National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. And the first question, Angela Burns.

Thank you, Angela. The new, more rigorous, Welsh baccalaureate was introduced in September 2015, and I firmly believe learners in Wales will benefit from studying it. I still expect every school in Wales to deliver the Welsh bac at key stage 4 and all post-16 institutions to work towards full implementation by 2019-20.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. But I do have a concern about the implementation of the Welsh baccalaureate, which I would like your take on. We have individuals who are at the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum, or who have another learning need, and yet able to cope with academic subjects. However, these individuals often struggle with undertaking the skills challenge element of the baccalaureate, where emphasis is placed on individual challenges and where learners must work as a team. I have examples of situations where learners are becoming mentally ill or refusing to attend school because of the stress of coping in that kind of situation. Indeed, I have one constituent whose father went on to suicide watch because he was so worried about his child.

But schools are taking a hard line and refusing to withdraw learners from the baccalaureate, even though the current guidance states it’s not a statutory requirement. Cabinet Secretary, I suspect schools are taking this hard line because, and I’m quoting Estyn’s guidance,

achievement of the Welsh Baccalaureate will be one of the school performance measures for key stage 4 used by the Welsh Government for reporting on school standards from 2018.’

How will you ensure that there’s a reconciliation between the needs of an individual learner, and the desire for schools to make sure that they don’t fall behind on school standards?

Thank you, Angela. Firstly, can I say I believe it’s important that all learners have an opportunity, at post 16, to select courses that reflect a wide range of interests and abilities and are relevant to individual circumstances? Now, in line with the recommendations from the review of qualifications, the Welsh Government continues to encourage universal adoption of the Welsh baccalaureate. But, as you have quite rightly said this afternoon, it is not statutory for learners to undertake, nor is it compulsory for centres to provide. Whilst we encourage schools and colleges to deliver the Welsh baccalaureate because of the benefit it will bring to their students, learners can be withdrawn from the subject on request. With regard to high-stakes accountability measures, I have given a commitment to review high-stakes accountability measures so that we get a more accurate and a better reflection of school standards, and officials are currently working on this.

I’m pleased to hear, Cabinet Secretary, that it’s not an obligation on the student to adhere to the Welsh baccalaureate. I understand that it should be an obligation of the education provider to give opportunities to students, and I think that the community volunteering aspect and the emotional resilience aspect are really important parts of anybody’s education.

But I have had correspondence from people expressing concern that, by being forced to do the Welsh baccalaureate, they are having to limit their options of what they would choose to study. And I think it’s a particular concern at key stage 5, where students are perhaps competing to get in to some of the most competitive universities. It is A-levels that are going to be the determining factor, and three A-levels are demanded by places like Cambridge and Warwick, and the Welsh baccalaureate doesn’t come into it. So, I think it’s quite important that we’re not obliging students, at key stage 5 in particular, when they’re no longer in compulsory education, to do it, and that there should be room within the system, in key stage 4, to enable students who would prefer to follow another option to opt out. And I wondered if you’d be able to give guidance as to whether that is really possible.

Can I thank the Member for her question and observation? But, let me be absolutely clear, the Welsh baccalaureate aims to provide young people in Wales with added breadth to their learning and supports them in the acquisition of skills, which I feel are desirable both to universities and to employers. Now, the components’ flexibilities allow centres to cater for students’ individual needs, providing a platform for students to explore and increase their in-depth, subject-specific knowledge. When it comes to institutions accepting the Welsh baccalaureate, let me be clear that the vast majority of universities take the Welsh baccalaureate. It has been designated Universities and Colleges Admissions Service points by Qualifications Wales because of the high, rigorous standards that are involved, and I come across young people and parents all the time who tell me that their child has gained a place in a prestigious university on the basis of the Welsh bac qualification. For instance, a young lady that just took work experience with me who will begin her degree course in Cardiff this September. Only this week, Tudur Owen, the Welsh language comedian, was telling me at the teaching awards that his son gained his place at Bristol University last year on the basis of his Welsh baccalaureate. Let’s be absolutely clear: this qualification adds value to student, and it does not take away from their opportunities to study at the most prestigious universities, whether that be here in Wales or anywhere else.

Thank you, Huw. I am committed to ensuring that all children and young people, including those from armed forces families, are supported to achieve their full potential, regardless of their background or personal circumstances.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. Cabinet Secretary, as a long-time supporter and advocate for members of the armed forces and their families in Wales, you will be well aware of the huge contribution our service personnel make to our communities. Estimates suggest that the armed forces community in Wales numbers anything between 250,000 and 350,000 people, and a proportion of these will of course be family members and dependent children. Now, some schools in Wales are doing great work in this area, along with the work of the Supporting Service Children in Education Cymru project, Welsh Government, the Welsh Local Government Association, and partners such as the Royal British Legion. Indeed, last year, over £650,000 came to Wales via the Ministry of Defence education support fund to support schools with service children in them, though I understand that that funding may well be ending in 2018.

Now, given that there are least 2,500 service children in schools across Wales, could I ask what work the Welsh Government is doing to identify these children via the school census, for example, and, importantly, identify and support any additional needs they may have, for example via direct funding to schools?

Well, Huw, first of all, can I thank you for acknowledging the good work that goes on in many of our schools in Wales to provide the necessary support for children who have family in our armed services? And I also commend the work of a number of groups, including the WLGA and the British Legion, in being able to provide a range of resources and professional learning opportunities for teachers to better support these children. Only recently, I’ve written to a number of schools in Wales, including Llantwit Major School, Prendergast school in Pembrokeshire, and, indeed, three within my own constituency in Brecon, who have been very successful in drawing down additional resources to help them meet the needs of their service personnel children.

I’m very keen, with officials, to better understand the needs of these particular learners, to ascertain whether there is any evidence to suggest that, as a result of belonging to a service family, their attainment is affected in any way. There is data to suggest that is not the case, although there are some issues around progression on to higher education. But I’m very aware that, for children of service personnel, especially those who are deployed in active service, it can be a very anxious and stressful time for them. So, we need to look not just at attainment but at issues around well-being. I will continue to ask my officials to work to identify the evidence as to whether we would need to look at additional funding, and I will be writing to the MOD to urge them to consider not ending their current round of funding and to say that they need to consider the impact of their choices on devolved services, and I would urge them to continue that funding.

Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies has actually covered most bases in his excellent question to you, and you gave a full answer. I think we would all agree that every child deserves the best start in life, but, for some young people, their background and parents’ profession does make that difficult, and that is especially true in the case of the children of our armed forces. You’ve touched on the census data and the measures you’re taking at the moment in schools to try and identify and assist these children. Moving on from that, what assessment have you made, or will you be making, about future growth and future trends in the growth of the number of children of our armed forces in Welsh schools, so that you can make sufficient contingency plans to best support them for the next five years or the rest of the Assembly term?

Thank you, Nick. The programme for government commits to providing support and services in line with the armed forces covenant, and, therefore, children of members of the armed forces will have the same standards and access to education as every other UK citizen in the area in which they live. Data continue to be an issue, both here in Wales and nationally. I’m sure that many Assembly Members will have availed themselves of the opportunity yesterday to speak to members of the British legion, who were here promoting their campaign, with regard to specific questions being included in the next Westminster Government census so that we can get a better understanding of the nature. As always, in Wales, the lack of data continues to be problematical and I continue to explore with my officials how best we can identify the numbers of children involved, where they are and the most efficient way and successful way in which we can support them.

Questions now from party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary. UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with UKIP that parents should be able to trigger an Estyn inspection into their child’s school where they have specific concerns about the school?

No, I do not. Estyn, the independent inspectorate, decides on their own programme of inspection regimes and, as an independent inspectorate, free of Government interference, it is up to them to set out how best they should inspect schools.

Thank you for that answer. I note that Estyn doesn’t look at school drop-out rates or the opinions of parents, missing potential indicators of a problem at the school. If a parent removes a child because of a problem with the school, it could be over concerns about poor teaching or something that they’d already tried to resolve with the school. It could, of course, also be because they’ve simply moved house. Therefore, parents who take the step of removing their child through specific issues should really be asked why and the reason they’re moving the child on so that problems can be flagged up. So, don’t you think that Estyn should include that in their report?

Let’s be clear: Estyn take very seriously and consider in their reports of schools issues around attendance. We know that high levels of and regular attendance are the best things a parent can do to enhance and help their children’s education progress.

As to reasons why children maybe move school, I do not believe that that is a strategic issue that we need Estyn to be looking at. If parents have concerns about standards in a school, there are a variety of ways in which those concerns can be addressed, primarily through the chair of the governing body of each individual school, and, if they’re not satisfied with that, the local education authority.

Okay, thank you for that. As you’re aware, there are too many schools in the amber and red categories. Should there be a mechanism that makes it easier than it currently is for children attending a school assessed as amber or red to switch to a school that isn’t failing?

Let me be absolutely clear: if a school finds itself in an amber or red category, that is not an indication that the school is failing. The categorisation system has been introduced to identify levels of support that that school needs to improve, and whilst I am working towards a situation where no school in Wales is amber or red, the Member should acknowledge that the number of schools that find themselves in the green or yellow categories is going up. I commend the teachers and the headteachers of those schools, who are driving standards forward.

The Member should be very clear in her role as an education spokesperson for her party what the value and the purpose of the categorisation is, and you grossly mischaracterised it in your question today.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, pupils across Wales, of course, over the last week or so have been sitting their national literacy and numeracy tests, and evidence shows us that high-stakes standardised tests narrow the curriculum and have a negative impact on creativity in the classroom, and, subsequently, that risks children being taught to the test and the objective becomes not about improving the education of the children, but about improving their capacity to pass tests. That, of course, is in complete conflict with the curriculum proposals put forward by the Donaldson review that are being pursued.

So, can I ask: do we really need some crude and blunt testing regime to tell us what teachers, through their assessments, already know?

Can I thank the Member for his questions regarding standardised testing? Let me be absolutely clear what the purpose of those assessments is about, because that’s their main purpose. It is to provide another way of assessing where a child is in their education— an independent way of doing that. And I think that provides reassurance and an important source of information for teachers, headteachers and, crucially, for parents, too. It provides the building blocks for those conversations with your child’s teacher about how best your child can be supported to reach their full potential. However, I’ve acknowledged that, in many ways, the assessments are crude, and that’s why last week I announced a multimillion-pound investment into the development of online adaptive testing, which will give us an even better way of assessing where a child is in their education.

Yes, and if you are pursuing tests then, clearly, as I said in response to your announcement, anything that helps to reduce the workload of teachers—for example, through online testing—would be welcome, as long as we guard against a ‘computer says yes or computer says no’ culture emerging. In relation to workload pressures on the workforce, you will also be aware that the Education Workforce Council published a survey recently that highlighted some of the most common areas impacting on teachers’ ability to effectively manage their workload, with over three quarters of the workforce citing administration and paperwork, and nearly half saying that they were struggling to fit curriculum content into the available teaching hours. Nearly 90 per cent of survey respondents said that they were unable to manage workload within agreed working hours. And there’s evidence from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as well that teachers in Wales work much harder and longer hours than teachers in other nations. That’s clearly impacting on the quality of teaching in Wales and certainly having an impact as well on recruitment and retention, and creating a number of difficulties in that respect. So, with teachers’ pay and conditions being devolved, isn’t it time to revisit the national agreement, particularly in relation to workload, to help avoid in teaching the kind of crisis that we’ve seen in recent years in health?

Thank you, Llyr. Can I be absolutely clear that the primary driver for the investment in online adaptive testing is because we believe it will be more useful when it comes to assessment for learning and for raising standards? The fact that it actually reduces workload and bureaucracy for teachers is a by-product, although a welcome by-product. I understand that the issues of workload are very real for our teachers, and I want to look at a variety of opportunities where we can free up both schoolteachers and leaders to give them the time to concentrate on what matters most. Therefore, you’ll be aware that we are looking at, for instance, a programme of business managers and bursars to take away tasks from headteachers that could be done by another professional, leaving the headteacher to concentrate on professional learning, curriculum development and the teaching within the school. And the same for individual teachers: we’re running a new bureaucracy project at the moment to identify where we, as Welsh Government, are asking teachers to do things, whether that is adding value to learning, and if it’s not we’re prepared to strip that out. We’re also undertaking a myth-busting regime. Many of the professionals I speak to go above and beyond what can be reasonably expected of them, because they fear, for instance, that it will be expected of them by Estyn. We’re working very closely with Estyn to develop a myth-busting project, so that teachers are very clear about what is expected of them, and are not going above and beyond and doing things that don’t add value, but actually cause stress and additional workload that is not required by our inspection regime.

In your own words, you’re looking at a number of issues, but in the meantime you’re hurtling full pelt towards the curriculum reforms that many of us have warned are storing up problems, because the capacity isn’t within the system as it stands for the teachers to absorb the huge reforms that are ahead. And I called previously on you to step back from introducing the curriculum according to the current timetable, so that we can make sure we do it correctly and that it’s not a case of doing it quickly. NUT Cymru, of course, has added their voice to those calls as well now. So, I’m asking you will you listen to the profession. Will you listen to those working at the coalface who are telling us that getting all the reforms in place for the new curriculum to be ready to be introduced in, what, 12, 16 months’ time, is now unrealistic? Or are you intent on ploughing on regardless?

What I will do is listen to those at the coalface who are developing this curriculum. The idea that this curriculum is being developed solely by Welsh Government and will be imposed upon the teaching profession is not how the system is being developed at the moment. Our pioneer school networks, our teachers, our learning professionals are at the heart of this process. You’re absolutely right, we need—I need—to be secure that the teaching profession is in a place to be able to use this exciting new curriculum, and I will be guided by the professionals who are dealing with, not only the area of learning experience, but are dealing with the professional learning aspects of the curriculum as we go forward. And if they have concerns, I will take those on board.

Conservatives’ spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, attention has already been drawn to the fact that we’re heading towards a recruitment crisis in our teaching profession and, of course, this was highlighted by the Education Workforce Council’s survey, which found that more than one in three teachers intends to leave the profession within the next three years. What specifically are you doing to plug the gap if those one in three do actually leave the profession?

Thank you, Darren. The first-ever teaching survey has given us a wealth of information, not just for statistics, but also qualitative and data as well, and we’re studying that at the moment. We need to ensure that we create an education system in Wales that retains our best talent within our system, but also recruits into that system our very best and brightest individuals. Therefore, as you know, we are currently reforming our initial teacher education provision and we are looking at new ways in which we can attract career changers into the teaching profession, as well as addressing issues like workload, which Llyr Gruffydd has just talked about, so that people who are already teachers feel motivated to stay within the classroom. I’m pleased to say that the recruitment figures into this year’s ITE is out-performing what we did last year and is actually better than England.

There’s just been a huge recruitment drive for new nurses in the Welsh NHS with a lot of money and a lot of promotional work that has been done in many different ways across social media, the printed media and other media at large. Why are we not seeing a similar effort to recruit the teachers that the Welsh schooling system needs, so that we’ve got sufficient Welsh-medium teachers and sufficient STEM subject teachers for the future? Because, otherwise, we’re going to continue to slip down the OECD’s PISA scale in the way that we have over the past 10 years.

I would just reiterate to the Member, again: our recruitment figure for people who are entering into courses this September is better than it was last year and out-performs the recruitment into ITE provision in England. But, of course, there is always more for us to do. The Member will be aware that the four regional consortia working together have been producing a recruitment campaign to attract those people who perhaps have had enough of the English education system to demonstrate to them that they can come and work in a supportive environment here in Wales, and we are seeing results as a result of that recruitment campaign. But if the Member has new ideas about how we can recruit more teachers, I’m always open to them.

I’ll give you one idea, Minister, and in fact we suggested one in the past that, fortunately, you’ve actually listened to and taken up. One was in respect of improving the bursaries available to attract new people into the profession, and the second is to remove some of the ridiculous barriers that overseas-trained teachers currently face here if they want to come and work in Wales. It is ridiculous that overseas-qualified teachers in Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand can go and work in other parts of the United Kingdom without having to do adaptation courses, and yet they cannot come to Wales and work, including deputy heads and headteachers. That is an unacceptable barrier to recruitment here in Wales, and could help to stem the tide of people slipping away from the profession as a result of the poor reputation of the Welsh education system.

Well, Darren, you do raise a serious point. I don’t want to turn away any talent from Wales, and if somebody has something to contribute to the Welsh education system, then I want them to be able to do that. My officials are currently reviewing the rules around what qualifications are necessary to teach in a school in Wales. Let me be absolutely clear: the rules that are currently in place were as a result of a previous Government’s consultation, where there was a very clear consensus about the necessity for the rules that we have in place at the moment. But I have to say, Presiding Officer, I will take no lessons from a Tory Assembly Member when I have to listen to the rhetoric of his party leader on immigration. This is a member of a party that spends all its time denigrating people who want to come and contribute to this country.

Thank you, Paul. I have set out, as Cabinet Secretary, on a number of occasions the programme of education reforms to improve education across Wales, and, of course, that does include Pembrokeshire. These include the development of a new curriculum and assessment reform, improved initial teacher education, teachers’ professional learning, building leadership capacity and reducing the attainment gap.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for her response. Now, you may be aware, Cabinet Secretary, of the reading ambassadors scheme, which aims to improve children’s reading skills by working closely with cluster primary schools in my constituency. This collaboration has been praised in a recent ERW report, with the Schools Challenge Cymru adviser, Hefina Thomas, saying it had resulted in ‘a direct impact on standards’. In light of this, can you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to promote this activity, so that all schools across Pembrokeshire can benefit from this kind of collaboration?

Paul, thank you very much for highlighting that good practice that happens in your area. As you know, because of concerns regarding the standards of education in Pembrokeshire, particularly the inability of Pembrokeshire’s high schools to improve their level 2-plus attainment rates as quickly as the Welsh average, the regional consortium has recently deployed additional advisory support into the county of Pembrokeshire. Estyn have carried out a case conference in the county of Pembrokeshire to try and impress upon the council and the local education authority the measures that they feel are necessary for the council to take to improve standards. But it is clear such schemes as that, where we can increase pupils’ literacy within the primary school sector, bode well for their ability to access the curriculum later on, and I would hope and expect that the regional consortia are learning from good practice and are utilising the resources that they have from the education improvement grant to ensure that where programmes are successful, they are replicated.

Well, around five years ago, education in Pembrokeshire was in such a poor state that the Government had to send a specialist team in to save the situation there. Since then, education in Pembrokeshire has improved. Now, the county is around the middle of the list of counties in terms of educational attainment. I would still think that there is room for improvement, though. The disagreement that there’s been recently over the sixth-form provision in Pembrokeshire also suggests that the county council hadn’t had as firm a grip as it should’ve had on progress in education in this county. Given the fact that there is a possible change of leadership in Pembrokeshire at the moment, does the Cabinet Secretary intend to get in touch with the county council to ensure that that progress that we have seen over the past four years does continue, and that pupils in Pembrokeshire can expect their council to continue on a path from the poor position they were in five years ago to something far more positive for those pupils in future?

Thank you, Simon. It is true to say that the level 2-plus inclusive in Pembrokeshire has improved from 51 per cent in 2011 to just over 59 per cent in 2016, and this is an improvement in attainment of 8.3 per cent since 2011, but it is not where you or I would want Pembrokeshire to be. You’re quite right, it is the primary responsibility of the new administration to get to grips with their school improvement plans, school organisation plans, to drive standards up further. As I’ve said in answer to Paul Davies, the regional consortia, because of concerns about Pembrokeshire, have deployed additional support to the county and I can assure you I will be meeting with the portfolio holder and the director of education in Pembrokeshire, as I do regularly with all portfolio holders and directors of education, to impress upon them the need to make progress.

The Welsh Government places great value in vocational qualifications being made available for 14 to 16-year-olds. Through the Learning and Skills (Wales) Measure 2009, all learners are offered at least three vocational qualifications at key stage 4 in local curriculum offers.

Thank you for that answer, Minister, and it’s important that we ensure parity of esteem for vocational qualifications as, for many, that’s going to be a stronger route for them into further education and into work opportunities, and it allows young people to demonstrate the skills that, perhaps, the academic route doesn’t offer.

Now, as such, too many parents and too many young people are still of the view that the traditional A-level is the only way forward for them. There is a different way, and you’ve highlighted there that you’re offering vocational education, but it’s about telling them the benefits of that so they understand what they can gain out of that. Now, vocational qualifications offer routes for many young people into further or higher education, into work opportunities, into areas that need the skills and competencies of those individuals. So, how are you going to actually work with FE colleges and other institutions to promote the vocational qualifications amongst the 14 to 16-year-olds so that, when they finish their GCSE courses, they actually have a good understanding of the opportunities available to them, and the pathways that they can take when they leave?

Can I say I absolutely agree with the points made by the Member in his question? It’s important that all learners have access to a curriculum that best suits their individual learning pathways and meets their wide range of interests and abilities, and that there is parity of esteem between those choices. Members will be pleased to hear that, in this academic year, all schools and FE colleges in Wales have either met or exceeded the local curriculum offer requirements of the 14-19 learning pathways. But can I say this in answer to his question? I think he’s absolutely right to identify the issue of how we take forward that sort of training opportunity, skills acquisition, and the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Members may be aware that the Welsh Government is undertaking a pilot to support junior apprenticeships, which is being taken forward in collaboration with Cardiff and Vale College. That started this year, and we’re looking, at the moment, at this pilot. I have to say, I’m minded, and I have asked officials to explore whether or how we can expand and build upon this pilot and move forward with more urgency, so that, if the pilot proves to be an effective way of ensuring not just a parity of esteem, but better qualifications for people at 16, we can expand it more mainstream as soon as possible.

