National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly for Wales to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, and the first question is from Janet Finch-Saunders.

Llywydd, the White Paper, ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’, includes a number of proposals to ensure greater democratic accountability in local government. Consultation responses to this and other aspects of the White Paper are currently being analysed.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, Conwy County Borough Council, as you know, are now planning to move in to brand-new, state of the art buildings, with an original estimated cost of £35 million, but, of course, this was under the previous administration. However, freedom of information revelations now show that this cost has risen from £35 million to £58 million and has the potential to rise further. And that is excluding final accounts and associated maintenance fees. This agreement is essentially a private finance initiative by another name. Previously, under the local government reform process, the Minister made it quite clear that capital expenditure of this nature should not be happening. Given that now, but going forward, how will you seek to address in your forthcoming proposed legislation for local government reform that local authorities are not entering into contracts of this kind of nature that will simply, ultimately, incur huge costs on our future generations and, indeed, our council tax payers?

I thank the Member for the question. I have indeed seen the information that was supplied through FOI requests and, as far as I can see, that information does make it clear that all the decisions that led to the information in the public domain were made in full accordance with the council’s own democratic procedures. However, the White Paper, ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’ does include a proposal for a new legal duty on local authorities to consult with partners and the public in budget setting and to do that annually, and no doubt some of the information that is currently in the public domain would have been in the public domain earlier had that procedure been in place.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the changes that you are proposing is joint boards, which I see as very similar to that of fire and rescue, currently. Do you see the benefits of having joint boards and do you believe that there is great advantage in involving as many members of the local authority as possible in these joint boards so that they can report back not only to their own council, but ensure that they can report back to their own constituents who, ultimately, they, and we, are always responsible to?

Well, I thank Mike Hedges for that question. He’s quite right that the White Paper does propose new regional arrangements exercised through what the White Paper calls ‘joint governance committees’. That model is the one most familiar to local government. It’s the way that cross-border service arrangements are most often currently delivered in Wales. They do draw on other models, such as police authorities in the past, where councillors from different component county councils—I was one, he may well have been one—were sent to represent our county councils on a joint board and then were held accountable to the local authorities from which we proceeded. So, he’s right to say there is a wealth of history in doing things in this way in Wales, and the key to doing them is to make sure that those people who sit on those boards are directly able to account for the decisions they take to their local authorities and to the populations that have elected them.

I thank the Member for the question. The Welsh Government budget funds public services, supports our economy and invests in essential infrastructure. It has defended the people of Wales from the failed and foolish policies of austerity pursued by successive Conservative Chancellors at Westminster.

Well, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Despite local government revenue expenditure per capita in Wales being 75 per cent higher than over the border in England, council tax payers here have a right to ask why their services have been cut, meals on wheels services discontinued, one in five public conveniences closed, a 23 per cent reduction in school crossing patrols, bin collections reduced to once monthly, fly-tipping incidents up by 14 per cent, and 142 schools closed since 2007. What plans do you have in place, moving forward with local government reform, to ensure that our local authorities have a process of careful and responsible spending so to sustain the much valued services our communities rely on?

Well, Llywydd, when constituents ask themselves those questions, they will undoubtedly find the answer in knowing that the reason that local public services are under pressure is because of the sustained actions of the UK Government in reducing the amount of money available for essential public services passed to the National Assembly for Wales and then inevitably having an impact on local authorities as well. This Government has provided Welsh local government, as a result of our budget and our agreement with Plaid Cymru as part of that, with the best settlement that it has had for a number of years. As I’ve said many times in this Chamber—I’ll say it again—it provides them with a period in which they have to plan for more difficult decisions that lie ahead, and those more difficult decisions flow directly from the decisions that have been made by her party in power at Westminster.

Will the Cabinet Secretary comment on recent forecasts by the Construction Industry Training Board that the Welsh Government's groundbreaking £1.4 billion twenty-first century schools programme will play a pivotal part in the positive area of growth, as evidenced in my constituency with the opening of the new Islwyn High School? So, will the Cabinet Secretary join with me and welcome this positive news for Wales and positive news for the Welsh economy and positive news for Welsh jobs?

I thank Rhianon Passmore, of course, for that question and, indeed, I have seen the report of the Construction Industry Training Board for Wales, and it says that construction output in Wales is expected to be stronger than in any other part of the United Kingdom over the four years to 2021. The reason why construction output will be that strong in Wales is, in part at least, due to the nearly £7 billion-worth of capital expenditure set out in our budget for the next four years, investing in schools, investing in housing, investing in transport. All those things bring work to the construction industry and it is why the Construction Industry Training Board for Wales is able to predict that very strong period of output over the next four years.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP’s spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that Theresa May has performed a minor miracle in this election campaign by making Jeremy Corbyn look half electable. If he does pull it off tomorrow and Labour is elected on their platform of increasing corporation tax from its current 19 per cent to 26 per cent, that’s bound to have an adverse economic impact in Wales. Has he done any assessment of the impact on business confidence, business investment and, indeed, wages of such a marked increase in corporation tax?

Well, I would agree with him to the extent that the Conservative election campaign seems to me to be the worst led campaign since the charge of the Light Brigade, and we’re hoping to see the results of that tomorrow. I think he’s quite wrong in trying to draw a direct line between rises in particular forms of taxation and their impact here in Wales. What I am confident of is that a Labour Government elected across the United Kingdom, determined to create the conditions of economic success, determined to invest in the conditions that will lead to economic growth and fair economic growth shared by everybody, can only be to the benefit of people right across Wales.

I can’t believe that the finance Secretary seriously believes that such a staggering increase in corporation tax would have no effect on business confidence, business investment and, indeed, the capacity of companies to pay wages, and therefore the implication is bound to be that the true cost of such increases in business taxes are ultimately felt by ordinary people, both in forms of restrictions in wage increases or, indeed, actual wage decreases and, indeed, in unemployment. In 2009, the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation published a major economic study that concluded that a rise of £100 in corporation tax would reduce wages by £75 through a combination of lower wages and fewer jobs. Does he really believe that that’s in the interests of working people?

Week after week here in the Assembly, Llywydd, we hear the Member offer us his version of supply side economics. He is addicted to the Laffer curve, to which he made indirect reference there. I can’t remember which economist it was—it may have been J.K. Galbraith who said that the real explanatory power of the Laffer curve was that you could describe it to a congressman in six minutes, and you could go on repeating it for six months, and we’ve heard it repeated here for months on end. [Interruption.] Yes, coming up now for years. I simply reject the basic supply side approach that the Member takes. It is his belief that tax cuts lead to economic growth and tax rises lead to economic decline. I simply don’t think that that is borne out by the empirical evidence when these things have been put into practice.

There is massive empirical evidence that proves the opposite of what the finance Secretary is asserting. It’s not my study that I referred to a moment ago; that’s an academic study performed by the wholly independent Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. It must be obvious that if you put up taxes, therefore that has some economic impact, whether through reductions or increases. And given that business taxes reduce the amount of money that companies have available for investment and, indeed, for distribution to shareholders and to employees in the form of wages, there are bound to be very significant repercussions of such a dramatic increase in taxes as Labour is proposing. In those circumstances, it’s bound to have an impact upon Wales in particular. And, as we have only 75 per cent of the average gross value added in the United Kingdom in Wales—we’re the poorest part of the United Kingdom—it’s the poorest people in the poorest part of the United Kingdom who are going to suffer most from a Labour Government.

Llywydd, Bill Clinton raised taxes. Tax take went up and public debt went down. His successor, George W. Bush, cut taxes. Tax take went down and he left office with public debt of 101 per cent of the level that Clinton had bequeathed to him in the final year of his presidency. It’s simply untrue to assert, as the Member does time after time, that there is only one direction in which economies can move, and his prescription, which is to cut taxes, give money to wealthy people, and take it away from people who otherwise would be spending it and creating economic activity, simply would be very damaging to the way we do business in Wales.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

I was wondering if we could return to the demise of the Barnett formula, rumours of which may have been exaggerated. We heard earlier in the week from the First Minister for Wales that it was going to be scrapped. Kezia Dugdale, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, as we know, is on the record as saying,

‘I’ll keep the Barnett formula today, tomorrow and forever’,

which sounds pretty definitive to me. Now, the First Minister said that he has spoken to Kezia Dugdale. Well, on rare occasions, he even speaks to me, but that doesn’t mean that we necessarily agree. So, I was wondering if the Cabinet Secretary could bring his usual calm rigour to this question, and tell us what is meant by the long-term reform of how the UK allocates public expenditure that is set out in the Labour manifesto. Does it necessarily mean removing and replacing the Barnett formula? What’s the timescale of that reform, and when would its effects begin to be felt here in Wales if there is a change of Government at Westminster?

Llywydd, I listened carefully to what the First Minister said yesterday. I thought he was very clear in the position that the Barnett formula will remain in the short and probably into the medium term while its replacement is sought. That replacement will be a fair funding formula for the whole of the United Kingdom, and it will have relative need at its heart.

Let’s look at the short to medium term, then. The Welsh Government signed recently, in January this year, a fiscal framework with the Westminster Government. Would it be the intention of the Welsh Government, if there was a change of Government at Westminster, to revisit that agreement and to renegotiate some aspects of it—for example, the population related revenue risk that is an element within that, the limit on current borrowing and the fact, of course, that the needs assessment with that fiscal framework is already out of date? So, could we have a commitment from the Welsh Government that there will be an immediate renegotiation of that fiscal framework if the political weather in Westminster changes?

Llywydd, the fiscal framework already allows for it to be revisited. There is a mechanism within it that allows both the Welsh Government and the UK Government to require a relook at its terms. A new Government at Westminster will change many things in the relationship between ourselves and the Government that will be formed there. If a Labour Government is formed tomorrow, as we hope it will, then that fiscal framework will be part of that new relationship.

On the wider question of the Barnett formula, could I ask the Cabinet Secretary about something that I find very curious in the Labour manifesto? It sets out the creation of a national investment bank—I absolutely support that principle—a national investment bank with £250 billion of investment, of which £10 billion is to be apportioned to Wales and the development bank that’s being created here. Now, by my calculation, that’s around about 4 per cent of the total for the national investment bank, i.e. Wales is not even getting its population share, let alone a Barnett consequential, effectively, from that investment. And yet, we’re told that this is the tool that is going to reduce the disparity in prosperity across the UK.

Finally, as well, the commitment on structural funds only runs to 2019-20. There is no commitment, actually, beyond that, to creating a long-term cohesion fund as part of a wider regional economic policy. On these two points, why, actually, is the Labour manifesto so incredibly weak in setting out real levers that can actually begin the work of lowering the disparity in wealth that we see across the UK?

Well, I was glad to hear the Member welcome the action that the Labour manifesto sets out to make sure that there will be a major investment in the sort of infrastructure that will be so important to the UK economy and to the Welsh economy. Our manifesto makes it clear that there will be a direct Welsh share in the investment that a new Labour Government will make, and I can say to him that, as far as the continuation of cohesion funds are concerned, my party is committed to the principle that the investment that Wales has been able to draw down from the European Union, based on our relative needs, will continue to be available to Wales post our membership of the European Union.

Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Cabinet Secretary, yesterday, the Welsh Government didn’t move the motion to agree the financial resolution in respect of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill—the first time, I believe, that this has happened, although there have been issues with previous costings for legislation. As Cabinet Secretary for finance, are you concerned that the costings associated with legislation that the Government brings forward seem to be often—at best—woolly, or as was the case yesterday, completely misleading?

Chair, I saw the letter that Alun Davies sent to all Assembly Members explaining why he wasn’t going to move the financial resolution yesterday and giving a very firm commitment to moving such a resolution in September, at which point Members will have an updated regulatory impact assessment. That will give Members the figures that I hope will give them confidence to support that financial resolution.

The general point that Nick Ramsay makes is one to which I would respond by saying that I think it is very important that Welsh Government proposals come forward with as reliable an RIA as is possible. There are circumstances in which assumptions have to be made, and where you have to be able to make the best provision of information that you can in the circumstances, but it is the responsibility of Ministers bringing forward those pieces of legislation to make sure that we have done everything we can to make that information as reliable as it can be, and then for that to be tested by Members here. I know the Finance Committee is doing a piece of work looking at this aspect of the way that the system here in the Assembly works. I look forward to giving evidence to that inquiry, and I’m sure that there will be things that we will be able to take from it that will help us to strengthen the system to provide the sort of reassurances that Nick Ramsay was looking for.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I agree totally with the decision yesterday to delay or postpone the financial agreement of this Assembly to that Bill. In asking the question today, I’m in no way blaming you for some of the problems we’ve had around the costings for legislation; I’m purely asking you because, with your role as Cabinet Secretary for finance, you do have an overall view of the way, financially, that this institution and the Welsh Government operates. So, that’s the reason behind it.

You’ve mentioned the Finance Committee. We did consider it this morning, and as a Member of the Finance Committee that considered the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment in the first instance, I share the Chair’s concern that major changes to that assessment were not shared with us until after the Stage 1 report deadline. It transpired that the Bill will cost £8.3 million over the four-year implementation period, rather than saving £4.8 million. So, I hear what you’re saying, Cabinet Secretary, about how this is an art in as many ways as it is a science in terms of predicting costs, and you can’t always be right, but in this particular case with that Bill that we were discussing yesterday, we’re looking at a difference of over £13 million—£13.1 million—between the prediction and what we now can expect that costing to be. So, these aren’t small details that led to the withdrawal of yesterday’s motion. Can I ask you: what input are you having into the timely provision of accurate financial data for new legislation so that these kinds of inaccuracies don’t happen in future?

Well, Chair, the way that the system works in the National Assembly is that each Minister is directly responsible for the production of the explanatory memoranda and the RIAs that go along with them. There is a piece of work that is done form the centre, through the office of the chief economist, to make sure that the methodology deployed in the RIA is one that would stand up to examination. The particular figures that are then used in that method are the responsibility of the individual Cabinet Secretary. The letter that Members received yesterday from the Member in charge of that Bill explained why the figures as originally anticipated have had to be revisited. I think, as Nick Ramsay said, it is the first time that a financial resolution has been postponed in this way. While I’m certain that the Member in charge would have preferred to have been able to move the financial resolution yesterday, the fact that he has a plan to bring it forward in September shows that the checks and balances in our system have successfully identified the need for further work to be done there.

Thank you. I appreciate fully that it’s the initial responsibility of the Member in charge, but you do, Cabinet Secretary, have an overall responsibility for the financial robustness of the Welsh Government—no easy task, I appreciate. And I do appreciate that the whole process with the regulatory impact assessments is a developing process, and I’m sure that the review being carried out by the Finance Committee under the stewardship of the Chair will deliver you some strong recommendations in that regard.

Cabinet Secretary, we know that this Assembly is passing an increasing amount of legislation, and that will increase further in future. The pressure on officials who provide the financial data and the regulatory impact assessments will also increase inevitably, inexorably, so it’s important that we get this right. This whole process relies on accurate costings and transparency. Will you agree to work ever more closely with departments and Members in charge, working on legislation, to ensure that costings are accurate and that we as Assembly Members and, indeed, ultimately, the public can have confidence that we are keeping—all of us, and the Welsh Government and yourself in particular—a tight grip on finances as legislation is developed, so that the public finances in Wales in respect of the legislation that this place passes can be as robust as possible?

Llywydd, can I just make it clear that I agree with the central thrust of the questions that Nick Ramsay has asked this afternoon? It is an important responsibility of Government, in bringing forward legislation, to make sure that the costings that are attached to it are as thoroughly worked out and as reliable as we can make them. The system that we have is a maturing system. As it matures, we should be able to do better at it. The Finance Committee’s inquiry will, I think, be a helpful contribution to that, and it is the ambition of both myself as the finance Minister and all my Cabinet colleagues, I know, that when we bring proposals to the floor of this Assembly, they are as robustly underpinned by analysis and by data as we can possibly make them.

Question 3 [OAQ(5)0137(FLG)] has been withdrawn.

A great deal of ground remains to be gained before we can be confident that Wales’s democratic institutions fully reflect the population from which they are drawn. Promoting diversity is a responsibility shared by all those with an interest in the health of Welsh democracy.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your response. As it is now 2017 and not 1917, I, along with many others, I’m sure, was dismayed to see the Vale of Glamorgan Council announce a new cabinet that consisted of seven white men following the local council elections. I welcome the Welsh Government’s initiatives to encourage diversity and applaud councils like Caerphilly, which, whilst not quite achieving full gender balance, has appointed four women to a cabinet of nine. If, as I hope, Merthyr council remains in Labour control following the delayed Cyfarthfa ward election tomorrow, I will be encouraging the council to make positive moves towards a gender-balanced cabinet there, but also acknowledge that there’s still much work to do in that council area, too. So, will you join me, Cabinet Secretary, in urging all local authorities in Wales to look at appointing cabinets that are far more reflective of the populations that they serve?

