to do, and never to do, because I’m saying to Cadw: ‘Please, be free. Be free of any sort of inefficient operation that you currently experience, or any control by a Minister.’ You know, it’s quite astonishing that a tweet from Cadw has to be approved by me in this day and age of immediate social media. That just makes the whole system inefficient and ineffectual. It doesn’t allow them to respond quickly, and surely that is not in my interests, that is not in the Government’s interests, and that is not in Cadw’s interests or Wales’s interests. So, actually, what I’m doing is the complete opposite of what those who feared this process suggested I was doing. I’m actually giving away, I’m not taking more control, and I’m doing that to make sure that the institutions themselves together are stronger.

David Melding also made a very strong point about the museum’s current activities, and it’s my belief that intellectual integrity and inclusive appeal are not mutually exclusive, and that together—again, together—the institutions, I believe, can broaden the range of people that are attracted to their operations and activities, for the betterment of all of Wales and all of our communities.

Our national heritage institutions will play a crucial role in improving the well-being of Wales and I hope that, by working together, they will reap the rewards of the work that they will do for the country.

Finally, Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your response and I’ve listened to all of the responses here today. My first reaction would be to say to you that, if you accept the recommendations by the group that you’ve commissioned, why have you not ruled out a merger? I’m finding it difficult to understand, if you are accepting those recommendations, why you need to commission more research within your Government as to the future outlook of Cadw. Surely, if you accept those recommendations, you can now carry forward those recommendations as they stand? Because we all understand here that there were civil servants on that particular working group. So, I’m trying to understand why the experts seem to be less heard, potentially, than civil servants within your Government. If they’re going to come up with these constructive recommendations, I don’t feel, from what you’re saying today, that that’s truly reflected in your response.

My second point would be, I’ve heard from numerous questions that Dai Lloyd and others have asked in the past that you’d said that you’d be having a public consultation on this. I haven’t heard anything today on that basis, so I’m wondering what you can tell us about, when you make a decision finally, how that consultation will take place. People are muttering things here—I haven’t heard you say when the consultation will take place. I think that’s important for us to hear here today.

The other question is, I know that the national library are welcoming the review that they are having, but I would be personally curious to hear your opinions about how other institutions would be reviewed, if you’re minded to carry forth any merger or any changes, as well. Because, while you and others have mentioned the successes of Cadw lately, they have been historically underperforming as compared to the other national institutions. It’s quite difficult to get all the detail on income and expenditure. My colleague Dai Lloyd has put forward freedom of information requests and has struggled to get all of that information. So, if we could have a review of Cadw and also a review of other bodies, then I think that would be fair with regard to this process.

My other point would be, I’m struggling also—I’m struggling a lot today—to understand, if you are supportive or looking into a merger, how that would not mean that their independence would be undermined. Because, if you’re going to be taking commercial functions away from them and there’s going to be this body that will be making those decisions, what interventions will they have or what voice would they have within that process? I think that’s obviously one of the key concerns. But in practical terms, if that independence is to be realised—you say you support it—then what does that mean in practical terms for them to carry forward with being able to take those everyday decisions so that they can put on various exhibitions? Not that I’d want to see the same types of exhibitions as David Melding, but I’d want to see exhibitions that have been run by them internally as national institutions.

So, I hear what people are saying and I don’t think anybody’s against change, but I don’t understand why the merger is still on the table and how you will carry forth these discussions if they feel, potentially, that you haven’t listened to them as you could have done. Thank you.

Can I thank Bethan Jenkins for her questions and points? I’d actually dispute the claim that nobody is against change. I think there has been resistance to this initiative. To those who have objected to closer collaboration, I would ask one very simple question: what’s your alternative vision? Because, quite frankly, if there is no vision, if there is no action, then the heritage sector will crumble in the years to come. So, it’s required action from the Government and that’s precisely what we are delivering.

In terms of the potential for a consultation, I don’t believe that a strategic partnership between those independent institutions would require a consultation unless they so wished to hold one, and a consultation on the future form of Cadw would be dependent on the business case and, ultimately, the proposal that we make for its future in or outside of Government. So, that would be a consideration for the autumn. In terms of the performance of all of the institutions, of course, we have Simon Thurley carrying out a review of the museum at the moment. He’s carrying out benchmarking work as part of his review. But the whole point of us changing the way that Cadw reaches out to the citizens of Wales, to customers, and to visitors, was because I felt that we were not maximising opportunities, based on albeit quite rough work that I did personally in looking at benchmarking Cadw sites against similar types of historic assets in England and Scotland. I think the fact that we’ve seen such a sharp rise in visitor figures at Cadw sites justifies the belief that I had, which was that we could and we should do more with our assets. It’s my belief that we should and can do more with all of the institutions in the years to come on behalf not just of the people who work in the institutions, but also the people, taxpayers, who pay for them, and visitors who walk through their doors. So, it’s my view that action is needed. There has been resistance to change. I think now, largely, that resistance has fallen away, but the test will be in how much everybody now embraces the need for a greater degree of collaboration and partnership.

Finally, the point made, or the suggestion that was made, that officials on the steering group somehow led the steering group to its conclusions, I do not think is a fair claim and I do not think that fairly presents the strength of opinion and expertise that was presented by those people representing the national institutions.

Diolch i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet.

The next item is the statement by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and the Welsh Language on the future of youth work delivery and I call on the Minister to make his statement—Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. High-quality youth work has a crucial role to play in supporting many young people to achieve their full potential. Youth workers are educators, whether this takes place in a community youth club, on the streets, or supporting formal education in schools. Youth work practice provides young people with access to a diverse range of learning opportunities that can broaden their horizons, challenge their thinking, develop their skills, and enhance their life chances.

The evidence provided to the recent Children, Young People and Education Committee inquiry into youth work highlighted the need to bring about greater clarity in the relationship between national priorities, the deployment of associated funding, and local action to meet national expectations. In order to provide greater clarity, I have committed to reviewing ‘Extending Entitlement’, our statutory direction and guidance for youth support services. The importance of ‘Extending Entitlement’ as a lever for change cannot be underestimated. When it was first published 17 years ago, it was, and remains, regarded as a flagship policy for improving the opportunities and choices for all young people. ‘Extending Entitlement’ was comprehensive in the sense that it embraced all national and local organisations whose work impacted on the opportunities and choices of young people in Wales.