Minister, vocational education is very important to looked-after children, and can I welcome the very good news we had today about the number of looked-after children achieving the level 2 inclusive threshold, which now stands at 23 per cent? That’s still 37 per cent behind the peer group, and obviously we’ve got to get up to as close to the peer group as possible, but it is a 10 percentage point improvement on 2012. I do hope you’ll be able to confirm that the Government takes this welcome news as a first step, and also in terms of looking at vocational education and ensuring that progress there matches the ambition that we’re now setting for educational attainment in general for looked-after children.

Yes. We do clearly welcome the improvement, but also we feel impatient that we want to move further and faster. The conversations that I’ve had with the Cabinet Secretary for Education are focused on how we ensure that that attainment gap is closed, and how we ensure that all children, irrespective of their backgrounds, have the appropriate support to enable them to do that. Junior apprenticeships may be one way of achieving that—it’s clearly not the only way of achieving that—but, certainly, we’re going to ensure that these opportunities are available to all learners in all parts of Wales.

There’s currently a shortage of skills in the construction industry, so I wondered if the programme of vocational education puts any emphasis on teaching carpentry, bricklaying, and any of the other related skills that are needed in that industry.

The junior apprenticeship programme, run in collaboration with Cardiff and Vale College, does study key routes such as construction, automotive, and prepares learners to progress directly on to full apprenticeship programmes once completed at the age of 16.

Through the Learning in Digital Wales programme, the Welsh Government provides a range of centrally funded digital technologies for primary schools. We provide digital tools and resources through Hwb and are significantly investing in broadband connectivity. However, schools have delegated control to select the most appropriate digital technologies available for their learners.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Cornist Park primary school in Flint, in my constituency, has been recognised as a digital pioneer school, where the headteacher, Nicola Thomas, has put digital technologies at the centre of their teaching and learning and has supported pupils to be able to take the lead on this themselves. Pupils have led on projects, which include raising awareness, research, and to do with them taking up roles as e-cadets. They’ve even held a drop-in session in a local bank to educate customers on how to be safe online. Minister, will you join me in recognising Cornist Park school as an example of best practice and urge other schools across Wales to put digital technologies at the centre of their learning?

I very much agree with what the Member for Delyn has said. Cornist Park community primary school has made great progress since being named as a digital pioneer school, and was also, of course, the winner of the Welsh Government’s national digital learning awards in the e-safety category in 2016. This, of course, has now been turned into a case study for others to understand and to share that best practice. I think that Cornist Park primary is a great example of what our ambitions are for all schools across Wales: to embed learning of this sort in the curriculum, and to enable all children and all learners to experience that. I’m particularly anxious that we do place a focus on e-safety. One of the great advantages of these days, these times, is the expansion of what we’re able to do online, but, at the same time, we need to ensure that everybody who accesses new services online can do so safely.

Minister, I was pleased to receive reports from Ysgol Pontrobert that they’re now able to access the Hwb digital learning platform after receiving a long-awaited broadband upgrade. However, the ‘Evaluation of the implementation of the Learning in Digital Wales Programme’, which was published six months ago, noted that nearly a third of schools did not register any log-ins on Hwb, and made a series of recommendations for the Welsh Government to improve this, including developing a communications strategy targeted at teachers and parents and setting targets for the adoption and usage rates of Hwb. Are you able to provide an update on the progress that the Welsh Government is making in implementing the recommendations of this report?

I’m sure the Member will join everybody in welcoming the fact that we now have achieved the connectivity that he referred to in his question. I think he asked a question on it some months ago, and we’ve achieved our ambitions on that now. The Cabinet Secretary was talking about how we move one step further and invest even further resources to ensure that schools do have access to the fastest broadband speeds available to us. Can I say this in terms of the overall programme that we’re following with Hwb? It has clearly made an enormous difference for schools and for learners across the whole of Wales. We want to see this expanded, and we want to see it continuing to drive forward and to provide the opportunity for everybody—all learners across Wales—to access the sorts of information and the sorts of digital skills that are essential in everyday life. We are making progress in terms of delivering on the recommendations that have been made for us, and I will be very happy to update Members more fully on that in terms of a written statement in the next few weeks.

In order for pupils to make the best use of digital technologies, we need to ensure that teachers are adequately trained in this area. Indeed, staff at Cwmdare primary school in my constituency recently made use of BT’s free Barefoot Computing training to do just this. How can the Welsh Government ensure that all staff in Welsh primary schools gain the right skills to help pupils prepare for the digital age?

I’m very pleased to hear that Cwmdare primary is taking advantage of the free Barefoot Computing resources. Members may wish to know that the Welsh Government has worked closely with BT to review and develop the resources in line with the Welsh curriculum and the digital competence framework. We’re also working with BT to promote the volunteer workshops where volunteers will go into Welsh primary schools to teach trainers and to train teachers on how we deliver the Barefoot resources. In addition to this, we are investing £500,000 a year in the regional consortia to train schools in using digital technologies, with a particular focus on the tools and resources available through the Hwb platform. We have also developed a self-assessment tool, which will be updated to provide for the training needs of schools and teachers, as identified by digital pioneer schools. The updated tool will enable teachers to assess their skills and confidence in delivering elements of the digital competence framework and to identify their further professional learning needs.

Presiding Officer, before answering this question, I will make a statement of interest, in that I have a child in the school system in Powys.

Powys County Council is the admission authority for community schools in Powys and is therefore responsible for setting admission arrangements and ensuring that these arrangements are properly implemented and applied fairly.

Minister, ‘cylch meithrin’ and pre-school playgroups are already oversubscribed, and there is a real concern that, when the new school admissions policy in Powys comes into force in September, the pressure on playgroups will be unsustainable. Can I ask what the Welsh Government is doing to support the additional pressures on these playgroups?

I trust that all those who were members of Powys County Council at the time that decision was taken will be aware of the implications of the decisions that they took. The Member will be aware, of course, as a former member of that authority, that that authority is responsible for setting its own admissions codes and the consequences thereof.

Band A of the twenty-first century schools and education programme will see investment of over £56 million in schools in the Caerphilly county borough over the five-year period ending in 2019. Of this, over £28 million will have been spent in the Islwyn constituency.

Thank you. Diolch. The headteacher of Islwyn High School, Tim Williams, has just recently been handed the keys to the £25.5 million-worth of new Islwyn High, built on the site of the former Oakdale colliery. The school has impressive features, modern teaching spaces, state-of-the-art technology workshops, fit-for-purpose science labs and IT suites, spread across three floors. Cabinet Secretary, what transformative impact will this massive injection of investment from the Welsh Labour Government have on the educational outcomes for future generations of Islwyn children?

Well, Presiding Officer, the Member is right: this significant investment has indeed provided the learners at Islwyn High with what is a state-of-the-art school building. The new learning environment provides pupils with the best facilities, affording them the best opportunity to maximise their potential. For the teachers in the school, it provides the platform for them to drive forward improved educational outcomes. I understand that pupils will move into the school at the beginning of July, and I am looking forward to having the opportunity to see for myself the difference that that new school building will make to the learning opportunities of that community.

On 30 March, the Welsh Government published revised guidance to support learners with both short-term and long-term healthcare needs. The guidance is statutory for governing bodies of all maintained schools, pupil referral units, and local authorities. It sets out clear expectations about how these learners should be supported.

How do you respond to concern expressed by Diabetes UK and their partners that the guidance, although welcome, doesn’t go far enough in clarifying the situation, that although there are several references or statements that will result in long-term medical conditions being under the additional learning needs framework, the Welsh Government still doesn’t support the amendment of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill and code to reflect this, that the document still doesn’t guarantee any support and makes it very clear that the provision of support is voluntary, and that basic requirements, such as having an individual plan in place, are not guaranteed by the guidance?

The Member’s wrong, of course, in his suggestion that the Government will not support any amendments to this Bill. We’ve not reached the stage of consideration of any amendments to this Bill at this point. In fact, we haven’t reached the end of Stage 1 consideration of this Bill. I’ve been very impressed by the hard work of the committee, ably led by my good friend, the Member for Torfaen, who has looked at these matters in great detail. The statutory guidance to which the Member refers has been subjected to specific scrutiny from this committee. I look forward to hearing what the conclusions of that scrutiny are, and I will certainly respond to the committee’s report on this matter, and I’m very open to giving full and due consideration to all suggestions and proposals that will come from the committee at the appropriate stage, Stage 2, when we reach that stage in June.

Finally, question 9, Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Dai. History is a compulsory national curriculum subject for all learners at key stages 2 and 3. History will be included in the humanities area of learning and experience of the new curriculum, and this will give us a new opportunity to ensure that the history platform will have an enhanced Welsh dimension and an international perspective.

Thank you for that response. It’s true to say that many people are concerned about the teaching of Welsh history in our schools. Following on from critical reports in the area, we need to mention Aneirin and Taliesin, Gwenllian in 1136, ‘Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf’, Owain Glyndŵr, Bishop William Morgan, Williams Pantycelyn, the Merthyr rising, the Rebecca riots, the treachery of the blue books, the Welsh Not, and so on. What hope is there of amending the history curriculum to teach our children Welsh history?

Well, Dai, as I said, the curriculum reform, which I was urged earlier by your colleague to stop and slow down and pause on, gives us this new opportunity to enhance the ability to teach Welsh children about their history. As I said, the Welsh dimension in both the current and the new curriculum is an important and prominent part of the education system, and Dr Elin Jones’s report, ‘The Cwricwlwm Cymreig, history and the story of Wales’, was taken forward and was considered as part of Professor Donaldson’s review in ‘Successful Futures’ and will form an important part of the consideration as the areas of learning and experience are developed.

But let me be absolutely clear: there are many, many opportunities within the current curriculum for children to learn about their communities, the effect on international events and how their communities were affected and changed. I know that often there is concern about the content of Welsh history in the GCSE examination, and, often, people express concerns that the papers are about American history, about European history, about the first and second world wars. You will be aware that the new history GCSE will be ready for teaching in September of this year, and, again, there are enhanced opportunities for students to spend more of their time considering their own history and the impact of important international events on that.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Dawn Bowden.

The Welsh Government is concerned that, for many people, the cost of bringing employment-related claims is now prohibitively expensive and denies them access to justice.

Thank you, Counsel General, and I’m sure you’re aware that recent figures indicate that there has been an 81 per cent decrease in the number of employment tribunal claims lodged since the UK Government introduced fees in 2013. Unison is currently challenging these fees in the Supreme Court. Do you agree with me, Counsel General, that such fees, ranging from £160 to £950, with discrimination claims attracting the highest level of fees, mean that ordinary people are effectively being priced out of justice and that this disproportionately penalises women, low paid, ethnic minority, LGBT and disabled employees and is yet a further example of Tory attacks on working people?

Well, you make some very good points. The UK Government’s own review of the introduction of fees in employment tribunals was published in January, and that does indeed highlight a number of very concerning the areas. First is obviously the very stark and substantial fall that there has been in the volume of claims: an 80 per cent reduction in claims to tribunals since the introduction of fees. The Government’s own evidence is also that some people who are unable to resolve their disputes through conciliation nevertheless did not bring a claim to the employment tribunals because they said they could not afford the fee, despite any financial support that was available. Equally, the assessment under the public sector equality duty that has been made by the UK Government of the impact of fees is that they have had a significant impact on discrimination cases and the discrimination area. The Supreme Court reference itself—and we’re awaiting the judgment in that particular case—just highlights that there are substantial fees ranging from £390 to £1,600 to go to the employment appeal tribunal, and that following that, official statistics show a dramatic reduction in claims brought—around about 80 per cent.

The Welsh Government has made its own representations in the consultations, which basically make the point very clearly that we do not think there should be fees at all, and certainly there should not be any fees that deny access to justice, and certainly in this area there clearly is a significant denial of justice to working people within Wales.

If I can just make a point about what Dawn said, fees are higher in some cases than Dawn Bowden suggested. It now costs around £1,250 for an unfair dismissal claim. Claimants are able to apply for remission of fees, but many people will need assistance doing so. Many people will also need help with issuing the claim and conducting it. The citizens advice bureau has long been a source of free advice and guidance, not only on employment matters, but on other issues—but I know how stretched that service has become. How would you propose to support the CAB in Wales?

The Welsh Government supports the CAB by actually funding advice and support through various advice agencies. Of course, the most effective way of gaining support in occupational matters is by actually belonging to a trade union, and of course the UK Government seems to spend most of its time looking at legislation that actually inhibits and restricts the role and operation of trade unions. I have to say that this area of work has never been properly recognised by the UK Government and by the Conservative Party.

The recommendations relating to the personal development and career progression of lower-ranking judges and tribunal members could have a positive impact on career opportunities for the Welsh tribunal judiciary.

Can I thank the Counsel General for that response? The report concludes that a purely organic approach to increasing diversity means that change is happening far too slowly and calls for systematic and structural changes to promote change. Does the Counsel General agree? What discussions has he had in respect of how the Welsh Government can contribute to the change process? It’s not a huge improvement if a public-school man is replaced by a public-school woman. We want real diversity.

Thank you for that supplementary question. Of course, you raise some of the points that were very much raised in the Justice report, which effectively said that the senior judiciary is dominated by privately educated white men and may need targets with teeth to improve diversity on the bench. There is, of course, a significant process of change under way at the moment, and the study by the reform group Justice, which the Member has referred to, is in fact very highly critical of the slow progress that’s been made, as in fact have been senior members of the judiciary themselves. So, we wait to see the outcome of those considerations, but they have described very much that the failure to ensure that the judiciary reflects the UK’s ethnic, gender and social composition has become a serious constitutional issue.

We are very alert to these issues in respect of that part of the judiciary that comes within the responsibility of Welsh Government. In representations that we make, we make very clearly the points in respect of diversity. We also make the point very strongly that it is vital that there is Welsh representation in the higher courts by judges with a knowledge and understanding of devolution and the law as it applies to Wales. So, those two aspects are very much within Welsh Government consideration in any opportunity there is to promote that increased diversity that we all want to see.

Members will know that my advice is legally privileged. Proposals to legislate for zero-hours contracts would require detailed analysis of legislative competence, having regard to the particular factual circumstances and context.

I thank him for that answer. Exploitative employment conditions are a major scourge of the modern economy and finding a way to outlaw exploitative employment is an absolute priority for us on these benches. I welcome commitments by the UK Labour Party to use reserved powers in Westminster to ban exploitative employment across the UK.

Given his answer about the competence of this place, what does he make of attempts by Plaid Cymru to attach amendments to other legislation that cannot genuinely tackle this blight and put that legislation at risk, even if it secures a good headline for Plaid?

Well, I don’t believe it’s my purpose to comment on proposals that are made by particular individuals or by political parties. What I would say is this: Welsh Government has been very alert to the whole issue of conditions within employment and has raised on a number of occasions the issues of the way in which procurement can be used.

We’ve already seen work that has been done by Welsh Government in respect of blacklisting. We’ve had, obviously, the discussion on the principles with regard to the trade union Act and, of course, there’s very considerable work that was undertaken, and significant impact, in respect of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014, and, of course, the impact of that particular judgement.

The code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains has been launched by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government earlier this year. It is a voluntary code, but all organisations that receive funding from the Welsh Government are expected to sign up to it, and it provides that zero-hours contracts are not to be used unfairly.

The Public Services Staff Commission has produced guidance about the use of non-guaranteed-hours contracts and principles and guidance on the appropriate use of non-guaranteed-hours arrangements in devolved public services in Wales.

The Welsh Government has also commissioned and published research about the use of zero-hours contracts in devolved Welsh public services and in the domiciliary care context. Of course, Members will be aware of statements that have been made by Ministers in respect of the ongoing work of Welsh Government on the issue of tackling job insecurity, zero-hours contracts and imposed self-employment, and also considerations that are being given specifically to the care sector.

Well, perhaps to help test that central competence question, Welsh Government can of course try and offer advice and guidance, as you’ve just mentioned, Counsel General. If so, what status does that have in terms of non-compliance and how would you view the fact that, on my last set of figures, Bridgend County Borough Council, until last week, employed almost 350 staff on zero-hours contracts? Would you think that complies with the sort of mission that you have against unfair use of those contracts?

Well, the code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains is there. It’s there for public bodies to take into account when it comes to consideration of future contracts. Obviously, the expectation is that all public bodies will have regard to that particular code. Any further steps that can be taken by Welsh Government will have to ensure that they are actually compliant with the competence that this Assembly actually has.

Members will be well aware of the issues that arose in the agriculture (Wales) Act—incidentally, something that the Member’s party actually opposed—which actually gave a very clear understanding of the way in which competence is considered under the conferred-powers model. Of course, we will, in due course, be changing to a different model, a reserved-powers model, in the future. The guidance that’s issued is voluntary, but we would expect compliance with it. And of course I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister will want to see a system where it is reviewed in due course in the future.

Thank you for your answers on the subject so far. It’s good that there is at least a code of practice that you’ve drawn up, but the point that Plaid made last week through Adam Price on the zero-hours issue was that you’ve laid claim to legal competence over the public sector employment area in your putting through the trade union Act, so it seems inconsistent with your approach to zero-hours contracts.

There’s no inconsistency. Any set of circumstances where there is a piece of legislation or an amendment that is proposed has to be considered in the light of the legislative competence that we actually have. That’s the point I made, I think, in my first answer, and that is that we have regard to the particular factual circumstances and context. And in the light of that, the issue of competence is decided upon.

Well, every year, the national health services across the UK lose out on millions of pounds due to some pharmaceutical companies breaching European and domestic competition law. We work very closely and effectively with the Department of Health, and the other devolved administrations, who share our interest in these issues, to recover our losses, and where there are grounds for legal action.

Thank you, Counsel General. It’s clear from the scale of recent finds that the Welsh Government is at significant cost risk from some pharmaceutical companies, which appear to be working together to fix prices. Does the Counsel General believe that this risk will increase as a result of our exit from the European Union, and what steps has the Welsh Government taken in order to protect the Welsh NHS post Brexit?

Well, you raise a very important issue. And in answering that question as fully as I can, I think I need to be very prudent about the legal sensitivities and about the duties of confidentiality owed to the court and to other third parties, which the Member will appreciate, and which I must respect. So, I suppose, in answering your question, I’m not going to make any specific reference to any particular cases that have been brought or settled, or identify any individual companies, or ongoing legal actions, or potential actions, of which there are a number. Nevertheless, you raise an issue that is of significant importance and matters of clear public interest, where there are clear issues to be resolved as part of the Brexit negotiations.

In 2008, as your question points out, the European Commission launched an inquiry to investigate possible anti-competitive conditions in the pharmaceutical sector. The commission published its final report in July 2008. The report presents the commission’s detailed findings, and proposes ways to improve patients’ rapid access to medicines. And the main findings of the report, which are a matter of public record, conclude that it takes too long for generic drugs to reach the market, fewer innovative medicines are reaching the market, and that certain drug company practices contribute to this situation.

It is apparent from decisions of the commission, and the Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, that certain companies within the pharmaceutical sector engage in anti-competitive behaviour, which has the potential to cause financial losses to the Welsh Ministers, to the national health service in Wales and to the wider NHS in the UK, and, indeed, across Europe. Welsh Government works with the departments of health in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to investigate such cases. Where anti-competitive behaviour causes losses to the Welsh Ministers and the NHS in Wales, appropriate legal action is taken to recover such losses. I can confirm that Welsh Ministers have been successful in a number of cases by achieving settlements.

The pan-European nature of this anti-competitive action by parts of the pharmaceutical industry can result in enormous losses. As a matter of public record, the level of some of the fines reflects this. For example, action taken by the European Commission has resulted in fines, in one case of €427 million for breaching EU anti-trust rules, and in other cases abuse of dominant market position; €180 million in another case; in other cases, €10 million and €5.5 million. Certainly, enormous and significant amounts. The CMA has parallel powers to those of the commission in tackling anti-competitive behaviour within the UK, and can impose its own sanctions. In one case, it imposed a fine of £45 million. The financial impact of this behaviour is potentially enormous, and if not tackled leads to unnecessary cost to the NHS of tens and hundreds of millions of pounds, of which the NHS bears a share.

So, it is an area where Welsh Government is very active, in conjunction with our counterparts, across the UK, in the Department of Health, and the devolved Governments. Of particular concern will be the need for a post-Brexit strategy, to ensure that we are not disadvantaged in tackling anti-competitive activity. Notwithstanding the domestic powers of the CMA, at the moment it is unclear whether the ability to rely on the European Commission’s investigations and decisions, as we have done in the past, will continue, or how they will continue. To my mind, there is a clear common interest in Wales, the rest of the UK and the European authorities in continuing to tackle these complex transnational issues together.

The Member will know that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention and that I do not publicly discuss such meetings.

Thank you for that usual response. Does the Counsel General happen to agree with me, however, that the part of the justice system that’s most easily devolved in terms of the law, and the constitution as well, would be policing? And as the First Minister informed the Chamber yesterday that he is strongly in favour of the devolution of policing, and as we are to have a debate on the issue in some 15 minutes’ time, what steps is the Welsh Government taking now, with the advice of the Counsel General, to ensure that the necessary constitutional steps are in place to allow that to happen?