Llywydd, I absolutely agree that it is very important that political leadership at local level reflects the diversity of the communities that that local authority will serve. It is disappointing to see that there will be one council in Wales where diversity is at a pretty low ebb. It is the only local authority in Wales where that will be the case, and there are much better examples in other parts of Wales. There are some interesting new initiatives being tried in parts of Wales. There is a job-share post in the cabinet in Swansea, for example, which is contributing to gender diversity in the cabinet there. So, we see things moving ahead in many parts of Wales. We have four women leaders of councils now confirmed, which is nowhere near enough, but it is twice as many as we had in the last round. I would urge all local authorities and local authority leaders, in forming cabinets, to think about the way in which their local populations will want to see themselves reflected in the leadership that those council cabinets are there to provide.

I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will want to join me in congratulating Councillor James Lusted in Rhos-on-Sea for his election to Conwy County Borough Council. Councillor Jay is the first dwarf councillor elected here in the UK. He’s got a very proud record on disability rights and activism. I wonder what you’ll be doing specifically not just to address this gender issue and problem that there is in Welsh local government politics, but also to ensure that people with disabilities are properly represented as well on local authorities.

I thank the Member for that question and for pointing to the important issue of disability and representation at local authority level. I congratulate all those people who stood for election and those who were successful, and particularly people who, in taking that quite brave step, sometimes, to put yourself in front of the public, will know that there will be some additional challenges that they will face in making themselves known and explaining why they could be somebody who would be able to represent people successfully.

Our diversity and democracy programme, which we ran in the last Assembly from October 2014 to March of this year, came out of the report chaired by Professor Laura McAllister on creating more diversity amongst the population. Fifty-one individuals took part in that programme. Sixty-five councillors volunteered to be mentors to them. It included people with disabilities, and it was designed to try and help overcome some of the barriers that people face in putting themselves forward for election. And where people do it and do it successfully, they are very powerful role models to others who we hope will follow in their footsteps.

I thank the Member for her question. As I just mentioned, prior to the local government elections, the Welsh Government ran a number of projects as part of the diversity in democracy programme. We now intend to undertake a full evaluation of the programme, looking at the people who participated in it and their success in elections, with a view to learning from it and taking the diversity agenda further forward.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I know we’ve already discussed this issue here today—I just want to highlight the achievements of RCT council, where 43 per cent of councillors are women, as are four out of nine cabinet members, and, in fact, in my own constituency more female councillors were elected than male. Clearly, however, from the comments that we’ve heard here today, there is need for progress to be made elsewhere. Is there anything else you can add to the answer that you’ve already given to my colleague Dawn Bowden about how we can take more practical steps as well as urging local councils to follow best practice?

I thank the Member for that question and I share her congratulations to RCT and to the women who stood successfully there, and as I said in my original answer to Dawn Bowden, we are still some way from where we would wish to be in terms of diversity of representation across Wales. But there is some good news in that the number of women elected for the first time to local authorities in Wales in May of this year rose right across Wales, and there are some very talented—and often, young—new people coming into local authorities in Wales, and I think we are fortunate to see that new generation of politicians willing to come forward to do those important jobs. We will work, through the local government data unit, to analyse the patterns of people who are willing to stand and how people were elected in the elections that took place last month. We will look to build on our diversity in democracy programme, working directly with individuals, taking messages into schools, providing information on social media, to try to reach further into communities, to attract a wider range of individuals willing to put themselves forward for these very important responsibilities.

My wife’s 13-year career as a Flintshire councillor was too often characterised by misogynistic bullying. In her first week there, she had a private meeting with the monitoring officer, asking him to ask officers to stop referring to women councillors as ‘Mrs’, when they referred to all male councillors as ‘Councillor’. The next day, she was on the front page of the local paper: ‘Don’t call me “Mrs”.’ More recently, the deputy leader of the council resorted to social media to make misogynist, bullying comments against her, and then reneged on the remedies agreed under the ombudsman’s local resolution procedure.

In the recent local government elections, a supposedly independent chief executive and returning officer e-mailed her with a threatening e-mail, stating if she didn’t remove evidence-based, party-political content from her leaflet, he—quote—would not want to be in the position of having to place a corrective piece in the press and on social media. This, and much more, made her ill, subject to anxiety attacks and no longer able to fight back. Will you agree that this sort of political culture must end if we’re going to bring more women forward into local government, and if you do agree that, what action—what party-blind action—are you going to take?

Well, Llywydd, let me put it positively: I think that there is an obligation on all local authorities, political leadership and professional leadership, to make sure that a context is created in which people from all sorts of backgrounds feel comfortable in taking on the responsibilities of elected office, and that the contributions that they make are properly recognised and respected. In the White Paper that I have published on the reform of local government, we propose new obligations to be placed on leaders of political groups within local authorities to uphold the standards of conduct that we would expect to see, and to make sure that respectful relationships between elected members that recognise diversity and celebrate it rather than attempt to eliminate it are put at the heart of the way that we conduct local government here in Wales.

I thank Russell George for that question. Local authorities own substantial assets in all parts of Wales. Those assets must be effectively managed and deployed to create wider efficiencies within local government and in collaboration with other public service partners.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your answer, which I very, very much welcome. The Newtown bypass is a huge opportunity for Newtown in mid Wales and I’m keen that Newtown town centre is supported when the bypass is completed. Now, there is an area of land owned by Powys County Council and used as a car park in the town centre, but due to an historical clawback provision the area has not been able to be developed or refurnished by the local authority. Now, there have been discussions between the Welsh Government, who seem to be enacting a clawback agreement, and the council but little progress has been made. So, in light of your answer to me, which I’m grateful for, that this land should be used for the best advantage, I would be grateful if you would be willing to meet with me, with your relevant officials, to discuss this in more detail to try and bring a resolution to this particular issue.

I thank the Member for the question. It’s not an issue with which I’m immediately familiar, so I’m perfectly happy to investigate it and to speak with him further about it.

Well, thank you very much, of course, for that question. The Swansea bay city region deal aims to boost the local economy by £1.8 billion, to generate almost 10,000 new jobs, and build on the many indigenous strengths of the whole region.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Now, when the city deal was first developed, the notion of developing the internet coast was very much based on building a digital superhighway connecting the UK and North America, with a transatlantic broadband cable landing at Oxwich bay on Gower. Now, that element now receives less attention than it once did. Can you update us as to the latest position as to the delivery of the transatlantic cable and its importance for the success of the city deal?

Well, Llywydd, the Member is absolutely right that the cable was an integral part of the discussions that began the Swansea city deal, and the leadership that Sir Terry Matthews provided was very much connected with that idea of the internet coast. As the Member will know, the city deal, as finally agreed, has 11 specific projects at its heart. Two of those projects run right across the whole of the region area—that’s investment in digital infrastructure and initiatives to make sure that we develop the skills and talents of those people who live right across the Swansea bay region. The connector, and the way in which it will influence the deal as a whole, will now form part of the development of those project plans, because the final versions of them have to be approved by both the UK and the Welsh Governments, as well as the regional Cabinet that will form part of the governance of the deal.

Well, the leads taking this bid through faced some very rigorous due diligence from both the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and I’m sure that you’ll have envisaged certain milestones being set to mark progress promised, firstly in terms of delivery of that governance structure that you were just talking about, and secondly in terms of the sort of metaphorical spades in the ground, if you like, the actual beginning of spending of money on those projects. When is the first of those milestones in each of those two areas due to be reached and what mechanism is Welsh Government using to monitor progress against its own expectations for the outcomes of the deal?

I thank Suzy Davies for that. She’s quite right to say that the investigation of the deal was a rigorous process involving both Welsh Government and the UK Government. As a result, there are a series of mechanisms either already in place or now to be confirmed to make sure that that sense of rigour continues in the development of the deal in the future. So, the city deal delivery team, which is the on-the-ground team, have to provide quarterly reports of their activity to the UK Government and to the Welsh Government, and we keep on track with it in that quarterly way.

As I said to Dai Lloyd, the 11 projects will not be finally signed off until the submission of full business cases to all partners, and we have an agreed implementation, monitoring and evaluation plan that will be put into practice now, post the local government elections and the coming together of the partners again, so we can be sure that, in advance of implementation, we can all be confident that the deal will deliver in practice the very real promise that it holds out for people right across the Swansea bay city region.

The economy and infrastructure portfolio will invest more than £700 million over four years in new transport infrastructure, and those plans will take account of road safety considerations. In this financial year, we are investing £11.6 million specifically for road safety initiatives across Wales.

Thanks for that. There seems to be a problem developing with school lollipop staff, or road-crossing assistants as they’re sometimes known, because the number has decreased by 23 per cent over the past three years. There isn’t currently any legal duty for councils to keep the crossing assistants, but, of course, they are needed to keep a perception of safe routes and will assist with walking to school and active travel targets. So, I wondered if anything could be done to protect the role of the crossing assistants.

Well, can I agree with the Member that the work that is carried out by crossing patrol staff in Wales is very important? The reasons for the reduction in the number of staff actually are more complex than they first seem. It is true that, as staff retire, councils in different parts of Wales have taken the opportunity to review whether or not a further post is needed. But the larger problem is actually in recruiting people to do this job. It is quite shocking, actually, sometimes, Llywydd, to read of the experience of crossing patrol staff and the abuse that they suffer from motorists in carrying out their jobs, and recruiting people to vacant posts has not been easy. In some parts of Wales, the problem has been partially solved by schools themselves taking a greater interest in filling posts, and town and community councils being willing to assist in that as well. So, there are some solutions that are being attempted. The issue that the Member points to is a real one.

Cabinet Secretary, in the latest year for which we have figures in Wales, 6.6 per cent of all road traffic casualties are cyclists. This is a slight reduction on the previous year, but still the second highest recorded figure since 1984. Do you agree with me that councils, and indeed the Welsh Government in its budget allocations, have to take safe cycle routes seriously, and we need to designate them, not by painting a line near the pavement down the length of the road, but be serious about having exclusive cycle routes to key destinations, particularly in our urban areas?

Llywydd, the most vulnerable road user groups are pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motor cyclists, and we’ve talked a lot in the Chamber here about motor cyclists and actions that can be taken to try to make roads safer for them. The big picture, as the Member knows, is that fatalities in road accidents in Wales have fallen over a 30-year period. The actions that the Welsh Government takes, using the £11.6 million specifically for road safety measures, include actions to support local authorities in the work that they can do to protect cyclists on their roads, and I’m sure that they will be aware of the points that the Member has made this afternoon.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item was questions to the Assembly Commission, but no questions were tabled.

The next item, therefore, is the topical questions. Steffan Lewis.

Will the First Minister make a statement on relations between the Welsh and Qatari Governments following the severing of diplomatic ties with that country by its neighbours? TAQ(5)0649(FM)

The Welsh Government has commercial investment relationships with Qatar. We support Cardiff international airport’s developing relationship with Qatar Airways, with a view to seeing flights between Cardiff and Doha. This is opening up a huge range of long-haul travel options for businesses and tourists.

I thank the leader of the house for that answer. On Monday, several states in the middle east, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic ties with, and imposed economic sanctions on, Qatar, alleging that that country had paid up to $1 billion to blacklisted groups in the region, including an al-Qaeda affiliate. This, of course, is a matter of great concern for us here in Wales. Firstly, Qatar is the world’s largest producer of liquefied natural gas, and its economic and diplomatic isolation in the region raises significant questions about the LNG pipeline and, in particular, the terminal at Milford Haven. I’d be grateful if the leader of the house could give us an indication of any assessment the Welsh Government has made of the impact on LNG in Wales.

Secondly, as the leader of the house has alluded to, Cardiff Airport has secured a direct flight between Cardiff and Qatar, to commence in 2018. Several countries in the region have closed their airspace to flights going to or from Qatar. Has the First Minister been in discussion with Qatar Airways on the possible implications for the planned flight route? And, finally, perhaps above all, the allegations that Qatar has paid up to $1 billion to a terrorist group raises questions about our general relations with them in the future. We are rightly having a debate in this country about our relations with other states in that region with dubious human rights and terrorist records. Is the Welsh Government undertaking a reassessment and a re-evaluation of the commitment that it made earlier this year to have a new, special relationship with Qatar, to quote the First Minister?

Of course, as Steffan Lewis knows, and has said, Qatar has substantial investments in the UK, including in Wales, notably the LNG terminal at Milford Haven. I think that, in terms of your second point—the development of the service and the direct link between the airports and airlines—it’s a huge boost to Wales and it does provide that direct route into one of the world’s fastest growing hub airports, and opens up Wales’s links with the rest of the world, as you say. In fact, in April, Cardiff Airport secured a commercial deal with Qatar Airways to launch this new direct route to Doha, and flights are expected to begin operating in the spring of 2018.

Clearly, in terms of the wider issues that you mention in terms of human rights, I think it is important, again, that I state that the Welsh Government is a strong supporter, for example, of LGBT rights. We expect all people in Wales and across the world, regardless of their sexuality, to be treated equally. And, of course, our strong support for Stonewall Cymru to help build a Wales where people are free to be themselves, prejudice is challenged and our laws protect LGBT people is widely known and respected across the world.

I thank Steffan Lewis for raising this question. I think that the blockade of Qatar also enables us to look at the way in which the Saudis in particular are using the blockade of Yemen to try and achieve political ends and the implications for the whole population of the Yemen, including 17 million people needing humanitarian aid and 10 million people in desperate need of food aid immediately, according to the International Red Cross. I wondered what Wales can do to try and get this raised through the UK Government, through the United Nations, to put a stop to the wholesale elimination of this population, if we do nothing about it. Because the blockade is preventing all the health supplies getting through, which have been destroyed by the Saudi Government.

Well, foreign affairs, of course, as Jenny Rathbone is well aware, isn’t devolved, but we clearly have an interest in what’s happening in the region. We’re in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to monitor developments. It is clearly important and, indeed, today’s question is about our relationships—they are commercial investment relationships with Qatar—but also these points are obviously key points that can be made as a result of this question.

Would the leader of the house agree with me that we should exercise the greatest caution before getting involved in any war of words in relation to internecine disputes in the middle east? Of course, we would deprecate in the strongest possible terms any country financing terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. It’s important to note that Qatar denies any such involvement. But the importance of Qatar to the western economy can’t be underestimated, because they are the world’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, from nowhere 20 years ago. Much of the current dispute actually has its origins in the fact that the northern gas field in Qatar is shared between that country and Iran, and of course Iran and Saudi Arabia are at daggers drawn more generally.

Therefore, we should follow Wales’s principal interests here in maintaining good relations so far as we can with all the participants in this dispute, encouraging further investment by these countries in Wales, and boosting our own economy and the jobs that are available in Wales.

As I’ve already said, foreign affairs are not devolved. We do take our advice, as Neil Hamilton would recognise, from the FCO. We work within UK guidelines for international trade and investment, and the introduction of the new air link between Doha and Cardiff is a commercial deal between Cardiff Airport and Qatar Airways. This is progressing as planned.

We really are in quite a bit of a conflict here, aren’t we? We have two sets of so-called allies disagreeing with themselves about who’s funding what sort of terrorism and extremism whereas—let’s call it out for what it is—both sides are funding their own brand of extremism in the middle east.

Can the Welsh Government do two things that I think are within its remit and perfectly appropriate for the Welsh Government to do in these circumstances? First of all, can you publish a list of your own relationships with Qatar, including ministerial meetings and any trade relationships that the Welsh Government has undertaken in Qatar over the last five years, and what you have been promoting there, so we can understand from the point of view of transparency exactly what has been done? Secondly, can you put pressure on the UK Government to publish the long-awaited report on the funding of extremism in this country, and where the funds of extremism come from, whether that be Saudi Arabia, Qatar or elsewhere in the middle east? And they come in very dubious ways, as we know.

Thirdly, what can you say to the Chamber today and going forward about the relationship of Pembrokeshire with the importation of LNG gas? The land border with Qatar is closed. The air border, if you like, is also closed, in effect. At the moment, the ports are open, and of course it is the shipping that brings the gas to Wales, but any escalation of the problem there could have a real impact on our own economy here in Wales, and in west Wales in particular. So, those three things, I think, are perfectly appropriate for the Welsh Government to do, even though these issues are not devolved.

Thank you very much, Simon Thomas, for very constructive questions. I would like to first draw attention to—and Members will recall—the statement made by the First Minister on 3 May of this year, following his visit to Qatar during that bank holiday weekend to promote stronger commercial ties. I would refer Members back to that statement and also note that, in fact, there had been a visit to Wales by the ambassador of Qatar to the UK on 26 March 2015. I will certainly obviously look at this with the First Minister in terms of any other detail or information that would be relevant following your first question.

I think your second point is important as well in terms of urging the UK Government to report—indeed, I think David Cameron initiated that report in terms of extremism—and we will obviously follow that through as well. I have answered, I think, the question about the investments and Members are clearly aware of Qatar’s substantial investments in the UK, including Wales—of course, that’s jobs in Wales not just at the LNG terminal at Milford Haven, but also to come to Cardiff Airport. And, of course, there is a Qatar investment authority, which is also planning to make further substantial investments in the UK. Of course there is the question of looking at the relations that are developing with countries outside the EU in terms of possible trade links and investment. So, again, I hope that has at least in part answered your questions.