The review of the statutory direction and guidance needs to reflect today’s legislative, policy, and financial landscape and to set realistic expectations for what can be achieved. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to inform Members that Margaret Jervis MBE has agreed to lead on this review. Margaret has a wealth of experience and knowledge from her work supporting young people. She also played a key role in developing ‘Extending Entitlement’. It’s vital that young people inform the revised ‘Extending Entitlement’ and let us know their thoughts on the Wales youth work charter. I have asked Children in Wales, therefore, to gather the views of young people from across Wales, including ensuring the voices of those who are hardest to reach are heard. They will share their findings with me in July. A new ‘Extending Entitlement’, fit for today, will be put out to formal consultation in the autumn. Feedback from this consultation will inform the final guidance, which will be formally launched next summer.

Recognising the need for clear strategic leadership, I am establishing an independently chaired national youth support service board. We know that support for young people is likely to be most effective when it is part of a wider network. This is why I want this board to focus on the spectrum of youth support services, and not just youth work. The board’s role will be to provide constructive challenge and scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s policies and proposals for youth support services. Through consultation and collaboration with the statutory and voluntary sector, I want the board to advise on the review of ‘Extending Entitlement’ and the implementation of the recommendations from the Children, Young People and Education Committee inquiry into youth work.

Going forward, I would expect the board to advise on the appropriate implementation and monitoring of ‘Extending Entitlement’ to ensure young people in Wales are receiving the services they’re entitled to receive. Part of the board’s role will be to provide assurance that processes and practices for commissioning youth support services are fair, transparent and equitable. This will include overseeing the implementation of new arrangements for the distribution of youth work grants. The chair and board members will be subject to the public appointments process. I expect the chair to be in place by the autumn. The chair will then support me to appoint all the other board members, who will be in place by the spring of 2018.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this is an exciting time for Wales. We have an opportunity to ensure support services for our young people are designed to enhance their life chances, are structured around their needs, and are available in the language of their choice. Together, we can lead the way for youth support services again.

Thank you very much. I have got a number of speakers, so can I ask Members to be brief and then we will probably get them all in? Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and may I declare an interest as one of the honorary presidents of CWVYS? May I thank you for your statement, Minister? Part of me expected a little more meat on the bones today, I have to be honest. I had expected a perhaps clearer response in terms of the direction of travel and the national strategy for youth work. The only decision that we’ve heard about is that others will now suggest to you what that decision should be. I’m sure you will say that this an opportunity for the sector to contribute to the process, and, of course, I would welcome that, but much of that will rely on who the members of the board that you’ve created will be, but I will return to that issue in a few moments’ time.

I welcome the emphasis on looking anew at ‘Extending Entitlement’. The committee recommended as its first recommendation, I believe, looking again at a national strategy for youth work, and, in your response to that recommendation, you said that may come as a result of reviewing ‘Extending Entitlement’. But the strategy, of course, will lapse in 2018, next year, and so, in looking at the timetable you have in mind, are you confident that a new strategy will have been drawn up in time by that point? Because, if the final decision isn’t to be made until next summer on ‘Extending Entitlement’, it’s difficult to see how a new strategy could be in place by the end of next year.

I’m also aware that there is a sub-group that has been looking at reviewing ‘Extending Entitlement’—a sub-group to the youth work reference group. Am I right, therefore, to understand that Margaret Jervis will lead the work of that sub-group, or is what you’ve announced today a new process to all intents and purposes, and that process will be operating separately? One of the questions that the committee, of course, asked in its recent inquiry into youth work in Wales was: who drives youth work? Your announcement of the creation of a national youth support service board may be a means of creating a national approach—perhaps some kind of embryonic national body; I’m not sure if that is a possibility, perhaps you could tell me—but, of course, looking at wider support services than just youth work is the role of the board, according to your statement. Is there therefore a risk that that will mean that perhaps we will lose some of the focus on youth work specifically in the work of the board? Because the committee’s inquiry was into youth work, ‘The Future of Youth Work’ is the title of this statement, but it seems to me that it relates more to the future of youth support services in terms of what’s been announced about the board. So, what I’m looking for is an assurance that there won’t be a loss of focus on youth work in the work of the board, and that the voice of the sector will not be diluted in that discussion because of debates surrounding wider support services.

And where, then, does that leave the current structures? For example, will the current structures remain in place whilst this board carries out its functions? That is, I assume that the ministerial reference group will continue with its work during this time. You say that one of the roles of the board will be to scrutinise and to constructively challenge Government. Perhaps you could expand upon how you anticipate them doing that. Will it be directly to you? That would be one approach. Will there be annual reports or will there be statements or public interventions that you would expect from the chair and members of the board?

And, of course, funding—you state that one of the roles of the board will be to look at the distribution of youth work grants. Well, if they are to oversee new arrangements for youth work grants, then are you providing some sort of vision, in the sense that you anticipate, for example, that the NVYO grant scheme will continue beyond this final year? Or are you saying, ‘Well, draw up a whole new regime’? If you are saying that, when would you expect to see those details available? Because many people will be seeking an assurance—or at least they will want to know when what comes next is to be declared.

I’ll finish by returning to the beginning of your statement. You quite rightly emphasise quality, and that was a strong theme, from what I hear, in the contribution that you made to the national conference on youth work last week. Now, in focusing on quality, is one right in assuming that you see the role of the quality mark beyond the current commitment of March 2018? Because there is an agreement in place at the moment until that time. If not, then what do you believe will drive the quality agenda within the youth work sector? Because the message that we’re hearing—

Are you coming to a conclusion, please?

[Continues.]—is, if you want to raise the bar in terms of quality, then the resources and the funding must be available to enable that to happen. The resources must be distributed fairly geographically and between the various sectors. The statistics that the committee has seen in terms of the decline in investment and the decline in staffing levels do suggest that the risk is that you will manage decline, or we will manage decline, rather than developing the universal, open-access, bilingual system—

Are you coming to a conclusion?