Well, any constitutional steps with regard to the devolution of policing actually require a change in the law, and it isn’t really appropriate for me to step on the toes of the First Minister in his description and his proposals in respect of any policy changes he feels are appropriate. But, of course, he did make very clear yesterday in this Chamber what the Welsh Government’s position is with regard to the devolution of policing.

Members will again know that my advice is legally privileged and subject to the law officers’ convention, but I do fully support the Welsh Government commitment to improving air quality across Wales and its various initiatives to tackle air pollution.

I thank the Counsel General for his reply. We did, of course, have a debate about this yesterday on the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and the Minister confirmed during that debate that the current powers that Welsh Ministers have are under section 80 of the Environment Act 1995. I think there are two problems with this. One is that that was initially passed, of course, before devolution, and therefore, the powers that Welsh Ministers have are administrative devolution powers, rather than a devolution of legislation that’s taken place. And secondly, as far as I can see, that Environment Act, though it places an obligation on Ministers to produce strategies around air pollution, has no obligation to reduce air pollution, in other words to improve the situation. So, you can respond to the legislation without doing anything about it. And, obviously, that’s 20 years ago, and that’s why I’m so keen that we should relook at this. And in particular, with the knowledge that we have that, with withdrawing from the European Union, we will lose that wider framework of European environmental legislation, does the Counsel General not think that in his ongoing work of the codification of Welsh legislation air pollution is one such area where we need and deserve specific Welsh legislation?

Well, as the Member will be aware, the process of codification, if I might deal with the last point, is not, of course, about reforming the law, it’s about codifying the existing law, and the issue that any reforms or changes need to be made are a totally separate matter and, of course, would require a totally different level of consideration, consultation and scrutiny.

In terms of the policy matter that the Member raises, well, of course, that is a matter for another Minister and it’s not appropriate for me to cross into that particular territory. What I can say, by way, I suppose, of repeating some of the points that have been already made by Ministers in this area, is that the Welsh Government is firmly committed to improving air quality across Wales, and is tackling air pollution in a number of ways, and, of course, these were outlined yesterday in the debate and are there in the transcript. And of course, Welsh Government is currently working on improvements to ‘Planning Policy Wales’ in relation to air quality and there is a consultation under way. The Member might be referring, of course, to the nitrogen dioxide issues, which is clearly an area of concern, and as of last week, the Welsh Government is consulting jointly with other UK administrations seeking views on a revised plan to reduce levels of nitrogen dioxide around roads within the shortest time possible. I think any other areas, really, are policy matters, which should be referred to the appropriate Minister.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item on our agenda is the topical questions, and the first question comes from Simon Thomas.

What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the breach of clean water rules in Wales, including at Burry Inlet near Llanelli? TAQ(5)0134(ERA)[W]

We acknowledge the ruling. We will continue to work with Natural Resources Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water on our £130 million programme for Llanelli and Gowerton to reduce the number of spills, improve water quality and reduce the risk of local flooding by 2020.

I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach once again and responding on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for environment. I think the best response to this decision of the European Court of Justice may be, ‘How dare the EU tell us we can’t bathe in our own sewage’, because that’s what it boils down to. It’s taken a EU Court of Justice to tell the UK Government that the 3,000 overflow pipes that we have in Wales still today, which can discharge sewage directly into our water when we have heavy rain—and heavy rain does happen in Wales, although it might not have happened quite recently, but it does happen in Wales—and the 14 overflow pipes specifically at Burry inlet do break EU law and are actually polluting our bathing water and the habitat as well for tens of thousands of wild birds, for example, around the salt marshes at Burry Port.

The cockling industry particularly has always felt that the pollution at Burry inlet is affecting cockle death. That’s not been proven, but there’s a strong correlation between these events and the dearth of that industry and the economic effect and traditional effect on lifestyles on parts of the inlet and the estuary.

Specifically, I’ve seen Welsh Water’s RainScape project in Llanelli and Burry Port—there are improvements going on there and I’ve welcomed very much what they’re trying to do, but the UK argument, which it lost in the European Court of Justice, was that these improvements were good enough for the year 2020. So, I want to know: does the Welsh Government also think that it’s good enough to improve by 2020, because the European Court of Justice thinks we should do it more quickly, and since the European Court of Justice does think we should do it more quickly, what specifically now is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that we don’t have dirty bathing water and dirty habitat water anymore in Wales?

I thank Simon Thomas for the question. In response to those specific points, the Welsh Government has been working with Natural Resources Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water to develop and implement a programme of work to reduce the number of spills, to further improve water quality and to reduce the risk of local flooding by the end of 2020. I’ve obviously mentioned the £130 million investment. It is important to report again today how close engagement with local residents and local businesses, as well as elected representatives, has been in the area, working hard to minimise disruption to residents, which, of course, will, as a result of the investment of the funding—. But, of course, the age of the current infrastructure system in the local area clearly has to be addressed.

I think it is important to recognise that the urban waste water treatment directive was adopted back in 1991 and was vital in terms of the steer towards assessing quality. It’s implemented and enforced principally now through devolved matters and those concerns were raised by representatives of the cocklers and local councillors and various parties in Llanelli and Gower about water quality. Therefore, clearly on this ruling, in terms of the court on 4 May, there has to be a very clear and robust response.

Minister, it’s now been 12 years since the cocklers of the Bury inlet have reported significant die-offs of shellfish and we still don’t know the cause of these deaths. We do know, however, of its economic impact: an export industry has been devastated and local cocklers are now struggling to make even a basic living.

Six years ago, courts found against Welsh Water and now they found again against the UK Government. Would the Government look again at this and consider helping this devastated local industry, as it has helped other industries?

I thank Lee Waters for that question, and clearly, the importance of understanding and identifying the reasons why there has been that increased cockle mortality is vital. In fact, Welsh Government commissioned research into this. As you will be aware, findings did show water quality in the area was unlikely to be the cause of problems experienced by the cockle industry, but engagement with the cockle industry, the cocklers themselves, and their representatives and, as I said, local elected representatives and businesses, have been vital in addressing this and making sure that action is taken. I think it’s also important to recognise that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water undertook monitoring and developed a programme of works to reduce the number of spills. I’ve already mentioned this. For example, at the wastewater treatment storm tank assets in Llanelli and Gowerton, which you will be aware of, spills occurred much more frequently, and, whilst they conform to current UK urban waste water treatment directive implementation, they were in excess of what the Commission would consider to be acceptable. So, I think, again, I hope that the evidence of engagement locally, the action taken, the investment by 2020 in RainScape, of course, are ensuring that this can be addressed and will reassure those in the community and the businesses, in particular in terms of the cocklers, and enable, of course, the water quality to be improved and the risk of flooding to be reduced.

Well, I agree that it’s very disappointing that these breaches have taken place and that there’s been a second court ruling now on exactly the same issue. Natural Resources Wales may well be right that the resolution of the problem is difficult, but, bearing in mind it’s not just breaches of the law that we’re talking about, but serious changes to the ecology of this area, I don’t think that it’s particularly appropriate to pin all the blame on NRW and Welsh Water in this.

Now, Welsh Water, of course, does insist that the breach isn’t the cause of the cockle deaths that have already been raised here. It may well be the case, but it has been five years since that parasitology report that you’ve referred to obliquely, leader of the house, and that report didn’t talk necessarily straightforwardly about water quality, but said that parasites weren’t the sole reason for any mortalities. So, we’re talking about five years ago and, since that time, NRW kept what it’s called ‘an overview’ of the science. There’s a plethora of research initiatives either at application or final bid stage. So, in short, it strikes me that, since 2012, it doesn’t seem there’s been an awful lot of intervention in trying to maintain what is, potentially, still a profitable local industry and, obviously, one of local cultural significance as well. Would it be fair for me to say that, perhaps, the focus on infrastructure that you’ve referred to in some of your answers today has being at the expense of scientific research that could have solved the problem regarding the cockles? Thank you.

I think, in terms of looking not only at the outcome of the research but then that which had an impact on the works that would be undertaken—the £113 million investment—I would say that this consists largely of environmentally friendly sustainable drainage techniques that improve the quality of the local environment and reduce the risk of flooding locally in terms of those works. Also, despite the ruling by the court on 4 May, the quality of shellfish water in the area has consistently met statutory standards since 2000. I think the importance of the response now, in terms of addressing this issue as laid down by the court is a priority not only to Welsh Water, but also to the Welsh Government, and NRW will be monitoring that.

I thank the leader of the house. The next question comes from Llyr Gruffydd.

What is the Welsh Government’s assessment of the effect of possible redundancies at Aberystwyth University? TAQ(5)0130(EDU)[W]

Diolch, Llyr. Universities in Wales are autonomous bodies. As such, responsibility for staffing matters rests solely with Aberystwyth University. The Welsh Government has no locus in this matter. But, of course, I understand that the university is in discussions with members of staff and the trade unions about proposals for a review of its staffing structures.

Well, thank you for that response. The university, of course, has referred to the competition for students, with a reduction of 8 per cent in the applications to study in Wales, and with Brexit and other factors influencing the situation that they find themselves in. But the important point for me here is that we don’t have a single case here, but we’ve heard over the past few weeks, the University of South Wales talking about staffing reductions from 4.6 per cent, the University of Wales Trinity Saint David talking about cuts of some 10 per cent, and they too referred to many of the same factors. Now, Unison representatives have said that the Government has to consider a package of measures to intervene in this situation in order to protect front-line workers’ jobs. Can I ask whether the Cabinet Secretary for Education therefore admits that we do have a crisis in the HE sector in terms of funding and staffing, and, although the Diamond reforms are ongoing, that the Government needs to intervene as a matter of urgency before the situation deteriorates further?

Thank you, Llyr. As I’ve said, all universities, including Aberystwyth and the other institutions that you have mentioned, are autonomous bodies and, therefore, we do not have, as I have said previous, locus in this area. I am aware that the higher education sector in Wales is facing a number of challenges, not least in some institutions a failure to meet their recruitment targets for students. And, of course, you mentioned Brexit, which is posing a significant challenge to the HE sector. As a Government, we moved very quickly to try and reassure international students, both from within the European Union and out of the European Union, that they are very welcome to study here in Wales. We continue to make swift decisions about the availability of financial packages for European students to be able to study here in Wales.

I have set up a working group that looks specifically at what we can do to support the HE sector as we move through Brexit negotiations, and the HE sector is also represented on the First Minister’s group. I continue to make representations to the previous Westminster Government about a range of measures it could take to assist us in this area. It is a disgrace that neither Wales nor Scotland’s administrations were consulted with regard to the issue of a pilot post-study work visa scheme. We would have benefited from that in Wales, as would colleagues in Scotland. I would be very keen for the UK Government to look again at that issue. It’s also very clear to me that we need to exclude foreign students as part of the Government’s continued obsession with immigration figures. We have a higher education sector here in Wales that is strong enough and good enough to sell to the world. It is a beacon of excellence and we need an immigration regime developed by the UK Government that does not make it harder for international students to avail themselves of the opportunities that we have in our universities and colleges here in Wales. I understand that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, as the sponsoring and funding body for higher education, continues to be in close touch with Aberystwyth University and, indeed, all our universities.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I thank Llyr for raising this under topical questions. Part of the issue around this was discussed at our cross-party group on universities back on 1 February and that’s what I want to focus on for the moment, because the Cabinet Secretary is right that we do have a world-class offer here but something is going wrong, and I just want to touch on this briefly.

We know that, in Wales, our education exports to international students is worth around £530 million, which is 4 per cent of Welsh exports in their entirety. Our international students currently—currently—are supporting over 7,500 jobs at Welsh universities, and also around Wales, not just in the universities themselves. But we have had a drop of 26 per cent in non-EU students at Welsh universities since the 2013-14 intake, and this is compared to a 4 per cent decrease in the UK overall and the Russell Group and Scotland universities. So, we have a particular issue, and this is despite a world-class offer in Welsh universities and despite the fact that the cost of living and tuition fees here in Wales is much more affordable. But we do know, and the Cabinet Secretary is right, that international studies now are showing that the UK is now regarded as the least affordable place to study for undergraduates and graduates when compared to New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the USA. We’ve got to do a lot more in marketing. So, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary: what can we do to market the Welsh university sector better, to have a more welcoming immigration and visa policy offer, and to boost the recruitment of international students? It’s not the sole way we turn this round, but it’s an important way that we meet those challenges, turn this round and boost our number of international students.

Thank you, Huw. As you say, it’s not the only issue that we need to consider, but it is an important one. Just prior to Christmas, I hosted a quadrilateral meeting of UK Ministers who have responsibility in this area, and I repeated all the points I’ve just made to Llyr Gruffydd to Jo Johnson, the then Minister with responsibility for higher education. Who knows whether he will retain that position after the elections in June? I believe that Jo Johnson understands exactly the kind of immigration system that the UK Government needs to be put in place to support the higher education sector, both in Wales and beyond Wales. Unfortunately, he is battling with a Home Office that doesn’t share that understanding and share that ambition. But you’re right—we cannot simply wring our hands and blame it on other people; we must get up off our knees and do what we can to support the sector ourselves. That’s why I’m very keen to discuss with my Cabinet colleague, the Minister for the economy, for instance, when his department are on trade missions across the world, that education should be a part of that. As you quite rightly said, we have a strong offer here in many areas, but we shouldn’t just be talking to foreign countries about our manufacturing offer or, indeed, our airport, but we should also be talking to them about our strong HE base that we have here, and I’m sure that we can make progress on this area.

Of course, the Cabinet Secretary is right—she is not responsible for staffing matters. However, she is primarily responsible for the fiscal framework in which Welsh universities operate. Her party was responsible for trebling tuition fees five years ago. That had a real effect in Aberystwyth University; significantly fewer English students now attend Aberystwyth University, not because the university has got any worse, but because the English universities and the trebling of tuition fees are now chasing themselves for students, particularly the ones from more deprived backgrounds, and there are attractive incentives for them to study in England with the money in the English education system. She has a proposal, of course, in the Diamond review to try and, I hope, repatriate some of the money that we currently send over our border back into the university system, but that would not come on stream for at least two years, and even in full in about five years, and Aberystwyth University are proposing cuts over the next two years. It’s this actual gap between where we are today and where we could be under Diamond that is the problem for a university like Aberystwyth and the other universities that have announced similar cuts over the last few weeks.

She complains about the visas and she’s right to complain about them. We’ve all complained about them, but, again, her party in Government for five years—Vince Cable and Clegg—did not change the visa regime in those five years. So, I think there’s a lot of hand wringing going on here this afternoon, but there’s a real university facing real problems and over 100 people facing possible redundancies. What’s needed from the Welsh Government is a clear signal of sustainability going forward. We have Diamond coming on stream, but it’s not in effect yet. What are you going to do over the next two years to ensure there’s sustainability in the HE sector in Wales, and specifically whether there’s support for Aberystwyth University to ensure it does not slip down the rankings or does not lose its ability to compete in the HE market?

Could I inform the Member that the latest forecasts show that, in 2015-16, £50 million more funding came into the Welsh HE system that went in tuition fee grants to institutions outside of Wales? Now, our Diamond reforms will help secure the future stability and the sustainability of the sector here in Wales, and my remit letter to HEFCW confirmed that I fully expect future financial settlements for HEFCW to increase in each financial year for the lifetime of this Government. I’m surprised that Simon Thomas has taken this very serious situation for the people working in Aberystwyth and to turn it into political points scoring. I would remind the Member that there are people’s livelihoods at risk here, which is very serious, and, if we are to make it political, I would remind the Member that he on many occasions sits there in his seat and urges the Welsh Government to disinvest in HE and invest in FE itself. I have never heard this Member ask in his budget negotiations for more money for the HE sector.

We have the 90-second statements as the next item on the agenda. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Friday marks International Nurses Day, an annual celebration of the tireless work and dedication of nurses across the world. This year the theme is ‘nursing heroes’. While we can all name nurses past and present who are heroes, I’ll be joining nurses from Aneurin Bevan health board to talk about a truly amazing woman: Annie Brewer. Annie was born in 1874 in Newport. Qualifying as a nurse in 1899, she was travelling through France at the outbreak of world war one. During the war, Annie worked on the front line, treating hundreds of soldiers, often in the midst of battle. In 1917, Annie’s ambulance came under shellfire and she was wounded while trying to bring injured soldiers back to base. Despite the danger she was in, Annie put her own life at risk to care for the wounded. During the battle of Verdun, Annie helped with 229 operations in seven days. That’s one every 45 minutes. For her courage and personal sacrifice, Annie was awarded one of the highest gallantry medals a French Government can bestow. It was said that Annie gave a magnificent example of coolness and absolute disregard for danger, lavishing her care on the wounded under enemy fire. Annie returned to Newport after the war to care for her own mother, but died shortly after. This astounding courage and compassion is the mark of a remarkable person, someone we must remember and a perfect example of a nursing hero.

I refer Members to my register of interest and my honorary role as vice-president of Ramblers Cymru. Last weekend, as if we hadn’t all done enough walking during the local elections, I and Suzy Davies AM attended the Ramblers Cymru Big Welsh Walk, also known as ‘the “Hinterland” challenge’, located as it was near Devil’s Bridge. Using as our base the lovely Tynrhyd Retreat, an exemplar of rural diversification, ramblers from all around the UK set off on walks of different lengths, from two miles to a more strenuous 15 miles, uphill and down dale, across the most glorious moorland and heathland, crags and wooded valleys and gentle lowland pastureland with rivers glistening in the sunshine. But before I come over too poetical, let me also be practical.

The walks also demonstrated the incredible work of Ramblers Cymru volunteers, working with landowners and local authorities to maintain existing rights of way, and even to create new walking routes. It demonstrated the benefits to tourism and the local economy of being a walker-friendly town and county, connecting people to the places in which they live, introducing people to places they would not otherwise have seen, and it demonstrated the clear health and well-being benefits of something as simple as regular walking. As Ramblers Cymru states, by joining up communities, connecting people to their local landscapes, unveiling new places to discover and continuing to maintain our world-class network of paths, we can make Wales the best walking country in the world, not just for us but for future generations to come. That ambition is surely worth stepping out for. [Assembly Members: ‘Hear, hear’.]

That landscape sounded very much like Ceredigion to me.

Indeed. [Laughter.]

The next item on our agenda is the debate by individual Members, under Standing Order 11.21(iv), on the devolution of policing. I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased to move the motion today with colleagues Mike Hedges, Sian Gwenllian and Julie Morgan. Our motion is in three parts: firstly, noting that policing is devolved to the other two devolved nations of the UK; secondly, calling for the devolution to Wales of policing—the only nation where it is not devolved; and thirdly, expressing the view that certain specialist areas of policing are best co-ordinated at a UK level.

The anomaly of Wales is, of course, further confused by the fact that, with the election of their first metropolitan mayor, powers over policing have now been devolved to Manchester, yet the devolution of policing to Wales remains frustratingly stalled. Despite wide-reaching consensus in this Senedd, Westminster has no plans to transfer powers over policing to Wales. It was disappointing not to see its inclusion in either the 2014 or the 2017 Wales Acts, despite it being a recommendation of the cross-party Silk commission all those years ago. Two legislative opportunities to act have been and gone and no progress has been made.

This is not just a point, though, of constitutional principle. It makes perfect sense for decisions about all our emergency services to be made at the national level. Currently policing is the only emergency service not to be devolved, yet modern policing involves considerable overlap between public services and other devolved areas of responsibility. The police, of course, already have to work closely alongside colleagues in health and education. While our public services often work very well together, there is evidence that co-operation could be improved even further if powers to make the strategic decisions were held here in this country.

Today’s cross-party motion sets out a sensible approach to the devolution of policing. For most people, what matters, of course, is the police services that they are most likely to come into contact with day to day. What people want is community policing, not just that traditional idea of the bobby on the beat, but a police service that is equipped with local intelligence and the ability to respond to the needs of the communities that they represent. The budget for community policing is no longer ring-fenced and, although forces must guarantee a minimum level of neighbourhood policing, how this is actually delivered varies hugely from force to force. Where once each ward had a ward officer responsible for building relationships with communities and growing trust in the local area, I think many people feel as though that connection is being lost and, with it, effective intelligence-led community policing.

The most recent ‘State of Policing’ report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary highlights their concern that neighbourhood policing is being eroded. But with police forces experiencing Government funding cuts of 22 per cent, on average, between 2010 and 2015, and many still seeing their operational budgets continue to shrink, forces have had to respond by cutting workforces. HMIC’s report found that some forces have struggled to respond to reductions in the level of resources available to them. Poorly planned, short-term reactions to immediate budget pressures are putting vulnerable people at serious risk of harm in some forces, and a large number of crimes are being effectively written off rather than finding a satisfactory conclusion for the victim and the community.

From a policy perspective, devolution of policing to Wales would provide the ability to prioritise community policing and embed that principle across the entire devolved Welsh public sector. There would be a financial benefit, too, to meet that policy aspiration. By Plaid Cymru’s calculations, if Wales were treated as a policing entity with parity with the other devolved countries, Welsh police forces would be more than £25 million a year better off, as Barnett would apply. If the Barnett formula was used to fund our forces in line with population, it would result in a significant increase in their budgets.

As noted in the motion, there are elements of specialist policing, such as counter-terrorism, where UK-wide co-ordination makes perfect sense. On these matters, where there is often an international element, it is usually state-wide bodies that lead and co-ordinate, especially when these relate to the work of the security and intelligence services. One can think of the Federal Bureau of Investigations in the United States or the Bundespolizei in Germany, for example. With any emergency service, there’s always a need to ensure collaboration across national borders, of course. Indeed, that is already the case with the ambulance service and the fire and rescue services between Wales and England.