Leader of the house, I think Qatar Airways is going to start the airline next year, as we’ve been told by the First Minister. I know that Qataris at the moment are having a very difficult time improving the country’s world image on terrorism support and others. Also, don’t forget they’re having the football world cup there. So, what are the consequences if Qatar doesn’t come to Wales or some sort of arrangement doesn’t come to a fruitful conclusion within the middle-eastern countries? Where does our Government stand on those issues where there are international co-operation for terrorism in the various countries we were talking about just earlier in this Chamber? Thank you.

Thank you, Mohammad Asghar. I can perhaps give the FCO position, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office position, which is, and I quote:

We hope that a resolution can be found soon and that the Gulf Cooperation Council unity will be restored, and encourage those travelling to Doha from affected countries to check FCO travel advice.

As I said earlier in response to questions, flights are expected to begin operating in spring 2018 next year in terms of the new direct route to Doha. I know that the airport is—. In terms of the deal to introduce that new air link between Cardiff and Doha, it is of course with the airline, not the country or the Government or its capital city. There is regular contact between our Cardiff Airport and Qatar Airways as they’re progressing the establishment of the new route as planned.

Surely the leader of the house will understand that it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do to talk about a special relationship with this state. She referenced LGBT rights; she knows what would happen to me in that country. We should never be in a position of saying that we want to build—and not my words, but the First Minister’s—a special relationship with a country with this kind of appalling human rights record, let alone now continue, it seems—the question really was ‘were we suspending’—that special relationship, in the light of the fact that we can’t ignore—. I mean, I take the point that some of these countries themselves have some questions to answer about their support of Islamist extremism, ideological and violent, but we cannot ignore the fact that most people who assess the situation recognise that Qatar certainly has questions to answer itself. Under those circumstances, Wales should not be entering into a special relationship with a country like that.

Instead of taking the FCO’s advice, why doesn’t she take her own UK Labour Party leader’s advice, who has talked about the difficult conversations that need to happen with Gulf states, and of course Qatar is right at the heart of that? Surely this policy of a special relationship with Qatar has to be suspended while this accusation by its neighbouring states that it is involved in the sponsorship of terrorism continues.

I think, as I’ve said in answer to the questions this afternoon, this is about commercial relationships—commercial investment relationships—with Qatar. And the Member, of course, is fully aware—and we’ve spoken of it this afternoon—of those substantial investments, including, here in Wales, the LNG terminal at Milford Haven, as well as in other parts of the UK. So, it is those commercial investment relationships that we are talking about, and that is clearly what the First Minister said in his statement on 3 May. He very clearly said this is about commercial ties and it is about opportunities, which were, actually, at the time when it was announced, warmly welcomed in terms of that opportunity with Cardiff Airport and, of course, with Qatar Airways. We’ve said already, and we said at the time, and, indeed, it was said certainly in this Chamber, that this was a huge boost for Wales, providing that direct route into the world’s fastest-growing hub airport and opening up Wales’s links with the rest of the world. It is a commercial relationship, and, of course, as I’ve said, we now need to take stock and be very clearly aware of the developments. But I think my answer to Mohammad Asghar also said that we need to look very carefully now at what can be achieved in terms of restoring that unity, particularly in terms of gulf co-operation, and be very clear about our human rights message here in Wales, which I’ve already stated.

I thank the leader of the house.

The next item are the 90-second statements. Mike Hedges.

Morriston Tabernacle: the Tabernacle chapel building is a very special building. George Thomas described the Tabernacle as the non-conformists’ cathedral. Besides being a beautiful chapel, Morriston Tabernacle is a religious and cultural centre in the lower Swansea valley. However, unfortunately, fewer people go to chapel these days. This raises serious questions about the future of the Tabernacle. There has to be a sufficient number of people to fund-raise in order to be eligible for a Cadw grant.

The Tabernacle was described as the largest, the grandest, and the most expensive chapel in Wales by Anthony Jones in his book ‘Welsh Chapels’. Yes, it is a special chapel: an iconic, Grade I listed chapel. The minister, Emlyn Jones, the architect, John Humphrey, and the builder, William Edwards, toured Britain to view the best chapels. The front of the Tabernacle building has eight huge pillars. Inside, there is an exhibition of the work of carpenters in mahogany, with a beautiful choral gallery and a wonderful organ. Following the 1904 revival, Tabernacle’s membership grew to over 1,500. Today, fewer than 100 people attend the chapel. I wonder what the future holds for the Tabernacle.

Jeremy Miles.

On Monday evening, I attended, together with my colleague, David Rees, the volunteer awards evening of Neath Port Talbot Council for Voluntary Service. I had the honour of presenting awards to many of those whose contribution was celebrated that evening, and, as I looked out at the room on Monday evening, I realised that a good number of the people I have met and who have inspired me in my work during the last year were sitting right there in front of me. Whether it be teaching digital skills to others at Melyncrythan community conference or the NPT Homes digital project, the Friends and Neighbours Community Alliance gardeners of Ethel Street, the young cadets of 334 squadron, Team Clarewood, the formerly homeless young people who are now running a social enterprise, the Bryncoch Environment Group, working to protect our local toad population, Canolfan Maerdy, Epilepsy Action, Age Connect, the Friends of Barnardo’s in Neath, or the extraordinary example of my constituent Harri Evans-Mason, who, at the age of only 18, has given so much of his own time and in doing so has inspired others to do the same, these are just some of the many individuals and organisations who give so much every day and often help transform the lives of others.

This week is Volunteers’ Week and so I hope you will all join me in thanking all of those who are volunteers in whatever capacity across Wales and in giving them the recognition they deserve for making our communities better places to live.

Rhun ap Iorwerth.

In Bangor Cathedral today, family, friends and admirers remember, express gratitude for, and celebrate the life of Irfon. We need hardly utter his full name. Irfon Williams came to prominence through his battle with cancer. It was a personal battle for him—a battle for his health and for life itself. That battle required courage and determination, and Irfon showed those qualities in abundance. But Irfon’s battle turned into a battle for everyone who was facing, or who had faced, the same crisis in their life—and everyone who could face it at some point, and that, of course, includes each and every one of us.

It was while helping the tenor Rhys Meirion shave Irfon’s head at the Urdd Eisteddfod in Bala that I first met him after his diagnosis. The goal was to raise money at that time, and raising awareness was equally important to Irfon, and raising awareness—in his words—of the right to a fighting chance, the right to a chance to access treatment, the universal right of everyone to have the opportunity to survive the cruelty of cancer.

It was very fitting that Irfon had become a key member of the panel reviewing patient funding requests in Wales, and that that had resulted in a system that we all hope will lead to greater equity for patients wherever they are. But today, as we send our deepest condolences to his wife, Becky, and the children, we remember Irfon as a gentleman who was, and who will remain, an inspiration to so many.

Thank you.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate, and I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to move this motion in the name of Paul Davies and look at the housing crisis that currently exists in Wales. Successive Welsh Governments have failed to tackle the housing needs that have been quite apparent now for a generation or more. An increasing requirement for social housing, underinvestment since devolution, and the post-2008 economic shock, and just a sheer lack of ambition amongst the Welsh Government, have all led to an overall reduction in house building compared to what we need to do. Instead of addressing housing needs though a whole-market solution based on home ownership and boosting house-building rates for private and social renting, the Welsh Government has decided to chase the mirage of abolishing the right to buy, as if that’s going to be a key part of addressing our housing need, or set targets that, on the face of it, may look encouraging, but when you really dig into the detail are far less ambitious. I refer to the target of 20,000 more affordable homes to be built in the course of this Assembly term, which is just 2,500 more than previous plans. The focus should be exclusively on house building. To quote the Bevan Foundation, not enough new homes are being built to meet projected needs. That simply is the situation we are currently in. In fact, the Welsh Government does not even achieve its own inadequate targets. In 2015-16 just 6,900 homes were built, well short of the Welsh Government’s target of 8,700. In fact, the last time the Welsh Government achieved its own target was in 2007-08, nearly 10 years ago.

If I can talk about the general shortage of homes, I think we’ve had a problem since at least 2004, when successive Welsh Governments—and it’s not just been exclusively Labour-led; Plaid have been in Government as well—have been warned of the impending housing need but have not taken the necessary steps to build more homes. Those on waiting lists in Wales have been estimated at 90,000. That’s the same figure today as was reported in 2011—no progress. Furthermore, it has been estimated by Community Housing Cymru that 8,000 families in Wales have been on an affordable housing waiting list since before the 2011 elections, and a further 2,000 have been on the waiting list since before the 2007 elections. By comparison, English councils have significantly reduced the number of households on their waiting lists: the figure’s fallen by 36 per cent between 2012 and 2016. In the private sector, homeownership is, effectively, beyond many couples even on reasonably good incomes unless they have access to other resources. The average house price in Wales is now 5.8 times the average Welsh salary because—in part, at least—we simply do not build enough homes, and prices rise exorbitantly.

I want to talk about a more rational estimate of housing need. And here, I do, at least, commend the Welsh Government for commissioning an effective report that really looked at this, and I refer to the ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’, which was authored by the late Professor Holmans. That report estimated that Wales needs up to 240,000 new housing units between 2011 and 2031, or 12,000 new units annually. That 12,000 figure is nearly double the number we delivered in 2015-16. So, we’re barely constructing 50 per cent of the new homes that we really need to see if we are going to improve our housing position. But this—what is known as the alternative projection—has been rejected by the Welsh Government. So, they commissioned an alternative projection and they have rejected it. I do think we need to know why that is the case. So, we’re in a situation that, by 2031, even if the Welsh Government succeeds in meeting its own targets—and I’ve indicated that it’s 10 years ago since it met one of its own, or nearly 10 years ago since it met its own target—there will be a shortfall of some 66,000 homes in Wales. I do think this is shocking. Previous generations would be absolutely amazed by this complacency and failure. After the first world war, after the second world war, in the great reforming Labour Government, health and housing were seen as the central social objectives. I think it’s time for us now to state the alternative projection has to be our basis for calculating housing need.

Of course, more houses need more land. It is important, I think, that we identify and make available land for development. The UK Government has pledged to introduce brownfield registers as part of their own housing strategy. Local authorities in England will have to produce and maintain publicly available registers of brownfield sites, and these will be made available to house builders who are seeking to identify suitable sites for new homes. The UK Government has backed this policy up by promising significant funding for brownfield development, because, obviously, the sites very often have to be thoroughly cleaned. By comparison, the Welsh Government has taken a very weak stance on this aspect of housing policy. Its guidance merely says that brownfield sites should, wherever possible, be used in preference. Well, I agree with that, but it’s giving no encouragement for the identification of suitable sites or providing the resources to clean the land. As Edwina Hart confirmed in the fourth Assembly, no money was made available to councils for this purpose by the Welsh Government. It’s just astonishing. As the Residential Landlords Association has stated, the selling of derelict land has multiple positive effects in increasing the potential for homeownership, both social and private, increasing revenue for local authorities through council tax, and leading to many more opportunities for supporting small-scale local businesses.

On that point, I do want to remind people of how economically vital house building is. We’ve seen the decline of the SME sector in this area, and that’s been a real problem. If you look at the previous decades when there was a lot of house building—the 1930s and 1950s in particular, and 1970s as well—the SME sector was really, really key to that success. We’ve pretty much lost that in Wales, and it has to be said that’s happened in other parts of the UK—it’s not exclusively a Welsh problem—but that part of the sector needs to be brought back in. It’s an excellent multiplier and would increase enterprise generated within Wales. For that, we need to increase the number of potential employees trained with the appropriate vocational skills in construction, and, again, this needs key partnership with further education and a better vocational offer in general to those 14 or 18-year-olds in particular that are perhaps looking in this area for future employment. It is very, very important that we do that as quickly as possible.

One of the additional things that I want to bring to this debate is that we need to think more creatively as well. In the design of the urban environment, I think we need a bit of a revolution in making them user-friendly places and seeing pedestrians and cyclists being much more protected, and also the recreational opportunities for people in urban spaces. But I do think we need higher density housing as an option, because providing family units is going to be a real challenge if the old model of more suburbs of semi-detached houses and gardens is going to be the way forward. On the continent, high-density housing does not mean high-rise buildings. There are many good examples now of high-density, attractive family accommodation. For instance, in Amsterdam, there is the Borneo Sporenburg development in a docklands, which looks at three-storey patio houses, which are designed in particular to be attractive spaces for young families and provide general space for occupants outside as well, with many shared facilities. I think that would really be effective. We need really good play facilities and recreation facilities, and I referred the Minister to the work of the London Assembly’s planning committee in this area, and there are many other examples of family-friendly, high-density housing that could be very, very attractive as part of the solution.

Can I just say, Chair, in conclusion that we need new ambition? Housing is a basic need, and it’s vital for our health, and the development rights of children in particular, in appropriate family housing. By increasing vocational skills in the construction sector rapidly, we can create the conditions for a major expansion in house building. We should be aiming for a house building rate of at least 12,000 new units a year, and, in some years, when capacity allows, that target should be 15,000 houses to make up for the wasted years. Our aim should be simple and ambitious: homes for all.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, deputy Deputy Llywydd. I move the amendments, as you noted. We have tabled three amendments to today’s motion, which reflect some elements of the discussion on housing that merit greater scrutiny. The arguments over house prices and the need to assist first-time buyers are often aired. It’s a combination of low wages and uncertain employment, and, therefore, very often, solutions for London aren’t relevant to Wales.

Our first amendment reflects the reality that a number of people in the private rented sector are likely to remain in that sector for a number of years. Therefore, we should aim at improving housing standards in this sector and making them more affordable. It’s clear that letting agency fees are an obstacle for low-income families to move house within the private rented sector. If you are facing paying a fee of hundreds of pounds in order to move, then you are more likely to remain where you are, in inadequate, unsuitable, poor housing. We, as a party, have tabled amendments to previous legislation to abolish these letting agency fees, but things are moving very slowly, and we call on the Welsh Government to abolish these letting fees.

Our second amendment directs us to look at what happens to new homes when they are built. The trend of building new houses everywhere in order to have affordable housing isn’t working, obviously. What is the point of building 20,000 new homes if the vast majority are purchased by buy-to-let investors? We have to look at alternative solutions. Historically, buy-to-let investors have faced fewer barriers than young families who are first-time buyers. That is why we have ‘generation rent’.

We welcome some recent changes to taxation law and further regulation in the sector, but we must go further. Our amendment calls upon the Welsh Government to study ways in which the planning system can be further used to prioritise the building of homes for those who are first-time buyers and families, and to prevent new developments from being dominated excessively by buy-to-let and second-home ownership.

So, to our final amendment. We note that local infrastructure is required to support the building of new homes. It is pointless to build houses that ostensibly look affordable, but without the public transport, active travel and other public series being available locally. Our amendment regrets the fact that austerity has often meant that investment in public services and community facilities hasn’t been possible. In fact, all of these services are contracting and are under threat everywhere. Some proposals for housing development can be ostensibly affordable, but may be unsustainable as a result of economic austerity and hardship.

There has also been a question mark recently over the quality of new homes that are being built, with a report in Westminster last year outlining many problems with the quality of even brand-new houses. So, to conclude, we cannot resolve our housing problems by building everywhere in a climate of cuts and austerity, while the basic challenges of low salaries, uncertain employment and social injustice prevail. Thank you.

I fought an election last year in which my Plaid opponent campaigned on one simple message, which was: Labour wants to build houses on your greenfields. That I won this election demonstrates that people saw through this rather dishonest strategy. [Interruption.] Indeed, I’d say to Nick Ramsay that I’m told the Conservatives, locally, are also given to such tactics on occasion as well, in spite of their motion today.

There is, however, a clear set of problems with planning policy in the Caerphilly borough area. As a councillor, I voted against the proposed Caerphilly local development plan, which was designed to offer a specific area of land for housing on limited greenfield sites in the south of my constituency in order to meet housing demand to protect other green areas. The compromise approach to local development planning is an approach on which not everyone agrees and in which no-one believes, and it demonstrates the flaws of the LDP system and why it will not, ultimately, deliver the houses we need in the areas we need them.

In my view, local development plans should act as a market intervention tool. The current emphasis in development plans on only allocating land in areas that are viable—in other words, profitable—does not allow LDPs to act as that policy intervention tool and will not stimulate the economy in weaker market areas. Indeed, it could be argued that the current market-led strategy effectively speeds up the decline of more deprived areas in the northern Valleys, by actively diverting any growth to stronger market areas such as the Caerphilly basin, which is gridlocked due to transport issues with people trying to get into Cardiff. Further, it undermines the local development plan system as plans can only allocate land in viable market areas, and thus cannot act as a clear policy intervention in those areas where the market is failing. If an LDP is intervening in the market as intended, why go through the time and expense of preparing one at all?

