National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

Yesterday, the Assembly agreed a motion under Standing Order 17.2(a) to elect a Chair to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee from the Labour group, and the Chair of the Petitions Committee from the UKIP group. I now invite nominations under Standing Order 17.2(f) for the election of those Chairs. Only a member from the political group that has been allocated that committee may be nominated as Chair, and only a member of the same political group may make the nomination. For political groups of more than 20 Members, the nomination must be seconded by another Member from the same group. For political groups with fewer than 20 Members, no seconder is required.

Firstly, therefore, I invite nominations for the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which has been allocated a Labour Chair. Are there any nominations?

I nominate Mike Hedges.

Mike Hedges has been nominated. Is there any seconder for that nomination?

I second that.

Are there any further nominations? It appears not. Does any Member object to the nomination? No. I therefore declare that Mike Hedges is elected as Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Congratulations. [Applause.]

I now invite nominations for the Chair of the Petitions Committee, which has been allocated a UKIP Chair. Any nominations?

I nominate David Rowlands.

Are there any further nominations? Does any Member object to the nomination? No. Therefore, I declare that David Rowlands is elected as Chair of the Petitions Committee, and congratulations to him.

That concludes the nomination and election process of Chairs.

The next item on our agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. And the first question, Gareth Bennett.

Yes. The UEFA Champions League final was the spectacular culmination of a four-day celebration of football in our capital city, and the eyes of the world were on Cardiff, for what was a spectacular Team Wales effort, delivered by an excellent team from across the capital.

Thanks for that statement. There have been moans, perhaps inevitably, from some residents and traders, but, of course, most of us appreciate that there are long-term benefits from the decision to host the final. I wonder whether you could just perhaps briefly illuminate some of them.

Absolutely. It’s quite timely, as, last week, I listened to Jason Mohammad give a speech in north Wales, where he talked about his pride on the evening of the Champions League final in his city, the city that he grew up in. In fact, he was an Ely boy. And it struck me that the event not only served to encourage economic prosperity, but also to enhance pride in our capital city and in our nation. I understand and appreciate that some businesses in Cardiff, and some residents in Cardiff, will have been limited in terms of how they could move about the city and in terms of how many people they could attract to their premises and their facilities. However, the economic impact is estimated to be £45 million to the capital region. There are many legacy projects that have stemmed from the event.

And I think it’s fair to say that it was a monumental success. In the lead-in to the event, there were concerns expressed about transport, logistics, security, communications, but we delivered, and we delivered well. And it’s now my hope that we can build on what was an unprecedented, or, actually, the biggest sporting event this year, anywhere on the planet, by attracting more world-class events to Wales and by ensuring that we celebrate what makes Wales great, which is our warmth and our welcome.

Cabinet Secretary, it was a huge success, the UEFA cup final here in Cardiff, but, obviously, a series of events before that came to Cardiff, to show that Wales, and Cardiff in particular, could obviously accommodate such a mega event. One things that has been disappointing is the Welsh Government’s lack of ambition to bid for a Commonwealth Games here in Wales. And, as we’ve proven that we can host some of the biggest, if not the biggest, sporting event in 2017, I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary was minded to maybe reconsider some of the options that might be available to a successful Welsh bid to host a future Commonwealth Games as we go forward. Surely, that would be the pinnacle of bringing many nations into this part of the United Kingdom, and show what a great country we are and what an able country we are to host these major events.

Can I thank the Member for his question, but point out that it was not a lack of ambition that led to the decision not to bid for the 2026 games? It was a lack of resource as a consequence of years upon years of austerity and budget cuts to this Welsh Government. That said, I’ve been very clear that we remain in a position where we would wish to examine every opportunity to bid not just for Commonwealth Games, but other major events. I’m on record as saying that, for the 2022 games, there is an opportunity for Britain to do something very different if the Commonwealth Games Federation is minded to allow the rules to be relaxed so that a multination bid could be brought forward. At the moment, it does not seem as though those rules could be relaxed, but, if they were, it’s entirely possible that a Commonwealth Games could be spread out right across the UK. That would be one option. A further option is to bid for a games in the future—2030 or onward. Given what’s happened with the 2022 games, it’s now less likely that the 2026 games will be hosted in the UK, which makes 2030 a possibility.

We’ve already instigated a thorough review of all sports and major events facilities in Wales, with a view to being able to identify what sort of investment would be required and where for the communities that would also enable us in the future to bid for an event such as the Commonwealth Games. But I’d also say that, in bidding for and trying to seek opportunities on a global platform, we have to be very mindful of the need to return on our investment, and, for that reason, we are very careful within Government to ensure that we are bidding for those events that bring the taxpayers of Wales, and the people of Wales, the greatest benefits.

I am pleased to say that we are making good progress, particularly with regulatory matters, and we remain on course to announce and launch of the development bank later this year.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We all know that the clock is now ticking on our exit from the European Union. Therefore, building business confidence is more crucial now than ever it was perhaps before. Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, can I ask whether you have any further details on what the practical set-up will be, and how micro and medium businesses throughout Wales will be able to access finance and other services from the development bank once it’s up and running?

The development bank’s main purpose, of course, will be to seek out where there’s market failure and to address it, and we know that micro, small and start-up finance is a particular problem in rural Wales—those areas of Wales that the Member so brilliantly represents and serves. Now, I’ve charged Finance Wales to develop a location strategy that will take account of the emerging regional structure within the economy and infrastructure unit, and we are currently working on that restructuring exercise. The Development Bank of Wales will provide a physical presence across the whole of the country, and will be established as a headquarters in north-east Wales. But, I’m also concerned that the Development Bank of Wales has an effective interface with Business Wales, and, for that reason, I’ve asked both Duncan Hamer from Business Wales and Giles Thorley from Finance Wales to work together in exploring how we can make sure that both organisations are able to signpost customers in the best possible way.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, from 30 May this year, local authorities can register a local land charge to protect their position in the recovery of costs and interest for emergency repairs to listed buildings. Obviously, I have the Swansea Palace Theatre in mind, which has benefited from that in the past, but there are other buildings at immediate risk in other Members’ constituencies and regions as well. When councils were setting their budgets this year, did you receive or did you seek any indication that they were more willing now to proceed with emergency repairs, confident that this new power would help get the reimbursement?

This power was designed to enable local authorities to do all they can to protect the historic environment in those areas of Wales that they represent. I’ve not had an opportunity yet to ascertain whether it’s been effective in the short period that it’s been available. But it was our expectation, based on the consultation that we had with stakeholders, in particular with the Welsh Local Government Association, that local government was satisfied that these tools would enhance their position in being able to protect the built environment.

Thank you for that answer, and I hope that the confidence is justified. It might be worth, six months down the line, asking whether they’ve decided to use those powers on the basis that they’ve got them and that they are there for their protection.

Moving now to the national library, obviously, it’s got an expanding role at the moment, taking on the BBC archive and helping this Assembly approach the huge task of archiving our own work. I think also that its outward reach is much more visible than it used to be—the online service that it’s producing is burgeoning. I’d like to just briefly draw Members’ attention to the new website, which allows free access to over 450 Welsh journals published since 1735. So, if you’ve got five minutes today, you’ll find that it turns into five hours, so watch yourselves.

The library benefits, of course, from public investment, and I acknowledge the recent additional money that it’s had in the last budget. But no investment is condition free and I understand that you’re looking for the library to attract more visitors. By that, will you accept that more online visitors would count towards an overall total, or are you looking at visitors through the door? Because, as we follow that new funding, and maybe it doesn’t appear in next year’s budget, we’d like to be absolutely certain as to the reasons why.

The Member raises a very good point actually, because one of the key strengths of the national library is the exemplary level of skills in digitisation that is so apparent at the Aberystwyth library. In terms of visitor numbers, I wish to see an increase in both online visitors and visitors to the actual library itself. The advantage of online visitors is that they can be used to push up the income that can be generated through the purchase of digital archives. That is proving to be one of the primary areas of growth in activities for the national library.

In terms of driving up visitors to the actual library itself, I do believe that the outreach work, in terms of education, has a magnificent effect on schools and colleges and universities, but it would be advantageous for more people to visit the library, not just because it is a unique and magnificent place, but also because commercial activities of libraries, through sales of goods purchased, is incredibly important in terms of the revenue that it raises.

Thank you very much for that answer. I’ll see what happens this time next year.

Finally, the Year of Legends, of course, has hopefully sparked great interest in Wales as a film and TV location. I’m already aware of their back catalogue, so I don’t particularly want to hear about that, but I am keen to know what Welsh Government is doing to support the future for the two main film studios in my region.

The creative industries in Wales are an incredible success and we should applaud the leadership within the sector. The sector is growing faster here in Wales than it is anywhere else in the UK, and that’s down to a relentless focus in promoting Wales and the skills within the sector for, in particular, television drama. In the future, we are looking at a huge slate of activity through Bad Wolf. We are also looking at utilising some of the greatest outdoor facilities that we have across Wales as filming space. In terms of other studios, it is our understanding that there is considerable demand for studio space, but our particular focus now is on making sure that we have the crews available to meet the demand. Demand is exceptional right now. Our focus is on making sure that we’ve got the individuals with the skills who can ensure that television and film production is achievable.

The UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Continuing on the earlier theme of staging events, Cabinet Secretary, would the Cabinet Secretary update us on his proposal for the construction of a multipurpose arena with a capacity of, perhaps, 20,000, and which would host a multiplicity of smaller events?

I believe that the facility the Member refers to is the proposed Cardiff arena. This is not a proposal from Welsh Government. I think there’s been some mischief made by one of the opposition Members—not in the Member’s party—regarding the proposal and who it comes from. It’s actually a proposal Cardiff council is looking at at the moment, and they’re examining the potential of a number of options. It is my belief that, as we seek to host more events, as we seek to attract more business events to Wales, we do require twenty-first century facilities. And I do not believe it’s in the interest of our nation to have politicians turn the regions against each other, when talking about what facilities we need.

In my view, we need a major arena in the south, and Cardiff is perfectly situated, as the capital city, for an arena. But equally, I understand the need for upgrades to facilities across Wales, and for that reason, my officials met with Wrexham Association Football Club officials, just last week, to discuss the Racecourse ground. They’ve met with a number of sports and cultural organisations across the length and breadth of Wales to ensure that we do have facilities fit for the twenty-first century.

Well, I understand that we do have arenas in Cardiff that host something like up to 80,000 people, but we’re talking about major, say, musical events et cetera. Would the Welsh Government be open to the possibility of helping to fund a major arena for this sort of thing, because it can’t be right that in Cardiff city, which is one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe, we have Welsh people having to go to Birmingham or Manchester or London in order to experience some of the best entertainment—musical entertainment—available?

We do already have a good number of facilities within the capital city and, of course, we will soon have the biggest and best convention centre in the south-west of the UK, but there remains a gap in the market that a new arena could address and could fill, and my officials continue to work with Cardiff council as they scrutinise various options, and in due course, I’m sure that a clearer picture of what it is that Cardiff city council would like to achieve for Cardiff will become apparent.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Could the Cabinet Secretary update us on where we are in terms of a decision on the Circuit of Wales? The First Minister said, on 6 June, that he expected a decision to be made by the Cabinet within two weeks—therefore, by yesterday. If it hasn’t proven possible already, could he give us a date for when that Cabinet discussion will happen, and can we still expect an announcement of that decision before the end of the month? And could he also say if he’s decided whether he’s prepared to share the external due diligence that has been conducted with opposition party spokespersons, as we’ve requested? A positive decision will, of course, bind future administrations of different political colours, potentially, and so it would only seem appropriate to involve other political parties in the decision making over this project. I understand from the company that they would have no objection to this being done on a commercial confidence basis.

The decision will be taken by the Cabinet next Tuesday, and it’s my intention to ensure that Members are informed of that decision as soon as possible thereafter. In terms of the due diligence reports, there’s not just one; there are several. This an issue that we’re currently considering: whether the due diligence can be published, not just for Members but for a wider audience. It is something that, of course, we would wish to discuss with the developers themselves.

I’m grateful for that answer. Could the Cabinet Secretary set out the criteria by which he will arrive at his final recommendation to the Cabinet? I understand his demand of a 50 per cent or less Government guarantee and named investor term sheets has already been met. The external due diligence they referred to has covered a wide range of areas: economic impact, fit-and-proper-person test and various other issues. He’s presumably now seen that due diligence. Can he say if it’s identified any major issues that are a cause for concern? Does he now have an independently verified figure for job creation, and can he tell us what it is? Has the project been subject to any other review, external or internal, of which he has not previously informed us? And given that we’ve had six years of deliberation on this project, can the Cabinet Secretary assure us that when he gets up next week it will be a case of not another delay or a deferral with a further change, potentially, in the Government’s evaluation criteria, but a final and definitive decision in relation to this project?

I think the First Minister and I have been clear that, in determining the Circuit of Wales, the project must stand up on its own two feet; it must deliver for the people of Blaenau Gwent and the Heads of the Valleys; and it must meet the criteria that we set out last summer, where at least 50 per cent of the finance comes from the private sector and at least 50 per cent of the guarantees, or the risk, is shouldered by the private sector as well. We need to examine the value for money, the jobs that are likely to be created, and the viability and sustainability of the project, not just during construction but for several decades. All of those are being considered as part of the work that’s taking place right now in the lead-up to the Cabinet decision next week. The project, as the Member is aware, has evolved many, many times during the last five to six years, and whilst previous reviews have been carried out, and appraisals have been carried out, they would relate to previous business models.