In terms of policing, mutual aid has existed for a considerable time and would, of course, apply if and when policing were devolved to Wales. In these islands, mutual assistance is enshrined in relations between the different jurisdictions already. In Ireland, where there is, in effect, an international frontier, the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 in Northern Ireland and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 in the Republic allow for each jurisdiction the ability to treat and deal with a specific range of offences committed in the other’s jurisdiction as if it had occurred in their own.

To conclude, Llywydd, devolution of policing is desirable from a policy and co-ordination perspective in terms of restoring community policing and greater collaboration across public services. Devolution of policing is in Wales’s financial interests, where a devolution dividend would allow us to invest more in making our communities safer. Devolution of policing is operationally sound, as almost any other state in the world proves, and is evident already in the different policing jurisdictions in these islands. An affirmative vote from this Assembly today will provide a clear demand to the next UK Government to address this unnecessary anomaly.

As this motion states,

specialist policing matters such as counter-terrorism are best co-ordinated at a UK level.’

However, its call for the devolution of policing for Wales defies reality. Policing is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For reasons of geography and history, the situation in Northern Ireland is entirely different. Prior to the introduction of direct rule in 1972, the old Stormont Parliament had responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland, and successive UK Governments retained a commitment to re-devolve policing and justice when circumstances were right to do so. Forty-eight per cent of people in Wales live within 25 miles of the border with England, and 90 per cent within 50 miles. In contrast, only 5 per cent of the combined population of Scotland and England lives within 50 miles of the border between those countries. I’ll take one intervention.

I thank the Member for giving way. As I referred to in my contribution, there is a porous border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the mutual assistance agreements have worked there, even at times when policing hasn’t been devolved to Northern Ireland. So, would he at least recognise that porous borders, or any borders for that matter, are not a barrier for better, devolved community policing?

Unfortunately, Welsh Government since 1999 has had a record of building rather than removing barriers cross border. Most people in Wales live along the M4 and A55 corridors, separated by a vast rural area, and have very different policing requirements. Policing interdependence between north-east Wales and north-west England is illustrated by the fact that this is the only part of the UK with a connecting urban area divided by a national boundary. My own contacts, in both North Wales Police and North Wales Police Federation, have repeatedly told me that they have a closer affiliation with north-west England than the rest of Wales, and that there is a lack of competence in Welsh Government to handle the devolution of policing.

No time. They expressed concern to me this week that Welsh Government control of policing budgets would see funding filtered south, and stated they would like to know whether there is a desire in Welsh Government to merge the police forces in Wales—a proposal that was killed several years ago. As they stated,

the geography and current calibrations with various English forces makes the concept of an all Wales Police Force very difficult’—

Adding,

to force such a move to satisfy the egos of certain Politicians should be carefully monitored’.

He’s not giving—. I don’t think the Member is giving way.

I’m quoting. In their January briefing to north Wales AMs and MPs, North Wales Police told us that their operational collaboration with the Merseyside and Cheshire forces was increasing in areas, including firearms, intelligence, custody, property and forensics. When the Assembly’s Social Justice and Regeneration Committee reviewed the structure of policing in 2005, our report noted that criminal activity does not recognise national or regional boundaries, and that cross-border partnerships must reflect operational reality. The work of the Assembly sub-committee considering the then-proposed Welsh police merger, of which I was a member, led to police mergers being aborted across England and Wales. As I said in the February 2006 debate on this, the police authorities told us that the additional all-Wales annual cost of re-organisation would be up to £57 million, with the chief constable stating that it would be even more. Our subsequent work confirmed that the chief constables were correct.

Will the Member take an intervention?

Although Labour’s general election campaign in Wales has stated that Labour’s 2017 manifesto—

Are you taking an intervention from the Cabinet Secretary?

It depends whether you’d allow me enough time at the end or not, if I give another intervention.

Why not? I’m in a good mood.

Thank you, Mark, for taking the intervention. I’m intrigued by your contribution, because I’ve received the letter of 5 September from all of the police constables in Wales, the all-Wales policing group, saying that, indeed, they agreed a joint statement that supports the devolution of policing to Wales. Where are you getting your information from, Mark?

I will not identify individuals because those individuals could be held to account by Ministers. The information I receive is accurate. It comes directly from the relevant persons, but I am not going to identify who those persons are. What they say in private is very different to what they’re prepared to say in public to the likes of you.

Although Labour’s general election campaign chairman in Wales has said that Labour’s 2017 manifesto will give Welsh Ministers a bigger role in policing, he also denied that Labour’s shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, had got her facts wrong when she said,

We don’t think it’s right, at this time, to devolve policing, but this is something there’s constant discussion about inside the Labour Party.’

In 2013, Labour’s shadow police Minister and former police Minister, David Hanson, warned that devolving control to the police would be a major step with many challenges, and that reducing crime was more important than deciding which Government manages the police. New figures from Cardiff University show the number of people injured in serious violence dropped by 10 per cent last year, and by 40 per cent since 2010. Policing has already been devolved to police and crime commissioners, empowering local communities to have their say on policing priorities and to hold an elected representative to account. The call for devolution of policing by Labour and the separatists is a blatant power grab, which would deliver the opposite of real devolution. This First Minister refers to the devolution of policing to Manchester as a model for Wales, but those are only the powers of police and crime commissioners, and we already have devolution to them in Wales. What he’s therefore actually talking about is taking yet more powers from the regions of Wales and centralising these in Cardiff, giving themselves power to hire and fire chief constables. Well, given Labour’s record of creeping and often intimidatory politicisation of devolved public services, this is a truly chilling proposition.

Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this cross-party debate. I’ve been very pleased to put my name to this motion. I think it is absolutely inexplicable that policing was not devolved in the most recent Wales Bill, and I think that is one of the major reasons why devolution is still unfinished business. I’m sure there will be a time when policing will be devolved, but, sadly, it wasn’t at this really good opportunity.

As Steffan Lewis said in his introduction, policing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so why is Wales not fit to deliver policing? I can hear from Mark Isherwood’s contribution that he has such a low opinion of the ability of the Welsh people to deliver services in their own country that he believes that we can’t be trusted here with policing. I think that’s a bit of an indictment to say that sort of thing.

If you look at other parts of England, the London mayor was given a direct mandate for policing in 2011. The mayor has a major role, jointly with the Home Secretary, in appointing the Met police commissioner, scrutinises policing, and he sets the policing strategy in London. The London Assembly also has a role in scrutinising policing in London, in the same way as this Assembly could if policing was devolved. I think that that would make for a much better joined-up policy. And, of course, we most recently had the election of the metro mayors.

Manchester’s been mentioned several times, which has now power over policing. But, in Manchester, the UK Government has also agreed to give it more powers over criminal justice and offender management. Manchester will have greater involvement in future plans for local courts and in commissioning offender management services alongside the National Offender Management Service. I’m pleased that Manchester is having it, but why not Wales? Wales is a country, and we are not having these powers. So, I think it is inexplicable. We also know that there were seven—. We also know that there were six other elections for metro mayors, and another one to come. Over time, the powers of the metro mayors, I’m sure, will increase, as has happened in London. By contrast with Wales, the devolution Bill that set up the metro mayors is a deliberately non-prescriptive bit of legislation that allows for the devolution of almost anything—housing, health, welfare, policing, and more.

So, the big question is: what is wrong with Wales? It really seems that there is some block there at the centre that doesn’t recognise the sheer logic of devolving policing to Wales. There was no problem in transferring the power over the fire service in the first session of the Assembly, when I understand that it was offered to the Assembly; I don’t even believe that the Government here had to ask for it. And, obviously, the ambulance service is devolved as part of the health service. So, this means two out of the three emergency services are already devolved to Wales, so it makes nonsense not to devolve the third. The three services already work together to a great extent, but it would certainly make sense operationally to have the three services under the political control of the Welsh Government.

So, a major reason that we should have it: other places have the powers devolved. Second reason: we already have two out of the three emergency services devolved. And, of course, a major reason as well is the funding of the police in Wales, because they are funded by a mixture of Home Office funding, Welsh Government funding, and council tax funding. In its manifesto for the fourth Assembly, the Labour Party committed to fund 500 extra police community support officers. Of course, these have been hugely appreciated by the public during the last five years. Also, with our general election pledge now for this coming election, there will be an extra 853 police officers in Wales. Labour is committed to ensuring that the public feel safe on the streets and that police and PCSOs on a local level are key parts of the local community.

They are also very involved with people now who are vulnerable people. The actual crime policing that the police do is much less now than the community activities that they are involved with—working with older people, working with young people. Today, in the Children, Young People and Education Committee, we had evidence given to us by a person who was funded jointly by the police and jointly funded by public health. This is the way things are going—joint working together. Finally, I wanted to say that, if you look at an example, for example, of Welsh Government legislation, such as the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, the partnership approach to tackling and preventing abuse, which—. Obviously, tackling domestic abuse is one of the biggest challenges that we have. It’s absolutely crucial that this is done in a partnership way, and there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that this would be aided if the political responsibility for policing did lie with the Assembly.

Thanks to the individual Members for bringing today’s debate. I think devolution of policing is an important issue, and I should point out that it is an issue on which we in UKIP are thus far undecided. I do think that we need to be wary, though, before we embark on this step. I think that, if the Assembly calls for greater powers, for devolution over more things, then there have to be good reasons for it. I think it can’t just be because other parts of the UK have it, therefore we must have it. When we debated this subject in 2014, Ann Jones made the very pertinent point that, and I quote:

Simply saying that we want powers because Scotland has them is a very weak argument.’

End of quote. I think that still holds true today, and I think it does hold true even if we extend it to references to greater Manchester also, as we’ve had today. What are the actual practical benefits of devolving policing to this place? They are, at best, unclear. [Interruption.] Okay, Steffan, we’ve heard what you said. I was going to raise some of the points you made. You mentioned the argument of the other two emergency services are already devolved; Julie Morgan also made that point. Well, this point had been made before. In the last Assembly—[Interruption.] Okay, well, you are saying it’s right. I am addressing the point; please let me address it. We had in the last Assembly a Member called Byron Davies, who actually had 32 years’ operational experience in the Metropolitan Police. Now, when this issue was raised last time, in 2014, he said the only connection between the three emergency services is that they all have the same telephone number, 999. He was not convinced that devolution of policing was going to be effective.

The cost-saving argument that Steffan has advanced is speculative at best. Would we actually get the financial settlement for the police that he is suggesting? In fact, costs could well rise.

Would the Member take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Obviously, at the moment, the way Wales is funded is that we are not funded as an entity in our own right because we come under and England-and-Wales entity. But, if we became a policing entity, with devolved powers over policing, then we would become a devolved entity as far as policing is concerned, and the Barnett formula would apply. That means that our budgets would increase, based on the population; there would be more money, not less.

Okay. I was aware of the argument the first time that you put it. Thank you for putting it again. I’d be interested to hear what the Minister would have to say on that point. I’m sure he will take that on board.

Some fairly concrete—[Interruption.} Some fairly concrete disadvantages of police devolution have been aired in the past. Now, I was interested by the Minister Carl Sargeant’s intervention earlier regarding comments from chief constables. I would be very interested in hearing more on that, because, so far, from what I have read, many experienced officers have voiced concerns over the prospect of the devolution of policing. For instance, former Gwent Police Chief Constable Mick Giannasi has stated that the devolution of policing could pose ‘serious operational risks’ and, with under 7,000 officers, Welsh forces would be heavily reliant on English forces for support in many areas of crime-fighting.

The cost of creating “stand alone” resilience would be prohibitive’,

he stated. These fears were echoed in 2016 by the Gwent police and crime commissioner, Ian Johnston, who warned that Wales could become the poor relation of UK policing. The Dyfed-Powys police and crime commissioner, Chris Salmon, said at that time that there is nothing that the Assembly can do—

Would the Member give way?

Yes, sure.

There is no doubt that there are practical matters that need working through, but, as Carl Sargeant has just made clear, the chief constables are now all of a view that these are surmountable and in the best interests of policing for this to be devolved so that it can be aligned with other local public services.

Yes, and as I stated, Lee, I am very interested to hear what he says about the chief constables and to elucidate on what he hinted, that the chief constables are in favour of this. My mind is not closed on this issue, but you must appreciate I have to raise the concerns so that we properly debate them.

Right. I mentioned Byron Davies. I’ll quote what he said in the last time—possibly the last time—we debated this, 2014:

During my time as a police officer, there were always many experts lining up with ideas and plans to reform policing. It was to some of us a source of annoyance that there were always people who knew better. It was often, if not always, the case that these people lacked some understanding of what policing and operational policing are really about and lacked practical knowledge of policing. I do not believe that policing should be devolved to Wales…. Cross-border crime, international crime and online crime make the case for the Welsh Government taking over from the Home Office very weak indeed.’

End of quote. We in UKIP Wales do not think the case for devolution of policing has yet been made. That is why it is our intention to abstain on today’s motion.

Despite what we’ve heard from one direction this afternoon, there is a general consensus in Wales that policing should be devolved to Wales, as has happened in Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Manchester. I want to focus on two arguments why it makes sense to devolve to Wales.

Effective policing means an effective and close relationship with the devolved services in Wales, and devolving the police would reflect much better the circumstances that exist in Wales, and it would improve the essential dovetailing between the different emergency services and the public services. Ultimately, that would improve services, and, further still, it would improve the services in a way that would improve the quality of lives of people in Wales—something that, hopefully, everyone in this Chamber is eager to see happening.

Another argument that we haven’t heard yet this afternoon is that devolving police would also improve accountability. The Silk commission found that the current situation is unsatisfactory, noting that a great deal of the police funding comes from devolved sources, despite the fact that the strategic policies for policing issues are decided in Westminster. There’s a mismatch there. There is an acknowledgement that accountability is a problem, and that’s what lay behind the foundation of the police and crime commissioners. However, it could be argued that they should be got rid of if policing is devolved. I don’t want to go there this afternoon, but deciding how local accountability would happen is a matter for further discussion. But, certainly, this does give us an opportunity to think about new ways of strengthening the accountability that is very much needed.

So, in terms of improving that vital dovetailing between policing and public services, and to improve police accountability, it makes sense to devolve the police.

Those are just two arguments. You’ve heard other arguments this afternoon, and there are many other reasons and a great deal of debate to be had to create the case for the devolution of policing to Wales. Thank you very much to Steffan Lewis, Mike Hedges, and Julie Morgan for bringing this forward this afternoon. I very much hope that we will at least have a very respectable majority in favour of this motion. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue here today. Thank you for all that’s contributed in the Chamber. The Welsh Government has always been very clear that we want to see responsibility for policing devolved to Wales. The Welsh Government supports the motion to note that policing is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and agrees with the call for the devolution of policing.

In terms of specialist matters, such as counter-terrorism, being co-ordinated at a UK level, I am aware of the model in Scotland for counter-terrorism is that Police Scotland takes their policy direction from the UK Government, which is delivered through Police Scotland and funded through the Scottish Government. This makes absolute sense, and, as this motion suggests, counter-terrorism is best co-ordinated at a UK level. In developing a model for devolution, this will be a key consideration for any work to be taken here in Wales.

Policing is the only emergency service not devolved. Remedying this would inevitably allow for greater collaboration, whilst developing better relationships, to help to strengthen joint working with the other devolved services. As Julie Morgan made reference to earlier on, collaboration is the name of the game as we move forward. Sharing staff and practice is something that the three police and crime commissioners, and chief constables, are absolutely signed up to currently.

The safety and security of our communities has always been a priority of the Welsh Government, and we are committed to strengthening these further. Devolution would ensure that future legislation affecting policing and community safety in Wales was properly tailored to the Welsh circumstances. Also, we’ve already had close working relationships with the four Welsh chief constables and police and crime commissioners here in Wales, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport and I meet them on a regular basis to discuss the ways that we can work together to make our communities safer.

In September, the police and crime commissioners issued a joint statement supporting the devolution of policing to Wales, and I’m pleased that Bob Evans, the now all-Wales deputy chief constable, has been appointed, and will be working with us on this very issue. His role will be to maintain the relationships between the forces, commissioners’ offices, and the Welsh Government. In terms of devolution, we will ensure working effectively in the current arrangements, to consider how these arrangements would work in the devolved setting. This is key to the future of planning for devolution.

I listened to the contributions of Mark Isherwood and the UKIP Member. Now, both were very interesting, but, can I just, for clarity, reaffirm the commitment of the letter I received from the police and crime commissioners and the chair of the all-Wales policing group? The comment says: ‘As the current chair of the all-Wales policing group, I enclose a copy of our joint statement, which was released publicly. This statement has been discussed with the four chief constables, and, while you will appreciate that they would not wish to comment on the matter that requires a political decision, they are content with what we have said in the letter.’

So, the comments made by Mark Isherwood, about an individual telling me one thing and telling him another, then writing to me to say something else, is something I will follow up with the chief constables across Wales. That is not an appropriate comment to make. I will take an intervention from the Member.

I will confirm that the comment that you’re referring to did not come from a chief constable. I do, however, have private meetings with members of the force, at various levels, which I cannot share publicly without their consent. But I can tell you absolutely categorically that every quote I gave, past and present, came directly from their mouths, and I was simply representing those.

Could I also ask, if I may, are you talking about devolution of powers as in Scotland, or are you talking about devolution of powers as in Manchester—in which case, only the powers of the police and crime commissioner? Where would that leave the police and crime commissioners we currently have?

Well, we’re talking about the devolution of the police to Wales, and there is much discussion to be had about that. This discussion is about the concept, the principle of aligning that as a collective of this Assembly. The First Minister has been quite clear that we believe, alongside our police and crime commissioners here in Wales already, in providing a space of planning in order for devolution to come at the appropriate time by the Government that wishes to do that.

The other sense of irony was that the Conservative Party also opposed this principle, yet Nick Bourne, who stood on the Silk Commission, endorsed the principles of Silk—an honourable Conservative Member. So, I’m again surprised that the Member wishes to speak out against him also.

I’ll pick up the UKIP contribution. He started off with the comments that it was an important issue—a very important issue—’but we don’t have a firm view on this’. He then continued to argue against the whole case for making this, which gave me some doubt on his coherence of the concept of devolution. He doubts the funding formula that Steffan Lewis put forward very strongly. This is one of the Members who argued about £340 million for NHS spend in Brexit—and then can’t get his head round the fact of devolution and the Barnett formula for police spending here in Wales. I’d urge the Member just to do a little bit more research on that issue, if he may. Llywydd, as I said earlier, the Government have been very clear on this.

I also, to finish, must pay tribute to the operational staff on the ground—the unsung heroes and heroines who work behind the scenes. They are all willing to go beyond the call of duty to keep our communities safe, and I wish to thank them on behalf of the Government and this Assembly. No-one should forget how much we owe to their goodwill and dedication. There are also lots of issues around funding, which will have to be considered for the future, but I can give the assurance and clarity from this Government’s position: that we are keen to devolve policing to this institution.

I call on Mike Hedges to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I say I speak as a former member of the South Wales Police Authority, which I served on for just under four years? Can I thank everyone who took part in this debate? I think it’s very useful that people have spoken against, because it gives an opportunity to test the arguments being put forward. We need people to test the arguments, and it’s our duty then to explain why what we are saying is right. But I thank everyone who took part.

Steffan Lewis made three key points. Firstly, policing has been devolved not only to Scotland and Northern Ireland—. And Northern Ireland was interesting in the way it was devolved, because it was devolved by a supermajority of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I speak as probably the only person here who believes in supermajority for lots of things, but I think when things are being devolved, such as that, it ought to be available, and if we get a supermajority of 40 out of 60 Members—we don’t want it to be done by 31 to 29—a supermajority is the way forward for it. It’s available for greater Manchester, it’s available for London, but not Wales. Everybody in Wales must ask the same question: ‘Why?’

Secondly, specialist policing needs to be dealt with on a UK basis, but not just on a UK basis. I believe we should stay a member of Europol. I’m not sure that everybody who’s spoken in the debate believes in that. I also think we should remain members of Interpol, because it’s not just what’s happening in England that affects Wales; it’s what’s happening in southern Ireland that affects Wales. And in terms of drugs being brought in, it may well be what’s happening in Amsterdam that affects Wales—and certainly what’s happening in Colombia affects Wales. Certainly, emergency services work together, but policing is the only one not devolved. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mark Isherwood said that specialist policing must be dealt with on at least a UK basis. That’s absolutely right—but, as I said before, also Europol and Interpol. I know of no-one whatsoever who wants an all-Wales police force. If that was the item being debated today, Mark, I would be on your side. I would be arguing against an all-Wales police force, because I believe it would not benefit large parts of Wales if we had an all-Wales police force, because the policing needs of different parts of Wales are different. But this is not an argument for an all-Wales police force.

Are you therefore giving a categorical statement that the current Welsh Government would not propose a police merger if it had powers devolved to it?

I cannot speak for the Welsh Government. I’m sure Carl Sargeant may well intervene and speak on it, but there has been no suggestion by anybody of an all-Wales police force. But if we come to that, Mark, you and I are on the same side. And I’m sure there are other people over here who argue equally forcefully for the devolution of policing who would also be on the same side.

Greater Manchester has substantial involvement with Cheshire and Merseyside. In fact, it runs into each of them, in much the same way as north Wales runs into Cheshire. Of course, we have differences, but it’s about working together. And one of the things the police have been very good at throughout Britain is working together. They haven’t stopped working in Scotland with Northumberland or Cumbria because there’s devolved policing there. They have to work together.