Where the market determines the location of new housing developments, then it will generally not invest in weak housing market areas like the northern Valleys. These weaker housing market areas tend to correlate with areas of deprivation, which are in need of regeneration, and/or areas where the housing stock is in need of diversification. From the Welsh Government’s perspective, a market-led strategy is likely to deliver market housing in areas of high demand, like the Caerphilly basin, which also facilitate higher levels of affordable homes in those areas, and, perhaps from David Melding’s point of view, target met. But in some cases, this is too simplistic a view that seems purely to be based on the number of houses that need to be built and focuses too much on where there is already existing demand. From Caerphilly County Borough Council’s perspective, a market-led strategy places undue pressure on the south of my constituency. It does nothing to aid the regeneration of deprived areas in the northern Valleys, and it does not facilitate development in weaker market areas where viability and profitability is challenging. We therefore need a planning policy that stimulates demands in areas of challenging viability, and to make sure that the infrastructure and jobs are there to make these people want to live in the areas of the northern Valleys. Therefore, it’s not just about existing demand.

With the Valleys taskforce and the forthcoming economic strategy, the Welsh Government has recognised this, but our approach to planning lags behind these excellent economic policy developments. Our planning policy should link directly to the Welsh Government’s forthcoming regional approach to economic strategy and to regional growth deals. The Government has introduced, in the previous Assembly, regional, or what they called ‘strategic development’ plans, which can serve exactly that purpose, yet they are yet to be activated. I see the city deal as an opportunity to activate strategic development plans.

Caerphilly county borough has the second highest out-migration level in Wales, with over 15,000 net outbound commutes by car each day. The majority of these commutes are south to Cardiff and Newport, and anyone who travels here from Caerphilly in the morning, as I do, will know that if you travel by car, then you have to, really, leave the house before 7 o’clock to get here at a reasonable time without spending an hour, at least, on the road. This trend will almost certainly increase over time as Cardiff is seeking to create many new jobs. This level of job provision, combined with the proximity of Cardiff to Caerphilly, will undoubtedly mean many more of my constituents commuting to Cardiff. I therefore welcome the measures that the Welsh Government is taking to provide further employment opportunities in areas like the northern Valleys, and I ask that planning policy keeps up with these changes.

We’re not building enough homes, and, even if we don’t agree on the figures and the targets, I think it looks like we can agree that the bludgeon of the local development plan process just hasn’t been the answer. Housing in my area is becoming increasingly a byword for planning inquiry. As we’ve seen in Penllergaer and Pontarddulais, Swansea council is meeting its very difficult targets by earmarking land on the edge of settlements to build huge new housing estates, the type much beloved by developers, for the reasons that Hefin’s mentioned, and, of course, lenders, and the spirit of Bodelwyddan is still alive and kicking.

After years of underinvestment and strategic leadership from Welsh Government, councils have found themselves in a place where they have to find a record number of new homes all in one go, rather than organising more organically in response to local growth need. And the result is the proliferation of much larger developments, or accumulations of smaller ones in places where the existing infrastructure is already overwhelmed—[Interruption.] Yes, mine’s quite long—it’ll have to be fairly quick.

Okay, I’ll do my very best. Thank you for giving way. In response to that point about the failure to build houses organically over the years so that now there’s a glut that needs to be built, would you accept that it’s the failure of Conservative Governments in the 1980s to replace those houses that were sold off to council tenants, quite rightly, but then an alternative wasn’t built to make up for that?

Well, of course, you know that Conservative policy isn’t that anymore, and we are talking about a period of 30 years, which is two generations in terms of house building. I don’t think it’s fair now to pin the blame on the Conservative Government of a time when I was in school, and I’m now old enough to have a Saga holiday.

The cost of these new developments in places where, perhaps, they’re not best situated also has an element of outstripping the developer’s desired profit margin. So, things like section 106 agreements and the new infrastructure levy, actually, don’t meet the overall costs of changes to infrastructure that are needed in these difficult-to-develop places. And, if you’ve been leafleting, you know the kind of place I mean—there’s nothing wrong with the houses, and they’re usually a good mixture of types of stock as well, but they’re often very, very low in social amenities, because the presumption is that you have a car. They’re remotely located and irresponsive to observations put forward about lack of doctors’ surgeries or those huge traffic queues for people going to work or school.

Developments of this kind will always meet pushback, not from Nimbys, but from people with genuine concerns about infrastructure and from those who we were speaking about only just yesterday, actually—people whose whole identity is tied up in their sense of landscape. It’s nearly always confrontational between planner and community, and not infrequently divisive.

From my perspective, despite being of mixed stock, there’s no demonstrable thought given to how an estate may meet the differing needs of an individual family over time—things like the adaptability of each type of property, the layout and how accessible are the main rooms to someone who might develop mobility problems. Is there enough space at ground level for an extension, for example? Are there properties on the development—

Yes, okay.

On Monday, I opened a development of 24 homes on a brownfield site that had been abandoned for years. Do you not think that more of those sorts of small-scale developments, as part of existing communities, are part of the way forward, rather than massive developments plonked in the middle of nowhere with no transport connections?

Yes, with an extra ‘yes’, Jenny. I absolutely do agree with that.

But this issue of adaptability of properties, I think, is something we do definitely need to take seriously, because, so often on these estates, you’ll find that, particularly in the big ones, older people’s properties, if I can call them that—people who want to downsize and may have some mobility problems—tend to be tucked away, on the grounds that it’s nice and quiet, in places where people don’t necessarily see them, where isolation can develop unobserved, where there’s no social space, where young children will never see and come to know the older people on their estates. There are questions like, ‘Is there sufficient parking for care workers to visit?’, for example, and ‘Is there an accessible bus service to the nearest surgery?’ The answer to those questions is, quite often, ‘no.’ These are more densely populated than the estates of the 1960s and 1970s, with which I’m familiar, yet without the level of public transport or other amenities, the sad thing is these estates still don’t even meet demand.

That’s why I’m interested in what David was saying about how families could live differently in towns and cities, not least because density lends itself to mutuals and shared models of ownership, which are very appealing, I think. High-density urban living is not an argument to depopulate rural Wales; it’s not a notion that will necessarily transfer well to the countryside, although rural towns may have something to take from this. I’m thinking of Aberystwyth, where there’s now a provision gap between those run-down HMOs deserted by students and the city-living style flats with their rent that is double that of a house out in the hinterland villages.

I appreciate I’m running out of time, Chair. The Cabinet Secretary knows my views on redeveloping HMOs into proper family homes, so I hope he’ll bear that in mind, but also, perhaps, consider using Help to Buy for refurbishment of homes, which allows our small construction companies—. Only one in five of our houses are built by small builders; they’re built by big conglomerates, normally. Using Help to Buy to refurbish houses in the centre of towns, I think, is a small contribution towards solving the housing problem. Sorry, I hope that’s okay. Thank you.

Can I start by thanking the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this motion, as, undoubtedly, affordable housing generally, and tackling homelessness in particular, are amongst the biggest issues I think that are facing our country today? Whilst the motion is primarily around house building, I’d like to widen my contribution to focus on the causes of homelessness and possible ways of tackling that problem, of which building affordable homes is one.

Within that, like others, I clearly welcome the commitment from the Welsh Government to build 20,000 new affordable homes by the end of this Assembly, a commitment that I know remains resolute. Contrast that, if you will, to the Tories in England. Their flagship pledge at the time of the launch of their manifesto was that they would build a new generation of social housing, but, within weeks, we witnessed yet another Theresa May weak and wobbly u-turn, with her housing Minister admitting that planned homes would actually be of the significantly less affordable type. Ironic, then, in terms of this motion. Well, possibly. But that’s not the real irony, as far as I’m concerned. When we hear Conservative Members speaking in this Chamber about housing and around problems of homelessness, I wonder when they’re going to have the honesty to acknowledge that their Westminster Government’s austerity measures are a key factor in exacerbating the problems of homelessness in Wales and across the whole of the UK as, incidentally, is the legacy of Thatcher’s Government’s right-to-buy policy that Lee Waters referred to, which decimated social housing stock across the whole of the UK, and from which, 30 years ago or not, we have still not recovered. Those austerity measures that I referred to include the insidious bedroom tax, with the devastating impact on many low-income families. And should the Tories be re-elected tomorrow, we’ll see caps on local housing allowances, which will adversely affect those, particularly, under the age of 35.

Llywydd, only two weeks ago, everyone in this Chamber joined me in condemning the disgraceful practice of landlords offering property rent free or at nominal sums in return for sexual favours, but it is the Westminster Tory policies that are creating an environment where this flourishes. In Wales, at present, nearly 0.25 million people are claiming housing benefits, of which 100,000 are housing association tenants. For those in the greatest need, it is almost certain that the current level of benefits will not cover the cost of rents and service charges, placing the most vulnerable in our society at risk of becoming homeless. So, 20,000 new affordable homes here in Wales would be a significant development, and a Westminster Labour Government after tomorrow, which would reverse the Tory benefit cuts, would help the plight of those facing the prospect of homelessness.

But we also need to address what we can do to help those who are already homeless. As I’ve mentioned before, I spent some time over the winter helping at the night shelter in Merthyr Tydfil, and that brought home to me very starkly the cycle of despair into which the homeless can often fall. With no fixed address, it is very hard to gain employment, and even for those able to gain employment and able to put aside enough to rent a property, the very fact of their homeless status means that many prospective landlords are unwilling to accept bond payments from them and they are generally unable to provide a guarantor for their tenancy. One solution to this particular problem could be the greater use of the Government or local authority acting as the guarantor of last resort for such tenancies—a scheme that I know has operated successfully in some parts of the country. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary recently joined me in applauding the initiative by Merthyr Valleys Homes in trialling the use of shipping containers for conversion into temporary accommodation: something that, perhaps, other local authority areas could also look at.

And then, of course, there are examples from other countries—David Melding did touch on that—of innovative approaches to tackling housing shortages that we should look at and give serious consideration to. In France, there is the IGLOO approach, and I assure you that’s not about building ice houses. That’s an initiative developed by representatives of social housing federations, social integration groups and trade unions, looking specifically at the provision of housing for vulnerable and excluded households. In Finland, a rare example of a European country where homelessness has decreased, there is ‘housing first’, which is a staircase model, supporting the transition of people from the street to night shelter, to hostel, to transitional housing units and then into their own independent accommodation.

So, in conclusion, deputy Llywydd, let’s of course have the discussions about the need for new affordable homes, but rather than getting bogged down on the methodology of just calculating the numbers needed, let’s also commit to tackling the underlying causes of our housing problems.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I could spend my whole contribution trying to take apart the Member for Merthyr’s various accusations. I do think that one accusation is beneath her, in fairness: the accusation she put to the Conservatives that the reason people sell their bodies for housing is because of Conservative policies. I do think that is something that I hope she will reflect on, and maybe come to a more considered point of view.

It is a fact, as David Melding said in his opening remarks, that a whole-market solution is what is required. Because actually, if you look at housing in isolation in one part of it, you will never solve the overall dynamics in the housing market, which is: we haven’t got enough houses—full stop. That is the simple equation. As David pointed out, if we carry on on the current trajectory, and you actually do hit your targets—and there’s not much evidence that you are hitting targets—we’re going to be 66,000 houses short by the year 2030. I think I heard you correctly—or 2031, as such, then. And that’s just on a Wales basis. That’s a huge deficit in the market. Ultimately, for first-time buyers, retirees and those in the middle, that’s going to create a huge pressure on price and make it more unaffordable for people to actually get onto the housing ladder and their stake in society, whether that will be in the rented sector or in the purchase sector. Hopefully, we can all agree with that.

What is disappointing is the current approach of the Welsh Government. I know that, since May of last year, we’ve had the EU referendum, we’ve had the local government elections, and we’re now—tomorrow—going to have the general election, but actually, this Government is in its infancy, if you like; it should be blazing a trail with bright, new ideas coming forward to answer one of the great challenges that we, as a society, do face: how are we going to provide that mixed housing solution? I can see the Cabinet Secretary saying ‘We are’. The evidence is not there, Cabinet Secretary. It clearly is not there, especially when you look at the issues that people are finding in any community the length and breadth of Wales of not being able to secure that roof over their head—that opportunity to have their stake in society. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute, Jenny. I hope the Cabinet Secretary, in his contribution today, will talk—because it has been brought forward about the spatial planning that was brought forward by the then Minister, Andrew Davies, but I think now has moved into the national development framework—about how that is developing, to look at planning on a regional basis. Because it is fair to say that, sometimes, councils are very parochial in the way they look, trying to meet the overall demand of what we as a country and we as a society need. I’ll take the intervention.

Thank you very much. Will you agree with me that there are three challenges? One is the absolute unaffordability of housing. If we’ve got 0.25 million people on housing benefit, that tells you that the cost of homes is completely unaffordable, and it’s certainly not possible for people on average earnings to be able to afford a mortgage at current prices.

No. 2: we need to ensure that we’ve got a release of brownfield sites—you know, all public bodies and some private bodies are sitting on land that they could be releasing for housing. No. 3: we need to get the financiers to release the money for the imaginative schemes, particularly carbon neutral schemes, which are readily made in Wales, available and tried and tested, which I’m sure people want to live in if it’s going to cut their energy bills massively by having these warm homes.

I wouldn’t disagree with much of what you’ve just said there, to be honest with you. It goes back to the point that I’ve been making: it is a supply-and-demand situation that we face. That’s why I hope the Cabinet Secretary will use his opportunity today, when I’ve talked about the national development framework that I believe is quite central to the way the Government is going to drive some of the bigger schemes regionally that could unleash considerable amounts of money to develop infrastructure projects, such as transport infrastructure projects, and co-sponsor the metro scheme here in south Wales, in particular—. I think I’m correct in saying that, and I’m looking for clarification from the Cabinet Secretary, because, obviously, that section 106 levying of moneys out of developments is well understood locally, and with the current constraints on public finances, we know the public purse just hasn’t got the money to develop a lot of these infrastructure opportunities.

It is a fact that, when I go around my own area of South Wales Central—and that has been very contentious about house building, especially in the Cardiff area—actually most people get that we need more houses. What they are vehemently opposed to is large developments built without the solutions being put in place in the first place—you know, the transport infrastructure, the GP surgeries, the education. If people can have confidence that those solutions are there, by and large they are accepting that there is a need for housing. I should have declared an interest here because I’ve got four young children. Well, not young children—they’re in their teens now, going into their twenties. In a couple of years’ time, they are going to be looking to get their foot on the property ladder as well. I’m sure many Members in this Chamber are in the same situation. You do look at the pricing of housing at the moment and the way that people are going to be able to afford it going forward, and there is a disconnect with the way that people can afford to get their stake in society. Because from a Conservative point of view, that’s how I see housing: it’s a stake in society—your stake in the community. We want to make sure that we can unlock that door of opportunity. As David said in his opening remarks, it is also a massive driver of training potential, economic development and regeneration.

So, I do hope, when we get to the other side of tomorrow—the general election—and we put the three elections behind us that we’ve had in the last 12 months, that actually politically in this institution we can radically embrace some of the radical solutions that we will require to meet the housing deficit that we have the length and breadth of Wales. Because if we don’t, we’re going to be left behind as a country. And with the development of metro mayors across the border, which is developing huge infrastructure projects and regeneration opportunities based around housing developments, then those big multinationals, whether we like them or not, will take their investment on the eastern side of Offa’s Dyke, and won’t come into the western side of Offa’s Dyke, and that’ll be a missed opportunity, not just for this Government, but for the people of Wales.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today’s debate on a very important issue of affordable housing, and in particular affordable housing for young people. There are a variety of different ways in which we can take measures to help young people onto the housing ladder, some of which have been tried by the Government here in Cardiff Bay, but problems persist. The major problem that has been identified by other speakers today is house price inflation outstripping wage increases. So, house prices, even in the south Wales Valleys, which a few years ago were known for relatively low prices, are now beyond the reach of many young people.

The average new build in the Rhondda and Cynon valleys seems to be about £160,000 currently. Average wages for young people are probably between about £15,000, which is roughly the minimum wage level, and £20,000. So, as was identified just now—I think Jenny mentioned it as well—the massive problem is getting from those wage levels on to the kind of money that’s needed to get on the housing ladder. You’ve got two problems: one is saving for the deposit and the other is getting a mortgage on a relatively low salary. So, for many young people, new builds are now way out of their price range. Old terraced houses in the Valleys can still be purchased in some places for about £60,000. But Help to Buy only applies to new build. So, I wonder: should there be any extension of this provision or should there be a similar scheme applying to old build properties to help young people get onto the housing ladder through moving into old houses—relatively old houses?

We do have the Government’s schemes at the moment, one of which is rent to own. I have struggled to find much information on this, and Hannah Blythyn raised the issue recently in the Chamber that information on Help to Buy and rent to own was often difficult to access. Many people are simply not aware of rent to own in my experience, and there is very little information on the Government’s own website about this scheme. So, is anything being done to better publicise these schemes?