If we could move, finally, to another major project, could the Cabinet Secretary update us on the compound semiconductor foundry and cluster project announced as part of the Cardiff city region city deal? I understand that the city region team are in negotiation with your own property team over the acquisition of the packaging and testing building on the old LG site, which has been empty since 1996. Now, this project, linked as it is, according to industry sources, with a major IQE contract for its vertical-cavity cell technology, which will be intrinsic to the 3D sensing camera in the new iPhone 8 has huge potential—transformative potential—for the Welsh economy. I’m told that haggling and foot-dragging by Government over the terms of the acquisition of this empty building has meant the company has now had to prepare a plan B, which would involve manufacture at its facilities in North Carolina, with a consequent loss, potentially, of thousands of jobs to the Welsh economy. The fourteenth of July—the next meeting of the Cardiff city region Cabinet—is the absolute deadline for a decision. So, can the Cabinet Secretary assure us it’s a deadline that we will absolutely not miss?

This is one of the most important projects on my desk at present. It’s a huge opportunity, not just for Newport, not for the city region, but for the whole of Wales. This represents our move, our transition, to the economy of the twenty-first century, where automation, where robotics, where information technology will become ever more important. My officials are in contact with IQE, but I am personally as well, with a view of ensuring that this incredible opportunity is delivered for Newport and for the rest of Wales.

We work closely with the ONS on a wide range of issues, including more recently discussions around the economic development potential of the new data science campus and the development of new data apprenticeships.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Last month I attended the first ever Welsh data dive, hosted by the ONS—an event where data scientists, developers and designers, in their own time, worked with charities to help them use data to analyse their projects and the communities they support. In this case, they worked with SafeLives and Llamau. Building on this exciting work, there are many businesses, public and third sector organisations that will benefit from such co-operation in the future. Would the Cabinet Secretary and his officials encourage further collaborations in this area and explore ways it could support economic growth and improve local services?

Well, there are considerable opportunities that could stem from collaboration in this particular field. Data are now a vital part of the global economy, and it’s clear that innovative use of data drives economic growth. There are a number of challenges to be faced, but with those challenges there are huge opportunities: the storage of data, the exploitation and use of data, and also security and making sure that the storage is appropriately managed. I do think that Wales is uniquely placed to lead the way in this area. I think Newport has an incredible story to tell—it has a great narrative about how it is building an economic future on emerging digital technologies, so I think that’s something that we should all be applauding.

There’s also been a strong team ethic in and around Newport. I think the local council deserves to be applauded for their work in this field. It’s been a great honour to be able to work with stakeholders and partners in driving forward this particular agenda. And I do hope that through this investment in the development of new skills in this area, Wales will become a world leader in ethical data management.

Cabinet Secretary, can I welcome the fact that the ONS has now started to publish data at local authority level on two key measures of economic output and prosperity, that is gross value added and gross disposable household income. And I think there’s great potential, and I’d like the Welsh Government to say what they may do in this field, to ensure that, say, the Cardiff city deal—but it applies to other city regions—uses this information, and to measure their success in leading to economic prosperity and increase of wealth across the whole region. I think these are going to be key indicators.

I think the Member’s absolutely right. This provides us with an opportunity to measure and to test our resolve to ensure that we improve wealth, not just in the aggregate, but also at an individual level, and also improve levels of well-being in both the aggregate and individual levels, so that we reduce levels of inequality in both as well. And the presence of the ONS in Newport I think can help to contribute to our understanding of this agenda, and also to holding, not just Welsh Government but all public services, and, indeed, our partners in the private and the third sector, to account as we move towards creating prosperity for all.

I know the Cabinet Secretary’s department is aiming to increase economic development in Wales and move towards prosperity for all. But is he aware of the announcement made by Tesco today that it plans to close Tesco House in Cardiff North in my constituency, with the loss of 1,200 jobs, and that the call-centre work will be moving to Dundee, where they’ll be creating 200 jobs? This affects a lot of people in Cardiff North and in surrounding constituencies. It’s been there for many years; I’ve visited it on many occasions. What can the Cabinet Secretary do with this dismaying announcement?

Presiding Officer, I have received news from Tesco in the past 45 minutes, which is being acted upon immediately. I’ve instructed my officials to put together a package of support for those who could be affected, but we have also established a telephone conference call between Tesco, myself and the First Minister in the next hour.

Our very successful tourism strategy sets out our priorities to support the tourism industry across Wales. This includes marketing campaigns in the UK and overseas, and it includes capital development funding for new and existing tourism businesses, along with revenue funding for regional projects.

Thank you very much for that reply, Cabinet Secretary. Welsh Government support is vital for the effective marketing of Wales as a tourist destination. The Welsh Tourism Alliance has said that the current £10 million marketing budget for Visit Wales is inadequate to realise the potential of the industry in Wales. The budget for Visit Scotland, for example, is around £55 million. What plan does the Cabinet Secretary have, in conjunction with Visit Wales, to address these concerns and to ensure that the full potential of tourism in Wales is maximised, as we’ve got more castles and more churches here—[Interruption.]—rather than more inhabited islands?

And chapels, indeed—many more chapels than anywhere else. Look, I think we should just first of all recognise the success of the sector right now today. We’re seeing a record number of people visiting from overseas and we’re seeing a record number of people visiting for across the UK, spending a record amount. And in terms of the marketing budget, yes, it’s gone up by 38 per cent this year, but you can’t look at marketing in isolation from the other activity that drives up the value of the sector. Our investment goes way beyond—. You have to make sure that the marketing is aligned with the product and in turn you have to invest in the product, too. So, for example, we know that one of the primary reasons people come to Wales is to experience the historic environment. In turn, for that reason, we’ve been investing heavily in transformational projects at some of our best and most fantastic castles and places of worship. In terms of the marketing effort, it’s not just how much you spend, but also in what way you spend it—how smart you are.

The traditional view that you have to spend a huge amount of money on print and broadcast advertisements is becoming increasingly redundant. Yes, there is still a call for that, but increasing in significance is the role of social media. That is far more cost-effective. In order to capture the imagination and the attention of a global marketplace, you have to have a very strong product, and you have to have a very strong marketing exercise. I have to say, if I had a tattoo for every award that the Visit Wales team has won for the marketing programme, I’d have two full sleeves by now, because they have been doing an excellent job in promoting Wales, here in the UK and abroad, and it is borne out in the figures. The figures are astonishing, and I very much welcome any discussion with Members in terms of the ideas that they may have for promoting Wales still further, at home or abroad.

Cabinet Secretary, you will be well aware that tourism is a vital sector when it comes to the economic development of north Wales. I’ve previously welcomed the Welsh Government’s plans to create what’s called a culture corridor across the A55, which will link the attractions on what is the gateway to north Wales. As I understand it, a major part of this will be new and enhanced signage, which will literally mark out the amazing heritage and tourism assets in our region, including in my own constituency, such as Flint castle, Theatr Clwyd and St Winefride’s well in Holywell. On the latter, I think there is much needed replacement of the brown signage around the A55 as you come into Holywell, and it’s been raised with me by the town council. So, perhaps you would consider not just bringing it in but enhancing it as well, to make it much more interactive, and not only drive people to our tourist attractions, but also for investment and to stimulate the local economy. Do you agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that improved and enhanced signage that best promotes Welsh tourism is really essential and needs to be put in place as soon as possible?

The Member makes a number of important points. In terms of the culture corridor, the A55 is one of three new internationally focused tourism routes, to be launched as the Wales Way in late 2017. The North Wales Way, the A55, which is the culture corridor, will be joined by the Cambrian Way, the A470, and the Coastal Way, the A470. What they are going to be striving to do is to capture the unique selling points of the respective regions and promote them even better to a national and international audience, and make the visitor experience not one of just visiting places, but also experiencing a journey. The routes are the main arteries of significant parts of Wales and they’ll encourage visitors to meander off piste and to visit some of our most spectacular locations.

But the Member is right that we need to look afresh at signage, particularly in a digital age, and with specific regard to brown signs, I can tell Members today that I’ve recently asked my officials to review the application process, as I am aware that there have been some delays. Those delays have been raised in this Chamber, I think primarily by Darren Millar, but also by others, and we’re working on improvements that will enable us to have greater control regarding the speed and delivery of those brown signs. We’ll be assigning the necessary resource to help expedite and close out those schemes that are still outstanding.

On heritage, though, the Member pointed to the value that the castles and the major heritage locations have. They contribute something in the region of £900 million to the Welsh economy every year, and they employ in total something in the region of 41,000 people. They actually account for 61 per cent of the purposes of visits to Wales by tourists, so they’re incredibly important and it’s my view that, as we develop the culture corridor, the Cambrian Way and the Coastal Way, at the very forefront of our consideration will be how to make best use of our magnificent historic environment.

Supporting a strong economy that generates sustainable employment opportunities that are accessible to all is fundamental to our ambition of delivering prosperity for all. The evidence is clear that fair, sustainable work provides the best route out of poverty and also the greatest protection against poverty for those most at risk.

Cabinet Secretary, we couldn’t disagree with that analysis, but unfortunately the complexities of enabling everybody to be work ready and then to sustain work is very complicated. The winding down of the Communities First programme has raised many concerns that the place-based strategies for strengthening the resilience of deprived communities to both articulate their needs and be involved in solving their problems may be completely undermined.

The Government seems to be relying on the competencies of public services boards in line with the future generations Act, and the lead delivery bodies for the Communities First programmes, to pick up those programmes that have worked well. It seems that we are taking a very substantial risk in terms of complementing the employment focus strategies that I know you’ve just spoken about a moment ago. So, I wonder if you can say how the Government is determined to ensure that those place-based strategies that have really contributed to the community are going to be retained.

The Member may be interested to know that with the proposed regional model of economic development, we’ll be bringing together in a similar footprint those activities that relate to employment and skills training and skills provision, so that we have a more place-based approach to economic development and the delivery of skills provision. But there will continue to be programmes, of course, that are based on need.

What we’re keen to do is to make sure that every barrier to employment, every barrier to prosperity, is torn down, whether it be the barrier of transport through the provision of the metro in the south, a better rail franchise across the rest of Wales, better buses, or whether it be through childcare, through the roll-out of the most generous childcare support anywhere in the UK, or through the provision of skills training, through the roll-out of a new employability plan. The key thing is that we have a sensitivity to regional idiosyncrasies and requirements whilst also making sure that there is equitable provision for every individual right across our country.

Cabinet Secretary, it’s clear from independent evaluation with regard to Communities First that the Government has failed in its aim to decrease general poverty in these areas. With the scrapping of Communities First, how will you deliver on the specific goal of decreasing poverty? Because, and I quote the Cabinet Secretary from this morning’s committee evidence to us, he will be relying on a ‘jigsaw’ of different projects to come together, via the councils’ funding mechanisms and via employability programmes, specifically looking at an individual’s, from your portfolio. So, it’s a question of how will you deliver on tackling poverty now that that key delivery body that you set up to be able to do that has fundamentally failed in that goal.

Well, let’s just look at the figures first of all, and then I’ll come to answer the specific point about what we’re going to be doing moving forward. In terms of gross domestic household income, we’ve seen it rise faster than the UK as a whole, and in terms of GVA per head, likewise the index of production and the index of construction.

What’s important is that we’ve also seen a reduction in the poverty rate as well, during some of the most brutal austerity years that any of us can remember. But we are determined to ensure that there is prosperity for all, and for that reason, we’re going to have, as the Cabinet Secretary told you this morning, we are determined to have a mix of programmes that are place specific and those that are available across the whole of Wales, that are able to make interventions in people’s lives that help them to overcome the barriers that I spoke about a little earlier.

I do believe that the roll-out of an all-age employability programme will be crucial, likewise a most generous childcare offer, and the retention of other programmes where they have proven to be effective. Some of the programmes that have proven to be effective and will continue have been relatively inexpensive as well. It’s not always the most expensive programmes that are the most effective. We know, for example, that the Fusion programme that brings together communities with cultural institutions has been delivered for a relatively small amount of financial resource, but the impact is considerable, with a huge number of people who were previously economically inactive gaining the skills, gaining the experience, to get into work or to go on to higher and further education. And I think that’s a valuable contribution for some communities that, perhaps, have felt left behind as the world has transitioned from the old economy to the new.

We are working closely and speedily with partners to deliver one of the most generous packages of investment in north Wales: more than £600 million that will improve the infrastructure right across the region.

Thank you for that. Without commenting on the adjectives you’ve used, because this isn’t the opportunity to do so, you have said that the initial assessment of possible new stations has prioritised the proposal for a station at Deeside industrial park, Northern Gateway, for further appraisal. How would you respond to the statement by the Wrexham Bidston Rail Users’ Association? The key factor behind what was their proposal for a Deeside parkway is the ability to provide a car park of sufficient capacity adjacent to the station, accessible to the sizeable population of Deeside, which Hawarden Bridge, Shotton and Hawarden can’t do.

Well, I think the user group, the passenger group are absolutely right that we need to invest in rail infrastructure in the north-east of Wales. Of course, historically, the UK Government, who’s responsible for it, have shown scant regard for the needs of the region in terms of investment in rail infrastructure. That can be said for the rest of Wales as well. What we have done is to ensure that, so that those stations are in a position to attract funding, we have developed business cases, and we continue to develop them to a phase where they are ready for UK Government investment, should it be available. As I said, we are constantly arguing for a greater share of that resource.

Deeside industrial park, Northern Gateway, is a project that would enable people—a larger number of people—to use park-and-ride facilities. We’re incredibly keen that that part of Deeside can be utilised, not just for road and rail transport, but also for active travel. For that reason, the Welsh Government has granted Flintshire council funding to look at how to improve active travel in the area. We’re working with all stakeholders across the north of Wales, and indeed across the border, to ensure that we have better services that are more reliable and more frequent. And, indeed, as a result of the engagement that I’ve had with the user group, we’ve actually been able to ensure that Network Rail carries out the maintenance that’s required on the Wrexham-Bidston line so that, in all hope, next winter we will not see the same sorts of delays—unacceptable delays and cancellations—to services that so many people in north Wales and across the border rely on.