Julie Morgan said that it’s inexplicable why policing is not devolved. I agree with her entirely. It is inexplicable. And can I also add that asymmetric devolution does not work? The only country which has gone for asymmetric devolution that I know of—although I suspect Steffan will correct me if I’ve got this wrong—is Spain, and they’ve gone closer and closer to symmetry as time has moved on. And places like the United States of America, which has substantial devolution—it has the same devolution to California, with its almost 30 million people, as it does to some of the smaller states, which are slightly smaller than the Cardiff city region.

Why is Wales not fit enough to run policing? Why do we have this inferiority complex? Some people in Wales have this inferiority complex: ‘Oh we can’t do it in Wales; yes they can do it in Scotland, yes they can do it in Northern Ireland, yes they can do it in London, but we Welsh, we’re not quite up to it.’ I believe that we in Wales are as good as anywhere in the world, and I certainly don’t see us as second, third or fourth class.

Julie Morgan raised a really important point that extra PCSOs have been very popular, but we could only provide PCSOs because policing was not devolved. We could have provided police if it had been devolved. Support for additional police is in Labour’s manifesto, and I’m sure many people would actually want that to happen, because people like to see the police. I’ve been told by the police on more than one occasion that they rarely catch somebody when they’re walking the street. What I say to them, and I’ll say to you here now, is that they certainly stop an awful lot of offences happening by the fact that they’re there.

Gareth Bennett says that we need to be wary. Why? Why have we got to be wary in Wales when they don’t have to be wary in Northern Ireland and Scotland? I don’t get that wariness. As I said, symmetric devolution does not work. Steffan explained it, but the Barnett formula, if applied to policing, means that we get more money. Northern Ireland has a smaller population than Wales; Northern Ireland is substantially smaller than Wales. It has had difficulties that we haven’t had in Wales. And although I may disagree with some of the politicians on the opposite side of the Chamber, I’ve never—if I go back 40 years, I wasn’t trying to kill them.

Byron Davies was mentioned, but he never sat on the command floor of—

Did he just say he wanted to kill us?

No, he certainly didn’t say that. He certainly didn’t. Carry on, Mike Hedges.

I’ll repeat it again: what I said was—. I was comparing Wales with Northern Ireland. There are people in the Northern Ireland Assembly who are sitting there today, who, 40 years ago, were on opposite sides, and many of them may have wanted other Members there to be killed. I said that I disagree with the Conservative Party and I disagree with UKIP, but I don’t want to actually kill them—I never have wanted to kill them; I want to beat them in argument. That was the point I was trying to make, and I think it’s important: that Northern Ireland, with all its history and all its problems in the past, is allowed to have devolution of police, but we are not.

Sian Gwenllian said that there’s a consensus in Wales. I think we’ve seen that. I know that Mark Isherwood mentioned that he’d talked to policemen, but I would guess not only weren’t they chief constables, but they weren’t sitting on the command floor. I’ve spoken to police at all sorts of junior levels who have all sorts of interesting views. It’s the people on the command floor who have a view of how policing is being run across the area—it’s not the local sergeant who is involved in an area. Important as his job is, his understanding of the policing of the whole area and the police policy is substantially less than those on the command floor.

It has a close involvement with other devolved services, and not just fire and ambulance, but also with substantial other things run by Welsh Government. It’s involved with local government and it’s involved with social services. It’s involved with a whole range of bodies—I probably haven’t got time to list them all—and not just fire and ambulance.

Can I just finally say that I agree with everything that the Minister has said? I think it’s really important that we believe in Wales, believe in ourselves and support the devolution of policing to Wales.

The question is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on NHS privatisation. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. It seems remarkable, in a debate such as this, that we’re going to have to go over some of the basics of how the Welsh Government receives its funding and why the decisions of how England chooses to run its national health service are relevant to both the financial and workforce decisions that are possible in Wales. So, for the benefit of people who perhaps don’t recognise or realise the relevance, in simple terms, it is this: the available budget for the NHS in Wales is highly influenced by overall public spending in England. So, if a UK Government cuts the NHS budget there, then the Welsh Government would either have to cut the budget of the NHS here or cut another budget to break even. If the UK Government decides to increase the budget of the NHS in England, and doesn’t cut other relevant departments, then the Welsh Government can also make that decision. But the key factor is always the decisions made about spending levels in England. It would be effectively impossible for England to have an NHS with a substantially smaller budget and for Wales then to maintain a higher budget. This is why spending decisions for NHS England, and the nature of that spending and the structure it falls into, matter to us. If the NHS in England is likely to be spending substantially less money, then Wales has less money to make a different decision.

There are other implications too: if the NHS in England cuts services used by Welsh patients, for example; if the standards of training for the workforce drop because companies providing services start de-skilling in order to maximise profit, and, conversely, hyperinflation for senior management salaries—a predictable consequence of private sector growth—would inevitably lead to an effect here.

But it isn’t just on the alleged privatisation and austerity where there are concerns due to the political structure of Wales being overly dependent on decisions made by politicians in London. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks that were ongoing a couple of years ago attracted major concern because of the effects that such a deal could have on the NHS. Had TTIP been signed in one of its early forms, certainly the NHS would have had no choice but to open up provision to the numerous private health companies lobbying for such a deal, remember. Indeed, some opposition to TTIP was publicly expressed by the Eurosceptic movement as a way to bring people to an anti-European position. But I would argue that we are now perhaps in even greater danger from such an agreement being pursued by the UK Government, unilaterally with the United States. At least the EU has strong internal political pressures to maintain public health systems. It’s naivety of the utmost, I think, to pretend that the emboldened Thatcherites likely to resume control of the UK Government are going to have the interests of the NHS at heart when negotiating trade deals. I’d even add that many may see this as a way of pushing through their long-term agenda of NHS privatisation, and being able to avoid blame by subsequently blaming an unintended consequence.

With that I turn to the final aspect of this debate. Yes, the NHS is in danger of privatisation. I’m aware that the Conservatives are now downplaying the extent to which private providers have actually taken over the running of NHS services since the 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England, but the facts do show a growth: slow-release privatisation has seen the percentage of the health budget finding its way into private hands rising from 4 per cent in 2009-10 to 8 per cent in 2015. The slowness, incidentally, of this growth actually reflects some inconvenient facts. It’s actually pretty difficult to make money from some parts of the NHS, so why would a private sector provider want to run it? You can only really start a significant privatisation, you could argue, by allowing providers to turn people away for treatment if they can’t pay.

Finally, the bigger danger to core services isn’t so much from obscure commissioning rules and contract design, it’s from continual poor performance, leading to people perceiving that private health insurance, or the private healthcare route, is essential in ensuring that they get prompt diagnosis in treatment. I’m sure I’m not the only Member in this Chamber who’s been approached by constituents who say they have been encouraged and advised by GPs or hospital consultants to seek private treatment because that would get them that treatment quicker. Those constituents tell me that they have felt they have no option. Private providers can only really start to make money if health insurance grows, therefore they need waiting lists to get longer, to the extent people fear for their own health.

So, I think we’re probably not going to get to a stage where a mainstream political party advocates fully a privatised system. It will be pursued, I think, through stealth, by the few true believers, and emerge slowly as a result of a thousand decisions made by pragmatists operating within constrained financial circumstances. The perception is that offering services for competitive tender brings efficiency savings or better care. This will happen alongside the removal of any free treatment for things deemed by some to be luxuries or lifestyle treatments—IVF, perhaps; gender identity.

So this is the risk of the Conservative NHS: in the long run, their NHS will be shrunk and become like the UK version of Medicare. If you’re lucky—[Interruption.] I will certainly give way.

Do you share my concern that the percentage figures you’re quoting include things like community hospices, Marie Curie, Macmillan—these sorts of bodies? The NHS, which we support, taxpayer funded, free at the point of delivery, should be asking how they could help them deliver more for the patients for the resource available.

The figures I quoted were of the money going into the private sector, which I admit is growing slowly, but it’s exactly this ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that threatens the future of the NHS. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Conservative health spokesman asks if I’m going to talk about Wales. This is the context in which the future of the Welsh NHS will try to survive. In the meantime, the job of each successive Welsh Government to maintain and improve a public NHS will get harder in this context. That’s why it’s important that we defend Wales and have a strong Plaid Cymru voice in Westminster.

Thank you very much. I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on Angela Burns to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to move the Conservative amendment, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. The motion tabled by Plaid is clearly politically motivated and designed to scaremonger about the future of our NHS. For the avoidance of doubt, my party wholeheartedly believes in the Welsh NHS being kept in public hands. In fact, I believe every party in this Assembly supports the principle of the Welsh national health service being kept in public hands.

During this general election period, where Plaid are obviously struggling to connect with the Welsh public, many cases of fake news like this will no doubt be trumpeted. The reality is that there are already elements of private providers in the NHS, and I would like to draw attention to the figures shown in the NHS Wales summarised accounts for the last two financial years, which highlight the expenditure on healthcare from other providers. The column representing private providers has risen from £43,015,000 in 2014-15 to £49,732,000 in 2015-16. I would be interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary, who was only this week on tv slamming my party for NHS privatisation by stealth, to explain this expenditure and enlighten us as to exactly who or what private providers are.

Point 3 of the motion tries to link Brexit and new trade deals to the provision of health. I would point out to the Plaid spokesman that the European Union that they so passionately supported was responsible for the TTIP trade deal, and now we’re on our way out of Europe, this perceived threat is no more. I have every faith that our Prime Minister will get good, sound deals—[Interruption.] no, I won’t, actually—will get good, sound deals for the whole of the United Kingdom and that, where required, devolved administrations will be consulted.

None of us have a crystal ball, but it is our duty as a country to enter the negotiations positively and strive for the best possible outcome for all of us. I don’t see that support from the Plaid group, who seem to be wishing the talks to fail. Instead of casting suspicion on the way in which cross-border health services are provided, our amendment aims to delete yet more nationalist scaremongering and highlights the important role that provision from across the border plays in providing treatment for Welsh patients.

I want to briefly touch on a couple of the services raised in our amendment, which help to demonstrate the importance of collaborative working between the two NHS services. Acute neonatal—a report by Bliss last year highlighted evidence from neonatal units, neonatal transport services and parents across Wales showing worrying shortages in the nurses, doctors and other essential health professionals that premature and sick babies need. This puts neonatal units under severe pressure; it leaves them unable to meet national standards for quality and safety, or support parents to be involved in their baby’s care. The report found that only two out of 10 neonatal units had enough nurses to staff all of their cots in line with national safety and quality standards, over half of units did not have enough medical staff to meet national standards, and none of Wales’s neonatal intensive care units had enough overnight accommodation for parents to meet national standards.

We should be thankful that NHS trusts in England are able to receive emergency cases and provide the cots that aren’t always available in Wales. I know constituents whose babies would no longer be with us if they were not able to make use of some of the amazing NHS services in England, such as the paediatric intensive care unit at Southampton General Hospital. I know that I, as a parent, would want the best treatment for my child, wherever that was available.

Let’s look at transgender services and mental health services. Two years ago, this Chamber voted to explore the possibility of opening the first gender identity clinic in Wales. Wales is currently the only one of four countries in the United Kingdom that does not have a gender identity clinic, meaning trans people have to travel to England. Figures from 2012 estimated there are over 31,300 trans people in Wales, but no dedicated centre, and I would be keen to learn from the Cabinet Secretary whether we’ve made any movement on this issue, but, again, stress to the Plaid spokesman that whilst the service isn’t available in Wales, it is the English NHS stepping into the breach, and the same goes for elements of the provision for child mental health services. The English NHS is our top-up and support.

In bringing my contribution to a close, I urge Plaid to think again about this motion. We need to be considering what is best for the patient, and not what best fits into Plaid’s narrow, ideological view of the world. As the Welsh Affairs Committee in Westminster concluded in their report of 2015, cross-border movements have been a fact of life for many years, and it’s no less the case for health services. For those residing in immediate border areas, the nearest health provider may not be in their country of residence, as you, Deputy Presiding Officer, will well know, representing a northern constituency. So, I would urge Members to reject the motion and back our amendment. I do hope the Welsh Government will not be tolerating this form of nonsense.

I’m pleased to take part in this debate on the NHS in Wales, and pleased also to celebrate the achievements of the NHS in Wales. This is, obviously, from the vantage point of having been a doctor in Wales since 1980. Working in the NHS has been exhilarating, challenging, and fulfilling—sometimes all at once—despite all the governmental and managerial upheavals and reorganisations that have been hurled into my path down the years. It’s a tremendous bond with people. I have grown up with people in Swansea. Patients who were children when I started are now grandparents. It’s been a privilege to have been a constant thread in the lives of so many people. It’s a strength of trust and respect—mutual—as people recognise the tremendous commitment and skill of the staff of the NHS.

Now, the NHS is not without its faults, of course. That very human resource can also err, and there is never enough money for the latest technologies and drugs. But here in Wales we have an NHS—yes, under strain every day, yet still remarkably a public service in public hands that engenders phenomenal levels of loyalty and respect from the patients of Wales. And because it’s not private, no money changes hands during the consultation. People know that the advice I give them is what I would give my own family, untainted by finance skewing the management. With free prescriptions, I can recommend long-term preventative medication, life-saving tablets like statins and high blood pressure tablets and asthma inhalers, safe in the knowledge that people will take them, and not be swayed by having to pay over £8 per item for them, as in England.

I am proud of the innovations in health here in Wales. Our two excellent medical schools are at the forefront of world-class research and treatments, involving patients from both inside Wales and beyond. Exciting immunotherapy for mesothelioma, as we heard in the cross-party group on asbestos last night: immunotherapy for mesothelioma in Cardiff, and patients coming from all over. Cutting-edge surgery in Cardiff, and, in Swansea, Morriston’s advanced burns and plastic unit—that covers the south-west of England as well as the whole of south Wales. That burns and plastic unit is truly phenomenal. Similar high praise comes in the way of cardiac surgery in Wales, too. Lives are being saved that would not have been saved a generation ago, and I am proud to be associated with all of that. And organ donation: the new opt-out system, pioneered here in Wales, is transforming the renal transplant scene in the United Kingdom. This Assembly should be justifiably proud of its role in bringing this about, providing inspiration throughout these islands, and additional organs for transplantation across these islands and across Europe.

Ours is a collaborative, human NHS, and any dependency works both ways, as I’ve already indicated. Yes, there are specialised units in Liverpool and Manchester serving the people of north Wales, but they are dependent on the 600,000 north Walians to make their specialised units viable, in critical mass terms. Without those 600,000 people in north Wales, those units in Liverpool and Manchester also are not viable. The dependency bit works both ways and all along Offa’s Dyke around 15,000 people in England are registered with GPs in Wales, and around 13,000 people in Wales are registered with GPs in England, to be fair. But mature human consideration and altruism mean that the care carries on regardless of geography. But we live in uncertain times. Brexit has imperilled our NHS and care staff. Voting for a hard Brexit brings other Tory ways of dealing with public services too, like insidious privatisation of the health service as in England. Commissioning groups there have to commission from outside the NHS. They have to privatise; they have no choice. Division and competition are rife; non-regulation and secrecy supreme; and a Tory health secretary in England who has provoked junior doctors strikes for the first time in over 40 years. Wales—different. No, defend Wales and defend our NHS. Diolch yn fawr.

I think it’s absolutely appropriate that some services are provided in England and that is where rare, specialist services can only be provided in Wales if there are sufficient numbers of patients with that condition to underpin the clinical excellence that all patients seek. So, I agree with Dai Lloyd that some of the specialist services on Merseyside and Manchester are dependent on the numbers of referrals from north Wales, but the same applies to people in Lancashire that applies to people in north Wales. Everybody wants an excellent service and that means you have to have a throughput for clinicians to be able to maintain their clinical excellence.

But, I disagree with Angela Burns. It’s not fake news to worry that the consequences of outsourcing health spending in England do, indeed, potentially pose a threat to the global sums in the block grant that will be coming to Wales and we can’t ignore that. We just have to acknowledge that and badge it up as a real issue for concern that some people may wish to take into account when they’re casting their vote in the general election.

I think that we all subscribe to the NHS being both free at the point of delivery and that nobody’s misfortune to fall ill should be used as a way for someone else to make a profit out of them. I hope that we can all subscribe to that, but I think that the situation is more nuanced than perhaps the motion makes out. For example, all GPs are independent contractors, as Dai Lloyd knows, and whilst the vast majority are completely committed to serving patients on their list, it has been known for some GPs to adjust their activity to chase particular financial incentives, either through the quality outcomes framework or by having an inappropriate relationship with a particular pharmaceutical company in order to promote a particular medicine over another cheaper one. We cannot get away from that. It is well documented and that is one of the realities that we have to bear in mind. It’s also been suggested that a hospital may be keen to prescribe medicines before a patient leaves hospital because they can make money out of the transaction even where the medicines management would be better done by the patient’s GP or local pharmacy. These tensions exist and they need managing. Hopefully, the current integrated structure of healthcare that we have, with seven health boards responsible for delivering both primary and secondary care, ought to make it easier to squeeze out such inappropriate practices. But we have to acknowledge that doesn’t always happen.

Part of the prudent healthcare principle is that services should be delivered by the person who is qualified to deliver that service and no more. That could, in principle, be delivered by a private sector organisation in some cases. Yesterday, I visited the multidisciplinary panel that is working on how to manage frequent attenders at A&E in Cardiff and the Vale. One individual had used out-of-hours, A&E or the ambulance service over 50 times in the last month, all because they’d been waiting 18 months to be seen by a psychiatrist. Another reported self-harming, including the swallowing of sharp objects, apparently to avoid having to meet his probation officer. These cases do exist, and we have to be imaginative in the way we deal with such challenges.

In some cases, those who are depressed, isolated or addicted individuals may be best served by confidence-building courses, living life to the full courses, which bring them back into the community, because their depression is related to their isolation. Those services are currently being provided by Communities First but could, in theory, be provided by a private sector company. I’m not saying they should, just that we need to at least discuss it. There have always been private companies involved in delivering mental health services in the NHS. However, there are structural drawbacks, for example, instability—the organisation may move out if their profits drop; cost—they may have to pay their shareholders; the transactional processes involved that ought to be avoided when we’re discussing the holistic provision of services by public servants; and then there’s the lack of accountability that we should all worry about. But the NHS would fall apart without private companies’ input. They provide all the equipment, build the hospitals, make the drugs and, in the IT world, the whole of primary care IT is privately run. So, there is ample evidence that alternative providers can challenge state delivery, and occasionally improve ideas, vision and relationships with the users of services, and so we have to have a broader approach to this matter.

I want to focus on the integration of social care and health, and the problems that creating a more and more patchy system would create if we were to move towards using more and more private contractors.

We’ve discussed the need to integrate health and social care on a number of occasions. There are a number of problems caused as different institutions argue over the different elements involved—for example, administrative and bureaucratic battles as to where responsibility for a patient lies and is passed from one institution to another, patients who can’t be released to the community because of a lack of facilities and community-based health services to enable people to live independently, and arguments as to who should pay for what.

Now, we more or less all agree that we need to integrate more of this and that we need an urgent debate on the issue, but one thing that would make integration more difficult would be more competitive tendering and more providers competing for profitable contracts, whilst leaving crucial services that aren’t profitable in the hands of a system that is being bled of investment. That is the risk and that’s what could happen in Wales if the UK signs trade deals that require our health and care services to open their doors to private providers.

Some people will raise the point that many private contractors already provide health and care services, but that is exactly the problem: contracting services, or tendering them out to providers of low-quality has led to a social care workforce that isn’t sufficiently remunerated, and suffers from poor working conditions. In turn, that leads to a lack of status and respect for the care sector. If we are forced to open up our health service to private providers because the English Government is ideologically committed to the private sector, and is signing trade deals on behalf of Wales, then there is a very real risk that we will lose more skills and that standards will fall further.

We’ve already seen the problems of the piecemeal system in England as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The decision to put public health responsibility in the hands of local authorities has led to an appalling decision by the NHS in England, namely, not funding the drug PrEP, which prevents the transmission of HIV and is therefore seen as a public health issue. Because of that disastrous decision to make huge cuts to local authority budgets in order to protect the NHS, expenditure on public health has fallen significantly. Public health in health systems is dominated by the private sector and that is bound to face underinvestment, because there isn’t money to be made in that area. And in seeing the emphasis shifting to treating ill-health rather than preventative services, that doesn’t make business sense, of course, because it’s more expensive, ultimately.

It is crucial that we maintain the national health service in public hands and that we keep the Conservatives and their trade deals out of Wales. Plaid Cymru will protect the national health service of Wales every step of the way.

I thank Plaid Cymru for tabling this debate today, and I’m pleased to take part. UKIP firmly believe that the NHS should forever remain in public hands and be free at the point of delivery. We’re also totally against TTIP, and campaigned heavily against it. As long as the patient is seen and diagnosed quickly, the outcome is the important factor here, as long as the service is free to the patient. Without the participation of the private sector, large sections of our health and social care sector would not function.

We wouldn’t have the most important tool in our health arsenal, the most used therapeutic intervention: medicines. The majority of our medicines are researched, developed and produced by the private sector, which contributes billions of pounds to the UK economy, employing thousands of people and providing life-saving drugs to NHS patients. In the last three years, the pharmaceutical industry in the UK has paid over £1 billion pounds towards the pharmaceutical payment regulation scheme, which improved the flow of new medicines to NHS patients, allowing patients to get access to treatments that are widely available in other European countries.