One of Plaid’s amendments deals with letting agency fees, which is also presenting a problem for young people, as their amendment recognises. We have wanted a ban on unwanted letting agency fees as well in the past. Now, the Minister has intimated recently, I think, that he would be sympathetic to possibly supporting a private Member’s Bill on this subject, and I think he also said he was looking at the evidence from Scotland, where they did bring in a letting agency ban. There were worries that that might drive up rents, as landlords and agencies seek to recoup the lost fees by simply putting up rents, but I’m not sure there was any evidence to suggest that that was happening. So, I wonder: has the Minister now had time to assess the situation that exists in Scotland, and what are his thoughts now on the letting agency fees situation? Thanks.

I’d like now to call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd, and I thank and welcome this debate today from the Conservative Party. The availability of sustainable housing is a key priority for this Government, and even the UK Government appears now to be waking up to the importance of this issue, judging by their recent White Paper. We welcome their belated conversion. Indeed, Dawn Bowden was right about the launch of the White Paper and the targets within that, only for, a few weeks later, those targets to be dropped by Theresa May and her team.

We recognise the challenges that exist in the Welsh housing sector, Llywydd, based on the principal projection of need in the Holmans report. Wales has, with 5,300 market housing completions a year over the last two years, achieved the numbers identified in that sector, and we will work to increase that still further.

I listened very carefully to David Melding’s contribution, and again very eloquently delivered, but he does live in his own housing bubble, it appears, with his numbers that he chooses to bring to this Chamber. Indeed, Donald Trump would be proud of the fake news-style numbers that the Member uses. Let me share with the Members in the Chamber the real situation of housing, particularly under the Conservative administration. House building under the Tories has fallen to its lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. I know they don't like talking about the 1980s or the 1970s, but let's give some numbers here. An analysis of house building going back more than a century shows that recent Conservative rule, under Cameron and May, has seen the lowest average house build since Stanley Baldwin—your friends again—in Downing Street in 1923. Official statistics; not mine—this was from the House of Commons Library.

An average of 127,000 homes a year have been built in England and Wales since the Tories took office in 2010. [Interruption.] They're all gabbling; they don't like it. The facts are the facts. This is the lowest level of any Government since 1923 that's delivered anything. The target for the housing Bill was dropped by the UK Government under the flagship policy—

I'm more than happy to give way to the Member.

I do thank the Minister for putting on the record that we do not build enough houses in the United Kingdom. He's right on that, and, you know, I've heard his reflections on past Conservative Governments. In the current Conservative manifesto, there's a commitment to build 1.5 million homes between now and 2022. That would mean 75,000 more homes in Wales in that same period. You will build less than half that. Do you think your response is adequate?

Why would we start believing you now, when we've seen Theresa May turn on her policies year on year? The facts are that, since 1923, you are lower in this term of government than any other Government, Labour or Conservative. You've got not a leg to stand on.

I acknowledge more needs to be done, Llywydd, to meet the needs for social housing, and I am committed to doing all we can to achieve this. Welsh Government interventions cannot solely be responsible for delivering every home in Wales, either, but we are investing record levels of funding in this term of government—£1.3 billion to support the housing sector across tenures. I am proud of the record in supporting both social and market housing. In the last term of government, we set a target of 10,000 affordable homes, and we were able to deliver 11,500. I think, Andrew, in your contribution, you failed to recognise that we exceeded the targets that we’d set in our last term of government. And in this term of government, we set a target of delivering 20,000 affordable homes, including 6,000 through Help to Buy. The inclusion of Help to Buy reflects the success of the scheme and the importance we are placing on helping those who, as many made reference to, wish to become home owners, as well as those who require social housing.

Amongst those who wish to become home owners, we know there are people who aspire to own their own home but cannot save the deposit while often paying high rates in the private sector. And officials are in the process of developing a scheme, rent to own—that's why the Member won't find anything online, because we haven't launched the scheme yet, but we will be over these next coming months—which will help people to achieve home ownership without any deposit, provided they can afford the market rent.

We rely on our partners in local authorities, housing associations and the private sector to construct the homes we need in Wales, and we all need to listen to, and act on, some of the issues they face in seeking to build more homes. Government, Assembly Members, local councillors, house builders must be willing to work together to address the barriers to house building. I was particularly interested in the contributions of the Conservative Members. I mean, half of the millionaires on the front row, Llywydd, have written to me complaining about housing developments in the past. So, one minute they want housing, and the next minute they don't want housing. So, I don't know what particularly they want. [Interruption.] I'm more than happy to take it if I've got time.

Who on earth are the millionaires, then?

Okay, I will withdraw that. Half the millionaires who aren't on the front row have written to me in terms of not applying new homes.

Llywydd, I'm particularly keen to see SME house builders enter and re-enter the housing building sector. And the number of new homes being built in the UK by SMEs has fallen from around two thirds in the late 1980s to more than a quarter. Now, I plan to make a further announcement in the near future on how we can strengthen our support for SMEs.

Llywydd, I mentioned earlier I want to see a step change in how housing is delivered. I believe there is an opportunity to adopt a new approach to design and delivery. That's why I launched the £20 million innovative housing programme to specifically support alternative and new approaches to building houses, which will help the need of the challenges that Jenny Rathbone has raised with me on many occasions. Alternative, modern methods of construction give us the opportunity to bring people into the housing industry with a different skill set, and new design and delivery can help broaden the labour workforce who can contribute to home building.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Could you explain why it is in this country that house builders generally are so averse to timber-framed housing when they are commonplace in the United States, Canada and in Scandinavia? What is it? Is it the financiers, or is it the house builders who are too conservative and only want to build the less than adequate housing they’re currently building?

I think there’s a little bit of both between home builders and developers and the general public. It’s about acceptance that there’s an opportunity to build and construct with other methods of construction. That’s where the innovation fund—. I’ve started that, and I’ll be making some announcements very soon on new opportunities. I’m sure the Member will be delighted when she hears some of those proposals that will be coming forward. I will be making that, as I said, in the next few weeks, including issues around guidance and funding to drive better alternatives to rough sleeping.

Llywydd, you cannot build homes without land, and Members have raised that issue in the Chamber today. We will continue—and I have already had discussions with Ken Skates and Lesley Griffiths on how we can increase the availability of public-owned land to support house building. We are in the process of legislating to end the right to buy and right to acquire. Unlike the UK Government, we believe this is the only way to protect the social housing stock from further reduction, and while giving councils and housing associations the confidence to build new homes, for many people social housing represents their only chance of a home, and we’re determined to ensure it’s continued with increased availability.

We have a strong track record of bringing empty homes back into market—over 7,500 in the last term of government. Local authorities have a range of powers available to them to accelerate this. Llywydd, there is still much more to do, as I said, though we are making real progress. Statistics released today show that during 2016-17 the number of new dwellings started increased by 2 per cent compared to previous years, and this is the second-highest annual recorded number since 2007-8.

Working with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, I’m keen to use the planning system to increase house building. I listened to Hefin’s contribution and I know he’s made strong representation about processes in the LDP. I think we do have opportunities with the regional development plans that Andrew Davies made reference to in the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. Unfortunately, yet again, that was a very progressive piece of legislation that you chose to vote against. So, one minute you want it and the next minute you don’t. I can’t really understand where you’re coming from. I recognise the importance of infrastructure in public services, but people still need homes and they cannot wait for the end of austerity. So, I cannot support amendment 4. I can, however, assure you that I will be working to align strategic infrastructure projects such as the metro, as the Member raised, with our house building programme.

It is no surprise that I cannot support the Conservative motion. Unlike the Government’s amendment, it fails to set out a comprehensive programme of practical action to meet the wide variety of housing needs in Wales. We can argue for hours about the precise details. David Melding said we should set ourselves out; well, this Government is getting on with the job, alongside our partners in the public and private sectors, rather than the academic arguments that the Member uses—playing the blame game in Wales while we meet the needs of housing here in Wales. Diolch.

I now call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Thank you to all contributors.

In 1999, when Labour first came to power, there was no housing supply crisis in Wales, but they slashed the housing budgets and in their first three terms cut the supply of new affordable housing by 71 per cent. That is why we have a housing supply crisis. As David Melding said, for a generation successive Welsh Governments have failed to tackle the housing crisis in Wales, pursuing mirages rather than addressing housing need. It was the second Assembly when the housing sector came together to start warning the Welsh Government there would be a housing crisis if they didn’t listen. What the Welsh Government did when I brought forward motions supporting the sector’s voice on that was put down amendments to remove the words ‘housing crisis’ rather than to address the warnings from the sector.

As David said, by 2031, unless the Welsh Government change tack, there will be a 66,000 shortage of homes in Wales. As he said, we need ambition because housing is a basic need—we need homes for all. He referred to land, and, as Community Housing Cymru have said, ‘What action is the Welsh Government taking to increase the supply of public land for housing at a price that reflects the social value that they will offer the people of Wales?’ I received that this morning. That’s not history: that’s current.

Dai Lloyd emphasised the need to focus on housing standards and making housing more affordable. Hefin David: the need to invest in weak housing areas and link this to employment opportunities; Suzy Davies: the local development plan process had not been the answer and we need to use housing to stimulate sustainable community regeneration. Dawn Bowden talked about England focusing on less affordable housing, that the Tories in England are focusing on less affordable housing. Well, what England’s doing is focusing primarily on intermediate rent, which is also included within the Welsh Government’s 20,000 target. So, if one’s wrong, both are wrong. That seems a little bit odd. She referred to—again contrasting with England—. Since 2010, more than twice as many council homes have been built in England than in all the 13 years combined with the previous Labour Government, when English waiting lists nearly doubled as the number of social homes for rent in England were cut by 421,000. That’s the reality. Andrew R.T. Davies said we’d not got enough homes, full stop. We need to face the challenge also driving the wider training and economic agenda. Gareth Bennett: house prices outstripping wages. Of course, they are; that’s a symptom of the housing supply crisis.

The Cabinet Secretary showed that he was living in his own housing bubble. Of course, he has form. He’s been the housing Minister before and he, therefore, shares culpability for the crisis the people of Wales are facing in this area. He said house building in England had fallen under the Tories to the lowest level since the 1990s. Well, in reality the 2012 UK housing review said it was the Welsh Government itself that gave housing lower priority in its overall budgets. In 2013, Wales was the only part of the UK to see a fall in new home registrations. In 2015, Wales was the only nation in the UK to decrease new home registrations. Even last year, Wales was the only UK nation to see new home completions go backwards. That’s the reality.

In addition to the Holman report that David Melding referred to, we had two reports in 2015 from the house building industry. We had the 2015 report from the Chartered Institute of Housing, we’ve had the 2015 report from the Bevan Foundation, a report from the Federation of Master Builders, all saying that we needed somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 houses a year, including 5,000 social homes, which this supposedly caring, supposedly socially just Welsh Government ignored. Instead, we’ve got their cynical 20,000 target amounting to just 4,000 affordable homes during the whole Assembly term and that’s inflated by adding intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership to their targets. Housing developers have also repeatedly warned for years and years that the cumulative cost of Labour’s anti-housing legislation and regulations will reduce housing investment in Wales. Well, the figures speak for themselves in that respect.

So, I’ll conclude by simply saying, as the evidence shows, that behind the rhetoric, Labour’s betrayal over housing in Wales for the last 17, 18 years has been perhaps the greatest social injustice inflicted on the people of Wales since they took control in 1999. It’s about time they stopped shaking their heads, they stopped denying the truth, they stopped passing the buck—which they were doing long before the credit crunch, long before the 2010 change of Government—and they started admitting they got it wrong and perhaps, belatedly, trying to do something about it.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

I move on now to item 6, the Plaid Cymru debate on the agriculture industry and Brexit, and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you, Chair, and I do move the motion in the name of Plaid Cymru, and remind ourselves that tomorrow we will be making a very significant decision—all of us—as to how we are going to negotiate a way to leave the European Union while protecting Wales’s interests. The focus of this afternoon’s debate is on how we do that, looking after agriculture and our rural economies in Wales. Because, of all of Wales’s industries, agriculture faces the most uncertainty following the decision to leave the European Union. Without the right trade agreement in place, the right regulatory framework and the right support, the consequences for all our agriculture industry and wider rural economy will be disastrous.

We are only using about 5 per cent of our red meat here in Wales. About 93 per cent of our meat is exported to the EU, that does include the rest of the UK, but it is important that any trade agreement negotiated by the UK Government will preserve and ensure the continuation of our grassland and upland sheep meat and beef rearing and dairy regimes. A trade agreement, for example, with New Zealand, could result in the transposing of the entirety of the current New Zealand lamb quota for imports to the UK after it has exited the EU. That could amount to a 0.25 million tonnes of lamb, currently dispersed across the whole of the EU, coming directly to the UK. According to Hybu Cig Cymru, a scenario where the UK trades with the EU under the WTO rules—the ‘no deal’ scenario—could mean tariffs of 84 per cent on cattle carcasses, 46 per cent on lamb carcasses, and 61 per cent on cuts of lamb. Therefore, no deal would be a bad deal for Welsh agriculture and Welsh rural communities.

The Conservatives called this election on the basis of it being a Brexit general election, and yet they have said nothing about what a good deal for Welsh agriculture would be, what they intend to do, what they intend to negotiate, or indeed the period of time in which they intent to achieve that aim. The Conservative amendments today are somewhat premature as, of course, there will be a change of Government on Thursday. But even if there weren’t to be a change of Government, they’ve already been undermined by their own Prime Minister coming to north Wales yesterday and saying there will be no promise of further support for agriculture in Wales beyond 2020, even though the amendments today from the Welsh Conservative group talk about the whole of the next Parliament. They’ve been undermined by their own Prime Minister, so we will not be supporting their amendments.

I also think it’s very important that we seek the opportunity to really make Welsh agriculture the cutting edge and the future of the way we produce food, not just in Wales, but in the United Kingdom. We have a mostly grassland and upland agriculture industry, 80 per cent of which is termed a less favourable area. Last night in the Assembly, we hosted the Science and the Assembly event, which focused on microbial resistance and antimicrobial resistance—very important for agriculture and human health. We have institutions in Wales that are at the cutting edge of research in this—international cutting edge—and working together, for example, at IBERS in Aberystwyth. We need to ensure that these institutions are not only preserved when we leave the European Union, but are enhanced, further strengthened, and further empowered to continue that work, so that we do get the best level of support for agriculture. That isn’t just about money, it isn’t just about infrastructure, but it’s also about the best research and ideas, because the purpose of Welsh agriculture is to produce high-quality food and drink, underpinned by high animal health and welfare environmental standards.

On the question of quality, I have no doubt that Welsh farmers can compete with anyone anywhere else in the world, but of course that does involve a certain cost, and we have to remind ourselves that the reason we’ve had public support for agriculture in the EU context over 40 years is to ensure that that high-quality food with high welfare standards reaches our shops at a reasonable price. We can have cheap food or we can have high-quality food. We can have cheap food available for everyone, but that means very poor quality of welfare standards. We read only this week of slave labour producing corned beef in the rainforests of Brazil. So, this is a really important thing to get right.

This is why the argument that Plaid Cymru makes today is that ongoing support from Government, when we leave the EU, for Welsh agriculture is essential. That’s why it’s so disappointing that the Conservatives, in an election they called, have been unable to make any such promise. It’s also disappointing that the Welsh Labour manifesto neither makes any such promise to continue support for farmers further than this current Assembly term. I think that is what people will have to bear in mind when they vote tomorrow.

Now, Plaid Cymru has been very clear: we will represent the interests of Welsh farmers and rural communities, and fight for the best trade deal at all times. Lies are told about me, and lies are told about Plaid Cymru. Only this week, the Liberal Democrats, who are no longer present at the moment in the Chamber, claimed that Plaid Cymru was in bed with the Conservatives, UKIP and Labour, all for a hard Brexit. That was the Liberal Democrat leaflet that so shamed the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales that he said he was ‘ashamed of the leaflet’ and immediately withdrew it. So, the next day, they sent out a letter instead, which repeated those allegations, only this time they put it in the name of Kirsty Williams, allegedly the leader of the Liberal Democrats in this place.

Plaid Cymru has held several debates on Brexit and the need for support for Welsh farmers going forward. The Liberal Democrats haven’t held one. They claim that we are turning our backs on rural communities, but everyone knows that we have actually fought hard for Welsh agriculture here in this Chamber. The Liberal Democrats are, of course, part of the Welsh Government, and, in fact, a vote for them tomorrow would be vote for a Corbyn-led Government and a Corbyn-led approach to Welsh agriculture, which I don’t think will suit the people in Ceredigion or farmers elsewhere. There’s one or two in Newport that it might suit, but certainly not in Ceredigion. So, there’s a clear choice for people tomorrow: they need to stand up and protect Welsh rural communities. Plaid Cymru is committed to that, and Plaid Cymru will always fight for the best deal for Wales.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on Paul Davies to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in his name.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I move the amendments tabled in my name. The decision by the people of the UK to leave the European Union, taken last year, is certainly going to have an impact on the agricultural industry in Wales. Without doubt, Brexit will pose challenges and opportunities for Welsh farmers. As we know, over the past few decades, agricultural policies and legislation have been decided to a great extent at a European level. Therefore, it is crucial, in light of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, that farmers do have a fair, permanent framework to safeguard the sustainability of the industry. Today’s motion appropriately notes that European payments currently comprise 80 per cent of farm incomes in Wales, and the purpose of these payments is to ensure high-welfare foods for consumers at a high-quality and reasonable price. I am pleased that the current Prime Minister of the UK has confirmed her support to continue to fund agricultural support at its current level until the end of the next UK Parliament. That has been welcomed by the agricultural industry, and that is in the Conservative Party manifesto. [Interruption.] In just a moment.