Cabinet Secretary, if I had a tattoo for every hour I had spent in a traffic jam, I would have more than two full sleeves. On Friday, I got caught up in the horrendous chaos on the A55, only to turn around and then be caught up in hours of delays on the A5 near Chirk, which, I believe, is only just reopening fully today. What are you going to do to ensure that when we have these accidents and when repairs need to be made, we actually have a 24/7 service, where engineers and contractors can move in swiftly and quickly and get this sorted, and with the emphasis on the weekend as well, please?

I am totally sympathetic to the concerns that the Member has, and the concerns that have been expressed widely on social media, and the frustration that’s been expressed on social media and in newspapers. I have asked for an urgent piece of work to be carried out and to be presented to me, with recommendations, before the recess, on how the response to the repair of damage can be improved, and to investigate options and costs for providing an improved emergency response to various scenarios, the types of which we have seen recently.

In terms of the actual events themselves, the A55 incident that the Member referred to first led to a road closure. I will be issuing a statement that will detail what happened in the aftermath of that incident. Though officials worked as fast as possible to remove, or try to remove, what was on the surface of the road, it ultimately required further work to be done to clear the surface, but we were able to open the road as soon as possible. The incident that happened earlier in the month on the A55 near Bodelwyddan was a most unfortunate one, and it did involve a vulnerable person on a bridge over the A55 at Bodelwyddan. I’m sure the Member would agree that we can’t compromise when lives are at risk. It is unusual for such an incident as this to be as prolonged as it was, but north Wales took the lead in managing the incident. Likewise, the incident that the Member was caught up in himself last week was managed, in part, by the air ambulance, who requested emergency services, requested closure of the roads—again, we cannot compromise on safety.

In terms of the A5 incident between Halton and Gledrid on 19 June, this occurred when a vehicle struck a parapet on the viaduct itself. Local diversions were put in place, but we could not open the road without suitable protective barriers in place. I, and my officials, have been pressing for work to be carried out urgently so that the road can be reopened. There has been a great challenge in identifying the specialists that are required to carry out that work, in part because of the extraordinary amount of work that’s now taking place on bridges and other facilities in London, but it’s my hope that the diversion will be removed by Friday morning so that that road can reopen. But, as I say again, a written statement is due to be released shortly and I have asked for that urgent piece of work to be brought to me before recess, with a set of recommendations, so that in the future we are able to respond to incidents such as this far quicker and resolve them sooner.

Yes. Business Wales continues to evolve to ensure the service is meeting the objectives of the Welsh Government now and into the future. Business Wales offers a gateway to business support, along with providing direct advice, accelerated growth support, information, and guidance to SMEs in Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the answer that he’s given, and for the time he’s given over to discussing with me issues in the economy of Neath and the region. He’ll know from those discussions that small businesses, as I’ve reported to him, often find Business Wales not to be user-friendly to small businesses, and to be overly-centralised. Yet, for larger businesses, at a different stage in their growth cycle, if you like, they’re often looking for finance and business support to be joined up and integrated in a seamless offer, and yet we provide those through the Welsh Government through different channels. What steps can the Welsh Government take to address some of those challenges so we ensure that we provide the best possible support for companies that we want to grow, indigenous companies in Wales?

I’d like to pay tribute to the passion that the Member shows concerning business growth, not only in Neath, but across the whole of Wales. We’ve already taken steps to make it easier for Welsh businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs to access information through Business Wales. But, moving forward, I do believe that there needs to be a greater alignment of activities concerning Business Wales and those of the Development Bank of Wales so that support and advice and access to both is much clearer to small businesses and those wishing to start up businesses. It is worth saying that Business Wales, in the four and a half years that it’s been operating, has improved its outputs year on year. There is a great success story to be told about Business Wales having helped to create 10,000 new businesses since 2013, but I am concerned that we make sure that all services delivered across Government—across local government and with our partners, are closely aligned so that a business, or a business start-up entrepreneur, only has to access one door, and, no matter how complicated the wiring might be behind it concerning the support or advice that they’re seeking to draw down, they have one point of contact and one door to walk through.

And, finally, question 8—Steffan Lewis.

Yes. We provide over £180 million a year in franchise subsidy payments and funding for additional services across the Wales and borders network. Rail infrastructure is not devolved, but, since 2011, we have invested over £200 million into rail infrastructure in Wales.

Diolch. Llywydd, I declare an interest, that my sister is an employee of Network Rail. The Cabinet Secretary, as mentioned previously, has published his priority list for new stations to be constructed, and I was surprised that Crymlyn was not among those priority stations, given the key location that it provides for a multimodal interchange point and its potential as a cycle and long-distance walking hub as well—in the area, the Cabinet Secretary will be aware, in which the street with the poorest air pollution outside of London anywhere in the UK is also located. I understand that his resources are finite and there are many competing factors, but perhaps the current criteria for deciding priority stations aren’t as all-encompassing as they could be. Will he agree to meet with me to discuss and further explore the specific needs and potential that exist at Crymlyn for a new station?

I’d be more than happy to meet with the Member and any other Member who would like to discuss stations in their particular regions or constituencies—I’ve already done that in other areas; I’ve had a number of meetings now concerning Newport provision. I’d be happy to meet with the Member. I should just say that this is an ongoing process. Once the assessment of the priority list is completed, there will be an opportunity to then consider the next group of regional stations.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. The first question is from Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you. The health benefits of sustainable transport modes are clearly evidenced. These include better air quality and mental and physical health and well-being. Journeys to school are a focus for our effort to increase the use of sustainable transport, with substantial investment in walking and cycling routes to schools, funding for pedestrian and cycle training, and promotion of active travel.

We’re raising this issue, coincidentally, on the day when the air pollution in Cardiff is at dangerous levels because of the combination of ozone levels and the particulates from vehicles. Professor Sir David King, who’s the former chief scientific adviser to the UK Government, recently said that children sitting in the back seats of vehicles are likely to be exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution

in a box collecting toxic gases from all the vehicles around you’.

Professor Stephen Holgate, an asthma expert at Southampton University and chair of the Royal College of Physicians’ working party on air pollution, said that there’s enough evidence to tell parents that walking and cycling exposes their children to less air pollution than driving. There’s a nine to 12 times higher a risk of air pollution inside the car than outside. They’re in the back of the car, mainly, children, and, if the fan is on, they’re

just sucking the fresh exhaust coming out of the car or lorry in front of them straight into the back of the car’.

We know from the research that we’ve already got that this increases the risk of reducing the growth of their lungs, of becoming asthmatic. There is also some growing concern that it may stunt children’s ability to learn at school and may damage their DNA.

This is pretty substantive evidence, so I wondered what advice your public health experts give to headteachers, who can, in turn, pass it on to parents, to make it clear to people that it is much safer for them to walk and cycle to school than it is to take their children in a car.

Thank you very much for those points. Jenny does paint a very stark picture of the dangers posed by air pollution and, by contrast, the benefits offered by active travel, in terms of health, environment and the financial benefits of walking and cycling as well. We’re making good progress now in the implementation of our Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. I’m really pleased that our local authorities are on course by November to provide us with their integrated network maps, and those will, for the very first time, give us integrated plans for 142 of the largest places in Wales. I think that this will be exciting news, particularly for those in Cardiff and in your constituency as well.

Public Health Wales’s ‘Making a Difference’ report does identify that cycling and walking in urban areas could actually save the NHS nearly £1 billion in Wales over the next 20 years. So, as well as having that personal benefit in terms of health, there’s actually a benefit for the wider NHS as well.

I’m really pleased with the work that we are doing with an organisation called Living Streets. The Welsh Government has funded them with pilot funding for three projects to look at the barriers to children and families walking to school. They’ve just used what they’ve learned through that to provide a resource for schools in order to enable them to explore, with the children themselves, but also with the families, what’s preventing children walking to that particular school. I’d be more than happy, when that resource is ready, to send copies to all Assembly Members and we can all promote it in our own communities as well.

Likewise, there’s great exciting work going on with an organisation called Sustrans, who I’m sure that you’re really familiar with, through their active journeys programme as well. So, all of this links in very much to the promotion and the prominence that we are giving to active travel, and I’m really pleased to start to see the benefits of this Act.

Minister, the European Urban Audit placed Cardiff as the highest ranking UK city, the sixth most liveable capital city in Europe. Copenhagen was first: 45 per cent of inhabitants there ride to work. As part of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, will you set targets for our cities and other urban areas for the number of non-motorised journeys? That would be a good action under the FGA.

Thank you very much for that question. Obviously, that would be a matter for the Minister with responsibility in this area to consider—

Oh, lord. The best you can do. [Laughter.]

I am continuing with my answer to let you know that, under the WFG Act, the public health outcome framework does have an indicator that specifically relates to making the average concentration of nitrogen dioxide at dwellings one of Wales’s national well-being and public health framework outcomes. So, it’s very much at the centre in terms of what we would expect in terms of data collection and our ambitions in that area. So, you can be as sarcastic as you like, but you wouldn’t expect me to make commitments in a different—

Your boss is the well-being Minister, thank you very much.

You wouldn’t expect me to make commitments that relate to another portfolio.

Question 2 [OAQ(5)0174(HWS)] is withdrawn. Question 3, Steffan Lewis.

Thank you for the question. Waiting times across Aneurin Bevan health board in general terms have improved across almost all main measures in the last year. For example, referral-to-treatment times have improved to 90.5 per cent at the end of March this year, over 80 per cent of red ambulance calls were responded to in April 2017 within target, and the most recent 62-day cancer performance was 92 per cent. But, naturally, I expect the health board to plan and deliver further improvements.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. Recently, a constituent came to see me who’d been waiting an unacceptably long time on a waiting list for cardiology care. I noticed upon further inspection that the maximum waiting time in cardiology in Aneurin Bevan has increased from 34 weeks, I believe, in 2011, to 105-plus weeks last year. So, given the seriousness of conditions that require cardiology services, can you update us on interventions that you’re considering taking to bring down waiting lists for these very serious conditions?

Well, this is part of what we expect health boards to plan and deliver to understand what they’re currently doing and where it’s not actually delivering an acceptable level of care, and, where waiting times are important, as I accept they certainly are on a range of conditions, how they plan to deliver and improve those, whether that’s by commissioning services from other health boards and other areas or actually thinking about how they do them. Actually, in cardiology, the successful role of community cardiology—actually piloted in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board area—has been shown to improve waiting times for people in secondary care cardiology, because people are getting a different service that is actually appropriate for them in a primary care setting, and that means people that really do need to see a consultant in a secondary care setting are more likely to be seen more quickly. So, there are ongoing initiatives, but I’ll happily write to you with more detail on what’s happening in the Aneurin Bevan health board area.

What impact does the Cabinet Secretary expect the specialist and critical care centre to have on waiting times over the medium term and can he confirm when building of this will start and when he expects it to actually open for patients?

I look forward to attending the turf-cutting for the currently referred to specialist and critical care centre during the summer, so building work is starting. I’ve already indicated in one of my previous statements that I expect it to be open, I think, in 2021. In terms of its impact on waiting times, I’m rather more interested in its impact on the whole system and what it means in terms of delivering greater quality of care. I think this is part of our challenge. We’re talking about quality of care in the national health service. We often get stuck talking about volume and time, and, actually, that is not always the best metric of improvement and what quality looks like. I certainly expect that the new hospital will be part of a high-performing health board in Wales terms, to continue to deliver and to improve the quality of its care on a range of measures, including elective care and unscheduled care. But, of course, there will still be roles for other hospitals within the wider Gwent area, as well as our long-stated ambition to see more care provided in the primary care setting, in any event.

Questions now from the party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. There have been a number of cases drawn to my attention of doctors trained in Wales who want to work in Wales, but, because they’ve worked abroad, or have been further trained abroad, they find it very difficult to register to work again in Wales. In one case—and I wrote to your predecessor about this case—she had to return to New Zealand having returned to Wales because of difficulties registering permanently, and that was a huge loss to the NHS.

The latest individual to contact me talks of hundreds of pages to be filled in, with input required from former employers. And, with the administrative burden so heavy, some in Australia refuse to take part in that process. There is talk of a need for a complex reference document from six previous employers. I’ve heard about confusion about the information required. There is a requirement in terms of further training, and Wales is seen as nation that can’t give an assurance as to where one might be allowed to work.

So, what is now being done to facilitate the process of reregistering doctors in Wales, so that we can attract Welsh doctors back, or other doctors from abroad, for that matter?

I think it’s an important point in terms of our ability to recruit and retain doctors from around the world, including those who may have been trained in Wales or the wider UK and want to come to live, train and work in Wales for the future. There’s a balance here about the assurance we should properly want in terms of a doctor’s professional competence and their previous record where they are currently or most recently have been working. And, actually, it’s about making it as easy as possible for highly trained and welcome individuals to come and provide a service that we do need in this country.

That’s why, as part of the ‘Train. Work. Live.’ campaign, this was actually part of the feature, in trying to make this easier. That’s why we have a single point of contact created to try and make it an easier process for that person, or that group of people—often, doctors come with partners. So, it’s to understand what we do to make it easier for them to come here and to work, as well as to live here as well.

So, that’s part of the work that we’re doing. I’m always interested in specific examples where that doesn’t appear to have been the case. So, I’d be very happy to look at the detail of the issue that you raise, to understand how that matches up to what we’re doing now. And if it hasn’t met our own expectations of how we make it easier, we’ll give appropriate assurance of what we can do to actually improve what we currently do. There’s no point pretending that everything is perfect—it rarely is—but I’m always keen to learn from what’s happening at the moment.

And certainly, I will contact you, as I contacted your predecessor, who also gave me some warm words as you have done. But, unfortunately, it’s clear that there is a problem still facing us.