The independent contractor model is the cornerstone of our primary care sector. GPs and GP practices are private sector contractors and companies providing healthcare to NHS patients. Without the private sector, social care provision would disappear across large parts of the country, as large numbers of care homes are privately run. Without the private sector we wouldn’t have access to innovative health technologies. A proton beam therapy centre will be opening later this year, giving NHS patients access to this innovative cancer treatment. The centre, just outside Newport, is run by Proton Partners—a private company set up to bring proton beam therapy to the UK. You may have read in the press over the weekend about a new treatment for burns victims, the SkinGun, which utilises stem cells from donor skin and grows a new layer of skin on the patient, ending painful skin grafts and extensive scarring. This technology was developed by a private sector company.

It is clear to me that private involvement in the NHS is not only welcome, but necessary. For the NHS to thrive, it must be a true collaboration between the public sector, the private sector and the third sector. Patients do not care which sector provides much needed treatment, as long as it is the best available treatment and that they don’t have to pay for it. We need to abandon the dogma that equates to public sector is good, private sector is bad. Collaboration is the most important thing and patient outcomes is of paramount importance. Without the private sector our NHS wouldn’t survive, so UKIP will therefore be abstaining on Plaid’s motion this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr.

I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on the implications of new customs arrangements for the national health service and other devolved matters, because whatever our differing views on the decision to leave the customs union and leave the European single market, we can all agree, whether we were leave or remain, or nationalists or unionists, that that is going to have consequences that we haven’t had to consider for some time. It is further complicated, of course, by the fact that if we have a situation where the new UK single market and the new UK customs union is exclusively administered by the UK Government, it is complicated by the fact that the UK Government, of course, acts as the Government of England when it comes to things like health. Therefore, there will be a legitimate concern, I think we can all agree, that a health policy and a health paradigm by the UK Government will also overlap then into future customs arrangements. So, I know we’re all excited with election fever at the moment; I’m going to try and see if we can have some sort of consensus about acknowledging that, whether intentional or not, future trade agreements, if not done concurrently between the Governments of the UK, could lead, inadvertently or not, to devolved public services, including the NHS, being disadvantaged.

When TTIP—that’s been mentioned several times, of course—was being discussed, concerns were raised legitimately then. The NHS Confederation specifically had an issue with the inclusion of controversial investor-to-state settlement mechanisms, which, of course, are normal in trade deals, but the nature of these bodies are crucial in terms of protecting public services. These cases are heard in secret, in private arbitration courts, and allow corporations to sue Governments that are attempting to make decisions based on their own political mandates. Famously, when Australia introduced plain packaging for cigarettes, the tobacco company Philip Morris used an investor-to-state dispute settlement clause included in the 1993 Australia-Hong Kong investment treaty to attempt to sue the Australian Government. Ultimately, their attempt failed, but not without many years of political wrangling.

It was the Europe-wide public outcry, of course, over TTIP that led, ultimately, to the inclusion of other mechanisms. The EU’s trade deal with Canada, CETA, includes some provisions that limit the use of these powers and some exemptions for public services. Although it’s far from a perfect outcome in CETA, the public anxiety about the impact that international trade deals can have on a nation’s public services is now changing the way that trade deals are being negotiated, and that’s something we’ll have to bear in mind for if and when the UK leaves the European customs union in full.

But, as I said, any future trade deals, we can all agree, will have a major impact on Wales and on our public services in particular. Yesterday, I listened carefully to an answer given by the First Minister to a question from the Member for Neath on this matter and, frankly, I’ve got to say, it’s not good enough, I think, from our First Minister, to be saying that Wales should have a voice in future trade negotiations once we’re out of the European customs union. We can’t simply be consultees on matters that are clearly devolved and within this legislature’s jurisdiction. The logical solution, constitutionally, in my opinion, if we’re going to be outside the customs union in particular, is for the federalisation of trade so that’s a shared competence between the nations and the Governments of the UK, overseen by a UK council of Ministers and accountable to all the Parliaments of the UK. Of course, this is why several federal countries that have their own customs arrangements—that is why they have federalised international trade rather than exclusively reserved it to the centre, because there will be, invariably, an overlap. As I mentioned earlier, with the complicating factor of the UK Government acting as the English Government on devolved matters, it makes even more sense to have a UK council of Ministers to oversee our shared interests when it comes to future UK trade deals. So, anyone can have a voice, and I’d ask the Welsh Government to drop that as their demand, because, frankly, that is pathetic. I hope the Government will reconsider the ambiguity in this area, because it’ll be crucial in ensuring that our public services here are protected in a way that is democratically expressed by people and the ballot box, rather than in the interests of international profiteering.

I’d like to just briefly contribute to this Plaid Cymru debate today as a Member who serves a constituency where travelling across the border for specific specialist services is a standard occurrence, whether that be heading to Clatterbridge or Christie’s for specialist oncology treatment, Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, or even the well-established link between Betsi Cadwaladr UHB and Stoke-on-Trent hospital for major trauma treatment. As other Members have alluded to before, hospitals like Countess of Chester Hospital were set up to serve patients from both sides of the border. Without the intake from the Welsh side, hospital services in Chester would not be sustainable nor viable, and I’m proud that, under a Welsh Labour Government, our Welsh NHS has stayed true to the vision of its founder, Nye Bevan, free from marketisation and privatisation. But what’s clear is we do not exist or operate in isolation, and today’s motion rightly makes clear concern for the budgetary implications caused by the growing privatisation of the NHS in England, indeed, and the £3 billion top-down reorganisation. This greater privatisation and fragmentation doesn’t only have implications for our consequential ability to fund the NHS in Wales—health services in Wales—properly, but it also gives me cause for concern in regard to the implications for the provision and standards of services received by my constituents who travel over the border to the north-west of England.

I understand that there is a cross-border protocol that is in place between the NHS in Wales and the NHS in England, aimed at delivering high-quality care for patients who access cross-border health services, and that Welsh Government is continuing its work and co-operation with the NHS in England to address provision of healthcare in the border area. However, I have actually had highlighted with me instances from constituents where Wales-domiciled patients accessing services over the border have not been given, shall we say, for want of a better word, fair information with regard to waiting times and services by individuals and organisations in the NHS in England, and have been left sometimes feeling like the patients coming from Wales being treated in England are placed on a lower rung than those living in England accessing the same services.

So, with these agreements and funding arrangements in place, this should definitely not be the case, and just a few cases are a few cases too many. And I know that, when I’ve raised this previously in a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, he shared my concerns on this, and, just in concluding, I would urge others and the Welsh Government that, in continuing the commitment to providing the best possible high-quality healthcare and fair funding to the people of Wales, my constituents and others accessing services in England are given the same first-class service expected as anybody else.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Members for tabling a debate on this topic, as it allows me to reiterate the continuing commitment of this Welsh Labour-led Welsh Government to the principle of a national health service that is publicly funded and free at the point of delivery. We agree with the movers of the motion. In fact, the 2009 reforms in Wales reaffirmed Nye Bevan’s founding principles by removing the market-based purchaser-provider arrangements and implementing a planned, integrated health service. And that planned and integrated service has now been identified by Simon Stevens as a way forward for the NHS in England. They are moving away from the purchaser-provider split; they’re recognising that it’s inefficient and unhelpful. The contrast, though, with the current system between Wales and England could not be clearer.

As has been mentioned already, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for England, it sees health as a commodity, subject to procurement and competition provisions, including setting up Monitor as an economic regulator. In doing so, the UK Government of the day made an active choice to open the market on the provision of healthcare to any willing provider, including private healthcare providers. The figures quoted by Angela Burns on public spend, or rather private spend, here in Wales, equate to less than 1 per cent of the NHS budget, and both the contract services—. But we do not parcel those services off. But you see that in wholesale transfers within the English system: from non-emergency ambulance services to sexual health services in England, these are being parcelled out wholesale to private providers. That has not, and that will not, happen here in Wales.

It is undeniable that the 2012 Act has led to increasing privatisation in England. The Department of Health accounts for 2015-16 showed the private sector delivered over £8.7 billion of NHS services, or over 7.5 per cent of the NHS budget in England. And that creeping privatisation does have significant consequences, including increased legal and transaction costs within the English system with private companies, but also NHS providers taking court action if they lose out on a procurement exercise for contracting services, and also the points that Rhun ap Iorwerth, Julie Morgan—or rather Jenny Rathbone—and others have made about the impact on the budget here in Wales as well.

And we should be concerned about a more insurance-based system too. It does involve upfront payments for basic care. For example, in Ireland, if you want to see a general practitioner, you can expect to pay upwards of €50 just to have the consultation, and then there’s a real fee to pay for the medication as well. It changes the way people behave and their access to high-quality medication. It changes the trust in those people as well. I think that, if we are going to see political will maintained—to actually reiterate the truth that a publicly-funded national health service is good value for money and sustainable, if there is a political will to invest in our public services. That does require a significant change in approach from the United Kingdom Government.

But, despite the undeniable privatisation in England, the Welsh Government continues to take a pragmatic approach to cross-border flows, as outlined by a number of speakers in this debate, including Hannah Blythyn just before me. We will continue to focus on providing the best care for all of those who need it. Of course, our approach to collaboration between the Welsh and English health services focuses on the needs of our respective populations. A slight disagreement with the good Dr Lloyd, but I understand there are more than 20,800 English residents registered with a Welsh GP, but well over 14,000 Welsh residents registered with an English GP—the reality of cross-border flows. And, of course, we see those in specialist healthcare between Wales and England and from England to Wales. Hannah Blythyn outlined those flows from her constituents into north-west England, but, of course, as Dai Lloyd mentioned, Morriston hospital—the burns unit—is a specialist centre not just for Wales but also the south-west of England. Velindre cancer centre in Cardiff provides specialist cancer services to most of Wales, as well as treating patients referred in from England as well. The flows go in both directions. We do want to see that being maintained. Our aim, as a Government, is to ensure that all patients receive high-quality healthcare at the right time and in the right place. Sometimes, those will be services provided across the border in England. Other times, it will be here, the service in Wales. There are long-established patient flows into England for some hospital-based care for people living in the east of our country. Local health boards do have the flexibility to refer patients out of their area for treatment where a patient’s clinical need and circumstances justify it, or where services are not provided here in Wales.

Now, turning to the point made in the motion about the European Union, we recognise that a majority of the people of Wales voted to leave. We’ve been clear that that democratic decision will be respected. However, we do not believe that the people of Wales voted to be worse off, to see harm done to our economy or to our public services. So, we’re determined to secure a positive future for Wales in a post-Brexit world, and we’ve been clear that our priority for the future relationship of the European Union is full and unfettered access to the single market. We set out our broader position in detail in the joint White Paper with Plaid Cymru. The Welsh Government will continue to—.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way. I know he’s repeating the line on the single market, but specifically in my contribution I asked about customs arrangements and the UK Government’s signal intention at least to partially withdraw from the European Union Customs Union. Therefore, with that in mind, what, as a Cabinet Secretary in the Welsh Government, is your view of future arrangements for trade deals? Do you want your Government to have a full voice that is meaningful at a UK level in future trade deals in order to protect public services, or do you simply want to be a consultee in that process?

Well, you’ve heard the First Minister set out our position on a number of occasions about the relationship with the customs union in relation to having a joint ministerial committee to take those matters forward. We do need a proper voice for Wales in the future, and we will continue to set our priority for the exit and future trade deals through a joint ministerial committee. We’ve also been clear that, under the devolution settlement, any powers in devolved fields currently held at European Union level must be exercised at devolved level. And, unless there’s clear and unequivocally an agreed reason for them to be exercised by the UK Government, those powers must come to this place first without flowing through the UK Government. Any other position simply will not be acceptable.

Turning to some of the comments made, just, I think, clarifying some of the misunderstanding about what happens within the health service here in Wales, and the comments made by the UKIP spokesperson, because I think that the reference to a private involvement in the national health service gets us a significant distance away from privatisation that we do understand—. It’s not difficult to understand the distinction and the difference. Neither I nor the movers of this motion say that we should try and remove those people in the private sector who developed medical goods, medical equipment, medical devices, or all the other forms of treatment and improvement that we see our national health service taking advantage of. That is a significant distance from the reality of privatisation, of course. The current UK leader of what is left of UKIP has, on many occasions in the past, stated his belief that the national health service is a barrier and impediment to competition, and he would see it downgraded and removed.

We do not support the Conservative amendment, which is a fairly obvious attempt to remove reference to Tory privatisation in England. This Welsh Government is committed to a high-quality national health service in public hands, and I am proud to say that we will continue to stand up for Wales and we will continue to stand up for the national health service.

Thank you very much. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone who has contributed today. The purpose of this debate and the purpose of the motion is clear and very simple, I believe. I think that the Conservatives are eager to transfer more powers and funding for the health service to the private sector. The evidence shows that. The figures—. The 8 per cent of the budget going to the private sector excludes the third sector, by the way. But even if the Conservatives can’t influence directly the policy on the NHS in Wales, their decisions, in terms of expenditure by their party in London, do have a direct impact on us. I hope that we have been able to explain that today.

On top of that, of course—and while I welcome the support of Labour to this motion—the failings of the Labour Welsh Government to maintain services of the standard that the staff of the NHS in Wales and patients deserve do push more people towards the private sector. We had a speech from Angela Burns saying that Plaid Cymru shouldn’t be narrow minded and oppose cross-border services. Now, I’m not entirely sure where she got that from. I certainly didn’t mention that. The motion before me here doesn’t mention that, and, indeed, Dr Dai Lloyd, in his speech, emphasised how good cross-border services are working in both directions. I’ll give you an opportunity if you want to explain exactly why you went along that path, but otherwise, I will continue. She talked about excellent services in Southampton. Now, I would send my child to the moon for the best service, and I would take it as a personal insult if you were to suggest that I would prefer no service rather than a service outwith Wales. You’re the one who is talking nonsense by suggesting such a thing for the patients of Wales.

But—and I very much hope that the Conservatives would agree with me on this—the underperformance of the NHS here or any privatisation agenda should not undermine the services that we should be able to expect to receive and to be provided in Wales. And, in looking at your list, in your amendment, of services that you believe that we should recognise as being in England, do you genuinely believe that we should sit back and accept that children with mental health issues can’t be treated close to home? In Mental Health Awareness Week—[Interruption.] The Member says that she didn’t say that. Well, I will read from your motion: that the Assembly should acknowledge the

dependency Welsh patients have on specialist services in England’,

including ‘child mental health services’. If you believe that we should sit back and accept that during mental health awareness week, then shame on you. I’m afraid that the threat posed by the Conservatives is clear. Support the motion today.

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

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the Welsh Conservatives debate on borrowing and the economy. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the motion on the order paper in the name of Paul Davies, which focuses on the strong and stable leadership that this country needs to continue its economic prosperity; regrets the First Minister’s public endorsement around borrowing on the nation’s credit card an additional £500 billion, which would endanger the future of the Welsh economy; and that recognises that policies, when put forward, need to be fully costed to ensure that Wales and the UK’s economic progress is not put at risk, and that the coalition of chaos does not return to make sure that the economic long-term implications are devastating for communities across the whole length and breadth of this country.

Well, if I can deal with the amendments first, Mike, and I will gladly take the—. I was just merely reading what was on the order paper at that stage, to be honest, with a few soundbites.

The amendments, we will not be accepting, as is not surprising. The Government’s ‘delete all’ amendment really does call into question who wrote that amendment, to be honest with you, because, obviously, a lot of the issues there don’t bear any scrutiny at all, and, ultimately, when you look at the fiscal framework and other measures that the UK Government has put in place over the first seven years since 2010 that have led to record rates of employment here in Wales, record rates of inward investment and, of course, a continuing contribution to making sure that Wales’s place within the United Kingdom is safe and secure—it really does make sure that people should vote Conservative at the ballot box on June 8.

Amendment 2 from the Welsh nationalists asks people to recognise that Wales needs to be defended from the prospect of a reckless Conservative UK Government. I have to say the only thing that would be reckless would be making sure that Wales became independent and the devastating consequences that that would have for our Welsh NHS. It was a rich irony to listen to Plaid Cymru talking about a publicly funded, publicly owned NHS when, in fact, the most devastating consequence for the Welsh NHS would be for Wales to become independent and economically not be able to deliver—[Interruption.]—deliver—[Interruption.]—deliver—[Interruption.]—for the people of Wales. I’ll gladly take the intervention from Mike.

You’ve talked about a coalition of chaos; do you mean the coalition you had with the Liberal Democrats between 2010 and 2015? Or the coalition you tried to have with Plaid Cymru and UKIP after the last election?

There is only one coalition of chaos on the ballot paper for June 8, Mike, as well you know, and that is the coalition of chaos that would be led by Jeremy Corbyn and the devastating consequences, economically and for the future of the United Kingdom. And, of course, you are part of a coalition with the nationalists and with the Liberal Democrats, as we’ve seen, since last May. There is a formal coalition here. You see it at budget time, and you see it because you have a Lib Dem education Minister who took questions earlier on. She is part of your Government, Mike, which you endorse, you do.

But, looking at what is required as we go forward, the dominating theme for the next Parliament, undoubtedly, and for this Assembly, will be to deliver on the Brexit referendum result of 23 June last year, and that is why strong and stable leadership is required—[Interruption.]—is required—[Interruption.]—I’m on for a digestive biscuit at this rate—is required to make sure that we continue with the long-term economic growth that underpins investment in our great public services, that underpins the ability for people to take home a decent take-home wage, and underpins the ability for entrepreneurs to start up new businesses, whether that be here in Wales or, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom.

Can it really be the case that anyone can have any confidence in the current Labour leadership when it comes to security, when it comes to negotiating the Brexit negotiations? Yesterday, for example, the leader of the Labour Party was asked six times about his thoughts on Brexit and was unable at any time to give a convincing answer. And this coming from a party that has spent the last 18 months, in two leadership debates, ripping itself apart and that ultimately now stands before the electorate to say, ‘Trust us, we will deliver’. And when we look at what the Welsh Government have delivered here, when you look at the NHS, it’s the only part of the United Kingdom that had a Government in the last session that delivered real-term cuts to the NHS—a conscious political decision, I might add, that was taken at that time.

The Government put much credibility on the line when it came to reorganising local government and had to backpedal on the reorganisation of local government. On education, when we look at the education figures that have come out, not from the Conservatives, not from other political parties here, but on the international rankings and PISA—a devastating indictment of failed education policies here in Wales that have blighted the life chances of successive generations of young people going through our education system here in Wales. And they are seriously asking for us to trust them with the leadership of the United Kingdom. That is why it is vital that people understand the consequences when they cast their vote on 8 June, to make sure that their communities, themselves, and this country’s security and long-term future is protected by a strong Conservative mandate here in Wales, but in other parts of the United Kingdom as well.

And I do find it remarkable that the First Minister spent his time on ‘The Politics Show’ endorsing—endorsing—maxing out the UK’s credit card to the tune of an additional £500 billion-worth of borrowing. In other words, the cost of chaos so far. At the moment, the Labour Party stand before the electorate here in the United Kingdom with £45 billion-worth of uncosted commitments—£45 billion-worth of uncosted commitments. That is absolutely unbelievable, and the First Minister is endorsing that economic policy that would actually put not just this generation’s economic futures on the line, but future generations’ futures. Because this generation won’t just be paying for that—it will be generation after generation that will have to pick up the pieces of the bankrupting of this country.

What we have seen over the first and the second term of the Conservatives in Government in Westminster, as I have said before, is worth repeating: record employment rates, which have gone up from 28 million people employed in the United Kingdom to 31.8 million people as we sit here today; record rates of investment in the economy; record rates of investment in business start-ups; record rates of apprenticeships. All that will be put at risk by the coalition of chaos that Jeremy Corbyn will lead, propped up by the Liberal Democrats and by the nationalists, both from Scotland and here in Wales. That is why we need the strong and stable leadership of Theresa May—[Interruption.]—of Theresa May making sure that ultimately—[Interruption.]—that ultimately people’s futures are not put at risk because of the cavalier attitude not just of Labour in London, but Labour here in the Assembly.

Above all, what is required from Governments in the future is that there is a fully costed programme of delivery and a fully costed programme when it comes to infrastructure and investment in our public services. Building false hopes, which is what the Labour Party and the nationalists are engaging in at the moment, is something that the public will not forgive, and as I said, the cost of chaos so far clearly indicates that there’s a £45 billion black hole—[Interruption.] If the Cabinet Secretary for health wants to speak, I’ll gladly take the intervention from him, because he’s chuntering away there. But he knows that, when it comes to it, the stats in the Welsh NHS, where one in seven people are on a waiting list here in Wales, where accident and emergency times—[Interruption.] Well, I’ll give the floor. Do you want to take an intervention? I’ll give the floor. See—you will not defend the position. One in seven people are on a waiting list, and people are waiting longer and longer for treatment here in Wales.

So, as I’ve said, the clear choice before the people of Wales, and before the people of the United Kingdom, is for the strong and stable leadership—[Interruption.]—people need to vote for on 8 June against the coalition of chaos that the Labour Party, the nationalists and the liberals will bring forward, which will not deliver the Brexit negotiations that this country needs to stand up to the other 27 member states that will do us down; which will not deliver the economic prosperity that this country and its communities require; which will not deliver the security of our public services; and above all, will not deliver the bright future that we know exists for this country. I’ll gladly take the intervention.

Thank you for taking the intervention. You’ve just said it: are you publicly saying, before you go into negotiations, that the EU-27 are intending to take us down? Because that’s what you just said.