[Continues.]—that you’ve said is part of your vision. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Minister.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that Llyr has got to the heart of the debate in his questions and in his contribution, which was very important. ‘Who drives youth work?’ was the question that you asked, of course, and that’s the question that I’m trying to answer at the core of this statement: who drives youth work? It’s important that youth work isn’t driven directly from here, that it is driven by people, by youth, across Wales, and by those who can reflect and respond to the situation that they see in the communities where they live. Because clear leadership from here is important, of course, from the Welsh Government—that is important, but that can’t exist in a vacuum or in insolation. This has to be collaboration—proper collaboration, and not just collaboration within speeches, but collaboration with people who see the importance of the work happening in their communities. To a certain extent, that does answer your first question—is there enough meat on the bones in terms of this statement? There could have been a lot more meat, of course, but it would have been meat that came from Cardiff, and not through the process of discussion and sharing experiences and information, and sharing of vision. So, if you genuinely want to see us collaborating with people, we have to recognise that that is going to take more time. It would be the easiest thing in the world for me, in the office, to make these decisions in an isolated way, taking advice, but making the decisions myself—or we invest our time in discussing these issues with people. And that’s why I have made this statement today, and established the board and confirmed that we’re going through a process of discussing the statutory leadership that we have, and then ensuring that we have enough time to discuss these issues with people before we come to a decision. And I think that that was what was behind the committee’s report as well—that we need some leadership, but not only leadership; we have to test things out and speak to people as we move forward.

I’m sure that there will be a strategy in place before the current strategy comes to an end. There will be a new strategy in place before the current strategy comes to an end—I’ll be completely clear about that. The process of creating the new strategy will be a process of discussion and sharing vision.

And how is the board going to work? Well, I’m not going to answer that question this afternoon, in terms of how the board is going to work, because I want to discuss that with the board. I don’t want a board that is supposed to challenge the Government—I don’t think any board would expect the Minister to tell them how to operate and how to challenge the Government. That’s an issue for them to decide. So, when we’re in a position to appoint a chair and members, I’d greatly hope that we can have a discussion about how that board works. But I would like to see the board take the opportunity to decide for itself how it’s going to work. That’s what independence means. It’s not independence if the Minister says that, but it’s independence if the Minister doesn’t want something to happen. So, independence is very important.

I hope that there will be a continuous focus on youth work. I do see the point that you make, and it is valid, and I don’t deny that in any way at all. It is possible sometimes to create a broader context and to lose focus. I very much hope that that doesn’t happen, but I do recognise that there is a risk of that.

I’m always going to emphasise the importance of quality, and I greatly hope that that will come from the sector as well, and not just from the Government. You have tempted me once again to provide commitments on funding and resources. Well we all know the situation that we’re in at the moment, and that’s a very difficult process. Local authorities will hold elections next month, and I do hope that we, as a Government, can collaborate with local authorities and others across the nation to ensure that sufficient resources as available.

Thank you. Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank the Minister, also, for his statement? Can I put on record the fact that my party welcomes the appointment of Margaret Jervis to undertake this review of ‘Extending Entitlement’? I think that that’s an excellent appointment, given her experience with Valleys Kids and other organisations. I think she’s a very strong person to take on that role and that challenge, and I hope very much that she’ll be engaging with all political parties in this Chamber as well, about the way forward.

Can I also express some surprise about the role that this board is being asked to undertake? I think I would’ve liked to have seen a much stronger board, frankly, not just independent in terms of providing you with some independent advice, but a board that had some teeth, that perhaps had some commissioning powers, that had the ability to commission the mapping exercise that needs to take place at a more detailed level to determine where those gaps in provision might be, and to look at best practice and then hope to have that rolled out and helped to share it with other parts of the country. The Minister and I share the view, I know, that it’s not just about the money; it’s about how best to spend the resource in order to maximise the impact of youth services on the ground.

And I’ve cited on many an occasion in this Chamber and, indeed, around the committee table, the fact that youth services in Conwy, as a local authority, are thriving in spite of the fact that they spend less there than in other local authorities, simply because they’ve had a partnership approach and grown the voluntary sector on the ground to deliver services that, traditionally, the local authority had been providing. So, I’m a little bit surprised that this board isn’t one with more teeth, more clout, and the ability to commission services and the ability to establish that framework and do the research that’s required in order to hang services upon. So, perhaps, Minister, you could tell us whether that might be something that this board could take on in the future.

I do welcome the fact that the appointments are being made via the public appointments process. I think that’s a very sensible way forward, as well, in order to give some confidence to the sector that that board will be completely independent in terms of its views. But, clearly, if it’s going to be a very broad remit that that board’s got—not just for youth work but for lots of other aspects of youth support services—then there is a danger that it will become a large and unwieldy board because there will be different interests that will need to be represented around the table. So, perhaps you could tell us just how many members you envisage the board actually having when it’s got a full complement of members so that it can take its work forward.

Just on quality, Minister, obviously the Education Workforce Council now is responsible for registering youth workers across Wales. We are yet to see the development of any professional standards for youth workers in the country. That is something that ought to be left, I believe, to the Education Workforce Council. At the moment, of course, the responsibility for developing those standards sits with the Welsh Government, with Welsh Ministers. Perhaps you could tell us when and how you envisage those professional standards being developed and by what timetable you expect them to be in place, because we’re never going to see any sort of quality arrangements being put in place without being able to hold youth workers to account for the standards that they are expected to deliver against.

Just finally, in terms of interim arrangements, obviously it’s going to take some time for the review that Margaret Jervis is being asked to conduct to be completed, it’s going to take some time for this board to be put in place, and, in the meantime, you’ve got organisations like CWVYS and others who have been filling in the breach, as it were, really, in terms of engaging with stakeholders and being the voice and representative voice of the voluntary youth work sector. I wonder if you could tell us whether the existing funding arrangements for those organisations that are funded by the Welsh Government in terms of youth work will continue in the interim, and, if so, how long do you think that that might be? Because, obviously, it’s important that these people can plan ahead for the future, and I would appreciate it if you could just put on record what your view is in terms of those financial commitments that they might be able to have.