Of course, the Welsh Government must also confirm that this funding will be fully allocated for agriculture. As we know, the Barnettisation of funding for agriculture would be disastrous for Welsh farmers because, without allocating that funding, the funding would have to compete with other public services. While the current UK Government has committed to fund at the same levels until the end of the next Parliament, it is a matter for the new UK Government and the devolved Governments, therefore, to work together in order to create a framework that is pan UK, that works for all of the devolved nations, and that ensures the sustainability of farming in the longer term. I give way to the Member for Anglesey.

Thank you very much for giving way. Will the Member accept that there was no threat, of course, to funding for farmers in Wales if we had stayed in the EU? The vote has taken place, of course, but would he accept that whether it is three, four or however many years with regard to the continuation of the funding, that isn’t enough for farmers who are trying to make investment decisions in the long term for the development of their industry?

Of course, what the Member must also bear in mind is that CAP would only continue up until 2020. So, we, as a Government at the UK level, have made it quite clear that we will continue with that level of funding until 2022. Although the scale of the challenge is huge, to say the least, there are also opportunities here. For example, the agricultural policy framework must look in earnest at the current regulatory landscape for farmers and have better ways of supporting farmers. NFU Cymru have told us that poor regulation is often a cause for a lack of confidence in the industry, and that further regulation adds to the workload of farmers. Well, we now have the opportunity to actually transform this landscape and ensure that more voluntary approaches are introduced, and that when regulation is introduced, it is introduced as a result of robust evidence.

Now, agriculture in the UK and in Wales must be in the vanguard of any Brexit negotiations, and the new UK Government must proceed in ensuring trade deals so that export industries, such as farming and the food and drink industry, can continue to do business with European markets. Farmers across Wales are right to be concerned about the terms of access to imports and exports in this climate, and it’s crucial that we don’t let cheaper produce with lower standards into Wales and the UK from other nations. It’s crucial, therefore, that any trade deals are negotiated carefully, with the agricultural industry at the heart of any negotiation.

Of course, we need to establish a trade deal with the European Union that meets the needs of Welsh farmers, and that deal must be ready from the moment that we leave the European Union. Losing any access to export markets in the EU would be disastrous for Welsh farmers, and I very much hope, therefore, that the new Government in the UK will immediately start to work to secure an agreement that not only safeguards our farmers against cheap imports, but will ensure that Welsh farmers can continue to rely on the European Union export markets for the future.

Of course, the sustainability of farming in Wales isn’t just in the hands of the UK Government. Indeed, the Welsh Government continues to have a very important role to play in safeguarding Welsh farmers. The Welsh Government must do everything it can to strengthen the agricultural industry in Wales, and that means tackling some of the long-established issues that Welsh farmers have faced so that there are no threats to our trade negotiations. For example, the NFU is right to draw attention to bovine TB and make it clear that, unless proactive steps are taken to control the source of the infection in wildlife and in cattle, there could be risks to any trade deal in future. These are issues that need to be taken forward by the Welsh Government now, and as these discussions develop, so that the efforts to have the best possible deal for the red meat and dairy industries in Wales aren’t put at risk at all.

So, in conclusion, Llywydd, I want to reiterate once again how important it is to safeguard the sustainability of the farming industry in Wales in the long term. Our cultural heritage, the Welsh language, and the future of our rural areas, is dependent upon that. Thank you.

Listening to Plaid Cymru, you’d think that by staying in the EU the future would be absolutely assured forever and a day, but we know that beyond the current multi-annual framework there is no guarantee of agricultural funding for Wales in the European budget. I remember, when we first joined what was then the European Economic Community 40-odd years ago, agriculture accounted for 65, 70 per cent of the EU budget; it’s now down to 42 per cent. So, over the years, we’ve seen a dramatic reduction in agricultural support throughout the EU, and that figure would be even lower were it not for the accession of eastern Europe countries back in the early years of this century. So, the idea that staying in the EU where unelected bureaucrats—who we can’t even name, let alone influence at the ballot box—are the people you can rely on, rather than the people who sit in this row in front of us in this Chamber, who you can elect and then throw out if you don’t like their decisions, is better is absolute nonsense.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

You mentioned the 65 per cent down to 42 per cent. Will you accept that leaving the European Union means that that figure coming from the European Union will be zero in future and that, as it stands, the money coming from the UK Government, or the promise of it, is also zero? So, that’s what we’re negotiating for for Welsh farmers.

Well, clearly, that’s a preposterous proposition, as the Prime Minister has already said that the current funding arrangements will be preserved up to the end of 2022, and no Government can bind its successors, and, as there must be a general election by 2022, any promise given now would be worthless, and therefore not worth making. But it’s all our money anyway, the money that the EU spends here in Wales, and our gross contribution to the EU this year is £13.6 billion. The EU then spends our money in the UK in various ways, including on agriculture, to the tune of £4.3 billion. So, we have a net contribution of £9.3 billion: we pay in £3 to get £1 back. And, as agriculture accounts for 42 per cent of that £9.3 billion, £4 billion of UK taxpayers’ money is spent on agriculture in the EU. That means, in Wales, Welsh taxpayers, on a per capita basis, are spending £200 million a year not on subsidising Welsh farmers, but subsidising continental farmers. That is not a brilliant deal for the Welsh farming community.

I think I’ve taken one contribution. We’ve only got four minutes to speak, so, regrettably, although I’d like to give way, I don’t think I can.

Obviously, I accept point 3 of Plaid Cymru’s motion. I strongly believe that every single penny of what Brussels currently spends in Wales should be replicated by a UK Government promise, and I don’t think anybody who has the interests of rural Wales at heart would disagree with that. And, of course, who wants an irresponsible trade deal with anybody—as in point 2 of this motion? Of course we want to negotiate the best deal possible, not just with the EU, but also the other countries around the world—150, 160 countries, however many there may be—which constitute 85 per cent of the global economy. The European Union is, of course, very important to us, because they’re our nearest geographical neighbours. And, as Simon Thomas rightly pointed out in his opening speech, of course we have a very significant degree of trade between us that is mutually beneficial, but let’s not forget—[Interruption.] I’m sorry, I can’t give way more than once in the short time I have available, because it’s very important that I make my points rather than allow other Members to make theirs in the course of my speech.

In every single sector of trade in meat, the United Kingdom is in deficit and, in some cases, very substantial deficit. So, there is a massive possibility—if the EU is so foolish as not to want to enter into a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, there is every prospect that we will be able to substitute what is currently imported with home-produced produce. Let’s just look at the figures: in beef and veal, we import £700 million-worth of meat a year, we export only £150 million; in the case of pork, we import £780 million—sorry, these are figures for 2007. Sorry, I’ll start again. For beef and veal, this year it’s over £1 billion-worth of imports for beef, and we export £369 million. For pork, we import £778 million-worth of meat; we export only £252 million. For lamb, this is the only—lamb and mutton is the only sector where we’re broadly in balance. And, of course, in lamb, there’s a particular problem in prospect if we don’t sort it out, because, as Simon Thomas rightly pointed out, a very substantial proportion of our imports come from New Zealand.

So, of course we must be astute to potential problems that will arise as a result of the massive upheaval that is inevitable in such a change of this kind. We had the reverse upheaval 40-odd years ago, which I remember very, very well, when we moved away from a deficiency payments scheme into a different form of support entirely. These are practical problems that can be sorted out.

But the figures, of course, are very small. This is what we have to remember. The British Government is going to spend, this year, £800 million. The total value of the whole agricultural sector in the entire United Kingdom isn’t even £10 billion. So, these are figures that can easily be accommodated within the United Kingdom budget. And of course we must fight for Wales, as Simon Thomas very rightly said, and that’s what we will do, but the idea that the UK Government’s going to pay the slightest attention to a handful of Plaid Cymru Members is absurd. It’s only UKIP that’s been able to turn the Government on its head, because, without us, there would not have been a referendum in the first place and we wouldn’t now be leaving the EU.

We must all acknowledge that these are uncertain times for the farming community in Wales. Until the full details of the Brexit deal are finalised, Welsh farmers, and, indeed, all UK farmers, are unsure of what the future holds. The truth of the matter, however, is that, if the UK Government makes the right decisions, British farmers should be far better off than they were under the common agricultural policy. Even a cursory glance at what the CAP policy has done for British and Welsh farmers will confirm that it has, in fact, done very little to help the Welsh farming fraternity.

Indeed, it could be argued that all it has achieved is to make Welsh farmers almost entirely dependent on ever-decreasing European farm subsidies. Most farmers in Wales fall into the small farms category. A very large percentage of them are hill farmers who are now amongst the poorest in the whole of Europe. Average wages are said to be around £12,000 per annum for many of these farms—hardly a ringing endorsement of the CAP formula that has applied to British farming over the last 40 years. The same formula has seen many farmers in the south-east of England become millionaires because of their ability to exploit absurd farm subsidy laws. [Interruption.] Yes, please.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. Is it not the case, though, that, were it not for those CAP payments, farmers who are struggling to get by would have gone out of business altogether, with the untold costs that that would have for them and for Welsh society?

Well, no. I have to disagree with you. What the Welsh farming industry should be asking itself is not what is going to happen post Brexit, but what would have happened if we had not had Brexit. I have to disagree with Rhun ap Iorwerth when he says that the common agricultural policy has been favourable to Welsh farmers. The common agricultural policy is not a static one. The accession of some of the poorest countries in Europe has meant that many of the farmers of these countries qualify for subsidies before Welsh farmers, so UK farm subsidies have been falling year on year for a very long time, and, under European rules, would continue to decline. We then have to ask ourselves: where does the money to pay these farm subsidies come from in the first place? Well, the answer is, of course, from the UK’s contribution to the European Union. It does not take rocket science to extrapolate from this that, if the UK was not subsidising farming across the whole of Europe, there would be a much bigger sum of money to invest in the British and Welsh farming industry. The challenge for us here in this Assembly is to make sure that the UK Treasury passes on these huge savings to the Welsh farming economy in the correct proportions.

Unlike many in this Chamber, I am confident that the great, hard-working, efficient and innovative farming community of the UK and Wales, freed from the excessive bureaucracy and legislative burden of the common agricultural policy, will prosper as never before. Indeed, I have heard one farmer say that, given the way regulations were going under CAP—I’m sorry, I couldn’t finish that one off—it would not have been long before he would be called upon to tag the rats on his farm. We have a duty in this Assembly to protect our farming industry, so we should all unite in making sure that not only do our Welsh farmers not lose out one penny piece on the subsidies they were entitled to before Brexit, but that they should also share in the huge financial gains from the UK being freed from subsidising farming throughout the other 27 countries of the European Union.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I very much welcome Plaid Cymru’s motion, and we were very pleased we were able to agree with Plaid Cymru our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’. It is clear our views on the future of agriculture and rural development post Brexit are close. Most importantly, we are absolutely clear agriculture and rural development is and must remain devolved. We’ve made it very clear we will not tolerate any attempts by the Conservatives to deprive this Assembly of its existing powers, or deprive Wales of funding also, and that’s why we completely oppose amendment 2 from the Conservative group, which clearly reflects the UK Tories’ agenda of taking back control, not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, also, and probably Edinburgh and Belfast as well.

More generally, we are committed to safeguarding our rural and environmental interests, and explore every opportunity to benefit our farming, land management, and food sectors once we’ve exited the EU. Our focus remains on continuing to deliver key economic, social and environmental benefits to Wales.

The Welsh Government published the figure of 80 per cent of farm income in Wales comprising of European payments. However, it should be noted farm incomes fluctuate—many are negative—however, we agree the majority will rely on CAP funding to some degree.

Following the decision for the UK to leave the EU, I quickly established a round-table group with stakeholders across my portfolio to discuss the implications arising from the referendum vote, and the work of the round table has added significant value, as it’s enabled a cross-sectorial approach to be taken, enabling us to consider the issues in an integrated way, for example on all parts of the supply chain. The farming unions and other stakeholders have been warmly appreciative of this approach. And the process has underlined the strength of the links between areas like agriculture, communities, and the wider environment. It’s also a real strength for Wales’s input and potential influence on the process to have stakeholders actively engaged and collaborating to secure the most beneficial path for Wales as possible. The work of the round-table complements the work we’re undertaking in parallel with each of the individual sectors to consider the detailed sectoral impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU. In March, I committed the final tranche, totalling £223 million, of the 2014-20 rural development programme to make full use of HM Treasury’s guarantee to 2020. But there remains a clear need for longer-term commitments from the UK Government.

It is essential, after we leave the EU, that the UK Government delivers on its promise during the ‘leave’ campaign to provide Welsh Government with at least equivalent funding to replace what is currently being received through the CAP. Both I and the First Minister have made it very clear we will hold them to this. However, the lack of such a commitment to date—and Simon Thomas mentioned in his opening remarks that just yesterday the Prime Minister, on a visit to north Wales, didn’t provide that commitment when she was sitting at a farmer’s table, having a cup of tea, I noticed. It’s a real worry about the long-term investment that we know is needed to secure the future of our farming industry so that our farmers, our land managers, our rural businesses and our rural communities have the certainty that they need to plan for the future.

Alongside the funding, it’s critical we in this Assembly continue to lead the work in shaping a future agricultural policy that is tailored to the distinct needs of the industry in Wales. A majority in Wales did vote to leave the EU, and we have made clear this democratic decision must be respected. However, we do not believe anyone in Wales voted to be worse off, to see harm done to our economy or our public health services, and we are determined to secure a positive future for Wales in a post-Brexit world.

How food imports are affected by Brexit is not clear at present and won’t be until the UK has progressed trade talks with the EU and other countries. I’ve heard the Prime Minister say no deal would be better than a bad deal, but, quite frankly, that’s a ridiculous statement, because there has to be a deal. The Tories seem to be prioritising deals with other countries over maintaining our access to the single market and appear willing to sacrifice agriculture in the interests of quick wins with countries like the USA and New Zealand, which are very keen to access our markets.

For us in the Welsh Government, by contrast, a key consideration is that UK producers are not undercut by imports where production standards are poor and that consumers are not put at risk. Imports would have to meet specified standards and would be subject to checks. What these will be, of course, depends on the detail of those trade agreements and custom arrangements, and that is why it is essential the devolved institutions have real insight into and influence on trade negotiations. Given the implications for Welsh farmers and rural communities, it’s essential that devolved administrations play a full part in discussions, not only to ensure the UK negotiating position fully reflects the UK context, but also to agree collectively the arrangements that will be in place on a UK basis following the departure from the EU, which includes trade deals.

We accept there should be common UK frameworks in a number of areas to allow effective functioning of the UK internal market post Brexit and to facilitate international trade, but, again, these will need to be collectively agreed across the four countries, and I will certainly not tolerate any imposition of such frameworks by Westminster and Whitehall. Diolch.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, for an election that was called to decide Brexit, we’ve had no illumination at all about what sort of trade deal farmers in Wales will get out of this. I can’t accept that Theresa May has said anything relevant about Welsh farming. The most memorable thing she’s said about farming is that she used to trample down the wheat, like some sort of Thatcher in the rye, and we’re left with this—. A dreadful, dreadful, dreadful pun, I know. We’re left with the actual thing that she said when she came to Wales. What did she actually say? She said that there’s no guarantee on support for farmers after 2020. That, directly, is a quote from her visit to Wales only yesterday. Tim Farron came to mid Wales, and what did he talk about? He talked about social care policy in England—nothing to Welsh farmers.

I’m grateful that the Cabinet Secretary has reiterated her Government’s own commitment to the White Paper between ourselves, Plaid Cymru, and, let’s remember, the Liberal Democrats as well, even though they claim that they’re not part of this. But it is the truth that the UK Labour Party has also said nothing about what sort of trade deal we will get. Keir Starmer, who is the more sensible one, has made no mention at all about what this should be. The fact is that, as Paul Davies did point out quite correctly, we are supported by EU funds at the moment. If that were to be Barnettised, we would significantly lose our support here in Wales. That just underlines how, I’m afraid, David Rowlands’s comments were borne out of ignorance and spoken with no illumination in the Chamber today—[Interruption.] Well, no; I haven’t got time. I’m already out of time, I’m sorry, but I thought you showed you understood nothing about agriculture at all.