I will move to the challenge of attracting doctors from England. Now, doctors registered in Wales can’t work in Wales until they’ve been registered, as you know, on the Welsh performers list. There’s a similar register in England. The BMA notes that difficulties in transferring information between the two registers, and the complexities of registering on the Welsh list, make it very difficult to attract locums here specifically. And, in 2015, the BMA recommended that the Welsh Government and the UK Government needed to work together to facilitate that sharing of information between the two registers. So, what steps has the Minister taken since then to make it easier to register doctors from England to work in Wales, something which is crucial, of course, to go alongside any recruitment campaign?

Well, the single performers list is an issue of some frustration for people in the national health service in Wales, and in Government too, in that we have done what we could and should do to make it easier for people to register in Wales. The challenge is the willingness of the Department of Health and NHS England to do the same on a reciprocal basis. So, actually, we make it easier for our doctors to practice over the border—it’s really about their ability to do the same with us.

And that’s the honest challenge. There are times when I will stand up, and I’ll say, ‘This isn’t perfect, I know we need to improve’. This absolutely is an area where the challenge is NHS England and the Department of Health doing their bit. When you talk about making it easier for doctors to come here, part of what makes it easier and better for doctors to come here is that there is a real acceptance within the profession about the nature of the conversation that we are having about the sort of relationships we want to have with doctors, whether in primary care or in secondary care. And, actually, it’s the creation of that culture, more so than incentives in many ways, that is attracting doctors to come into Wales, and we want them to stay here. But the performers list is an absolutely an issue, and it’s something that we are still continuing to persuade the Department for Health and NHS England to move on, to help all of us to recruit and retain doctors within the England and Wales systems.

I certainly welcome any signals—and there are positive signals—in terms of an improvement in the number of those choosing to come to work in Wales, and an increase in the number of those choosing to train as GPs, and the financial incentive can play a part in that. But developing expertise and having the support to develop expertise is also something that appeals to junior doctors. And knowing that our rural areas are facing a very real challenge in recruitment, does the Minister agree with me that there is real scope to use a new medical school in Bangor as a centre to develop expertise, which could become global in its significance in rural medicine specifically, in the primary and secondary sectors, and that that as an aim should be a reason to move quickly towards establishing medical education in Bangor?

I thank you for your further follow-up question. I’ve been clear and consistent about the question of a medical school in north Wales. I’m awaiting final advice, and when that advice comes in, I’ll make a decision. I’ll also need to have a conversation with my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education, because the budget isn’t in one particular area of Government; it’s spread across budget pressures for both of us—whether that is a new medical school, or whether it is expanding the numbers of doctors we want to train and recruit here in Wales. So, there’s honesty and, I think, consistency in the questions that you and other colleagues have asked again, and I don’t have any difficulty with you asking the question.

When I get the advice, I’ll be clear about what the advice is, I’ll be clear about what the Government response is and what we then expect to do. But I do recognise that there is a clear aspiration for more people to undertake their medical training in different parts of Wales. And, of course, rural Wales isn’t just an issue for north Wales. There are other points and questions as well about how we keep people in Wales—whether it’s west Wales or north Wales—who want to train to become a doctor, but also about how we get people to come back into the system. If you’re 18 or 19 and you live on the Isle of Anglesey, you may well want to go to London or Liverpool or somewhere else to do your training. But we need to be better at getting people to come back into our system. So, it’s more than one thing, and I don’t want to try and pretend that a medical school is the only answer or the answer to resolving some of those challenges. We see work on this already, for example, in the curriculum programme that Cardiff University are developing, where they recognise that there’s more they could do about the speciality of rural medicine that will be attractive to some people who want to become doctors now and in the future. There’s lots of different work ongoing, and when there is advice and a response from myself, then I’ll sit down and agree and discuss that with my colleague Kirsty Williams. We’ll need to cover all of those in pointing out what the response is going to be.

Conservative spokesperson, Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. Of course, Cabinet Secretary, one of the ways that we can attract more people into medicine is by ensuring that people have the opportunity to have a good work-life balance, and I’m quite sure that you will agree with me about the importance of ensuring good work-life balance for all workers in the NHS—a very stressful job at the best of times. The recent undertaking to attract more GPs into Wales has been successful, and I do praise you for that, and your Government. But we are still struggling to—[Interruption.] Yes, I’d write it down, too. It doesn’t often happen, but I will give praise where it’s due. But we are still struggling to attract physicians. The route from undergraduate to consultant physician can take over 15 years, and with such a time commitment, especially when you’re starting out so young, an individual’s career and their needs change. They might end up meeting the person of their dreams, marrying, children—the whole lot. That is a huge commitment to go straight from 18 to planning your life forward. What plans do you have to ensure that leadership and management pathways are open during these 15 years, and that there are opportunities for sabbaticals or for them to undertake some research, while still keeping on that very valuable training course? I think that would help to improve an offer that we could have here in Wales that might attract more people to us than other parts of the UK.

I think that’s a fair point to mention. It’s certainly part of what we discussed in the run-up to the recruitment campaign, and equally, what lots of our junior doctors are very keen to positively sell about Wales. At the BMJ careers fair, where we launched the ‘Train. Work. Live.’ campaign for doctors last autumn, what was really encouraging was not just the people involved in the profession already in Wales at a more senior level involved in promoting the opportunities to work in Wales, but actually junior doctors who attended, who had agreed to come and be part of us having that conversation with peers in that particular event and who came back after their allotted time and spent more time doing it because they believe there’s a really positive offer here in Wales. It is about that mix of understanding—about the balance and the different opportunities. You can be a doctor who wants to work in an urban setting and you can work in the middle of a city like Cardiff, or you can work in Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd with a very different sort of approach. It’s about selling all of those different opportunities. That’s why I’m talking about training, working and living in Wales. It isn’t just about one of those things—it’s a range of different parts.

There’s also got to be the recognition that people’s careers won’t simply be to go into one job and stay in that one job for the whole of their career. People do already move around and that’s more likely to be the case in the future. So, there is a point about having generalists as part of who we need to attract and retain here in Wales, but also to think about the whole career path they have and how we can make it easier to move in different parts of their career, because that is what we need to do successfully in the future. That, of course, is a common challenge right across UK systems. We face many similar challenges and we can always learn what is done successfully or unsuccessfully in other parts of the UK. I am keen that we have an open-minded approach to that conversation in the future.

That’s great news. The doctors have been saying this and the undergraduates have been saying this now for a number of years. So, I really hope that, this time, they are heard and those actions are taken. You mentioned, of course, that doctors like to move around. I understand that it’s very difficult to track doctors who want to take a break or leave their training and decide to, perhaps after their core medical training, go out on locum for a few years. I think that these figures would be useful to establish what path those individuals follow, whether it’s in this country, whether it’s abroad or whether, in fact, they’ve decided to step away from front-line medicine because they can’t get the work-life balance that they need. I’ve tried to investigate how we can track individuals who start training here in Wales. One way of doing this would be for every doctor to retain their national training number throughout their career. I understand that if they step out of training, they do have to surrender that national training number. I wonder if you might take this idea forward with the Welsh Deanery, because what we need is data. We need to know who’s joined us, why they don’t want to stay and where they’ve gone, because that way we can learn even more about what we need to do to ensure that we have the right offer in our NHS.

I think that’s an interesting point to make and one that I’ll certainly discuss with officials, not just in the deanery, but, of course, as we move to the creation of Health Education Wales and to understand what that will look like. I think I’ve indicated that I’ll update Members on the progress of that and the creation of a shadow body to lead to its coming into being in the future. These are subjects that we do talk about regularly with both the BMA and other stakeholders as well.

I met them this week, in fact. I met their representative from the junior doctors committee as part of that conversation about what are the current positions and the challenges over the different contracts in England, and the feeling of juniors in England and how that affects people in Wales and what that means for choices that we want to make here, not just about the contract, but on the different offers that we have on working here as well. Because those different working patterns won’t just be about people going in and out of medicine; it will also be that people want a different work-life balance, as you started off by saying—not just women, but actually lots of men will want a different work-life balance. There’s a very different, and I think a very welcome, attitude to what it is to be a parent, and that means that people will want to work different hours and try to manage having other things outside their life. The way that people trained in the past isn’t something we want to reinvent, where people worked crazy hours as part of what they were doing.

That means that we have to think more about the resource that we have in financial terms and how we use the human resource of the doctors that we’re getting through training and then how we do our best to keep them. So, I’m interested in how we could usefully track the choices that they make and the feedback that they give us and that’s part of what we’re able to do with the current campaign as well. I’m happy to make sure that we share more information with Assembly Members as we get that through the campaign as well about the level of real intent that we’re getting back from people who either decided not to come to Wales—because that’s important too—as well as those who do decide to come here as well. But I’ll certainly take up the particular idea of whether the national training number could be something useful as part of that.

I know that you are going to be starting the nurse recruitment drive as well. I think the thing is that we can’t do these in a linear order—we have to do them all in tandem because we have enormous gaps throughout the NHS. Recent statistics are very clear that we are only filling 49 per cent of placements for core medical training. We are running out of doctors in our NHS and they are going off on to locum or just leaving, or we simply don’t have them. So, that means we’ve got a 51 per cent vacancy rate. I’d like you to consider addressing how we might be able to make up for that shortfall. Because, of course, on round 2, when we might fill up a few of those, first, we won’t get all of the 51 per cent, because we would have got them the first time around, and, of course, secondly, we’re getting people for whom Wales is not their first choice, which means they may be less likely to stay here in the long run.

We’re frankly getting people who may not have made the grade the first time around. So, we’re having people who are not the top of their cohort and we want to grab all the excellent ones first if we possibly can. So, I wondered, Cabinet Secretary, if you can tell us what discussions you’re having with organisations such as the hospital trust and the Royal College of Physicians, in order to increase the number of physicians that we can recruit to the Welsh NHS on that first and very important attempt—51 per cent is a big, big shortfall.

I recognise that core medical training is a real concern. Just because it’s a real concern in other parts of the UK doesn’t mean that we don’t have a problem here, because we do, and it’s a very real challenge for us to take on board. And, actually, it’s part of the conversations that we have had. I had a very constructive conversation with the Royal College of Physicians, as well as other partners and stakeholders. Part of the honest and mature conversation that we have to have is that, given that we all know that this is a big problem, how would we look at what we can positively do, given that we know that those shortages exist in other parts of the UK too?

Some of that is, if you like, the competition between different parts of the UK to try and recruit and retain the same people. Part of the Royal College of Physicians’ concern has been the way in which the health service is often talked about makes it a less attractive career for other people who might otherwise have wanted to go into a career in medicine. There are different things that we need to look at and do.

So, I won’t pretend to you that there is a single answer that I have hidden somewhere in my pocket to reveal and to resolve the whole of the problem—that would not be a smart way to go about this. I couldn’t pretend to you that everything will be fine within six months’ time, but what I can say is that I think we have the right partners having the conversations with us, with officials here in the Government, with health boards, and, as I said earlier, leading into the creation of Health Education Wales to have a more joined-up and intelligent conversation about who we want and how we get them. And it’s the how we get them, I think, which is the more challenging part, rather than trying to understand, in workforce terms, who would ideally like to be working in the service.

UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we all know that early detection of cancer is vital to patient survival, which is why screening programmes are so important. If bowel cancer is diagnosed at the earlier stage, more than nine in 10 people will be successfully treated. Screening should reduce the number of people who die from the disease, which kills around 1,000 people in Wales each year. Many people find the current test too complicated, which is why I congratulate you for introducing the simpler and more accurate faecal immunochemical test—or FIT. Cabinet Secretary, can you please provide an update on how the roll-out of the new test is progressing?

Thank you for the questions. There are, I think, two broad points I’d make. The first is that I think it’s too early to talk about the roll-out, but we expect to provide information through this year on the roll-out of the new simpler and easier-to-administer test. It’s been part of the challenge in the past about bowel cancer rates, because, broadly, it was a difficult and unpleasant test to administer by the individual. So, lots of people were just put off and didn’t comply, and the fact that, actually, detecting earlier a potentially fatal condition didn’t matter to people enough. So, we knew that there was something about improving testing rates, and the new test should help us to do that. My colleague, the Minister, will take a lead on providing that information with her responsibility for the screening programme.

The second point that I’d make is that, when we talk about earlier testing, there is always a challenge and a demand to have more testing and more screening and surveillance programmes, and this is really difficult, because, as with other parts of the UK, we follow the expert advice that we have about where is the appropriate point and the appropriate group of people to test to actually save the greatest number of lives. Because, potential harm is done in the testing programmes as well, and we’re making choices about our use of resources. Now, that is always difficult, because, as people in this Chamber will know, with the recent passing away of Sam Gould at a young age, that’s someone who was younger than our standard bowel cancer testing programme. That’s because we’re acting on the advice we’re given about how to get the best return for the public and the health service and how we save the greatest number of lives.

So, whilst I understand that Members will often want to come and say, ‘Expand the screening programme; test more people’, it often isn’t as simple as that, and I’d ask people to think and to try and engage with us on the level of where the evidence takes us and why it’s there, and whether we actually want to run this sort of campaigning, the sort of work that the campaign around the testing programme led by evidence, or led by who’s going to have the loudest voice about what they’re trying to change. This isn’t an easy choice for anyone to make, and I think that anyone in my position now or in Rebecca Evans’s position would still have to be led by the evidence about what is the right thing to do for the service and the public.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Wales has opted to set a much higher sensitivity threshold for the FIT screening. While it is lower than the level set in England, it is double the level set in Scotland, and eight times higher than the threshold set elsewhere in Europe. Cancer Research UK state that the reason for the much higher threshold is due to the lack of endoscopy capacity here in Wales. Wales routinely sees around 1,000 patients waiting more than eight weeks for a colonoscopy. If we are to maximise the benefits of the FIT test, we must increase endoscopy capacity. Cabinet Secretary, what actions are you taking to increase capacity and will you consider lowering the FIT screening threshold once we have sufficient colonoscopy capacity?