I’m very grateful to the Conservative spokesperson’s broad welcome for the appointment of Margaret Jervis and the approach that is being taken. I can certainly confirm that she will be looking not just to political parties, but stakeholders across the face of the country and across different parts of the community. So, I would certainly expect and anticipate her to welcome contributions from all political parties represented here and elsewhere, but to go further than that by looking at stakeholders in a much wider and holistic sense.

In terms of the board, the Conservative spokesperson asks for more teeth. I don’t have a closed mind on that. In fact, I’d be very happy if Members, in listening to this statement this afternoon believe that the role and the function of the board needs to be strengthened in some way, were to propose those means of strengthening the board and the way it’s able to work. I have no principled objection to it having powers to commission work. I would expect and anticipate any board that holds the Government to account to be able to do that from an informed point of view, and that would imply being able to commission work that would aid its own understanding of the sector it is seeking to represent. So, issues like undertaking mapping exercises, understanding best practice and being able to extend best practice would all be areas that I would see to be reasonable areas for the board to address, and I would be very happy, if Members wished to write to me with a series of proposals on how the board may be strengthened, to consider all of those proposals in good faith. Certainly, it is my intention that this would be quite a powerful institution that would be able to speak with a level of authority and knowledge, and that would imply all different aspects of its work that have been outlined by Darren Millar this afternoon.

In terms of the size or representative nature of the board, I tend to shy away from having seats for everybody around the table because that does then start to lead to an unmanageable sort of organisation. I would tend towards smaller than larger, and I would tend to focus in on what people can bring to the board, rather than simply having functional representatives who would simply perform a much narrower role. So, I would shy away from being, perhaps, too forthright this afternoon, but simply say I prefer a smaller board and one that is able to function and build on the strengths of its members, rather than just to go straight down the route of representation.

In terms of quality, I’ve met the EWC to discuss the matters that you raise. I think you’re absolutely right to raise the issues about professional standards. It’s a point that was made by Llyr in his remarks, as well—I’m not sure I actually answered you in terms of my response. But, certainly, in terms of where we’re going, that’s exactly where we need to be, and I hope that the EWC will be in a position to make a statement on that before too long.

You’ve asked me again, as Llyr did in his opening remarks, about the funding arrangements. I won’t seek to mislead by giving commitments this afternoon. My mind is open on how we take forward these matters. I do not wish to make any statement this afternoon on future funding arrangements, because whatever statement I make may be open to different interpretations. So, it would be, if Members would forgive me on this occasion, an opportunity, perhaps, for me to bite my lip.

Thank you very much. Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank you, Minister, for your statement and also welcome the review of ‘Extending Entitlement’, which is something I think the committee would have wanted to see? Like Llyr, I also hope that this will lead to a new strategy, which is also something that the committee wanted to see. I’m particularly pleased that young people will be involved in the review of ‘Extending Entitlement’, and that is very much to be welcomed.

In terms of the national youth support service board, which you’ve said is going to be responsible for advising you on the implementation of the committee recommendations, I do have some questions about that. The committee was very clear and, indeed, you were very clear when you gave evidence that you supported our view that there should be a universal, open-access youth offer that is available through English or Welsh. Can you confirm that that is a message that you will be giving clearly to the new board as part of its remit to take this work forward?

I would be interested in more detail on the timescales. You will be aware that the committee’s report had lots of timescales in our recommendations. Most of them were asking for updates within six months. That was in December, so we’re already four months on, and now we have this new board that is likely to delay things. So, given that we see the need to address the crisis, really, that’s affecting youth work urgently, I would be interested to have some detail on timescales.

I would be interested to know how you intend to ensure that the voices of young people are heard through that board. Is it your intention that there would be a representative of young people, or what other mechanism are you planning to use?

You’ve stated that the board will be there to help provide strategic leadership, but one of the key failings the committee found was the lack of leadership and partnership between local authorities and voluntary organisations, with voluntary organisations often being the poor relative and, in particular, getting the crumbs from the table in terms of funding. Can you confirm that you will give a very strong steer to the board that they should address that and that it is outcomes for young people that should count, not so much who is delivering the service?

I hear what you’re saying in relation to the answers on funding and note your comment in the statement that the board’s role will be to ensure that funding is fair, transparent and equitable, but I would press you on the need to actually ensure that there is sufficiency of funding, because you can have as much transparency as you like, but if there’s not enough money, then it’s not going to cut the mustard. Thank you.

I think Members across the whole Chamber would want to congratulate and thank Lynne for the way in which she’s not just led the inquiry into youth work, but the way she has not stopped leading it after the committee published its report. Certainly, as a Minister, it’s challenging, shall we say, to sit next to a committee Chair who has such a strong commitment to these matters in this Chamber, and I think we should all congratulate Lynne on the work that she does not just in the committee, but outside of committee as well.

You’re absolutely right in the points that you make in terms of involving young people in ‘Extending Entitlement’, and that ‘Extending Entitlement’ should lead to a new strategy. The reason why I’ve asked Children in Wales to take part in this process is to ensure that young people are represented—that the views of young people across the whole of Wales are included—and I’ll be asking Margaret to ensure that that process takes place to ensure that it’s an informed and knowledgeable process of reform and review, and not something that is simply based in meeting rooms. So, we will seek to actively do that.

I haven’t, I don’t recall, from any of the commitments I made in front of the committee over the last six months—. In terms of our open-access approach to comprehensive youth work support and services being available through the medium of English and Welsh across the whole face of the country, the commitments I made in the committee stand today, and I will repeat today.

In terms of the committee’s report, it did ask for a number of different updates over a number of different timescales—most notably, as has been pointed out, a six-month update. That will be provided to the committee and I would be happy to return to the committee if the committee felt it would help their deliberations to answer questions and to be accountable to the committee in terms of what we’ve done in delivering on the recommendations that the committee made. I would say to Lynne Neagle that the appointment and the establishment of the board will not lead to a delay. What it will do is to help implement those recommendations and implement the Government response to those recommendations. This isn’t a means of preventing, stopping or slowing down work. It’s actually a means of enabling us to do these things and enabling us to be able to deliver on these commitments in a more profound way. I’ve answered questions on how the board will operate and the make-up of the board; what I will say is I would expect and anticipate any board that is active in this field to have the voice, opinions, experience, knowledge and vision of young people as a central part of its means of operation and of the way in which it reaches conclusions on any matter. I would expect whoever is appointed to the board to have that in mind.