When you look at what is coming from the European Commission, a negotiation is of two parties negotiating to their best advantage. It is a fact that the EU as it currently stands has 27 members in those negotiations. We are on the other side of that table. They are of course going to galvanise around a negotiating position. Who do you want negotiating that strategy on behalf of Britain? Do you want Jeremy Corbyn or do you want Theresa May? Because what the bulk of the people of the United Kingdom and the bulk of the people of Wales are saying is that they have faith in our Prime Minister, Theresa May, to negotiate on behalf of this great country of ours. They have little or no faith in Jeremy Corbyn’s ability to negotiate.

I will make this point again, and if someone wants to rebut it—. I know the finance Minister is a strong supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Six times yesterday—six times—Jeremy Corbyn was asked to outline what his ultimate position will be in these negotiations, and on six occasions he couldn’t give a response. That was at the launch of the Labour Party conference. Can it be right, with the Counsel General sitting there, with the finance Minister sitting there, with Mike Hedges sitting over there, that Welsh Labour is so happy to airbrush Jeremy Corbyn out of this campaign? Do you believe that Jeremy Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister? Because Carwyn Jones can’t say that in any statement he’s issuing. That’s why this debate today requires the support from Members in this house, so that we can have the strong and stable leadership of the Conservatives in Government after 8 June.

I have selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Adam Price to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth—Adam.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. You know, to listen to the tone of the Conservative Party in this election, you could come to the conclusion that, in some way, we are on the cusp of Britain’s finest hour. When you look at actually what’s happening to this country, what you see, actually, is a deeply divided United Kingdom. It’s not our finest hour, it could be the final hour, because of the economic divide, which is the most poisonous legacy of this Conservative Government.

Let’s look at the facts: in Yorkshire, Humberside, Northern Ireland, Wales, the west midlands and the north-west of England, workers are actually producing less now per hour, in the latest year for which figures are available, than they did in 2007. Where’s the economic progress there? Where’s the economic fairness for those nations and regions across the UK? Regional inequality in the UK is higher now than ever—higher now than ever, since records began, and it’s worsened in every year since 2010.

We measure it through the Gini co-efficient for regional inequality. It was fairly stable until the economic crisis. Prior to that crash, it was at 0.106. For the last year for which we have figures, published in 2016, it’s now at 0.126. That is unprecedented. That’s a 200 per cent increase in the extent of economic inequality between the nations and regions of this United Kingdom in less than a decade. You should be hanging your heads in shame. And let’s not forget as well that behind these statistics, there is a very human story. Come with me to some of the towns of the northern Valleys and see on the very faces of the people there the intergenerational hopelessness that you have cast them into. [Interruption.] I’ll certainly take an intervention.

Could I just ask, then, because obviously for decades now Wales has been getting more money from the EU in terms of regional support than other parts of the UK—can you explain why we’re still in that position, because it’s not just not the matter of the last 10 years, is it?

European regional funds were always a tiny lever compared to the scale of the problem. We in this party and other progressives across the UK were continually making the case that we couldn’t just rely on a tiny proportion. The Conservative Party were arguing, of course, for cutting the budget for European regional development funds throughout this period.

Let’s look at the facts. This is not just a problem in the Valleys of the former coalfield. Look at Powys, an area that is represented by the Conservative Party—it has the lowest performance of any part of the UK in terms of productivity per head, 35 per cent below the UK average. He talks about ‘our nation’, I presume he means the United Kingdom, well, Powys, economically, is not in the same nation as the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I won’t take another intervention; I think you’ve said enough, quite frankly. Look, in 2010, the Chancellor said this: he promised to rebalance the economy so that it generates local economic growth in all parts of the country. Instead of delivering on its promises, the Conservative-led administration delivered the opposite. And wasn’t that the pattern? Remember ‘vote blue, get green’? Remember ‘compassionate Conservatism’? You know, I can think of a few adjectives beginning with ‘c’ to describe this tory Government, but ‘compassionate’ certainly is not one of them. ‘Cruel’, ‘cold-hearted’, ‘callous’ seem a better fit to me for the party that gave us the bedroom tax, the rape clause and an epidemic of suicides among the sick and disabled victims of your so-called welfare reforms.

You know, some people project on this Prime Minister virtues that are Churchillian? I see more of Chamberlain—of expectations raised that cannot be delivered. Now, what none of us can do is predict what happens next. Will Brexit be a D-day, Dunkirk or Dardanelles—a glorious triumph, a heroic failure, or needless tragedy? None of us can predict that with certainty, but what we can say—the outcome of this election, sadly, at a UK level, is already clear. The Prime Minister will win, and she will have her reckless, destructive Brexit, come what may. But what happens next is in our hands. The battle for Britain may already be over. It’s the battle for Wales that is about to begin. A weak and divided Labour Party cannot defend Wales. We have to look to ourselves as a nation. We are our own best hope.

On leaving the UK Government in 2010, Labour bequeathed an economy on the brink of collapse, with the highest budget deficit in Europe, excepting only Ireland. But Conservatives delivered the fastest-growing G7 economy in 2016. In contrast, those countries that rejected austerity got it in full measure.

In championing Keynesian economics as an alternative, Labour fails to acknowledge—and Plaid Cymru—that although Keynes advocated deficit spending when an economy is suffering, he also advocated cutting back on Government outlay in the boom times. But Gordon Brown broke the economic cycle by pretending there was an end to boom and bust. As any debtor knows, you can’t start reducing debt until expenditure falls below income. If the Treasury had pursued faster deficit reduction, cuts would have been higher. In the real financial world, borrowers borrow, but lenders set the terms. If the Treasury had followed lower deficit reduction, higher cuts would have been imposed.

Labour Members here sneered when I warned, 13 years ago, that Gordon Brown’s borrowing would lead to a day of reckoning. They sneered when I said, 12 years ago, that the International Monetary Fund had warned that the UK banking system was more exposed to sub-prime debt than anywhere else in the world. They sneered when I said that the National Audit Office warned Mr Brown’s Treasury, three years before Northern Rock nearly went bust, that it needed to set up emergency plans to handle a banking crisis, but Labour did nothing about it. They sneered when I said that the Financial Services Authority had reported sustained political emphasis by the Labour Government on the need for them to be light-touch in their approach to banking regulation. No doubt they will sneer now, when I say that in endorsing Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to borrow an extra £500 billion, Carwyn Jones is failing to tell the people of Wales that bigger cuts will be the consequence.

Of course, Carwyn Jones is not a modest man, but he has a lot to be modest about. He keeps stating that Wales has the lowest unemployment in the UK, but the latest published figures show unemployment in Wales above England, Scotland and UK levels. He keeps taking the credit for inward investment into Wales, when the UK Department for International Trade played a part in 97 of 101 foreign direct investments into Wales last year, with the UK continuing to be the third largest recipient globally.

It is in the interests of Wales and the UK to have a strong, stable and prosperous European Union as our immediate neighbour. Although we do not enter Brexit negotiations as supplicants, he preaches Brexit doom, as we heard from our Plaid Cymru friends also. Well, there will be no winner and loser, only two winners or two losers. Any new impediments to trade and investment in Europe would not only be politically irresponsible, but economically dangerous, not just for Europe, but for the wider global economy, too. Throughout 18 years of Labour Welsh Government, they’ve presented themselves as the guardians of social justice. But the more they talked about it, the worse it has got. After spending £0.5 billion pounds on their lead tackling poverty programme, Communities First, they’re now phasing it out after, as the Bevan Foundation said, failing to reduce the headline rates of poverty in Wales.

Labour has given Wales the highest percentage of employees not on permanent contracts; the highest levels of underemployment across the 12 UK nations and regions; the lowest prosperity levels per head in the UK; the highest percentage of employees not on permanent contracts—I’ve said it again; rates of low pay, poverty, child poverty and children living in long-term workless households above UK levels; an increased percentage of children living in workless households in Wales’s most deprived communities and a housing supply crisis with the lowest proportional level of housing expenditure of any of the four UK countries from 1999, and therefore, the biggest cuts in new, social and affordable housing since 1999. UK Labour, meanwhile, is in the hands of a Trotskyist tribute act—fundamentalist followers of a discredited and dangerous nineteenth-century ideology. But Wales has been a pilot for them and a warning to people across our islands. Labour think they’re entitled to rule and tell the people what they is good for them. In contrast, Welsh Conservatives seek to empower people and communities, doing things with them rather than to them. Instead of the coalition of chaos offered by Corbyn and Carwyn, the people need the strong and stable leadership of Theresa May.

Can I just first of all remind people the banking crisis was caused by the United States sub-prime market where people were lending money and British banks were buying items over which they had no control? Labour in Westminster saved the banks from collapse. If the banks had collapsed, the whole of our system would have collapsed. Can I just—? [Interruption.] Certainly.

Thank you, Mike—just giving you some of your own medicine there. You’re right to say that the banking crisis was caused by America, but, of course, that Labour Government went into that crisis in 2008 with a deficit of £80 billion. We weren’t starting off from the position we should have been in.

Well, that’s a matter of opinion and I haven’t got time to debate that this afternoon. I hope we have an opportunity to do it again in the future.

You come out of a recession by doing two things: first, you devalue the currency and, secondly, you reflate the economy. The pound floats so it has not gone through a formal devaluation but it has been devalued by between 14 and 20 per cent against the dollar since June 2016. We also know devaluation gives a short-term boost to exports but brings inflation in its wake. As the pound’s value against the dollar has fallen from above 4 to between 1.3 and 1.2 dollars to the pound, we’ll soon be talking about the other way around unless something is done. There is no long-term benefit of devaluation, just a short boost, a kick-start.

Inflation in Britain, in a non-inflationary world, has started to make its way upwards and house prices have started to make their way downwards. We’ve had the boom, now we’re waiting for the bust. Five hundred billion pounds on capital projects will help reflate the economy. Assuming the Government borrows at 2 per cent via Government bonds or direct borrowing, which is probably on a high estimate, then, over 30 years, the capital repayment is less than £1.7 billion a year and interest at 2 per cent would be something like £10 billion—[Interruption.]—yes, I will—and at 4 per cent it would be something like £20 billion. Assuming only half goes on salaries—a low estimate—then each year, via taxes, at least £50 billion will come directly into the Government—actually it more than washes its face and recirculates the money in the economy.

I’d be grateful if you could—because you’ve obviously researched this—name one financier, one person who understands public debt, who would back this policy of putting another £500 billion on the credit card of the United Kingdom. I heard what the Cabinet Secretary said and the IMF do not support that policy.

The OECD do, as do several other economists, including some major American economists. I will write to you and give you the names. I haven’t got them with me at the moment. I didn’t expect to have to answer that. [Interruption.] Paul Krugman I’ve had mentioned to me, but there are several of them in America who believe that.

You borrow for equipment and buildings. We’re not borrowing for wages, we’re borrowing for capital expenditure. We can look to American and British history. Herbert Hoover was the American president at the time of a recession. He turned it into a depression. Hoover pursued many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression; what he didn’t do was reflate. Hoover supported new public works, but not enough of them. So now Britain has a Government to the right of Herbert Hoover. How did America come out of it? By electing Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not a communist, Trotskyist or even a man who would have been considered on the left in world terms at the time; today, he probably would because the world’s moved very much to the right. And he reflated the economy—the Tennessee valley project being one example. The Tories needed the second world war to reflate the British economy by substantial Government borrowing to pay for the second world war. The borrowing that they refused in the pre-second world war period, which would have reflated the economy, had to be paid for during the war. I’m sure the Conservatives look to the 1930s as a period of uninterrupted Tory rule. Labour, and I’m sure Plaid Cymru, look upon it as a period of poverty and desperation for many living in Wales.

I have no time to explain how the Marshall Plan helped rebuild the economy of western Europe. Turning to strong and stable Government, I think the man who talks most about strong and stable Government is President Erdogan, president of Turkey; he’s all about strong and stable Government. Some would think that his strong and stable is not particularly the type of Government we would like. What we have is a Tory Prime Minister who is strong with the weak and weak with the strong. Theresa May is the least suited person to be Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain, and that worked out well, didn’t it? What we want is leadership for the whole country, not just the rich and powerful; a willingness to debate, not run away from leaders’ debates; and a willingness to explain, not sloganize. The best leaders have always listened. The best leaders always will.

Finally on the economy, I am not sure which is the saddest, those on the Conservative benches who know that the economy needs reflating but will vote for this motion, or those who don’t.

This debate this afternoon provides an opportunity to highlight the transformation that has taken place in the United Kingdom economy, thanks to the policies of the Conservative Government. Labour wasted 13 years in power and left behind a dismal economic legacy. I think that our Adam Price must remember very well what he just shouted very clearly and loudly, telling all this Chamber about the doom and gloom that is happening now. Britain had suffered the deepest recession since the war by that Government and Labour in London, not by our party. The country was borrowing £150 billion a year at that time. Unemployment had increased by nearly 0.5 million. Labour’s legacy was one of debt, decline and despair. That was their legacy when we came into power in London. Thanks to decisions the Conservative Government has taken, the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Last year, our economy grew faster than all other advanced economies, except Germany, in the world. The Office for Budget Responsibility upgraded its forecast of UK growth for 2017 to 2 per cent from 1.24 per cent since last November. That’s a great achievement. Employment is at a record high. It is up by 2.8 million since Labour were in power. That’s 2.8 million people with the security of bringing home a regular pay packet to look after their children and family. That is economic growth. We have cut the deficit by almost two thirds. That is not me; they are the world economic forecast figures that we see. Don’t shake your head; this is true. In cash terms, the deficit is down from £150 billion when we came to office to just over £51 billion today. A survey in April showed that activity in the UK manufacturing sector grew at its fastest pace for the last three years. The survey also found that new orders are being received at the fastest rate since January 2014. The service sector accounts for about three fourths of the UK economy. Activity in this sector grew at a faster rate than expected in March this year. Exports are increasing and the trade gap is narrowing. That is where the economy is growing with the policy of London.

Wait a minute. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has not deterred foreign investment, as companies wish to take advantage of our strong and stable economy. Come on, Adam.

Does he accept his own Government’s figures that I quoted that, actually, output per worker in Wales and many parts of the UK is actually still now, in the latest figures, lower than in 2007 when he was elected as a Plaid Cymru AM?

Adam, what I’m saying is this: don’t mix oranges with—. Our economy in Wales, actually, we have been given different funding with the Barnett formula. Our Government is there to answer. Most of our economy is controlled by us here, also. You should not blame London. Your education, transport, health—you name anything. Twenty devolved areas, none of them have reached the level that you are quoting for the other parts of the United Kingdom. They have achieved better than us, and it is you and them, not us who have actually had control of our economy since 1999.

Qatar is a small country, now they are spending £5 billion in the next three years in this part of the world. Why? Because they can see the economic growth coming. Google has announced it will invest £1 billion in a new headquarters in London that could create 3,000 new jobs by 2020. Toyota, Jaguar, Land Rover and McLaren have all announced plans for a £1 million investment in manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom. Seized the opportunity there, Adam. As we all leave the European Union, Britain remains open for business to the whole world. We all are the same. We are the same outward-looking, globally minded, flexible and dynamic country we have always been and we are always here to make sure that the world comes and trades with us and we’ll trade with them. Europe is not the only part. At this point, I have to mention Jeremy Corbyn—[Interruption.]

Are you winding up, please?

Something the First Minister failed to do at his campaign launch on Monday. We cannot allow—[Interruption.]

Are you winding up, please?

We cannot allow—. We cannot allow a Government [Inaudible.]—

Are you winding up, please? Are you winding up, please?

[Continues.]—to put our economy at risk.

No. Thank you. Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a strong and reasonably stable Member of this Assembly, I’m delighted to take part in this debate. It was fair enough for the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to focus upon the Labour Party’s proposal to increase borrowing by £500 billion. Of course, the shadow Chancellor is an avowed Marxist, but I think this policy owes more to Groucho than to Karl. I remember Groucho Marx said politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and then applying the wrong remedy. And that is exactly what the Labour Party’s economic policy amounts to. However, Andrew R.T. Davies’s point might have had more force if it wasn’t for the record of George Osborne as Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he borrowed even more than the £500 billion that Labour now proposes to spend. In fact, he doubled the national debt in the years since 2010, and he borrowed £850 billion, and last year—2016—the national debt rose by £91.5 billion. That is £250 million a day and it amounts to £26,000 now for every single person in the United Kingdom. The interest that we pay on the national debt now amounts to £40 billion a year, which is almost as big as the entire defence budget. This is what the Labour Party always forgets, of course, that the national debt has to be financed and eventually it has to be paid back. Yes, I’ll give way to the Member.

Thanks, Neil Hamilton, for giving way. And you’re quite right to say that the national debt has, of course, increased since 2010, but it’s the deficit that was the point. The deficit has been reduced, and the Chancellor George Osborne was always honest about the fact that it would take a long time to turn this supertanker around. You can’t do it overnight, unless you wanted to cause massive damage to the economy.

It is certainly true that it’s taking a long time to clear the deficit, and the current Chancellor has just extended the date at which he claims we will return to surplus to 2025, or possibly beyond, so I don’t have a great deal of confidence in Conservative chancellors in that frame of mind to live up to their rhetoric.

But I have to say that Plaid Cymru offers no answer to this problem either, because, of course, if Wales were to become independent of the United Kingdom, there would then be a massive fiscal deficit that would have to be plugged. And there’s absolutely no way in which that could be done without bringing about a massive contraction in the Welsh economy, which would actually cause a contraction bigger than Greece has experienced since the financial crisis began, because we all know that the Welsh Government—. We all remember that the Welsh Governance Centre provided us with the figures last year, that there is a £15 billion a year fiscal deficit here and that Government spending is £15 billion more than could be raised from taxes within Wales. That amounts to 24 per cent of the Welsh economy. You cannot, in those circumstances, come forward with grandiose plans for spending on capital projects or any other of the good things that we would all like to spend money on if you haven’t got the money and you haven’t got the means to borrow. Certainly, you will never have the means to borrow if you can’t produce a credible plan for how you’re going to pay it back. I give way to Mike Hedges.

Will you not accept that borrowing for capital is entirely different to borrowing for revenue? It’s the equivalent of having a mortgage to buy a house and borrowing to pay for the food bill.

I agree, of course, obviously, that if a capital project is commercially viable, then it is worth undertaking. The trouble with so many Government capital projects is that they’re not. We’ve seen so many fiascos in so many areas that I don’t think that that’s going to be a very credible policy for spending £500 billion.

As a result of leaving the European Union, we shall, of course, acquire many freedoms to increase the efficiency and productivity, which Adam Price was certainly right to mention in this debate, of the Welsh economy as part of a more productive United Kingdom economy. There is, of course, the Brexit dividend of the money that we pay to Brussels, amounting to about £8 billion a year, which will be available either for deficit reduction or to be spent on the national health service or whatever. There are many other improvements in the way that the economy functions that could flow from the freedoms that we will have to devise for ourselves the systems of regulation that apply in this country, which can be tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Welsh economy.

UKIP is going into this election campaign, as indeed into the Assembly election campaign last May and the general election back in 2015, proposing that we have some significant cuts in public spending in certain areas in order to divert the money elsewhere. We would like to reduce the foreign aid budget by £8 billion in order to divert that into worth-while projects like the health service at home. We’d like to slash people’s electricity bills by £300 a year by getting rid of green taxes that produce the forests of windmills around the country. But, most of all, by controlling immigration, we would restrict wage compression, which has affected adversely those at the bottom of the income scale. The Bank of England did a study in 2015 that shows that for every 10 per cent rise in the proportion of immigrants in an economic sector, semi and unskilled service sector wages reduced by 2 per cent. So, the people who’ve really felt the squeeze of mass immigration are those who can least afford to cope with it.

Adam Price was quite right to point out—my last point in this speech—that Wales has 75 per cent of the national UK average as a wage. Poverty in Wales is a disgrace. We’re one of the poorest areas of western Europe, and we need to use these new freedoms that we get as a result of leaving the European Union in order to transform the Welsh economy from the basket case of the United Kingdom to broad, sunlit uplands of the future.

The aim of this debate today is to highlight the need to lock in the excellent economic progress that the UK Conservative Government has made since taking office, and we don’t want to see any of that put at risk. Of course, it’s Theresa May and the UK Government who have got the plan to boost economic prosperity through the process of Brexit and beyond.

But there are issues with the economy here in Wales: we know that weekly earnings are still the lowest of all four nations; Welsh GVA is still at 71 per cent of the UK average; and the employment rate is lower than in any other part of the UK. The Welsh Government has little economic credibility, I’d say, left after a series of investment failures, which I don’t think have been mentioned today—Triumph Furniture, Kancoat, Newsquest, the regeneration investment fund for Wales, to name a few. Many would be concerned by the First Minister’s recent endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn’s economic approach, as has been highlighted in our motion and by the leader of the opposition in the opening comments to this debate.

Over the past seven years, the UK Conservative Government has—. The deficit has come down by almost two thirds, employment is up by 2.8 million, growth is at 1.8 million in real terms, second only to Germany, and the lowest paid have been taken out of income tax altogether, and there’s a new national living wage. The current forecast is that the UK economy will grow by 2 per cent this year, and wages are forecast to rise every year up until 2021. And isn’t it interesting, of course, that, when Gordon Brown left office, the UK’s infrastructure quality was ranked at thirty-third across the world, behind countries like Namibia and Slovenia? Now, thanks to the steps that the UK Conservative Government has taken, we’re ranked at seventh in world. We’re now supportive of major projects in Wales, of course, as we know, like the Cardiff and Swansea city deals, as well as the north Wales deal as well.