I’m happy to deal with both parts of that. I’m certainly not aware that we set the threshold in the test on anything other than the evidence base on what is the right thing to do for patients. If she wants to write to me with specific issues that have been raised by Cancer Research for either myself or the Minister to respond, we’ll happily do so. In terms of endoscopy capacity, we do know that we have a particular challenge in the south-east part of Wales, and we’ve actually made significant progress on reducing waits and improving capacity, but also improving quality at the same time, in west Wales, in mid Wales and in north Wales too. Our challenge is for south-east Wales, where most of these waits exist, in the Cardiff and Vale, Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan health board areas. And whilst they’ve made progress over the last year that has really been significant, there is still much more to do over the course of this year, and I expect them to make a real and significant difference again into the backlog they have, so we then have a much more sustainable system where people are seen within their target times.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Bowel cancer screening is offered to those aged between 60 and 74. Scotland has opted to screen those aged between 50 and 74. Bowel cancer can, however, strike at any age. A few weeks ago, we sadly lost a colleague to bowel cancer, and he was aged only 33. Cabinet Secretary, does your Government have any plans to offer routine FIT screening to those deemed to be at a higher risk of bowel cancer, whatever their age, and to roll out screening to the over-50s as they do in Scotland?

As I think I said in the second part of my first answer, we have to be led by the evidence, and if there is evidence that changing the age limit is the right thing to do, then you can expect the Government to do that. But what I don’t think we can do is to set an arbitrary limit on age that is driven by a campaign that isn’t supported by evidence. And that’s really difficult, because I understand the emotion and the understandable impact for people that are outside the screening programme window but nevertheless acquire conditions including cancer. But I just don’t think that any responsible Government is going to be able to say that it’ll make a choice about running a national screening programme outside and without due regard for the evidence that exists on what to do with what we recognise are finite resources in the health service, and the real harm that is done potentially by screening for those who don’t need it, as well as the real gain to be made by an appropriately resourced and high-quality screening programme undertaken across the country.

Our priority is to take a preventative approach to tackle childhood obesity. We do this through a range of approaches, including campaigns, programmes and legislation.

Examples include our Active Journeys programme, the Healthy Child Wales programmes and Public Health Wales’s 10 Steps to a Healthy Weight campaign.

Thank you, Minister. The Cwm Taf health board area has the worst childhood obesity rates in Wales. Over one in four children in my constituency of Cynon Valley is obese, and, as well as posing health challenges, we know that this also impacts on both their social and educational lives. Innovative and inclusive practices like the daily mile can encourage healthy activity, and I know that you and the education Secretary wrote a letter to primary schools in January encouraging take-up of this. What progress has there been on this issue?

We have seen a large number of schools expressing a lot of interest in the daily mile scheme and accessing the online bilingual resources that we have. I don’t want to quote a number yet because, when we get to a landmark number, I’d like to make an announcement then, but I will say that there has been great interest in this scheme, and those schools that are doing it are reporting that they’re already seeing a difference in behaviour in class and so on. It’s very popular amongst teachers themselves, and also the children, and amongst parents as well. I’ve been working, as you say, with the education Minister to explore how we can roll out other things within the school environment as well, and one new programme that I’m very excited about, which has been built up over a period of time with pilot projects, has been the school holiday enrichment programme, which will be taking place in schools right across Wales over the course of this summer. That’s a really fantastic opportunity to give children the opportunity to have a healthy meal during the day during the holiday, but also to address things like holiday learning loss, because we know that some pupils return to school after the end of summer holidays and actually have slipped behind in their learning and so on. But the school holiday enrichment programme is really about making the school environment a fun environment to spend time in over the summer, and also to keep up your learning and to have access to a healthy meal and fun activities.

This is really great news. It’s very positive, and the daily mile is a very useful tool. However, let’s be frank, we’ve had endless debates in this Chamber about the risk of obesity, about how it’s becoming the public health challenge of the future, about all of the consequences of being too overweight for people, especially in their later life, and where we’ve got to stop it is with the young children. So, my concern is that, whilst you’re encouraging schools to take up these kinds of options, while you’re encouraging these holiday activities, what I think we need to put into place, and what I was wondering was whether you’ve had many discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Education along these lines about making it not optional and not boring. We need to have exercise in schools that children have to undertake but that is fun, isn’t judgmental. It can be dancing to One Direction; it doesn’t matter, as they’re still getting fit. I think that it’s really important that you do not give schools the opportunity to opt out of some of this stuff, because it is these kids who, as Vikki’s mentioned, are growing up and will have all of those health problems in the future, and I think we’ve got to be really, really strong on this subject.

Thank you very much, and this is the subject of ongoing discussions that I am having with the education Minister as well. It’s worth noting that, actually, nearly three quarters of four to five-year-olds are of a healthy weight. However, we want to concentrate our efforts on the remaining quarter who aren’t of a healthy weight. Levels of obesity amongst children has levelled off in recent years, but, again, things needs to be moving in the right direction.

It’s important to note, as well, that we must support children who are already overweight at a young age, and I’m really pleased that Public Health Wales has been working with health boards and has now developed an agreed service specification for level 3 services for childhood obesity. So, this will help us in terms of the efforts we’re making to make a fully integrated obesity service at all tiers of support in Wales. So, I think that this is an exciting, new and important step forward in terms of supporting children who are already overweight. If we take action at an early age, then, certainly, they can look forward to being of a healthy weight as adults.

Thank you for the question. ‘Informed Health and Care’ is our strategy for implementing new ways of delivering care through exploiting IT to improve outcomes for people in Wales.

Based on ‘once for Wales’ principles, it is underpinned by major national solutions and architecture designed to enable safe and secure use of information.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Information technology has the potential to transform how we deliver healthcare in the future. From telemedicine to interactive health apps, the benefits to patients are enormous. Unfortunately, our current infrastructure is not able to meet today’s demands. With doctors and nurses forced to use ageing IT, unable to instantly share diagnostics or access patients’ records, it is clear that we need a complete overhaul of our IT infrastructure. Cabinet Secretary, what can your Government do to ensure that we have an efficient and secure IT system that is suitable for today’s demands and future needs?

Well, that’s the clear goal of this Government in our ‘Informed Health and Care’ strategy. We’ve got a range of national systems that are now in place to allow a much easier transfer of information across the healthcare world, and Choose Pharmacy is a good example of that. It’s not just the creation of the architecture, but what it allows and enables people to do, both to put services in that make best use of a pharmacy’s expertise, as well as taking pressure off GPs. There is a much greater ability to see a version of the GP record in unscheduled care in a hospital now as well. That’s a recent delivery. So, there’s more that is happening. With each year, you’ll see more and more of this in Wales, and, again, the national systems are a really important strength for us. Rather than having seven or eight different systems trying to talk to each other across health board boundaries, we’re insisting on a genuinely national approach for Wales, and that is delivering real and tangible benefits. So, it’s also part of the roll-out of an information system between health and care as well. I’m trying to think of the particular acronyms—the Welsh community care information service that is being rolled out at present in Bridgend and Powys should develop a safe and secure transfer of information between health and social care professionals.

So, there are steps being taken, but I recognise this is an area where these two big blocks of the public sector have not, up to now, been able to keep pace with the demand and the reality of the changes in people’s lives, the way we live with smartphones and smart technology. The health service is still catching up. There’s a challenge to do that safely and securely, but there’s huge potential and huge gains to be made by people in doing so, but also for healthcare professionals in the way they work with each other and others in the social care field.

Wales has a largely good record in investing in NHS IT infrastructure. Now, the Welsh Government has outlined aims for a £180 million all-Wales digital services framework. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to outline his vision as to how the NHS IT infrastructure will be improved by the scheme, what safeguards he has in place to protect patient confidentiality, especially with regard to breaches in other parts of the UK, and what assessment has been made of the overall savings that the new framework will provide in terms of monetary value for clinicians?

I’m happy to write you with the detail of the points you’ve raised, rather than trying to reach into the depths of my memory to do so. What I will say is that the broad points you raise about the potential for improvement, about the safety and security of patient information and understanding the trade-off between that and the benefit that can be gained from the sharing of that information are significant features in every single development we undertake, because we actually recognise the risk to patients in not having a more seamless transfer of information between health and care professionals. And actually, most members of the public expect this information to be provided in that way already. The challenge, really, is how the service catches up in actually meeting that expectation and the clear desire from the public to do so.

There’s also something about cultural change as well, and an understanding that patient records are patient records, and not healthcare records that they hold about people. Actually, in the past—there’s something about how we shift that culture so citizens take more control over their own healthcare information and are able to make different choices as a result of it. So, there’s a big cultural challenge, both for members of the public to participate in their healthcare in a different way, but also for healthcare professionals to do so as well. But I’m happy to write to you on the three specific points that you mentioned in your question.

Thank you for the question. Directions and guidance are in place in hospitals for patients, staff and visitors in relation to healthy eating. These include mandatory food and fluid nutrition standards for patients, mandatory healthy food and drink vending standards and guidance for food and drink to serve to staff and visitors.

Diolch. In October 2016, Hywel Dda university health board threw away more than 7 per cent of the food it was providing. That’s the worst performing board in Wales. The real shame of this, of course, is that Hywel Dda health board is set in an area that is rich in fresh food produce. I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, how much further you think you can go in terms of co-operating with public sector procurement agencies in Wales to ensure that more tasty Welsh local food can be put on the menu in our hospitals? Now, these larger purchases by the NHS in Wales could have a significant impact on the Welsh food industry, and we’re going to be proposing this in the rural development plan that we’ll be publishing next week. To what extent do you think you can co-operate much closer with, in particular, the economic and agricultural and rural Secretaries on this issue?

I thank you for the question. On the food waste point, we’ve actually changed our target from getting down to 10 per cent in waste down to getting to below 5 per cent as well, so there is a point about waste within the hospital sector, and about making sure that we have a continuing journey of improvement. On the specific point you mention about how we procure for the national health service, we’re actually undertaking an exercise already with the national procurement service, and they’re working with the whole Welsh public sector. And I’m happy to say that, as part of what we’ve asked for, we’ve actually asked for Welsh protected geographical indication status to be contained within the specification, so we’re actually asking for produce from Wales to be part of what we wish to procure. And it’s also about trying to understand how we make it easier for small and medium suppliers to actually be part of providing that produce as well. There’s a consultation that’s been undertaken, with people in the food business, to understand how we make it easier for them, and at the same time, get good value for the public. Because there are the twin points here: about the economic value from the procurement service, but also not compromising on the nutritional value of what we want to provide in our settings. But I’m happy to say that tenders for the current framework across the public sector are due in this week, and then there’s a scheduled award against that framework in this summer as well. So, you should, I hope, see a greater number of Welsh producers taking advantage of the opportunities available—good value in economic terms to Wales, but also good value in terms of nutritional standards as well.

I thank the Member for bringing this really important question to this Chamber again. Cabinet Secretary, with two deaths per day as a result of malnutrition and dehydration in the NHS across Wales and England, the older people’s commissioner has recently highlighted food remaining uneaten on trays, patients struggling to eat, and little or no encouragement on the ward—I can resonate with this experience—and patient diet plans and weight checks not always undertaken. Appropriate nutrition and hydration for the sick is equally as important as medication, treatment and care, and yet, it’s often overlooked. What steps are you taking to make sure that any patient admitted to hospital receives the appropriate nutrition and hydration they require, in order to assist in the overall care and treatment back to good health?

I thank you for the question. I don’t know if that’s really about hospital food standards; it’s more about how the hospital food standards lead to dignified and compassionate care. Whilst there is always an issue for improvement—and I accept there are parts of our national health service we do need to improve on, in the way in which food and nutrition is actually provided, to make sure people have food and drink appropriately and aren’t left without—to say that that’s often overlooked, I think, goes beyond what is reasonable and factual. There is always, though, a need to understand, wherever there is a shortfall, where there is a failing in the care that we would all wish to see for ourselves and our own loved ones, let alone our constituents whom we represent, that we understand why that has happened, again reiterating the importance of food and nutrition.

I want to get people ready for and healthy for treatment, but also to make sure that they don’t suffer greater harm if they’re in a hospital setting, for example, and, actually, not having appropriate food and nutrition, and particular fluids, can be a real difference—not just in their recovery from having intervention, but the state in which they then leave hospital to go on to the next setting for their care or recovery at home. So, these are really important issues—again, highlighted last week, during Dietitians Week. We recognised the key importance of our dietitians, right across the health service, in a whole range of different settings, and it absolutely is part of what I think about, the way we think about planning the future for our health and care services, both in primary care, in residential care, and of course in hospital settings as well.

Diolch i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet.

The next item on our agenda is the topical questions, and the first question—Darren Millar.

Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm what the Government’s targets are for the 2018 PISA assessment? TAQ(5)0143(EDU)

Thank you, Darren, for the opportunity to discuss the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment today, after yesterday’s questions on the 2021 assessment. I’m clear that I expect to see improvement in Wales’s 2018 PISA score, but in particular I want to see progress in the performance above the seventy-fifth percentile.

I’m very grateful for that response. Cabinet Secretary, you know that the PISA results that were published last year showed that Wales has suffered a decade of decline in international league tables, with worse scores for literacy, maths and science in 2015 than there were in 2006. And those poor scores prompted your predecessors to announce all sorts of Welsh Government targets, the most recent of which, of course, were in 2011; we had Leighton Andrews setting a target to be in the top 20 in the international league tables by 2015. That, of course, was highly unlikely and, as a result, was scrapped by his successor, Huw Lewis, who set a new target of achieving scores of 500, at least, in each of the subjects by 2021. Now, at the time of that announcement, you criticised the then Welsh Government’s decision, saying that it was, and I quote,

‘an example of the absolute poverty of ambition’,

and you accused the Government, at that time, of ‘settling for mediocrity’.