In terms of how we take forward funding and resources for these policies, we understand—I think there isn’t a single Member in this Chamber who doesn’t appreciate and understand the significant challenges facing public authorities at the moment in terms of budgets. We understand the difficulties facing the new authorities that will be elected next month, and we understand the challenges facing decision makers when it comes to the allocation of funding. I understand what is being said. It is certainly my intention to ensure that we do have sufficient resources available to deliver on the promises and the commitments that we make, but we do know, at the same time, that these are commitments that are made in the most difficult funding circumstances.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I agree with you that youth work has a crucial role to play to help young people achieve their potential and have a range of experiences. It’s character building and just plain fun. The Children, Young People and Education Committee reported in December 2016 that local authorities had seen a loss of almost 20 per cent in staffing levels for youth work in just one year. CWVYS reported that 30 per cent of its members did not perceive themselves being in existence beyond this next financial year. How will the announcements made in the Minister’s statement alleviate these resourcing issues?

The committee also noted with concern that there is a lack of accountability for the use of funds supplied via the revenue support grant. How will the new national youth support service board ensure accountability for spending by local authorities on youth work?

The committee also noted that stakeholders in both statutory and voluntary sectors on the one hand, and the Minister on the other hand, appeared to have markedly different views about the strategic leadership, or lack thereof, of the Welsh Government. What conversations has the Minister had with these stakeholders since the report was published, and have the views of the Minister and stakeholders come any closer together in the months since then? Stakeholders were also concerned about what they perceived as a failure of the Welsh Government to involve them in the development of policies, and the committee urged the Minister to harness the expertise and understanding of the principal youth officers group and CWVYS, two of the key stakeholders in taking youth work forward in Wales. How is the Minister fostering a closer relationship with these stakeholders and how is he going to be using their expertise and experience, as recommended by the committee?

The startling thing about the evidence given by many of the stakeholders is that there appears to be no formal way of understanding the demand for the supply of youth services versus the youth work services being provided themselves. How can one plan or supply any kind of service, whether it’s private, public or commercial, without understanding where the demand for the service is? How do you propose to map demand onto supply so that you can understand where the gaps in service provision are?

You have announced the creation of the national youth support service board to provide, as you say, constructive challenge and scrutiny to the Welsh Government’s policies. However, it’s not entirely clear from your statement precisely what the objectives and precise role of the board will be, and perhaps you will give us some more detail on that. Thank you.

The Member describes some of the issues facing youth work and youth work services in terms of the overall situation of local government funding and local government resources. That is well understood and the Government doesn’t recoil or disagree with the conclusions of the committee on this. We understand that local authorities are in very difficult situations, facing some very difficult decisions. It’s the easiest thing in the world for a Minister to stand here and make whatever observations he or she may be tempted to do, but I think we have to recognise that it is a matter for local government to take these decisions.

You ask about accountability of local government on the day that nominations close for the local elections taking place next month. That is accountability in the rawest possible sense. Those candidates and those councillors who will be fighting for their seats over the next four or five weeks will have to account for the decisions that they’ve taken. It’s a matter for the people to determine their priorities for the next period.

But in terms of the strategic leadership, which I do believe is a more fundamental point—and Llyr addressed some of these issues in his questions—leadership isn’t simply standing here taking and announcing decisions. Leadership is also about having conversations and listening—and not just listening to what has been said but actually hearing what has been said as well. Leadership is about having a structure in place that enables us to provide the vision, but also to ensure that vision is informed by the experience of people on the ground or people who are delivering services and people in communities up and down the country.

So, I reject the sense of leadership being a singular activity carried out by a single Minister in a particular way. I think that leadership is about a much wider sense of how we approach these matters and a much wider sense of listening and hearing what is being said.

In terms of the relationship with stakeholders and other matters that the Member’s raised, let me say this: we do invest a great deal of time listening and talking to people. One of the recommendations of the committee’s report was to meet with the reference group as soon as possible. I actually met the reference group a few days before the committee report was actually published. You know, we do spend a great deal of time, both myself and my officials, having these conversations and listening to what is being said.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I would expect or anticipate stakeholders to agree with everything the Government does. That’s not the nature of political debate and discourse. I don’t expect, because we have a conversation with a group of stakeholders in this or any other field, that those stakeholders will then agree with the decisions that I make and take in the future. That is not the way that these things have to or should operate. My view is that we should always be able to have a very honest exchange of views, understand each other, but also then have the freedom to disagree where we feel it’s necessary.

In terms of the way of working and the approaches taken, I think I said in answer to Darren Millar’s points about the work of the board that I’m very happy for the board take the view that it takes about the way it operates. I don’t think it would work effectively if the board was appointed to do what the Minister wants the board to do. So, I think the board has to have a means of independence. We’re going through the public appointments process to ensure that the members of the board are independent. Then, I would expect to have an agreement with the board that will both guarantee their independence of operation but also the levels of authority that they have in order to commission the sort of work that Darren Millar described, and which I think will be absolutely essential for a well-informed challenge to Government.

Thank you very much. We have had one speaker from each of the parties, so the next four speakers—you will have to rely on your colleagues to ask a question and for the Minister to answer it succinctly. Otherwise, I will not get you all in, so it’s entirely up to you how this is played. Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Succinct is something I often am. Can I welcome the statement by the Minister, and can I welcome the direction of travel? Can I put youth services in context, however? In the four years from April 2012, spending by Welsh local authorities on youth services was cut by £6.1 million. These cuts resulted in the loss of more than 100 youth centres, and also at least 360 jobs in the youth service have been cut by local authorities. I don’t blame local authorities for this; they’re under tremendous financial pressure.