Would the Member give way?

Yes.

Can he confirm that the Conservative manifesto will commit to the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay?

Well, I’m not privy to the negotiations of the Conservative manifesto, but the Conservative manifesto, of course, made that commitment, and did make that commitment, of course, back in the 2015 general election. In the autumn, the Chancellor announced that he will deliver—. He announced that he will deliver £400 million of additional investment over the next five years, and I hope that the Welsh Government spends that and prioritises that in transport, digital infrastructure, housing, and research and development. Because we know that investment in transport networks would create world-class infrastructure and that will lead, of course, to better jobs and better pay. We have huge connectivity issues across Wales and it’s holding back the Welsh economy. I know that only too well in my own constituency. We need new technologies to make it easier for foreign companies to trade here, including investing in and developing digital technology such as broadband and mobile. The UK Government has put in place an ambitious industrial strategy, making Wales a stronger, fairer, and more successful place—

Will you take an intervention?

In a minute. In a moment. But we are—[Interruption.] In a moment. But we are still waiting for the Welsh Government to bring forward its economic strategy over a year—over a year—after it was promised, and, of course, steel is also mentioned extensively in that document as well. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will have news for us today on its plans for its economic strategy. The First Minister continues to blame, put blame, on the UK Government, week after week, but the Welsh Government has powers in its own hands to make decisions here that it’s not using. So, in response to this debate today, I hope the Cabinet Secretary will confirm that he will engage constructively with his UK counterparts to ensure that the full potential of the UK’s industrial strategy will be released here in Wales. The UK Conservative Government has a vision for a modern, successful, ambitious Wales that gets every part of the UK working on all four cylinders, and I hope that the Welsh Government will also share that ambition as well.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’d like to begin by thanking the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this debate in the Chamber today. Today, the gap in the employment rate between Wales and the rest of the UK stands at approximately 1.5 per cent. Before the recession it was 3 per cent. At the start of devolution, it was 6 per cent. It has halved and halved again, and, looking back over the last few years, against the backdrop of the recession and years of austerity budgets, it’s clear that the Welsh economy has performed well—not for the few, but for the many. The Welsh Government has a marked success—a marked success and record of delivery over the last Assembly term. And, since devolution, Wales has had the fifth biggest increase in GVA of all UK nations and regions since devolution.

When, at the time of the economic crash, confidence in the economy dipped and firms began laying off people, it was the leadership shown by this Welsh Government, alongside business, unions, and other partners, that put together the ProAct and ReAct programmes. It was the work that we did that prevented more than 15,000 young people from experiencing unemployment, because we introduced Jobs Growth Wales. And, in the last Assembly term, nearly 150,000 jobs were supported through direct Welsh Government help, with many more in local supply chain networks. To continue to deliver on this success, we’ve set out our priorities in our programme for government. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out a vision of prosperity for all, through delivering a Wales that is more prosperous and secure, a Wales that is more united and connected, more active, more ambitious and learning, and more connected.

Deputy Presiding Officer, austerity imposed by the UK Government has continued now for seven years, and yet the Tories borrowed—

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

And yet the Tories—. I will in a moment. And yet the Tories borrowed more in the last Government than every other Labour Government in history combined.

I do find that ironic. One minute you’re slating us for austerity, the next minute you’re saying we’re borrowing too much, you are, then then, but we heard from the principal Plaid Cymru speaker of a Wales that doesn’t bear any resemblance to the Wales that you were drawing on, Cabinet Secretary. Who’s right? You or him?

I’d agree with Adam Price about regional equality across the UK, and that’s why we’ve been clear in outlining an intervention in Wales that will be based on place-based solutions at a regional level, creating strong regional economies to spread the wealth in a genuine way, which the UK Tories should look at. The Member calls attention to borrowing too much. The Tory Government between 2010 and 2015 had borrowed more than £500 billion, and what did they have to show for it? Well, let’s just have a look at what they had to show for it: the bedroom tax—they gave us a bedroom tax, didn’t they? And the pasty tax. Remember the pasty tax? They’ve now messed up taxes for the self-employed. They gave us, in the past, of course, the infamous poll tax. Do you know what they’re known as in Clwyd South? Taxastrophe Tories. That’s what they are. They’re the masters of higher value added tax. They touted the tampon tax. You cannot trust the Tories with taxes or with public money.

Deputy Presiding Officer, it’s absolutely clear from the calls that we’ve made on the UK Government that austerity must end. We need a fiscal stimulus to support our public services and to increase investment to much-needed economic activities, especially now as we face an unprecedented challenge that requires an unprecedented response. Investing in infrastructure has been recommended by a broad range of bodies, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund. The IMF has repeatedly said that, over the years of Tory Governments, there’s been underinvestment in infrastructure, which must be addressed. The advice from the OECD has been for countries to take advantage of low borrowing costs to fund public investment. Infrastructure investment is a priority for this Government, reflecting evidence that, second only to higher skills, good infrastructure is key to economic development. We’ve sent a clear signal to the market that Wales is open for business, with the commitment of a pipeline of major public-private partnerships. This pipeline includes the completion of the dualling of the A465, the construction of a specialist cancer care facility, and an additional tranche of investment in the next phase of twenty-first century schools.

Deputy Presiding Officer, our track record of supporting 150,000 jobs in the last Assembly term, of fighting for a future for the steel industry, of preventing more than 15,000 young people from experiencing unemployment, of securing record inward investment, highlights that this Welsh Government will continue to stand up for Welsh interests.

Thank you very much. I call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate. Nick Ramsay.

Thank you. Well, if you weren’t aware that the Welsh Conservatives believe in strong and stable leadership before this debate, you are now, and our motion and the contributions made today, certainly from this side of the Chamber, have reiterated the need for that UK leadership to continue beyond 8 June. Now, of course, whilst there is a tangible threat posed to the UK’s economy and well-being by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Welsh Labour Government should be tarred with the same brush. You are probably the most sensible bit of the Labour Party left in the UK. That’s not the greatest of compliments, I know, but take it in the spirit that it’s meant. How ironic that it fell to the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure, Ken Skates, to mount a defence of Jeremy Corbyn—not probably the most Corbynite Member of the front bench, but there we are. The irony wasn’t lost on me, Ken.

You can imagine our disappointment when the First Minister endorsed the proposal to borrow an extra £500 billion. To ratchet up by £500 billion the borrowing requirement that Britain currently has would be nothing short of outrageous. Mind you, you can see that the UK Labour Party may now feel that they have to adopt such outrageous fiscal policies to fund their growing list of unfunded spending commitments—a spending list that would risk sinking the economy, if implemented, into the coalition of chaos that we have spoken about so many times today. And, if that situation happened to the UK economy thanks to the UK Labour Party, it would be the Welsh Government here that would ultimately suffer, whatever political colour that is. Because, if you have an uncontrolled fiscal policy and an uncontrolled borrowing requirement going up over the years to come, then you would not have the money to spend, ultimately, because the money would not be generated across the UK level to come here to support you.

Would the Member give way?

I will.

Can he tell me on how many occasions in the last 100 years the UK has been in surplus and has had no national debt at all?

Debt is an important part, an important fiscal tool, and we have been in debt. But you go back to the 1990s, when the deficit was running around £20 billion, and you look at when the Labour Party left power in 2010, and it’s running at well over £150 billion. So, clearly, it has been an upward trajectory and that needs to be controlled. As Plaid Cymru have entered this debate, can I just say—? I don’t have much time, but I’ll just say this: Adam Price, you spoke passionately but you seemed eager to hang all the problems of Wales on the Conservative party. Well, Adam, it hasn’t been the Conservative party dominating Welsh politics for 100 years. And you know that in your heart of hearts. It wasn’t the Conservatives dominating Britain from 1997 to 2010, when so much of this debt was generated in the first place and left us in this position. And it hasn’t been my party here, my group here, dominating Welsh politics and dominating this Assembly since the advent of devolution in 1997. It’s been the other parties who have been presiding over this. So, if you’ve got problems with the way Wales is looking today—and I understand you have—then don’t look over this side of the Chamber for the problem. Look here for the solutions, but not the problem, because I know where that lies.

Well, the response is quite simple, isn’t it? They’ve been in power in Wales for 100 years. For most of that time in Westminster, you’ve been in power. You are both responsible for the terrible state that our economy and society is in as a nation. Shame on both of you.

And Plaid—[Interruption.] And Plaid Cymru was part of that Welsh Government between 1999 and—[Inaudible.]

You can’t be heard because your mic’s off.

[Inaudible.]—over the last few months. It’s a shame that Plaid Cymru are choosing to attack the Conservative party when the blame does not lie here. Let’s get on with the job of delivering strong and stable leadership for the UK.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting until voting time.

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

The first vote this afternoon is on the Plaid Cymru debate on NHS privatisation. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If this proposal is not agreed, we vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 33, four abstentions, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We now move to the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on borrowing and the economy. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Again, if the motion is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 14, one abstention, 33 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 25, no abstentions—[Interruption.] Sorry. For the amendment 26, no abstentions, 22 against, therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

We now move to the vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. [Interruption.] Excuse me, the vote hasn’t been announced, please. If you want your vote to be carried—[Interruption.] No, in your seat, please. Has everybody who wants to vote voted? Okay, close the vote. For the motion 25, no abstentions, 22 against, therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Caroline Jones to introduce the topic that she has chosen.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’ve chosen to use my short debate today to highlight the amazing work undertaken by a little-known charity in my region, Bulldogs Boxing & Community Activities. The Bulldogs use the power of boxing to involve, educate and inspire young people and their families across Wales, and within Neath Port Talbot in particular, through a broad, five-pillar personal development programme. Based in Baglan, the Bulldogs boxing and community development centre is inspirational, motivating and extraordinary from the moment you enter. It is a centre of opportunity for young people and their families at a time when many other facilities, particularly public sector services, are closing. It brings people together and makes an outstanding and lasting difference to local people’s lives. It is the first of its kind in Wales and is a member of the prestigious Fight for Peace global alumni partnership, which uses boxing and martial arts combined with education and personal development to realise the potential of young people in communities affected by crime and violence.

The Bulldogs five-pillar programme is open to everyone in the community. It is a mix-and-match personal development programme designed to suit individuals. Each of the pillars can be accessed at any time, using as much or as little support as needed. The programme is open to employed and unemployed people regardless of where they live. The main focus of Bulldogs is people under the age of 30, although support is available for all ages. Many of these people come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the Bulldogs believe every person can achieve success with the right guidance, support and motivation, which are available within the five pillars.

The five-pillar programme is an action plan chosen by the persons themselves and made up of: personal development, which uses mentoring and motivation to help build confidence, and teaches life skills and core values by encouraging individuals to take up volunteering; open access, which allows young people free access to the gym and after-school clubs; education, employment and training, which offers employment support, including job-related training and access to local employers and work placements; fitness and boxing to suit every level of fitness and skill; and support services, which bring together multiple agencies.

The five-pillar programme has been adapted to work with specific groups over and above the Bulldogs’ main target group, which includes the Bulldogs employability pathway—a partnership with Jobcentre Plus. They provide extensive employment and training support from their dedicated employability pillar. This is a very successful arm of the Bulldogs and is growing week on week, with success for all ages. Bulldogs well-being: tailored exercise and nutrition programmes creating a healthier community. This is something for everyone at the Bulldogs, starting from the most basic form of exercise up to a high-intensity programme. Bulldogs/SSAFA armed forces drop-in: this is a multi-agency approach to helping those who have served or are currently serving within the armed forces. They also help young people into the services through their employability pathway. Bulldogs laces group: a partnership with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council’s looked-after children’s education services, providing social, emotional and behavioural skills change. Young offenders: a partnership with western bay youth justice, creating exit strategies for young offenders, and using the discipline of boxing to help steer young offenders away from future crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Bulldogs provides a platform for over 30 organisations working in partnership to provide a fighting chance in life for the next generations in and around the Port Talbot areas of the Swansea bay region. I am sure Members will agree with me that their work is truly impressive, as are their results. The Bulldogs first came to my attention because of the work they do with SSAFA, the armed forces charity. My husband, since leaving the army, has been a huge supporter of SSAFA, and helps work to assist ex-service personnel adapt to life on civvy street. He also works with PTSD sufferers, and through this work we became aware of the Bulldogs gym.

The Bulldogs work with service personnel and others suffering with PTSD, offering a safe and friendly environment for sufferers to talk with one another about their experiences, and allowing them to work together to cope with the condition. The Bulldogs work with partner agencies to assist PTSD sufferers. Studies have shown that high intensity sports such as boxing can help manage their PTSD symptoms, and with the Bulldogs gym, PTSD sufferers get access to these sports, as well other people suffering from the condition. The Bulldogs also help those who have served or are currently serving within the armed forces by offering drop-in sessions for the armed forces and veterans.

By bringing like-minded people together, the Bulldogs are helping ex-service personnel cope with the transition to civilian life. As an added benefit, veterans at the gym can help young people who are thinking of joining the armed forces. Many of these young people come from disadvantaged backgrounds and the Bulldogs help them achieve their full potential by providing support and guidance, along with motivation. This approach is also used to steer young offenders away from the youth justice system. The discipline that boxing instils is proven to help steer young offenders away from criminal activity and anti-social behaviour. These benefits aside, increasing physical activity amongst young people is the major benefit of the Bulldogs gym.

As I have said several times, it is a matter of national shame that nearly two thirds of Welsh adults and a third of Welsh children are overweight or obese. We have to do all that we can to increase physical activity amongst young people and children. The Bulldogs gym offers free access to the gym and its facilities to young people during the afternoons, as well as running an after-school drop-in club. By offering these facilities, the Bulldogs help to tackle the obesity crisis head on.

In a recent Health, Social Care and Sport Committee consultation, the British Medical Association highlighted the need to increase access to sporting activities—the opportunities to exercise and undertake leisure pursuits. The BMA estimates that the cost of physical inactivity in Wales is around £650 million per year. Facilities such as those provided by the Bulldogs enable the local community to exercise in a safe and supported environment. They do all this with little public sector support, relying mainly on their charitable activities.

I am extremely grateful to Bulldogs for providing this opportunity to my constituents, but as UKIP’s shadow secretary for health and well-being, I want to see people in the rest of Wales enjoy similar benefits. I would like to see the Welsh Government work with Bulldogs Boxing and Community Activities to explore how this programme can be replicated across the country.

Let’s ensure that every young person in Wales has access to the five-pillar programme. Let’s give young offenders from across the nation a pathway out of crime and anti-social behaviour. Let’s help all our veterans cope with transition to civilian life, and let’s ensure that those living in our towns and cities have access to a Bulldogs of their very own. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Can you just confirm that you’ve given Gareth Bennett a minute of your time?

Yes, I have.

Thank you—Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to Caroline for that account of the work of Bulldogs gym. The work of these kinds of community activity groups is a very important part of the fabric of our society. I’m sure there are such groups in everyone’s constituencies and regions.

In my region, there’s Cardiff Riding School, for instance, located in Pontcanna fields, surrounded by 35 acres of parkland. The school first opened in 1970 and is owned and operated by Cardiff council as part of their leisure provision for residents. This allows the school to offer a variety of lessons and courses at affordable prices for children, adults and, importantly, disabled riders. In addition to horse-riding skills, disabled riders in particular build on their mobility, control, listening skills, co-ordination, self-belief and confidence.

There are some 40 horses and ponies at the school, of which nine are horses owned by others, livery horses, some of which are used in lessons, working livery. The service attracts, on average, 35,000 users per annum. The centre was recently recognised by the Riding for the Disabled Association, which awarded them the first accessibility mark status in Wales. The centre is also approved by the British Horse Society. There are 10 full-time staff at the centre, which is also supported by the Friends of Cardiff Riding School, who organise vital fundraising events and open days. I would like to commend the riding school for the work that it does in maintaining this crucial service, in particular for disabled riders.

Thank you very much. I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to reply to the debate—Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I’m glad to have this opportunity to reply to the debate and I do thank Caroline Jones for leading this debate today and also for telling us about the good work of Bulldogs Boxing and Community Activities. Also, thank you to Gareth Bennett for describing some of the good work done by Cardiff Riding School.

The Welsh Government recognises the benefits of ensuring that communities across the whole of Wales become more active. We want to increase the number of people taking part in sport and physical activity and we know that this is undoubtedly a fundamental part of creating a healthy and active nation.

Sport has the power to reinvigorate community spirit, improve health, build confidence, inspire, and teach people new life skills. It also has the unique ability to transcend common obstacles and bring people together with a common purpose. There are other elements, such as coaching and volunteering, which also play a pivotal role in sport development and can also have a very positive effect on people’s lives.

Our attitude to sport plays an important part in how we live our lives. We know that physical inactivity can drastically shorten our lifespan as well as increasing the likelihood of suffering from chronic diseases. To support this, we need to ensure that there are no barriers to engaging in sport and physical activity, and there are some really good examples where working in partnership is having very positive results.

Earlier this year, I attended the Disability Sport Wales awards. Their vision and mission is to transform lives through the power of sport, driven by their commitment to a Wales where, irrespective of ability, every person has the right to a full and lifelong involvement in sport and physical activity. Disability Sport Wales now supports a community programme with nearly 18,000 members and works with schools and clubs holding a series of events, supported by volunteers.

Of particular interest is their partnership with the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, providing people with opportunities to take part in sport, which has helped to rebuild their lives. I’d like to share with you some of those stories. Angeline, who has a disability, was one of the first young people in Conwy to benefit from the partnership involving Disability Sport Wales and Betsi. Angeline was signposted to Disability Sport Wales by her physiotherapist, and introduced to wheelchair basketball with assistance from coaches and volunteers. I know that this experience has helped build Angeline’s confidence, and her parents tell us that it’s also helped change their daughter’s life.

Mathew, who was bullied in school and not included in football games because the other boys felt he was too slow, was introduced to cricket through Disability Sport Wales. His mother says that it has been wonderful to watch Mathew’s self-confidence grow through his involvement in cricket. He’s interacting with other people now, and laughing and joking, and no longer gets bullied.

James, an active football coach and golfer, before suffering a number of strokes, was given a new sense of determination when he was introduced to the local Disability Sport Wales development officer in Conwy. Through participation in Disability Wales programmes, James has been motivated to reach his goals of rehabilitation and he hopes to participate in competitive golf. There are other examples where sport is helping to support community life.

Our football league clubs are also actively involved in working with young people, mainly from disadvantage backgrounds, who are underachieving, with the aim of helping them improve their educational outcomes. StreetGames Wales, who receive support from Welsh Government via Sport Wales, is encouraging young people based in socially deprived areas by providing a range of doorstep sporting activities, for young people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to take part in sport. They’ve established over 60 doorstep sport clubs in Wales, and aim to become a sustainable part of the fabric of the community.

Via Sport Wales, the Welsh Government has also invested £0.5 million in a partnership with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action to encourage more people from black and minority ethnic communities to participate in sport and further wider benefits. The programme delivers across four areas, including in Swansea. I recently met with Street Football Wales, and I’m really pleased to be backing their work, which focuses on supporting young men and women who have a range of social challenges, by using football as a hook to help them transform their lives. Street Football Wales has supported over 3,900 participants. In a recent survey, 94 per cent of respondents said their confidence and their self-esteem had improved. Ninety-three per cent said their physical health had improved, and 92 per cent said that their mental health had improved. The Football Association of Wales also supports the ‘We Wear The Same Shirt’ campaign, which helps to combat the stigma of mental health through engagement in football.

Welsh gymnastics has made great progress over the last few years, and now has over 20,000 club members, including a specific BME club in Butetown, which I visited in September last year and was completely inspired by.

More recently, in March, I visited one of the Welsh Rugby Union’s school club hub projects in Haverfordwest. The project involves giving girls and boys across 89 hubs in Wales the opportunity to participate in rugby. Through the programme, they receive the invaluable support and guidance of the rugby officers and trained rugby leaders to help them develop a range of skills and acquire knowledge of all aspects of the game, helping to strengthen links to community rugby clubs, and improving the sustainability of club rugby and longer-term player involvement.

It’s also encouraging to see more people looking to become active through Run Wales’s social running groups. The programme aims to play a key role in supporting the NHS in Wales by providing the people of Wales with this inspiration and the support and opportunity to help themselves become healthier, happier, and more physically active. Similarly, Welsh cycling’s Breeze, women-only cycle rides, are proving extremely popular, and this is great news, as it is encouraging more women and girls in Wales to participate in sport, and active recreation is one of our priorities.

The Welsh Government regards any major sporting event as an important step on a journey towards a healthy and active nation. Although difficult to demonstrate a definitive and direct link, there is some evidence to suggest that hosting elite sporting occasions, at which the world’s best perform, helps increase participation levels closer to home. Sporting events here in Wales showcase our sporting venues, and often our beautiful landscapes, and provide a home event in which Welsh athletes can compete, inspiring other people to continue with their chosen sport, or to try new ones. This year’s UEFA Champions League finals are a prime example of this, carrying with them an accompanying legacy programme that will deliver a new community venue, and, through the women’s final, throw a spotlight on the important work to encourage women and girls into sport.

So, I hope I’ve been able to demonstrate how the Welsh Government and Sport Wales are working constructively with a range of partners to help our communities become more active. Sport is undoubtedly an area that contributes significantly to help rebuild and transform people’s lives, and we aim to build upon the momentum we already have to help Wales become a healthier and fitter nation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That brings today’s proceedings to a close.