Last week, you told the Children, Young People and Education Committee—

I want the question to be heard, please.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week—[Interruption.] Last week, you told—

I don’t say these things and expect to be ignored. I want the question to be heard.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, you told the Children, Young People and Education Committee that the 2021 target was, and I quote, ‘not my target’, and you signalled that you were moving away from it. Yesterday we saw the First Minister slapping you down for what you said, restating the commitment to the 2021 target, a particularly unedifying performance from the First Minister, given that today is Stand Up to Bullying Day. Now, that makes the Welsh Government look something of a two-headed beast pulling in different directions, a bit like the pushmi-pullyu of Doctor Dolittle fame. So, can I ask you: you’ve clarified your unambitious target for 2018—? If the 2021 is not your target, can you tell us: what is your target for 2021, in particular; when can we expect to achieve that target; and what is your strategy for actually getting Wales there, because I don’t see one?

Thank you very much, Darren. I regret your unfortunate phraseology, which I don’t think is called for in this situation, especially when referring it to a male and a female Member of this Assembly. It has unfortunate connotations. However, you are absolutely right: Wales’s current performance in the PISA rankings is not good enough. It wasn’t good enough when I sat over there, and it certainly isn’t good enough now that I sit here, and, perhaps more importantly, have the opportunity to do something about it. Targets are, of course, important, but you can hit the target, Darren, and you can miss the point—action is more so.

I am very clear that I expect to see improvement in the next set of PISA results, but as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said themselves, PISA should be used as a diagnostic tool, and it isn’t just about one score. Using PISA data, it is clear to me that what we need to be doing more is to support what the OECD has described as the seventy-fifth percentile. I am actively looking and scoping the introduction of a targeted scheme to better support our more able and talented pupils that will link to the successful Seren network. This will complement the work with the maths and science network, which I announced since the last PISA reports, so that we can focus very much on developing the skills of our teachers to support our more able and talented children. As you will be aware, as you take great interest in this, reading is the focus of the next PISA test. In the last PISA test, Wales had 3 per cent in the top two levels, and I would be extremely disappointed if that number did not increase the next time around.

It’s perfectly clear to me that the Government is in some difficulty on this issue. I will keep my comments very brief. I did agree with you, when you sat on these benches, when you did mention a lack of ambition among your predecessor Labour Welsh Ministers, but having listened to your responses today, I haven’t heard whether you are still committed to the targets that the First Minister made clear yesterday that he was committed to. I will give you an opportunity once again to say whether you are sticking to that target that Carwyn Jones is certainly still respecting, or do you stick to the comments that you made from these benches that the ambition needs to be greater than that?

Thank you, Rhun. As you heard yesterday from the First Minister, 500 remains—[Interruption.] If you let me finish, 500 remains the long-term goal of the Welsh Government for the next but one set of PISA results. Therefore, you know, we need to make progress in the next set of PISA results if we’re to hit that next target, and that’s why I, quite rightly, whilst I’m in this position, am focusing on interventions that will make a difference to the next set of PISA results, which will be an important waymark to the next set.

Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the commercial access deal struck between NHS Wales and Roche, which will mean that breast cancer patients in Wales can access the Kadcyla drug? TAQ(5)0192(HWS)

Thank you for the question. I’m delighted to announce that the commercial access agreement for Kadcyla commenced in Wales today, exactly the same time as in England, and is identical to that negotiated with NHS England. It’s the type of medicine that the £80 million new treatment fund was set up to support.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Your decision to enable access to Kadcyla is a welcome development, and I would like to pay tribute to all the campaigners throughout the UK who have fought for so long to have access to this life-extending drug. This targeted therapy is vital for those who have certain HER2-positive breast cancers, but it originally came with a very high financial cost, and we all recognise that it is incumbent upon the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to ensure that taxpayers’ investment in modern drug treatments has a measure of cost-effectiveness. Of course, it’s not just about the money, as those who use this drug and want more time with their loved ones will attest.

My understanding is that one of the reasons that Kadcyla was able to gain NICE approval was because of the revised methodology used to compare its efficacy against different combinations of treatment. Are you able to give an insight into the methodology process used by NICE? Is the principle behind the revised methodology process for green-lighting Kadcyla able to be used in connection with other drugs that are currently not available? Orkambi, for example, comes to mind. I appreciate that you will not be able to disclose the detail of the commercial agreement between the Welsh Government and Roche, however I would be interested to know if it is the same deal as the one NHS England secured. Finally, what lessons are we able to take from this in order to exploit new drug therapies to help our sickest people whilst preserving an appropriate margin window for developers and manufacturers and, at the same time, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely?

Thank you for the three distinct points of questioning. On the first of understanding whether there’s been a different approach to the technology assessment undertaken by NICE on both the clinical effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness in terms of improved life outcomes, I couldn’t honestly tell you about the detail of that, although I’ll happily have a conversation with officials and people in the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to understand whether there was any difference, but I’m certainly not qualified to give you an answer on whether there was a different approach. I’ll happily have a look at the process and the manner in which that’s been undertaken and come back to you.

On the second point, about whether we have the same deal in Wales, yes, we do. We have the same terms applying in Wales at the same time. That’s been a part of that negotiation. I was actually in the audience at the NHS Confederation conference in England when Simon Stevens announced the deal from the stage, which set a few hares running about whether it was an England-only deal or not. So, I’m really happy to have been able to confirm it’s an England and Wales deal, with no differential in terms of the availability of the treatment here in Wales.

Then, for the future, I think this really does tell us something about not just campaigning, but actually about the grown-up relationship we need to have, both with the public and decision makers, but also with the people in the pharmaceutical industry. Because it’s easy to run a campaign based on the emotions of people potentially having a life-extending or a life-saving drug, but as you rightly recognise, there has to be a balance for the public purse and for all of us together about how much we are collectively prepared to pay for individual treatments and to understand the genuine efficacy of those treatments. We’ve seen in the cancer drugs fund, the independent review, that it recognised that of the £1.27 billion, about £1 billion couldn’t really have been said to have been spent on improving outcomes. That’s a poor way to go about this, and I don’t think it’s a great use of public money. So, we do have to understand that a process that is genuine, that is expert and evidence led provides proper reassurance about the value and the efficacy of treatments, and equally that more grown-up conversation throughout the pharmaceutical industries about what they can expect and what the public purse can and will deliver, and that evidence we require on that efficacy and the cost and value of it.

May I welcome this step that’s been taken? The principle is established in terms of this drug. It’s the practicalities that are important to the sufferers of this cancer for which this drug has been designed. So, two simple questions: when, practically speaking, will this drug be available in Wales, and how long will patients have to wait to receive a prescription to access this drug?

And one further question on another drug that Breast Cancer Now has raised concerns about. Whilst welcoming the agreement on Kadcyla, I will quote from Delyth Morgan, the chief executive of Breast Cancer Now:

daw’r newyddion hwn ar adeg pan fo posibilrwydd gwirioneddol y gallai’r defnydd o Perjeta—

esgusodwch fi os nad wyf wedi’i ynganu’n gywir—

y driniaeth gyntaf ar gyfer y grŵp hwn o gleifion, ddod i ben cyn bo hir yn y GIG, gyda phenderfyniad ar fin digwydd. Mae manteision Perjeta yn eithriadol, yn cynnig bron i 16 mis ychwanegol o fywyd i fenywod â chanser y fron na ellir ei wella, ac mae’n hanfodol ein bod yn dod o hyd i ffordd o achub y cyffur hwn, ar gost sy’n fforddiadwy i’r GIG a’r trethdalwr.

So, whilst we welcome the decision on Kadcyla, can you give us an update on this other drug?

Yes, and the point about Kadcyla is that, initially, the manufacturer had a cost price that was simply too high for the health service to pay, and that was the advice that health Ministers were given. That’s why the drug wasn’t available. There’s now been a reconsideration, and that’s very welcome. But the challenge is for any medication, whether it’s for Perjeta or any other drug, that there’s a balance between effectiveness in clinical terms and the cost-effectiveness of it as well.

In the individual patient funding request process that we collectively agreed to run through, that came out very clearly as a unanimous point from the panel: about not losing sight of the fact that there is a cost to this. Every penny we spend on one particular treatment is a penny and a pound that we don’t spend on other treatments as well. So, that balance has to be maintained, and I would again encourage manufacturers to get involved at an early point to discuss the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of their treatments. What that means is them having genuine access to the service to actually understand more about the development of the treatment as well as more people taking it, because otherwise we’ll continue to have these emotionally driven campaigns about people who think that a drug may offer them a chance to extend life or to save life. But all of our understanding is that, actually, you can’t simply pay any price for any treatment. That’s really difficult, when you look someone in the eye and say, ‘I think that this potential treatment that you want to have is too expensive’, but if we don’t do that, then our service becomes unaffordable. If we’re not prepared to do that, potentially we risk the whole service that does so much good and so much positively as well. So, if we can’t hold the line about having an evidence-led approach to this, then I think we actually risk and undermine the whole service. That’s a difficult point, but I think it’s absolutely the right one and it’s certainly the unanimous view of the IPFR panel in the recent reports to all of us in the last few months.

Thank you to my colleague Angela Burns for bringing forward this important topic. Cabinet Secretary, the deal between NHS Wales and Roche is terrific news for breast cancer sufferers in Wales and a perfect example of what we can achieve when we work in conjunction with the pharmaceutical industry. This deal and the new treatments fund means that women with HER2 positive tumours can gain a few valuable extra months of life and avoid the issue we had Herceptin. These new innovative treatments are targeted at relatively small cohorts, and are much more expensive. What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure we are aware of drugs in the pipeline? And will you work with your colleagues in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to achieve commercial access deals on other initiative treatments in future?

Yes, I’m happy to respond. Of course, this particular drug has an average six months of extra life, and it’s about the value and the cost of that. Again, these are really difficult assessments to make, which is why, frankly, politicians are often the worst people to try and make that assessment. However, on the broader point about the understanding of what is in the pipeline, I’ve actually had, in recent months, a very sensible conversation with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and their Wales rep board member, who happens to work for Roche, which is a matter of coincidence, about the manner in which we have conversations as drugs are being developed, and at what point in time the pharmaceutical industry can have that conversation with governments and with appraisal bodies. Because the sooner you know something’s potentially available, the earlier you are able to plan.

Actually, that sort of grown-up approach is really important for us, because the NHS has to be able to try and budget for new treatments coming on board. It has to be able to try and plan the infrastructure around those as well, which is often more important than the cost of paying the medication costs. It’s then also about the industry understanding that it has an interest in being open at a slightly earlier stage with us about what is coming down the line. Otherwise we’ll end up having these sorts of fights on a basis that isn’t good for them as an industry partner, isn’t good for the health service, but ultimately isn’t good for the individual citizens who are then caught up in a campaign between different parts of the public sector and the industry, who are trying to offer a treatment that they are saying will provide a real benefit for them.

So, I’m optimistic that we are continuing to have that grown-up and necessary conversation about the way in which we work together and to understand our competing interests. I don’t try to say to the pharmaceutical industry that they should not be entitled to make a profit in the way they run their business and what they put into developing new treatments, but it has to come at a price that is affordable for the taxpayer and with real value in terms of improving outcomes for the individual citizen as well.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Next, the 90-second statements, and the first is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many of us have been on a bike today as the Leonard Cheshire Disability charity invited Members to ride an exercise bike as far as we could in 100 seconds. I was pleased to top the table briefly, but that was the advantage of being the first one to take part. The charity was highlighting the importance of exercise for people with disabilities, and today I want to talk to you about another sport that gives people with disabilities the chance to keep fit and to compete at the highest level.

Bydd Cymru’n cymryd rhan yng Nghwpan y Byd Rygbi Cynghrair Cadair Olwyn yn Ffrainc y mis nesaf. Maent yn chwarae yn erbyn Awstralia yn eu gêm gyntaf. Y tro diwethaf iddynt gyfarfod yng nghwpan y byd, llwyddasant i’w curo 25-16, ar eu ffordd i’r trydydd safle yn y bencampwriaeth. A dyna’r tro cyntaf i Gymru guro Awstralia mewn unrhyw fath o gynghrair rygbi ryngwladol lawn. Eu rheolwr yw Mark Andrew Jones, ac maent wedi’u lleoli yng Nglannau Dyfrdwy, ond maent yn denu chwaraewyr o bob cwr o Gymru. Hwy yw pencampwyr cyfredol y Cwpan Celtaidd, ac roeddent yn ail ym mhencampwriaeth y pedair gwlad yn 2017.

Ond ar wahân i’r her chwaraeon, mae codi digon o arian i gynrychioli Cymru ar y lefel hon yn dasg go fawr. Yn gynharach eleni, roedd pryder na fyddent yn gallu mynychu cwpan y byd oherwydd diffyg arian. Trwy hunangyllido a rhoddion gan fusnesau lleol a Crusaders Gogledd Cymru, maent yn mynd i lwyddo i wneud hynny o drwch blewyn, ond mae angen cefnogaeth a noddwyr arnynt. Mae chwaraeon anabl yn haeddu ac angen y gefnogaeth hon. Wedi’r cyfan, rydym yn gobeithio y bydd y gystadleuaeth cwpan y byd hon mor ddrud ag y gallai fod iddynt, gyda Chymru’n aros yn Ffrainc hyd nes y daw’r gystadleuaeth i ben gobeithio. Pob lwc.

Last Saturday, the 1st Battalion the Irish Guards trooped their regimental colour before Her Majesty the Queen for the monarch’s official birthday parade. Crowds lined the Mall to catch a glimpse of the sovereign’s escort whilst millions watched worldwide, marvelling at the military precision of the spectacle and reflecting on Her Majesty’s continuing lifelong service to the nation at the age of 91. The Queen is renowned for her attention to detail and knowledge of the more complex manoeuvres performed and, as always, after weeks of training, the parade proceeded with absolute perfection.