Two areas that have supported youth provision have been ‘mentrau iaith’ and Communities First. ‘Mentrau iaith’ have supported youth provision such as Twrw Tawe in my constituency, which my daughter attends, and provided a youth facility involving music for young people. It crucially provides an opportunity for children and young people to speak and use Welsh in a social context, which I think is incredibly important. It’s an out-of-school context for it. And also Communities First youth work has involved providing both outreach services and indoor youth provision. Can the Minister indicate the future of ‘mentrau iaith’ youth provision, and the youth provision currently provided by Communities First? And will the Minister agree with me that you might not want to answer questions on funding—and I can understand that—but would he agree that funding is the key?

You know, ‘diwedd y gân yw’r geiniog’. Funding is clearly important. The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children has made statements on the future of Communities First, and I’ve nothing to add to that. In terms of ‘mentrau iaith’, they will be a key part of the overall Welsh language strategy, which is seeking to increase the opportunities to use Welsh, particularly in places like Swansea or Blaenau Gwent, where Welsh might not be the language of communication in the community as a whole. So, certainly, I would see an important role for ‘mentrau iaith’ in achieving that as part of our overall Welsh language strategy.

I myself spent five years as a youth worker prior to teaching, so I completely agree, Minister, with your comments about how important youth work can be in enhancing the life chances of those who utilise the services. And I welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to youth work delivery. However, for some of our most challenging communities, the winding down of Communities First represents specific challenges. So, building on my colleague Mike Hedges’ question, I’d like to ask you what discussions you’ve had with your Welsh Government colleagues about how the changes to that programme will impact on youth work delivery.

Secondly, in my own constituency, over 50 young people have been affected by recent youth club closures, and the community of Ynysybwl in particular is concerned about the viability of its youth club when Communities First ends. What advice could you give, Minister, to my constituents who are concerned about these changes?

As the Member will appreciate, I don’t have anything to add to my earlier answer to Mike Hedges in terms of the conversations that have taken place and the statements that have been made by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, so I won’t add to that. But let me say this: myself and the Cabinet Secretary talk on a regular basis about this and other matters. We meet on a regular basis in order to have conversations about how we expect and anticipate these issues to be resolved. Clearly, there will be particular circumstances—you quote Ynysybwl—and there will be other such examples in other parts of our communities where there will be significant impacts. And I would suggest that you speak to myself and the Cabinet Secretary, and we will certainly do everything we can to help and to support you in responding to that.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly on reviewing ‘Extending Entitlement’ and the national youth support service board. And I welcome the commitment you gave to the Chair of the committee that you are supportive of every young person having access to a youth work provision. I’d just like to raise the point that our inquiry was into youth work and, obviously, you have been talking about youth support services. And I just wondered if you could define what the youth support services are and how the youth work fits into that, because we were clearly talking about youth work in our inquiry.

The other point I wanted to ask you about, quickly, was that we did have a lot of evidence from particular groups of young people and representatives of groups of young people who have got particular needs. I think there were deaf children, children in care, Gypsy and Traveller children—lots of needy groups of children. How are we going to ensure that they get access to the youth work provision that we believe they should have?

Yes, I do repeat the commitments I made in front of committee, and I will be more than happy to attend committee again, at its request, in order to continue this conversation and to outline further how we’d expect and anticipate this area of policy to develop over the next period.

I’m very anxious—. I recognise the point made by Julie Morgan about youth work rather than youth support services, but I’m very anxious that youth work be seen as a strategic service as well, and not simply as a leisure facility or a service of last resort. I want it to be sitting alongside all the diversity of youth support services, which will ensure that we’re able to have quality youth work provision available to young people throughout the statutory and voluntary sectors and I believe that a national board will help us to achieve that.

But I want us to ensure—and this goes back to the point that was raised earlier by Darren Millar—that board membership will cover the spectrum of youth support services, not just the statutory and voluntary youth work sectors, and to ensure that we have a very real focus that isn’t simply limited to one part of the whole spectrum of services available to young people, for the reasons you’ve just given in terms of particular groups within the overall population, where there is a requirement for services to work together in order to deliver a more holistic approach than simply one part of what their requirements and needs actually are. So, it’s to ensure that you have that comprehensive approach that I’m taking a much wider view, but within that, as I said in answer to Lynne Neagle earlier, I would expect there to be a clear focus; however, I want that focus to be contextualised within the overall delivery of services to young people.

And finally, Hefin David.

Given the Minister’s answers so far, I’m not sure whether I should broaden out my question or narrow it down to a laser focus, so I’m going to try a bit of both.

Well, you’ve got 50 seconds, so—

I’ll be really fast. Given the Minister recognises the changing nature of funding and resources available to youth support, how will the new landscape be considered in the review? The Senghenydd Youth Drop In Centre, known as SYDIC, for example, currently lives hand-to-mouth, reliant on various sources of funding, and Caerphilly County Borough Council have allocated substantial funding for them this year. Do realistic expectations encompass a more secure future for outreach organisations like SYDIC?

I think extending out the question was a better thing to do, actually, Hefin. [Laughter.] In terms of individual youth centres, the Member would not expect me to give any commitments for the funding of organisations that I’m unable to give. But let me say this: we have a changing landscape, as the Member points out, and I enjoyed the visit when I joined him in SYDIC last summer and saw the facilities available there and the services provided there. Those services are essential services, particularly being delivered in somewhere like Senghenydd, which is a community very similar to those communities that I represent in Blaenau Gwent, where we need to be able to reach out and reach beyond perhaps the traditional way of delivering services. Organisations such as SYDIC do a fantastic job in enabling us to do that, and that needs to be recognised within the landscape that he has described. When we come to taking decisions in terms of the overall extending entitlement, the strategy that we’ve described already this afternoon, those sorts of services have to be at its core and at its heart. I hope, and I’m sure, with Members such as Hefin standing up for those people, they will be at the core of how we take these things forward.

Thank you very much, Minister.

We move to items 7 and 8 on our agenda this afternoon. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, I propose that the following two motions under item 7 and item 8 are grouped for debate. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, to move the motions. Jane.

I’m pleased, Deputy Presiding Officer, to present these statutory instruments to the Assembly for approval. These regulations and the Order are the first of two suites of statutory instruments that bring into force improvements to create a quicker and more streamlined and cost-effective appeals and call-in process in Wales. The second suite of statutory instruments will be subject to the negative procedure.