Neil Hamilton—we have made the same speech too many times in the same place at the moment, but the one thing that Neil Hamilton did say in the hustings on Monday night in Llandeilo that I though was honest, but I don’t accept it, was that his position was that he would accept a cost for leaving the European Union. I’m not prepared to do that, and neither is Plaid Cymru. Tomorrow, we’ll decide what will happen in the UK as a whole. Whatever happens, we will have elected one of the weakest Prime Ministers we have seen since the second world war, whoever wins that election, and I think we’re in for a very, very bumpy negotiation with the EU.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on the economy and Brexit, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. It’s a pleasure to rise to move the motion in the name of my colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth. It certainly is the case that we have a cloud of confusion—a kind of inchoate mess—when it comes to the policy positions of the two main parties in terms of the shape of the Brexit deal that—[Interruption.] Well, if you don’t want to listen, you can leave the Chamber. You are; good. We have a lack of clarity because, of course, there is a White Paper produced by this Government—the Welsh Government—that does set out in very, very clear, definitive terms, actually, both the principles, but going beyond the principles, actually, and getting into some of the practical detail about the negotiations that are about to begin.

When we look at the UK Labour Party, we have Keir Starmer, just referred to as one of the most sensible ones, actually coming out against membership or participation in the single market, as currently constituted. So, I’m afraid even the amendment of the Government to this motion is actually out of kilter with their own policy position. So, we have confusion at the UK level. Well, we in Wales must do our best, therefore. Whatever comes out of whatever Westminster Government is foisted upon us, we have to do our best to protect the interests of the Welsh economy, and that is what we’re trying to set out in this motion. I give way.

I thank the Member. You just said about Keir Starmer’s comment; would you agree that one of the six points he identified was that we have the same benefits as if we were a member of the European single market and the customs union, and therefore it’s not necessarily being a member, but the benefits we get from it that’s important?

We’re in Boris Johnson having-our-cake-and-eating-it territory there, I’m afraid, aren’t we? The White Paper, actually, is clear and honest about this. If you want the benefits, then there are certain things that flow from that, and unfortunately, that isn’t reflected in the rather muddy thinking from the UK Labour Party.

But I want to talk about Plaid Cymru’s ideas and our post-Brexit plan, and I seek support across the Chamber for how we’re going to defend the Welsh economy, given the fact that we’re probably going to get poor leadership, going forward, whoever wins down in the Westminster political class. We’ve set out a number of ideas here. We’ve talked, I think, in the last debate, about the danger of cheap imports to our agricultural industry: equal dangers, of course, that the Member will know in terms of our steel industry—probably not so much in the trade agreement, but in trade policy. So, how is the UK Government going to use its defensive measures to protect against things like cheap Chinese steel or Korean steel et cetera? And how are we going to guard against the rise of protectionism overall, which also could cause significant damage to the interests of the Welsh steel industry? That’s why we think that, actually, there should be a seat at the table for the Welsh Government and, indeed, for all the devolved legislatures, because the economic interests of the different nations of the UK are qualitatively different because of the different economic composition.

As well as risks, there are opportunities—new opportunities, legal and economic—that will come as a result of leaving the European Union, and we’re clear about that. For instance, the ability to set regional rates of VAT, which could be of interest to us. Because of the latent potential of our tourism industry, we could do what many countries do and have a lower VAT rate for restaurants or hotel accommodation. We could follow the Holtham commission idea of having a discounted regional variable corporation tax rate for those parts of the UK, like Wales, that have lower income per capita. That could be a very effective arm of regional policy. That’s not actually a race to the bottom; that’s a way, actually, to lift those already at the bottom so that they can actually improve the level of their economy. We could actually devolve powers over procurement. Of course, we were removed from the prohibition, for instance, on having a Government-promoted campaign to buy local—the 1982 case against the Irish Government on Guaranteed Irish and the Irish Goods Council. We will now, outside the European Union, be able to use public money to support local procurement, not just within the public sector but among consumers and also within the private sector, talking to some of our anchor companies. So, these are some of the ideas. We’ve talked about structural funds; certainly, we need to have some security beyond 2020.

The UK Labour Party manifesto, again, says:

‘we will ensure that no region or nation of the UK is affected by the withdrawal of EU funding for the remainder of this Parliament.’

Well, that’s, quite frankly, not good enough. We need a long-term commitment. We need a marshalled plan for the Welsh economy, to be honest with you. We need a 20-year-long commitment to closing the economic gap that has actually arisen over successive governments of different political hues. And yes, we need a regional work visa system, because there are different migration and skill needs in the Welsh economy, again, because of the different structure of our economy to other parts of the UK. The City of London Corporation has made this argument in the context of its needs, but we in Wales also should be making the case as we move to a different way of managing the migration policy overall, whatever the relationship is with the EU and the single market. We should actually make a case for doing what they do in Canada, which is saying, ‘Different regions have different needs; let’s have that reflected in migration terms as well’. Thank you.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be de-selected. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the current devolved settlement must be respected as funding schemes and initiatives are returned from the European Union, and that there will be no land grab on competencies. She’s also stated this means strengthening the devolution settlements,

‘But never allowing our Union to become looser and weaker, or our people to drift apart.’

This Plaid Cymru motion notes the result of last year’s referendum—a referendum in which the people of Wales voted to restore UK control over border, laws and money. I therefore move amendment 1, noting the Prime Minister’s commitment to securing the best Brexit deal for Wales and the United Kingdom; welcoming the UK Conservative Government’s guarantee that there will be no roll-back of powers from the devolved administrations, and that decision-making powers in Wales will be increased; recognising the importance of Wales and the United Kingdom, embracing the trade and economic opportunities presented by leaving the European Union; and supporting the UK Government’s plan to introduce a United Kingdom shared prosperity fund.

In terms of tax devolution, we must note that only 13 per cent of taxpayers in Wales fall into the higher top tax rates, compared to 30 per cent across the border, and be careful about how we incentivise accordingly.

Plaid Cymru, of course, exists to divide the British people and destroy our UK. We must instead embrace the opportunity for our United Kingdom to become an outward-looking global trading nation. As the Prime Minister has said,

‘I want us to be a truly Global—’

One intervention only, yes.

I’m grateful to the Member for giving way. It’s often repeated in this Chamber, by the Member in particular, that our membership of the European Union has restricted our ability to trade with the rest of the world. Can he acknowledge that, through our membership of the European Union, we have 53 trade deals with other economies outside the EU? And can he explain to me what the status of those 53 trade deals will be the day after he succeeds in having the glorious independence for this state?

Yes, there are, and the UK Government is working hard in consolidating the position broadly and broader beyond Brexit. But this debate hasn’t got time for me to answer that. I’ll probably answer it further in a different scenario.

You tease. You’re such a tease.

Plaid Cymru, of course, as I’ve said, exists to divide the British people. The Prime Minister said she wants us to be a truly global Britain, the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but reaching beyond the borders of Europe too, building relationships with our old friends and new allies alike. Although the Labour-Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for full and unfettered access to the EU single market, EU rules make this impossible after border control is restored to the UK, something in fact your leader noted some months ago before your mood music on this changed.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants a bespoke deal that works for the whole of the UK, embracing the most tariff and barrier-free trade possible with our European neighbours through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. As the farming unions have said, they will need an agricultural framework that prevents unfair competition between devolved administrations, protects funding and is ambitious in reviewing EU-derived legislation that adds unnecessarily to the bureaucratic burden faced by farmers. The UK Government great repeal Bill White Paper states the UK Government will begin intensive discussions with the devolved administrations to identify where common frameworks need to be retained. And Welsh Conservatives support both the UK Government’s plan to introduce United Kingdom shared prosperity fund and the agreement of UK-wide frameworks underpinning issues such as agriculture, environment and fisheries, and futureproofing funding.

We welcome reports from the manufacturers’ organisation EEF that companies are increasingly positive, that demand from Europe is buoyant, and that it’s raised its 2017 and 2018 growth forecast, and from the PMI, that the UK construction sector expanded at its fastest rate in 17 months in May. We also note that 90 per cent of forecast world growth over the next decade is outside the EU. The Prime Minister this week said:

‘as we deliver on the will of the British people, we will forge a new deep and special partnership with Europe…but we will also reach out beyond Europe to strike new trade deals…with old allies and new friends around the world too.’

She said:

‘we have taken the time to develop the plan, to study the detail, to understand the negotiating positions and priorities of those on the other side of the table, to build the relationships and to be absolutely clear in our own minds—and in those of the 27 remaining member states—about the kind of future relationship we seek.’

Now compare that, she said, to the alternative. Jeremy Corbyn says he wants tariff-free access to the EU, but can’t say if he wants to remain a member the single market, subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice and the European free movement rules. He Can’t say if it means remaining a full member of the customs union, which would deprive us of our ability to strike new trade agreements around the world. These, she said, are the most basic questions that need to be answered.

As for what Jeremy Corbyn would do to the UK, look at the only part of the UK governed by Labour: Wales, with the lowest employment, salaries, wages and prosperity in the UK, and the highest unemployment, child poverty and poverty in Britain. The legacy of Labour in Wales has been social injustice. Only by tackling the deep-rooted economic and social problems, making the tough decisions and genuinely planning for a sustainable future can we genuinely move forward and remedy the deficiencies they’ve created and bequeathed to the people of Wales.

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

Formally.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru, actually, for bringing forward this debate this afternoon, on the day before the general election and, as Simon Thomas said, on an issue on which the general election was called? However, I am very disappointed that they tried to jam so much into the motion, because each part of that motion and each sub-part actually deserves consideration in its own right and we won’t have time to debate those today, but perhaps that’s electioneering for you.

Last year’s referendum decided only one thing: the fact that we are to leave the European institutions. It did not determine the conditions on which we leave and it did not determine the future relationship with the EU-27 that remain. And it’s important to get our objectives and the processes right as the UK embarks on this critical set of negotiations. And I’m hugely disappointed that the current—and I hope that it’s the current and tomorrow will be the former—Westminster Government handling on this matter has not shown sufficient respect to the public and to the devolved nations in moving forward, unlike the EU-27, who’ve actually unanimously agreed their criteria for negotiations. They got together, and the UK Government has failed to even do that.

Following the Prime Minister's statement on 17 January, the publication of the White Paper, the invocation of article 50 and the White Paper on the great repeal Bill, it is critical that any future UK Government fully involves the devolved nations in developing its negotiating position. We should also have an agreed negotiating position. And Government interaction needs to actually improve beyond purely meeting at JMC and JMC(EN), which we believe actually is simply lip service being paid by the UK Government to these events. They are not talking shops; they should be something effective. Unfortunately, they're not, and I think we should ensure that, as we move forward, this changes.

Now, some may argue why we should have devolved institutions, because they claim the UK is the member state. Well, evidence has demonstrated that the complexities of the relationships between the EU and the devolved nations, as a consequence of the devolved competencies, together with the impact on devolved economies of any terms or any trade agreements that will be made with the UK, definitely require direct involvement of our elected Government. Llywydd, the Welsh Government's White Paper, produced in partnership with Plaid Cymru, has placed the economy at the top of the list of its priorities, and justifiably so. Our economy is the key to our prosperity across the nation, and the ability of Welsh businesses to trade without barriers, whether financial or regulatory, and it is critical to allow them to grow. It has already been highlighted by Adam Price in his opening point about the relationship with steel in my constituency and the impact it would have if we don't get this correct.

Now, a difficult divorce resulting in a WTO Brexit would mean crippling tariffs placed upon our exports, which would more than likely lead to job losses, the decline of our automotive and steel industries, the probable demise of major components of our manufacturing sector, the loss of a major export market for our food and drinks industry, and, undoubtedly, damage to the developing financial sector in Wales. And whilst we talk about trade, also reflect upon the R&D. Last night, we were proud to hold the science at the Assembly event here in the Senedd, and I hosted it alongside Simon Thomas and Nick Ramsay, and we were reminded by Simon about the recent paper published by the four societies across the UK and the impact of EU funding on research and development and innovation, here in Wales in particular and in the UK, based upon EU funding. Now, the EU research funding can help develop our economic future, and we should not lose sight of that, because no mention has been made about replacing that money, and yet, it's billions being lost—£9 billion between 2007 and 2013 into the UK not been talked about being replaced.

So, we can't also ignore the impact on non-tariff barriers, which would diverge from those of the EU once we leave—and they will diverge. Such barriers could actually equate to a cost equivalent to a tariff of 22 per cent on shipping or transport equipment. Now, in the White Paper, as has already been said, the priority was unfettered access to the single market, and I think it's one we should all embrace. Whether you want a free trade agreement, that is what we’re talking about. So, it does something that we should all embrace, and it doesn't stop us having free trade agreements with other nations, either. So, let's ensure that we are keen to ensure we protect Welsh businesses and the Welsh economy.

Now, we know that there’s uncertainty coming around, and we also know about the implications that have for businesses that may wish to consider investing in Wales. We're seeing that in parts of businesses already here, where they are taking investment out of Wales—I'll just mention Ford as one example—and 200,000 jobs in Wales are supported by our trade in the single market. And we need transitional arrangements as well. Now, I had thought the UK Government were coming around to our way of thinking, but I think that seems to be waning a little bit, unfortunately. Now, the UK Government may have a mandate for us to leave the European Union, but there's no mandate to use Brexit as an excuse for wrecking our economy, slashing the minimum wage, and sparking a bonfire of workers’ rights, environmental safeguards and hard-earned social protections. As they negotiate our exit under article 50—and then, remember, it's going to follow—and then the future relationship with the EU-27 under article 218, they must and should accept the constitutional structure of the UK has changed, and the interests and priorities of devolved nations cannot be ignored.

Thanks to Plaid for bringing today's motion. Some of the ideas that they have we do actually partially agree with. On the funding issue, UKIP has always stated that funding to Wales lost from EU funding should be replaced by funding from Westminster. We have consistently supported that demand. We were speaking earlier about the procurement rules. Adam Price was talking about it. Now, the procurement rules of the EU do inhibit contracts from being given to British companies. This will change with Brexit. We agree that power over procurement is a tool we should use in future to boost employment. I’m not convinced that that power should be devolved to the Assembly, though, because it may be more effectively wielded at the UK-wide level.

We don’t agree with the idea of a Welsh migration service. I’m not sure how it would be workable. Now, Adam did at least cite an example of a system where they do have it, apparently, in Canada. I confess I don’t know a lot about it, and I would have to research how it works there. But, unfortunately—[Interruption.] Yes, of course, Google. But he only mentioned it today. We will do Google, and we’ll do Wikipedia, too. It would have been useful—[Interruption.] It would have been useful if you could have actually articulated today, perhaps, how that system works. But given the time constraints of a 30-minute debate, perhaps that was difficult to achieve.

There will be public anxieties about how such a system would work. How will you stop people moving from Wales, where they would have a visa to work, into England, where they wouldn’t have a visa? The UK border agency is struggling to deal with illegal immigration as it is, and this scheme will just make their job much harder. It seems to me to be a back-door way of actually keeping freedom of movement, which to me would be a negation of the Brexit vote. And, of course, Wales did vote to leave, the same as England.

We also don’t agree with your proposal that the Welsh Assembly—

Will you take an intervention?

I can’t take interventions this week, Rhun, because it’s election week. Back to normal next week. [Laughter.]

That’s a new one.

It is. I like to come up with new ideas—

Just for clarity, that is a Gareth Bennett policy not a full Chamber policy. [Laughter.]

We don’t agree with your proposal that the Assembly should have veto power over any Brexit deal. I appreciate Dai Rees has just made some arguments to the contrary of what I’m going to say, but the Welsh Assembly doesn’t have any devolved powers to deal with immigration or international trade. What would actually happen if Theresa May did negotiate a Brexit deal and then the Welsh Assembly actually vetoed such a deal? You would simply provoke a constitutional crisis that could leave many people to question the very existence of the Welsh Assembly itself. So, my advice on the question of the Brexit veto is to tread very carefully. Thank you.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. There’s much in the motion before the Assembly this afternoon with which the Government would agree. Let me begin by agreeing with the fundamental importance of securing an outcome from Brexit that recognises and defends Welsh needs and circumstances. I want to put on record the additional effectiveness of our ability to do that because of the joint work that has gone on between the parties in Government and Plaid Cymru on this matter over recent months.

The Government will not be supporting the amendment from the Conservative Party. Our position is very different. It’s fundamentally different, in ways that Lesley Griffiths was able to set out. You heard Mark Isherwood say that powers are going to be returned from Brussels. Now, if any Member has an opportunity to do it, I recommend to you the speech made by Sir Emyr Jones-Parry to the Learned Society of Wales on 17 May this year, which deals with a wide range of issues to do with Brexit. What the former ambassador to the United Nations says there is very clear. ‘Personally’, he says, ‘I don’t believe that powers are being returned. They rest where they already lie’, and that is the position of the Welsh Government as well. It’s a fundamental difference that we have with the Conservative Party, and we won’t be voting for their amendment.

The motion, however, goes further as well than the position set out in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, and it does that in some important respects. None of those additional propositions are ones that do not deserve careful attention, and some of them may, in the future, and in the different circumstances created by Brexit, be policies that will be adopted.