At home and abroad, Her Majesty has been a symbol of stability in times of political, economic and social turmoil. She has undertaken her daily duties with apparent ease for two thirds of a century and has guided our constitutional monarchy from the steam age of the twentieth century to the digital age of the twenty-first. The Queen remains the constitutional centrepiece of our society as head of state, head of the Commonwealth, and commander in chief of the armed forces. Her role, transcending party politics, over three generations is reflected in a bond of affection between sovereign and people, unparalleled in any other world leader or politician.

Her Majesty is respected by billions around the world for her dignity and unwavering service to our nation in a living historical tradition stretching back more than 1,000 years. Today, she continues her service in the state opening of Parliament, as she opened our Assembly a year ago. The monarchy has never been more popular in modern times and it remains a priceless asset, vastly enhancing our prestige around the world and enabling our small island to punch well above her diplomatic weight. Let no-one underestimate the personal contribution of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the United Kingdom’s pre-eminent place in the world. Long may she reign and, may we say, God save the Queen.

The next item is the motion to amend Standing Orders 16, 19, 20 and 27 in relation to the budget process and finance procedures, and the motion to approve the budget protocol agreed by the Finance Committee and the Welsh Government. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24 I propose that the following two motions under items 5 and 6 are grouped for debate. Does any Member object? No.

I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move the motion. The leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Formally.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee to move the motion under item 6 and to speak to both motions. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I’m pleased to move this motion and speak to both motions, and to explain that the passing of the Standing Orders and the associated protocol in Plenary today is the culmination of work that was started in the Finance Committee in the fourth Assembly. The devolution of fiscal powers has required a change to the budget process, which means that we as an Assembly will consider how the Welsh Government raises some of the money that it intends to spend with the new taxation powers.

Our predecessor committee undertook an inquiry that identified the best practice in budget scrutiny. Following publication of that report, officials of the Assembly and the Welsh Government have been working closely to develop a new process for scrutiny of the budget that is acceptable and workable for both sides. The new budget process should ensure a higher degree of scrutiny, and there will be more time for scrutiny by the Finance Committee and the policy committees alike.

This additional time should allow for the Finance Committee to consider the strategic high-level detail of the draft budget. I want us as a Finance Committee to look at: overall expenditure allocations; how the expenditure proposals will be financed, such as the amounts of financing from the block grant, taxation, borrowing, private financing, not-for-profit vehicles and any other sources; the level of capital borrowing and debt; the rationale for taxation levels; the economic statistics, analysis and forecasting used by the Government when preparing their budget; and, of course, the influence of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The role of the policy committees in scrutinising the draft budget is largely in the hands of each individual committee. But the process has allowed more time for policy committee scrutiny, which will, hopefully, allow for evidence to be taken from stakeholders, and each committee will be able to report in their own right. Additionally, committees can now suggest changes to spending plans, and they can suggest ways to finance these plans through taxation and borrowing.

We must now see how this new process is operated. But we will need to consider how the Finance Committee can keep its oversight role, and how committees can work together to engage better with the public in the budget process.

In making recommendations for the new budget process, the fourth Assembly Finance Committee visited Scotland to consider their process for scrutinising the draft budget. It’s therefore quite fitting that, last week, members of the fifth Assembly Finance Committee visited Scotland also, to meet our counterpart committee there and to consider their budget process.

The recommendations from the fourth Assembly’s Finance Committee were that we as an Assembly should change the budgetary process to a legislative one, but that, of course, wasn’t possible at that stage. Now, following Royal Assent of the most recent Wales Act, the Assembly now has the competence to move to a legislative process. Our visit to Scotland has reaffirmed my belief that this is the next step that we should be taking here in Wales, and the Finance Committee will shortly be commencing an inquiry that will look at how this will work and when we should be thinking about a move to a legislative process.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked towards developing this new budget process—the current Finance Committee, but also our predecessor committee, the current finance Minister, and Jane Hutt, as the predecessor Minister. I’d also like to thank officials here and in the Welsh Government for working so hard behind the scenes to put together these proposals.

Yn fyr, Llywydd, mae’r trefniadau newydd hyn yn caniatáu’r holl bwyllgorau i dreulio llawer mwy o amser—hyd at wyth wythnos—yn edrych ar gyllideb ddrafft Llywodraeth Cymru, gan baratoi adroddiadau ariannol ar y gyllideb ddrafft honno. Ac rwy’n gobeithio y bydd hyn yn grymuso’r Cynulliad i ddwyn y Llywodraeth i gyfrif ymhellach.

I call on the leader of the house to reply—Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Government’s next draft budget will implement a different type of budget making in Wales. It will not only set out the Welsh Government’s spending plans, but also how some of those finances will be raised, as Simon Thomas says, using both our new tax powers—the first for 800 years—and our new powers to borrow. These are fundamental changes to the fiscal framework in Wales, and it’s right that we have a process that continues to provide robust scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s spending plans, and now also its financing plans. We look forward to putting this new process into practice in the autumn, and I’m pleased that the Finance Committee, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, have worked together to agree these proposals.

Indeed, we started on this path, as you say, in the fourth Assembly. We also had a visit to Scotland on that occasion, as well, and, of course, your recent visit, I’m sure, was very enlightening. However, as we move forward, as we bed in our new tax-raising and borrowing powers, our budget will evolve. These changes to Standing Orders and the budget protocol provide flexibility to ensure that the scrutiny of the budget continues to be meaningful, proportionate, and robust, and the Cabinet Secretary is keen to continue working with the Finance Committee as these new arrangements are established. We also welcome the Finance Committee’s work looking into a legislative budget process, as Simon Thomas has mentioned. We look forward to hearing the outcomes from that work in due course from the inquiry that you’re undertaking. Overall, we support the proposals. Diolch.

The proposal therefore is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

The proposal therefore is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed.

The debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on their inquiry into refugees and asylum seekers in Wales is the next item, and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am very pleased today to have the time during refugee week to debate our committee’s report on refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. The context for the inquiry is the tragedy of war, instability, and displacement. The latest UN study, published on Monday, found that 65.6 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide at the end of 2016. On average, 20 people were driven from their homes every minute last year, or one every three seconds. And the total number of people seeking safety across international borders as refugees topped 22.5 million, the highest number since the second world war.

The images and stories of people escaping war and persecution in Syria, Iraq, and other countries is tragically familiar. The perilous journey many of them take in crossing the Mediterranean in small, overcrowded boats has resulted in countless people, many of them children, dying before they make it to shore. As the committee heard, those who survive to reach the UK, including unaccompanied children, are likely to have experienced hugely traumatic events, which leave lasting psychological scars, and, at this extremely vulnerable time in their lives, they face a fresh set of major challenges. We were told that a phrase often used by refugees and asylum seekers is ‘I used to be someone’. We made this powerful and telling statement the title of our report.

We were mindful, when we decided on how to approach our inquiry, that asylum policy is the responsibility of the UK Government. However, the experience of refugees and asylum seekers in Wales depends largely on the accessibility and quality of devolved services, and so is within the remit of Welsh Government. During our inquiry, we looked at the Welsh Government’s refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan and community cohesion delivery plan. We also took evidence on the resettlement in Wales of Syrian refugees, as well as support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who face particular challenges. As well as taking written and oral evidence, we visited Cardiff and Swansea and Glasgow and Edinburgh. We also corresponded with the Home Office and the provider of asylum accommodation in Wales.

We found evidence of good practice across Wales. It is clear that in many places, and in many ways, both public services and the third sector are working effectively to help refugees and asylum seekers to adjust to life in our communities and to get the support they need. However, we also heard evidence that, in a number of areas, the Welsh Government needs to do more to help delivery partners. It needs to make representations to the UK Government, refresh its strategic direction, and get directly involved in delivery.

It is gratifying that the committee’s work made a significant impact during the inquiry even before we had drawn our conclusions. We were pleased of two key developments before we published our report: first, the expansion of the role of the Welsh Government’s operations board to cover all refugees and asylum seekers, not just the Syrian resettlement programme. Second, stakeholders reported to us that, as a result of the representations made to, and by, the committee, there is meaningful engagement between the private and third sectors on asylum accommodation. So, our work is already having a real impact on people’s lives.

These are important and welcome steps, but we face wide-ranging and complex challenges. That’s why we made 19 recommendations to Welsh Government, 18 of which have been accepted in full or accepted in principle.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it is important for me to put on record at this point that, while we strive for consensus in our committee work, on this occasion, one Member was not able to agree the report. Nevertheless, the agreement of the other seven Members represents a powerful majority for the changes that we want to see.

We have called for an updated and improved strategic approach. This has three main elements, each of which was the subject of a committee recommendation that the Cabinet Secretary accepted. First, reviewing the refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan—I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would confirm that the plan will contain measurable actions, timescales and resources as well as best practice from Scotland, including service standards. Second, ensuring that the operations board meets regularly and openly—I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will share the board’s forward work programme with the committee. Third, preparing for the implementation of the UK immigration Act—it would be helpful to know what stage the Cabinet Secretary has reached in his discussions with stakeholders and the UK Government on this important matter.

We also ask the Welsh Government to do more to facilitate integration. The Cabinet Secretary has agreed to update the community cohesion plan and I would welcome confirmation that this will include a Wales-wide publicity campaign, similar to the one in Scotland, which impressed the committee.

Alongside our recommendation on the cohesion plan, we called for action on the specific areas of concern raised by stakeholders. The Welsh Government has accepted that the role of community cohesion co-ordinators should be expanded beyond only supporting Syrian refugees. The Cabinet Secretary’s response suggested that the role of the co-ordinators in supporting refugees and asylum seekers is not permanent and I would welcome clarification on this.

We agreed with stakeholders that another key barrier to integration is transport. We recommended that the Welsh Government consider extending concessionary transport schemes to refugees and asylum seekers. The Cabinet Secretary has rejected this recommendation. It would be helpful if we could hear more detail this afternoon about the reasons for that and if the Cabinet Secretary may be able to address this issue in other ways.

An area of particular focus for the committee, following the evidence we received, was the provision of teaching of English for speakers of other languages. We wanted to see improvements for the academic year starting in September. I appreciate that the tight timescales for doing so have led the Cabinet Secretary to accept this recommendation in principle, for implementation over a slightly longer period. I would welcome confirmation of the timescales and reassurance that the detailed points made by the committee will be addressed.

Asylum accommodation was another key area of interest for the committee. We called for better monitoring and resolution of complaints about asylum accommodation. We recommended revising the asylum accommodation contract before its next renewal. The Cabinet Secretary has accepted these recommendations in principle and I look forward to hearing what this means in practical terms. We also wanted asylum seekers’ landlords to be registered and inspected. I am pleased that the Welsh Government has fully accepted this recommendation and I would welcome some detail on how it is to be implemented.

The committee also called for improvements to advice and support during the asylum process. This was accepted in principle. Effective support after the asylum process is essential, both for refugees and those whose asylum applications are not successful. So, also accepted in principle were our recommendations on this, calling for more help for refugees to find accommodation, better access to education and employment and action to prevent destitution.

On the specific needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the committee was convinced by the evidence we heard that we need more proactive support, and that’s why we called for a guardianship service. We also wanted to ensure there is capacity and capability across Wales to undertake age assessments, and we received powerful evidence of the need to set minimum standards for mental health support. Again, the Cabinet Secretary has accepted in principle our recommendations about support for children, and again, it would be helpful for us and for stakeholders to hear more from the Cabinet Secretary about how he will ensure that he meets, in full, the thrust of our recommendations, even if he is unable, for reasons I am sure he will explain, to commit to every detail.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m sure Members of the committee, as well as other Members in the Chamber here today, will wish to address some of the detail in what is a wide-ranging and comprehensive report. But before I finish, I’d like to highlight the final recommendation the committee made, which the Welsh Government has accepted in principle. The Welsh Refugee Coalition drew our attention to the seven steps to sanctuary. These have been developed by over 20 organisations and are reproduced in our report. We share the coalition’s view that Wales should take these steps and become the world’s first nation of sanctuary. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the committee? Obviously, I’m not a member of the committee, but I thought this was a really focused and forthright piece of work, so I’m not surprised it’s been influential already. I thank the Cabinet Secretary as well, because judging by the quoted evidence in the report, you certainly took a very open and responsive approach to the evidence that was heard there.

With regard to support for Syrian refugees in particular, I think it would be fair to observe that any government—and, you know, we’re talking about more than two Governments in this; there are several just across the continent of Europe—they had a very short time to try and manage a major displacement of people. They’re faced with a huge challenge, and with the best planning in the world, I think the early and very urgent days when demand was outstripping the capacity to meet it is—. You know, obviously it comes as a shock to us, but we need to understand that that’s almost inevitable.

But even so, John, you might remember me asking you back in September if you were going to have a look at why Wales had taken in only a 112 Syrian refugees, and 13 local authorities at that stage hadn’t taken any at all. I can see in the evidence that Unison told you that the preparedness of local authorities effectively dictated the pace of response. But I’m just wondering if the committee really got to the bottom of that, to establish why councils like Torfaen—who deserve great congratulation in this—were able to get their acts together far more quickly than other councils, because that would certainly have affected the ability of the UN and the ancillary workers to match individuals that they verified before they left Syria with the local authorities in Wales. From the report, it seems that once the streamlined system got going, it seems to have proven to be a much better experience for those who went through it.

I can certainly see the attraction of removing the distinction between the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme and the standard asylum route. I appreciate that’s not a matter for this place. But there is a question, I think, whether the distinction can be removed safely without the beginning of the process being located in, or at least very near, the country of origin. Nevertheless, I really do wish the Welsh Government’s operations board only the very best in trying to square that circle, if, in fact, there’s a circle there to be squared. It does, kind of, sit a little at odds with the concern that you raised, John, about the future of the cohesion co-ordinators. You know, it seems a little bit out of kilter, when you’re talking about equalising two systems, that that doesn’t stretch as far as the co-ordinators.