Firstly, you’re invited to approve the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications and Site Visits) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. These regulations make technical amendments to existing legislation, which requires a fee to be paid to the local planning authority where an appeal results in a deemed application for planning permission. Where a fee is required in relation to a deemed application, the Welsh Ministers are required to send a notice to the appellant specifying the time frame in which the fee must be paid to the local planning authority. However, the local planning authority will normally have little knowledge of the existence of the deemed application. The amendments made by these regulations will correct this anomaly and require the Welsh Ministers to send the same notice to the relevant local planning authority at the same time as the appellant. The amendments made by these regulations will also place a duty on the relevant local planning authority to notify the Welsh Ministers when a fee has been paid, or if a fee has not been paid within the specified time. I consider that this amendment will help increase clarity and certainty in the appeals process, and provide clear communication between the appellant, the local planning authority and the Welsh Ministers.

Secondly, you’re also invited to approve the town and country planning determination of procedure Wales Order 2017. Currently the Welsh Ministers must make a determination on whether an appeal or called-in application will be dealt with by way of written representations, a hearing or an inquiry. This applies to the majority of appeal and call-in types. This Order add appeals against hazardous substances contravention notices to the existing list of proceedings in respect of which the Welsh Ministers must determine procedure. This change will ensure further consistency across appeal types. I consider that these proposals, along with the wider reforms to the appeals process, will support the positive planning agenda as an enabler of development and ensure timely decision making on appeals and applications in Wales.

Thank you very much. There are no speakers, therefore the proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion under item 7 is agreed accordance with Standing Order 12:36.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion under item 8 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move on to item 9 on our agenda, which is a debate on Stage 4 of the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s my pleasure today to introduce the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill, to present it before the National Assembly for Wales to be approved. Some of the Members who are here today were also present to approve the first piece of devolved tax legislation in 2016, which was the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act, which established the Welsh Revenue Authority. This Bill does move us forward to the next stage in terms of tax devolution. It establishes a new tax on land transactions in Wales, instead of stamp duty land tax from April 2018 onwards. I want to thank again Members across the Chamber for their scrutiny work on the Bill and my officials and Commission staff for their support in this process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, mae sefydlu’r dreth trafodiadau tir i Gymru wedi bod yn fenter hynod dechnegol a hynod fanwl. Rwy'n ddyledus iawn i grŵp o swyddogion polisi a chyfraith gwirioneddol hyddysg sydd wedi ffurfio tîm prosiect penodedig. Mae eu gwaith nhw wedi bod yn fwyaf amlwg yng nghyfarfodydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid, yn y sesiynau briffio technegol a hefyd wrth helpu i ymateb yn gyflym ac yn gadarnhaol i gasgliadau'r pwyllgor. Roedd gwaith y pwyllgor hwnnw wedi ei gymhlethu ymhellach gan y newid yn natur treth tir y dreth stamp wrth i’r Bil fynd gerbron y Pwyllgor Cyllid. A gaf i ddiolch unwaith eto i Gadeirydd y pwyllgor, Simon Thomas, yn benodol, am y modd y cynhaliodd y broses graffu ac i holl aelodau'r pwyllgor am eu dull gofalus ac adeiladol o sicrhau bod y Bil y gorau a all fod? Rwyf hefyd yn ddiolchgar wrth gwrs i Gadeirydd ac aelodau'r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol am eu craffu manwl a'r adroddiadau a ddeilliodd o hynny.

Dirprwy Lywydd, mae datblygiadau wrth ddatganoli trethi yn mynd rhagddynt. Roeddwn yn falch o gyhoeddi yn ddiweddar mai Kathryn Bishop fydd cadeirydd cyntaf Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru, gydag aelodau eraill anweithredol o’r bwrdd i’w penodi yn yr haf. Yma yn y Cynulliad, mae treth gwarediadau tirlenwi yn parhau i wneud cynnydd drwy ein gweithdrefnau craffu, i'w dilyn ym mis Ebrill 2019 gyda chyflwyniad cyfraddau Cymru ar gyfer y dreth incwm. Mae pob un o'r trethi newydd hyn yn gam pellach ar daith datganoli, er ei fod yn un sydd wedi cymryd 800 mlynedd i’w wireddu. Gyda hynny mewn golwg, gofynnaf i'r Aelodau am eu cefnogaeth wrth roi’r Bil hwn ar y llyfr statud y prynhawn yma.

I’m very pleased to say that Plaid Cymru will support this Bill today, and I would like to extend my own thanks to the Commission team, particularly the legislative team, for their assistance in scrutinising this Bill in committee and in drafting amendments to it.

Very briefly, I would like to applaud the Cabinet Secretary for introducing the draft Bill prior to the summer, which gave Members and stakeholders a chance to acquaint themselves with its contents, and for his willingness to consult with stakeholders. There was discussion during the debate on the general principles that the Bill is a lengthy one and that there are some complex sections to it. Without doubt, having a draft Bill was of great assistance to our scrutiny work as Members, particularly committee members.

The Finance Committee heard from stakeholders about the requirement for a smooth transfer from the old stamp duty system to the new system. I’m pleased that an amendment to ensure that guidance on the implementation of cross-border transactions was accepted—an amendment that will provide greater clarity for those selling and purchasing properties that are partly in Wales and partly in England.

I’m also pleased that the Bill includes a section that will see an independent review of the implementation of the tax after six years. On such an important issue as taxation—it’s the first time we’ve had such legislation for many centuries—it’s only right that we evaluate the implementation of any new arrangements that we put in place.

To conclude, I believe that the approach taken by the Cabinet Secretary in taking the Bill through the process sets an example for future Bills. I welcome this historic Bill and I very much hope that the Assembly will approve it this afternoon.

The Welsh Conservatives will also be supporting Stage 4 of this Bill. Can I also thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for his work in overseeing the scrutiny of the Bill at the earlier stage? It’s been uncharted territory for an Assembly committee because, of course, it has been uncharted territory for the Welsh Government as well, and the Cabinet Secretary and his officials. Can I also pay tribute to the Cabinet Secretary Mark Drakeford for the way that he’s handled this Bill? As we’ve heard so many times, it’s the first Welsh tax Bill in 700 or 800 years. We’ve heard that phrase many times now. Can I also thank you for the way that you’ve consulted with opposition Members and opposition parties, and allowed your officers to consult with us as well when we had all manner of questions?