The problems with the motion, though, are twofold. The first is that some of the conclusions it comes to, as David Rees set out, are premature. Devolution of VAT powers is worth a proper examination in the circumstances post the EU, but it does deserve that examination, an examination of the serious sort that led to the Silk report, rather than being determined in a 30-minute debate in the Assembly.

I understand absolutely that Adam Price, in opening the debate, had a much more nuanced account of some of these aspects than is possible in a motion, but it’s the motion we will be voting on, not the speech, and a call for an immediate devolution of powers over VAT, I think, the Government thinks, is in advance of where the debate currently takes us and in advance of establishing some very important facts. It may be as well that some specific Welsh responsibilities in the field of migration will be part of the future UK landscape, but while that landscape remains so un-concluded, then part 5 of the motion, we believe, is premature as it is set out.

And that brings me to the second problem with the motion, Llywydd, and that is the one of timing. Tomorrow, a new UK Government will be elected, whatever the make-up of that Government, a strong and clear articulation of the Welsh position will be essential. I believe that we have established that clarity through ‘Securing Wales’ future’. It is known and understood in Whitehall and in Westminster, it is recognised and respected in Europe, and in the embassies of those who have been our partners and will go on being our closest neighbours in the future. Now is not the time, the Government believes, to confuse that core set of messages by elaborating on them in the way that the motion sets out to do.

We have our core messages from ‘Securing Wales’ Future’: full and unfettered access to the single market; a workable approach to migration; future funding to be guaranteed at at least EU levels; a new constitutional settlement inside the United Kingdom; the maintenance of core social, environmental and human rights; and the installation of transitional arrangements so that there is no cliff edge between the position we are in today and the position we will be in on the day that we leave the European Union.

That is what the Government amendment to today’s debate aims to secure. We believe that by remaining close to the arguments that we have been able to mobilise, and which have had some traction in those places where decisions will be made in the future, we have been able to make Wales’s voice effective in the debate so far. We don’t think now is the time to elaborate beyond that further. We’ll be opposing the motion as originally drafted and I ask Members to support the amendment the Government has set down.

I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I thank Members for their response to the ideas that we’ve set out, albeit in outline terms, for the reasons of brevity that have been referred to.

I admire Mark Isherwood’s spirit of optimism, and indeed his global ambition, not least for Wales; though we may differ on some of the detail, I think that certainly we need to grasp new export opportunities. We are by our nature and by our history an export-intensive country, but we need to do better. I was reading some replies from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy given to Steffan Lewis, who was asking what new efforts we’ve been making since June 2016, since the vote, to gather new market opportunities, and in the answer it says that the First Minister’s announced the Welsh Government’s intention to commit additional resources to north America and establish a presence in Canada. Well, I don’t see yet the emergence of a new global strategy from the Welsh Government, I’m afraid to say. I mean, there is an export visit to Qatar in October, which we may need to revisit in the light of the earlier discussion.

I enjoyed the contribution, as ever, of David Rees. I think that one of his core points, the need, really, for close collaboration and a concerted effort between the four nations in the devolved legislatures in trade policy, I think, is consistent with the spirit of what we’re saying in this motion as well. In terms of Gareth Bennett, I’ll happily send you, Gareth, a print-out of the city of London’s detailed suggestion on a regional visa programme. Canada operates a provisional nomination scheme and there’s a regional sponsored migration scheme in Australia. So, there are many examples. Indeed, even Scotland, despite the fact that migration isn’t devolved, did have something similar in the fresh talent Scotland initiative back in 2005. So, I hope that whets your appetite, Gareth, to delve deeper into this subject area. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance that many of the ideas that we’ve set out here for the post-Brexit strategy actually are worthy of further consideration, and we’ll take that forward in discussion with him. I have to say—

The time for this debate is passed, I’m afraid. Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

We have now reached voting time, and the first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on future housing needs. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, and 31 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now have a vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

A vote on amendment 4: I call, therefore, for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, and 36 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, and 21 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on the agricultural industry and Brexit. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We have a vote, therefore, on the second Plaid Cymru debate, on the economy and Brexit. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour seven, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

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 Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, six abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next item on the agenda is the short debate. Please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly before I call the short debate. I therefore call on Mike Hedges to introduce the topic he has chosen.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. No-one wanted a minute in this debate which is hardly surprising, because I think most people have got other things on their minds. It’s probably a bad day to have this debate: it’s not only the eve of a general election, but we’ve already had one housing debate today.

But I think housing is one of the great challenges facing all of Britain, including Wales. The post-war period in terms of housing can be broken into two periods: first, the period from 1945 to 1980. During that period, we saw a huge growth in council housing and the building of a large number of new estates, especially in the larger urban areas. We also saw the growth of owner occupation and the start of the building of large private estates, again predominantly in urban areas.

Housing has changed a lot in the last 50 years and I would say not all for the best. There has been a large increase in empty properties; there has been a change in housing tenure; an increase in the number of single-person households; an increase in pensioner households; and an increase in young people in houses in multiple occupation, especially but not only students, as student numbers have increased considerably. Council housing has declined through sales and the failure to build. There has been a substantial growth in housing associations. There was a decline in the private rented sector in the 1960s and 1970s, where, by the end of the 1970s, privately rented really often meant only student accommodation. That’s been reversed. Both the large-scale owners and those using an additional house as an alternative to a private pension, there has been a huge increase in it, especially in areas that historically have not been associated with having privately rented accommodation. As a consequence of benefit changes, demand has increased for smaller sized accommodation.

I wish to concentrate on co-operative housing. With the average age of first-time buyers being 37 and expected to rise to 40, it’s perfectly clear that the current housing system needs to be changed. Hefty deposits, the difficulty in securing affordable mortgages from lenders, and the overall lack of good quality housing are amongst the main reasons that have been attributed to the continuous rise in the average age of first-time buyers. For many people, the dream of buying their first home has been put on the backburner, and the only remaining options are to either move back in with their parents or to rent a property on their own or with others for many years, with the aim of saving up enough money for a deposit, and as house prices keep on increasing, that becomes more and more difficult unless the bank of mum and dad can come to the rescue. Unfortunately, for a large number of my constituents, they haven’t got a bank of mum and dad to go to. Despite this, the idea of home ownership remains the ultimate aim for the vast majority of people.

The Bevan Foundation in a recent report produced the following key messages: not enough new homes are being built to meet projected need; and owner-occupation costs more than four times annual earnings in almost all parts of Wales, and more than six times annual earnings in many areas. I remember buying a three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Ynysforgan, which is a lovely place in Morriston, at twice the salary. The mortgage I had was twice the salary I was earning as a college lecturer. I would need four times a college lecturer’s salary now to buy the same house. That’s made a huge difference to people like I was: a college lecturer would’ve expected to find ease of owner occupation, which we did in the 1980s, when I joined. It’s moved rapidly away from many of them now.

Social and private rents take up more than a quarter of earnings of the least well-off workers in most parts of Wales. Under the new Housing (Wales) Act 2014 duties, about 29 households a day are homeless and seek help to secure accommodation from their local authority. The pressure is worst in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion, where all tenures are the most unaffordable in Wales, new house completions are relatively low, and homelessness is above average.

People are generally satisfied with their accommodation, but those in social housing and deprived households are much less satisfied than others. Behind every piece of data is an individual person or a family. I think we talk about housing—we talk about a lot of things—in the abstract, as if it didn’t affect people. This is all about people. I’ve visited people living in houses in which you can feel the wind coming in where the window doesn’t fit properly; I’ve visited people where they go to bed at 7 o’clock, because they can’t afford to heat it. These are people whose heating costs are probably more substantial than yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—or acting Deputy Presiding Officer—or mine, because it’s incredibly expensive to heat some of these houses, which have got single glazing, which are not wind- and weather-proof. These people are paying a lot more than we are. I think it’s deplorable and it’s something that needs to be addressed.

The UK has been traditionally dominated by two types of housing tenure models: owner occupation with a mortgage, and that of rented, either privately or from a social landlord. In other parts of the world, however, there is a third form of housing tenure, with housing co-operatives. In fact, anybody who watches American sitcoms and others will often hear them talking about ‘the co-op’—it’s not a shop down the road for them; it’s a housing co-operative. And it’s not for the poor, it’s for everybody. In fact, some of the housing co-operatives are in some of the most affluent parts of New York. Under housing co-operative tenure, members of that co-operative have the collective power to manage the accommodation between them. This involves taking responsibility for duties such as arranging repairs, maintaining the property, and making decisions about the rent. As the decisions are made by the members, the principles of both community ownership and democracy are placed at the heart of the housing co-operative model.

There are strong housing co-operative sectors in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Canada, Austria and Turkey, as well as the United States of America. In Sweden, for example, two large co-operative organisations provide over 750,000 homes—about 18 per cent of the total population of the country is living in co-operative housing. In Canada, which began housing co-operatives in the early 1970s, there are now over 400,000 living in co-operative homes. To put these figures into a domestic perspective, there are more co-operative housing homes in Vancouver than in the whole of the UK, with housing experts estimating that less than 1 per cent of people in the UK live in a housing co-operative. Creating affordable, long-term solutions for the housing market is something co-operative housing can do.

A report was published by the Conservative Government in 1995 entitled ‘Tenants in Control: an evaluation of tenant-led housing management organisations’, which, to the astonishment of many, including myself, concluded that co-operative housing models not only were cost-effective, but also provided their members with a number of significant benefits. Subsequent reports and investigations into housing co-operative models have since reinforced the findings of the original PricewaterhouseCoopers report, as well as identifying other potential benefits for its members. For instance, being part of a housing co-operative gives members the opportunity to use their existing skills or to develop new skills, provides members with a stake and vested interest in where they live, and can help reduce any dependency tenants have on landlords or the state. It’s their house, they help set the rents, and they are very important in making those decisions that affect them and others.

In terms of the social benefits, housing co-operatives can help promote community cohesion and integration as well as playing a role in reducing vandalism, because, if you’re vandalising within a housing co-operative, you’re costing your family money as well as the people whose houses you are vandalising. It also hits anti-social behaviour, because you want people to stay, and their empty properties affect your family. In some cases, other community services, such as childcare and social activities for members, arose from being part of a housing co-operative.

Furthermore, housing co-operatives give tenants control over the property rents, building services and contractors, and also rent arrears. I think that one of the weaknesses there has been in a number of leaseholds, for example, is where people are forced to have certain people in to do their repairs, which, quite often, can turn out to be rather more expensive than you could find if you were doing it yourself. Any surpluses made by the housing co-operative can then be reinvested into the property, depending on the will of the membership. Co-operative and mutual housing models provide us with a viable, sustainable solution that has the potential to radically change the way we view and think about housing.

With the National Assembly for Wales’s new primary law-making powers, changing the law to establish and promote a legally separate co-operative housing tenure is now feasible. I would not be being fair on the Welsh Government if I did not say that the Welsh Government have made progress on housing co-operatives in the last few years, and I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your commitment, which you’ve shown to it. We have started developing them in Wales, and we’ve also got Merthyr Valleys Homes, who are trying to turn themselves into a co-operative. But I just think there’s more to be done.

I’m committed to the housing co-operative model, and there are three things that will need to be done in order for it to be successful. We need to change in the law to make the creation of housing co-operatives easier. Secondly, lenders need to be convinced of the security of their lending, which may entail a Welsh Government underwrite. It’s one thing that always amazes me: they’re quite happy to lend to housing associations, which are put together in a certain way, but not to co-operatives, which probably have greater strengths of support within their organisations in order to ensure that they are able to be financially viable. I think that that’s the key; we want them to be financially viable. Thirdly, it needs to be publicised and people need to be enthused into creating and joining them. People don’t think of co-operative housing. Their first choice is to become involved in buying a house, their second choice is to try and rent, either from the public or private sector—a housing co-operative doesn’t cross the minds of far too many people. We need it to become an option, and I’m very keen on it becoming an option. It’s not right for everybody—nothing is right for everybody, and for people who are mobile there’s a great advantage in privately renting as you move from place to place, and for students there are certainly advantages in privately renting, because you wouldn’t want to end up owning a house in an area where you’re not going to live much longer after you graduate. So, it really is important that we do have this as an option for people who will benefit from it.

None of the problems I’ve raised are insurmountable, and, with political will, we can achieve it. But I’m very keen to help, again, promote co-operative housing, because I think that we need more housing, and I don’t believe we can afford to ignore what is traditionally viewed in the rest of the world as being one of the three strands of producing it. So, the Welsh Government have made progress, so thank you very much, but unfortunately there’s still further progress to make.

Thank you, Mike. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. As I said earlier in a debate today, Welsh Government is absolutely committed to supporting the increase of housing supply. You will recognise we are taking a comprehensive approach with our housing offer, seeking to address the wide range of housing needs, and I thank Mike Hedges for raising that debate today.

I spoke earlier of the significant investment we’re making across many different programmes, and I believe the breadth of offer bears repetition. It includes tried and tested products and programmes, such as the social housing grant and housing finance grant, Help to Buy—Wales, providing an opportunity for home ownership, especially to first-time buyers, the new rent-to-own product, which enables those without a deposit to purchase a home, which we will be launching later in the year, and the innovative housing programme—this will look at new ways of doing things, both in terms of the sorts of homes we build and how we build them—funding the Houses into Homes scheme, which provides another tool to assist local authorities to tackle the problems of empty homes, and confirming our intention to fully protect the social housing stock from reduction by ending the right to buy, and, again, encouraging councils to build again by exiting the housing revenue account subsidy system during the last term of Government. These are just some of the initiatives we’re offering to increase supply.

We don’t build houses as Welsh Government, but our partners do. We’ve got to enable them to be able to do that, and that’s why we’re working with our partners to put a number of collaborative arrangements in place. This includes a housing pact with the WLGA and CHC, the housebuilders engagement programme, including representation from SME businesses, land for housing initiatives, the co-operative housing stakeholder group, and the rural housing strategy group, to name just a few.

I share, Mike, your enthusiasm for co-operative housing. I’ve visited co-operative housing schemes and seen for myself the benefits that the model brings to tenants. And, you’re right, the ownership of the suite of tools in a co-operative housing scheme gives people much more confidence in the ability to do that. We are really pushing hard to give communities that confidence that they need, and it’s been incredibly difficult. I, like you, am perplexed as to why it hasn’t taken off in Wales as it has in other countries. We continue to work hard to do that. Co-operation has a rich history in Wales, however, historically, featured on a large scale in other parts of Europe and America. We want to change this, and, working with you and others who are committed to the co-operative housing scheme, we should hope to gain some momentum.

People can get involved in the governance of the co-operative, taking ownership of the issues that affect their lives, democratically deciding on solutions, and I expect the pilot scheme of £1.9 million of capital funding to help and support the development of three co-operative schemes here in Wales, providing 87 new homes for communities. We recognise the different skills that are needed when requiring the development of co-operatives, and we are working to provide revenue funding with the Wales Co-operative Centre to provide emerging housing co-operatives with support. This community development expertise has been used to support groups, which I’ve seen, as I mentioned earlier on.

Over the last five years, I believe we’ve built a platform for co-operative housing to develop and grow, including legislating to allow mutual housing co-operative grants assured and assured shorthold tenancy, strengthening their ability to develop housing schemes. I’d be interested to have a further conversation with Mike Hedges in regard to the legislation he believes is required to build the opportunities in co-operatives that he recognises.

Across both housing debates today, Llywydd, I’ve explained the comprehensive and innovative approach—and, of course, while we may differ in politics on some sides of the Chamber, what we all do agree is that we do need to increase the housing supply across Wales and across the UK. It’s important to remember that added value housing investment provides by creating new jobs and also training opportunities. It also helps keep local businesses viable, and the housing sector in Wales has already delivered very significant community benefits to our joint efforts to improve the way that we build homes—

Of course.

I’m keen at this stage of the afternoon to help build consensus. We do need a range of models. I think that’s very, very important. Mike Hedges said that, for the foreseeable future, many people will not be able to become home owners, and co-operative models, I think, give that—it is a bit of an in-between situation, in many ways, because you have responsibility for setting policy and for maintaining the properties and that. One thing the Welsh Government could do is give funds to clean up brownfield land on the basis that that land will then be released to people who want to form co-operatives for the higher density urban housing that I referred to in an earlier debate.

Of course, and it was remiss of me in the earlier debate that we had in terms of that, because I didn’t recognise your contribution in terms of not giving money for brownfield sites for regeneration. We do that in some cases already in Wales, and we have done with some—certainly in regeneration funding. There’s one I can think of in Torfaen where we’ve aided the ability to gain access to land that is prime development land and, therefore, not just building the homes on that site—actually, it’s just about enablement, sometimes, and we’ve recognised that in terms of the challenging landscape we have in Wales, because of ex coalmines, et cetera, and brownfield sites are something that we are keen to explore.

I recognise there’s much more to do, Llywydd, in terms of housing and the needs across Wales, and I will continue to work with all partners to develop the ways of increasing supply. Whilst doing this, I want to ensure we remain focused on building homes and building successful communities for us here in Wales. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and that brings today’s proceedings to a close.