Of course, no-one likes being taxed, but this Bill was absolutely vital to fill the gap when the UK stamp duty is turned off very soon, in April next year. Ultimately, Cabinet Secretary, we all want the same thing: we want Welsh taxes that are transparent, efficient and that work. A former Welsh Secretary once said that devolution is a process and not an event. Well, tax devolution is also a process and not an event. We are at the start—the early stages—of that process. I hope, and the Welsh Conservatives hope, that it’s a process that will ultimately lead to a more responsible, more understandable and more accountable way of doing devolution. I think we’ve begun that process and I look forward to scrutinising and reviewing the taxes as they’re developed and as they come into effect.

May I also add my support for the Bill at this stage and say, although the Cabinet Secretary is technically right that this is the second finance Bill, for the public, this is the first taxation Bill because this is the first Bill that sets tax rates and changes the way that we collect taxes in Wales? I do think that that will be, if not welcomed, then certainly it will change the way that we do politics in moving forward in this place.

I would also like to thank other members of the Finance Committee for their detailed scrutiny work on this Bill. I’d also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his willing assistance and his officials’ willing assistance, but also for the way in which he responded to the Finance Committee and the recommendations made by the committee by various parties, tailoring the Bill where possible to do so, and in a way that was consensual and good natured, too.

I think that there is one issue where we couldn’t come to complete agreement, and that was the issue of whether land transaction rates should be on the face of the Bill or part of an alternative process. At this time, of course, we have agreed that it should be part of another process, but this question will arise again in this Assembly, and, as we develop our taxation policies, and as we have more tax devolution, it will become an issue for the whole Assembly to decide on tax rates in Wales.

Felly, yr adeg hon y flwyddyn nesaf, Dirprwy Lywydd, byddwn wedi penderfynu ar gyfraddau newydd y dreth trafodiadau tir yng Nghymru. Efallai’n wir y bydd gennym dreth tirlenwi y byddwn wedi penderfynu arni, ac ymhen dwy flynedd byddwn wedi pleidleisio a phenderfynu ar gyfraddau treth incwm yng Nghymru. Dyna pa mor gyflym y mae’r broses hon yn mynd rhagddi. Mewn dwy flynedd byddwn wedi symud o fod heb un geiniog wedi’i chodi yng Nghymru i’w gwario yng Nghymru yn uniongyrchol yn adnoddau’r Cynulliad hwn, i fod â bron 25 y cant o'n hadnoddau wedi eu codi a’u gwario yng Nghymru—biliynau o bunnoedd. Y cyfan a ddywedaf ar hyn o bryd yw: nid wyf yn credu bod ein hetholwyr yn gwybod llawer am hyn. Fe fyddant yn gwybod cyn bo hir, ac yn sicr, diolch i'r ffordd y mae’r Bil hwn wedi mynd trwyddo, mae’r arbenigwyr yn gwybod am hyn, ac mae'r cyfreithwyr treth yn gwybod am hyn, ac mae'r trawsgludwyr yn gwybod amdano a bydd yr asiantau tai yn gwybod amdano. Ond rwy’n credu bod gwaith i'w wneud, a fydd nawr yn swyddogaeth yr Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru newydd, dan gadeiryddiaeth newydd, i godi ymwybyddiaeth am bwerau codi trethi yng Nghymru.

Y pwynt olaf yr wyf am ei wneud yw hyn. Er na chawsom gytundeb ar a ddylai cyfraddau treth fod ar wyneb y Bil neu mewn proses arall, dros gyfnod o amser, mae gen i ddiddordeb, ac mae gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn sicr ddiddordeb, edrych i weld a ddylem gael dull ariannol deddfwriaethol, Bil cyllidol, Bil cyllid, sy’n dod ger ein bron yn flynyddol ac y pleidleisir arno. Oherwydd rwyf yn dymuno i chi i gyd rannu’r llawenydd a gafwyd yn y Pwyllgor Cyllid ar ddeddfwriaeth treth.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon, and for all the support that they’ve provided to the process when the Bill has been before the committee, and here before the full Assembly as well?

Dirprwy Lywydd, credaf fod y Bil hwn yn dangos cadernid y prosesau sydd gennym yma yn y Cynulliad. Mae'n well Bil na'r Bil a gyflwynwyd gyntaf, ac mae'r broses graffu wedi ei grymuso. Dywedodd Simon Thomas nad yw aelodau'r cyhoedd wedi clywed am y Bil hyd yn hyn. Os na chawsom hwyl arni gyda’r Bil, ac os bydd yn mynd o chwith, yna byddent yn sicr o glywed am y peth wedyn. Felly mae’n ddyletswydd ar bob un ohonom, ac rwy'n credu bod ymdeimlad gwirioneddol o ddyletswydd ymhlith aelodau'r pwyllgor ac eraill i wneud popeth o fewn ein gallu i sicrhau bod y Bil cystal ag y gallai fod.

Rydym mewn cyfnod sy'n symud yn gyflym iawn o ran ysgwyddo’r cyfrifoldebau hyn yng Nghymru. Bydd hyn yn ein tywys i edrych ar y prosesau sydd gennym er mwyn gwneud yn siŵr eu bod yn addas ar gyfer ein cyfrifoldebau yn y dyfodol. Am heddiw, gofynnaf eto i'r Aelodau gefnogi'r Bil hwn ar y llyfr statud fel y gall wneud y gwaith pwysig iawn yr ydym wedi gofyn iddo ei gyflawni.

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

Item 10 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

We move to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

We move to vote on the debate on the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment six. There were 10 abstentions and 38 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.

We now move to vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 16, no abstentions, 38 against, therefore amendment 2 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 16, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore amendment 3 is not agreed.

Call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion six, 10 abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 16, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Amendment 6. I call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment six, 10 abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Call for a vote on amendment 7, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion nine, 39 abstentions, six against. Therefore, amendment 7 is agreed.

Call for—. Calm down. I call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, one abstention, 16 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

And that brings today’s proceedings to a close.