The point made about the 56-day move-on period certainly caught my eye, as did the various recommendations to help with integration from the perspective of the asylum-seeking refugee, and members of the community, of course, into which they’re coming. It goes without saying, I think, that the community cohesion plan needs to get to grips with the myths that are surrounding asylum seekers and refugees—their rights, their financial support, their ability to work and so on. But I think it also needs to be really bold and unshakeable when we’re talking about children, accompanied or otherwise. Yes, there are children in Wales who have serious needs and lives that we—. We should feel culpable that we still have children living as they do, but children are children, and I don’t care where they’re from—their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are rights we’ve all committed to observe. The patch of earth on which you come into this world should not really determine the level of support you can expect if you happen to find yourself a child in Wales. An unaccompanied child will have no responsibility for the decision about why they came to this country and the way in which it was done. They will probably have endured tremendous trauma before the journey had even begun. They cannot be overlooked just because a child who lives here already also has grave needs. Cabinet Secretary, it’s these later recommendations in the report that I hope have really made an impression on you, as they have on me. I recall that it was actually Leanne Wood, I think, who brought one example of a story that you’d heard about an unaccompanied child, and the horrors that they’d gone through—coming in from Calais, that was. That is a child—I don’t care where they’ve come from. Nobody should go through that experience.

I thought it was very telling, actually, that people coming to this country in chaotic circumstances often saw the acquisition of functioning English to be just as much of a priority as decent housing and access to social and financial support. The inability to communicate has to be the most isolating experience in the world. I know this is expensive, Cabinet Secretary, and I appreciate it’ll take time, but there are recommendations in this report about using students and volunteers, under professional guidance, that really might just help to speed this up a little bit. Of course—you know, co-production—let’s use some of those refugees and asylum seekers who’ve acquired some skills themselves, because their volunteering more generally is also key to improving their communication skills, their confidence, their networking and other skills that improve mental resilience, which I know we’ve spoken about before.

I’ve plenty of other words of congratulations for you, John, and the committee, but I’ll leave those for another day as I’m out of time. Thank you.

We’re praising another committee this week, then, Suzy—there’s a theme appearing here. I’d like to thank the Chair and the other members of the committee—most of the members of the committee—for agreeing to this report. It’s actually one of the most rewarding experiences that I’ve had in a long time. Quite often, we may go to outreach events where there is a decent number of people attending, but it’s not as many as we might have anticipated, sometimes. I turned up at the YMCA in Swansea and the place was reeling with people—people falling out of the doors because there wasn’t enough room for them to engage with me and Joyce Watson, who were there on behalf of the committee.

For me, the biggest thing was that they wanted to be heard and they wanted to make a difference in the country that they had arrived in, which was Wales. They wanted to impress upon politicians that they deserved to have that voice and that they are worthy of that voice, and I pledged from that day on to make sure that I would try to represent them to the best of my ability.

The area that was the biggest issue of concern for them in that particular public meeting was housing. I do thank the Cabinet Secretary, actually, for being quite forward thinking—he’s allowed me to meet with civil servants to discuss these particular issues. I’ve also met with Swansea council, who’ve said to me directly that because of the changes and the recommendations of the committee they too are putting forward protocol changes in how they inspect properties.

But, what we could see loud and clear was that some of the properties that people were living in were abysmal—utterly abysmal. Nobody should have to live in a house like that, whether they’re from Syria, whether they’re from Iraq or whether they’re from Aberfan—they should not have to live in those types of conditions. So, I’ve personally met with Clearsprings on many occasions now to make home inspections, and they’re changing their practices. I think it’s important that we make sure that the recommendations in the report are heard loud and clear by Clearsprings, and that they are heard by the UK Government when they go forward in renewing that contract.

We need to have stiffer monitoring; we need to have equalities training for staff, because we heard from asylum seekers that they were not treated fairly in many instances by those who entered their properties; and we need to make sure that there’s an independent complaints procedure, if not an independent complaints mechanism. Many people didn’t feel comfortable in ringing Clearsprings, because they were the company that had alienated them the most when they first arrived in the UK. I hope that those are things that the Cabinet Secretary will carry forth and pursue.

We also had lots of evidence from those who came into the committee that they actually wanted to devolve this responsibility to the National Assembly for Wales, and I would also hope therefore that the Cabinet Secretary would push to be able to do that. I know that the housing sector here say that they are competent and able to do that, so why not devolve it, when we have all of the other housing responsibilities here in this place?

With regard to other areas of interest, I thought it was really harrowing to hear one psychiatrist who came to give evidence. He said that a lot young people who arrived in the UK had sexually transmitted diseases. This, for me, was something awful to hear as part of an evidence session. So, I note your response in saying that more money is going into CAMHS, but what can we be doing in particular for these people, who’ve gone through trauma that we will never be able to understand and have gone through experiences that we will never get to grips with? So, what specific training are you going to be able to provide for those CAMHS officials that would be different to how they would deal with, potentially, other conditions here in Wales?

Another issue for me—I’ve got so many on this agenda, as you can see—I’ve met asylum seekers and they’ve said, ‘Yes, I want to learn English or Welsh, but I want to be able to do that in a way that is relevant to me’. So, I’ve met a plumber from Syria who lives in Neath, and he says, ‘Well, I want to learn English, but I don’t want to just go into a room and sit there. Academia, sitting at a table, actually, is really intimidating for me. So, can I do an apprenticeship course in plumbing or electrical appliances, but can I do the English learning through that particular course?’ He said there’s nothing available for him to be able to do that at the moment. So, I hope that’s something, again, that if not directly reflected in the report—now that I’ve said it, you can look into it further, Cabinet Secretary.

In the time I’ve got left, I think it’s important that we address the cultural and integration issues. I think it’s important that we don’t see this as just a responsibility for the refugees to integrate amongst us; that we need to change our attitudes also towards refugees and asylum seekers. It’s really unfortunate that we had one member of the committee putting out some document that did not represent the views of what we heard in committee. We are proud as a nation to welcome refugees, and we are proud to support those refugees and we should not shy away from doing so.

I met an Iraqi refugee last week who had lost every single member of his family as a result of the conflict in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein seemed a good idea at the time to many, in 2003, but the words of caution were not heeded—that this would lead to a conflagration of sectarian conflict that most people in this country, quite rightly, had little understanding of the complexity of it. This turf war that has erupted—this sectarian strife—he could not have paid a higher price. Did we have a duty to offer asylum to this individual and others like him? Of course, we do.

When asylum seekers are first dispersed to Wales, most of them arrive at Lynx House on Newport Road in my constituency. After three or four weeks in hostel accommodation, they are then placed in temporary accommodation—which may be in Cardiff, it may be in Newport, it may be in Swansea or maybe further afield. Most asylum-seeking families are destitute, arriving with little more than the clothes on their backs. Our inquiry highlights that children make up between 13 and 20 per cent of the local destitute population.

It’s a sad fact that asylum seeker benefits are too low to actually meet the basic needs of this community and one of the biggest problems faced by families is that they simply don’t have the bus fare to get to services. So, they have to walk or go by bike. So, it’s particularly important that services are available near to Lynx House, because obviously that is where there is a concentration of asylum seekers.

I just want to pay tribute to members of the community who have risen to the challenge and who are providing services, mainly on a voluntary basis, picking up on the fact that Cardiff is a city of sanctuary for those seeking refuge from war and persecution and that that is a network of people who are prepared to promote mainly voluntary partnerships to support people seeking sanctuary here.

For example, the Oasis refugee centre, which the committee visited, is based in a former Methodist church in Splott. Set up in 2008, Oasis Cardiff has helped hundreds who have fled war and political persecution from a huge range of countries that have been overcome by war and conflict—many of them our Government has helped, or failed to avoid. It’s got nine part-time staff and literally dozens of volunteers, because at least 150 people walk through the door every single day. When we visited, there were at least 35 people in an upstairs room all being given English for speakers of other languages lessons from one individual volunteer—it was an incredible sight.

Within my constituency, which is not that far away from Oasis, there is the Trinity Centre, which is based in another former Methodist church. For the last five years, they have provided a home for at least three voluntary organisations. Space4U operates a drop-in system offering information, English lessons, a food and clothing bank, craft sessions, as well as food and drink and friendship. There’s a parent and toddler group linked to Space4U held twice a week, and that’s open, not just to asylum seekers and refugees, but to members of the local community as well, and so it’s a great opportunity for people to interact and to practice what little English they may have. There’s also something called Home4U, working closely with Space4U, to offer temporary accommodation in empty properties that have been lent to the project.

One of my constituents plays a strategic role in overseeing these services, undeterred by the fact that he’s been struck down by Parkinson’s, and I was deeply honoured to nominate him and his wife to attend the Queen’s garden party in recognition of his contribution to the community, despite his disability.

In light of the heinous terrorist attack allegedly committed by another of my constituents this week, I thought it was really important to put on record that most of my constituents in Cardiff Central are more than happy to offer the hand of friendship. I thank you for listening to my contribution.

Thanks to the Chairman for laying the committee’s report before the Chamber. The report is concerned primarily with improving conditions for refugees and asylum seekers once they have arrived in Wales, and to that end, it is a worthy effort. There was a lot of painstaking evidence heard relating to refugee conditions in Wales, and several of the committee members were skilful in bringing these conditions to light. And in itself, the desire to improve conditions for refugees is a laudable aim.

However, there are bound to be potential pitfalls in making such a report. One such pitfall is the danger of providing services to refugees that go beyond the services provided to ordinary members of the public. For instance, we can try to improve housing conditions for refugees, but this may not seem palatable to large sections of the public, if it means that they have to drop behind the refugees in the queue for social housing.

Will you take an intervention?

No. The housing issue is perhaps the most obvious pitfall, and one that is discussed quite frequently among people I encounter in the course of normal life when refugee issues are raised.

Related to the issue of housing provision is one of funding. During the evidence sessions, we were at one point strongly advised by the relevant Minister, Carl Sargeant, not to lobby for extra powers without first securing a guarantee of extra funding. He warned that this had been done in the past, and problems had arisen as a result. When I look at the recommendations that are now coming, I struggle to see that there is any sign of any extra money coming from the Home Office or from any other department in Westminster. The Welsh Government itself is looking at setting up a small grants fund to avoid destitution for failed asylum seekers, but as far as I understand it, this is money coming from the Welsh Government’s own budget. So, what services will have to be cut from elsewhere in the budget to allow for this? And in any case, we don’t know if any of the money is going to be forthcoming.

One of the points that kept recurring in the evidence sessions was that destitution was inevitable among failed asylum seekers, as there was no welfare payment for them once they had failed their initial claim. But there is also no settled method of repatriating them to their country of origin. Most of them don’t have the money to fund their own repatriation. Many of the failed asylum seekers as a result remain in the UK and simply disappear off the map. It is truly an absurd system. We cannot hope to change this system in Wales as the powers to do so do not lie with us. But with this report, we are attempting to become the world’s first nation of sanctuary, which may encourage many more asylum seekers to try and come here. The inevitable effect of more coming without any prior reform of the asylum system will, I fear, be more destitution. Thank you.

I want to actually disassociate myself, as I’m sure everybody else here of a reasonable mind would do, from the comments of the previous speaker. But, however, as is set out in the report’s introduction, this was the committee’s first major inquiry, and it was undertaken at a time when we’re experiencing the worst global refugee crisis since the second world war. And politically, it was launched in the months after the Brexit vote, and the refugee crisis, without a doubt, shaped some of those Brexit arguments around the EU’s stability and sustainability. But more widely, it appeared at that time that nationalist movements were sweeping the continent, though following recent defeats for Eurosceptic populists at elections in France, Austria and Netherlands, and reverses in Finland, Italy and Germany, maybe the tide has turned.

Nevertheless, at the time, there were people who argued that the committee should not prioritise the plight of refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. My UKIP committee colleague refused to endorse the report, despite having not raised any objections whatsoever during the actual inquiry. But I’ll move on from that. I, for one, am proud of this report, and I think it reflects well on this Assembly and on Wales that we undertook this work. In the same vein, I think that Gareth Bennett’s alternative paper, titled ‘Wales’ Refugee Problem’, reflects poorly on his party—light on evidence, but heavy on prejudice.

But for the most part, there was lots of support for the inquiry. Groups like the Hay, Brecon and Talgarth refugee support group provided real insight into what is happening on the ground, and one of the issues that they did identify was a perceived disconnect between those voluntary groups and the professional-led services. I think the Powys group represents the best of our nation’s generosity and goodwill, and while we, of course, need professional co-ordination, it would be wrong to squash grass-roots enthusiasm with bureaucratic heavy-handedness. And I’d like to put on record my thanks to every volunteer, whoever they are, who give help and support to the most vulnerable people in society and a warm, Welsh welcome.

I’ll return to the report and I shall pick up on a couple of the recommendations. As chair of the Assembly cross-party group concerned with human trafficking, I’m particularly concerned about the plight of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. So, I’m encouraged that the Government has accepted in principle the recommendation for a child guardianship service for Wales. The Minister will know that is something that the cross-party group that I chair has campaigned for for a very long time. I want to really focus on this, because I know that children, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, will have access to advocacy, but I really want to separate out the difference between advocacy and guardianship. Guardianship does mean that somebody, whosoever they are, has the legal recognition to speak on behalf of the child, whosoever they are, so that they don’t have to repeat their harrowing stories time and time again when they are trying to access the services that they so desperately need. And I think we need to think about that in terms of their welfare, their well-being and their mental health capacity to do that. I want to give an example: when I had the privilege of meeting a young person who’d come to the UK as an unaccompanied minor, they told me that they intend to train to become a doctor. That young individual demonstrated humility and compassion, despite the treatment that they had endured on their journey here. I have no doubt whatsoever that those qualities will be used—when they do qualify—by that individual to whoever may need them. It may well be the case that they use those qualities when they become a GP or a doctor later in life and that they actually show a little bit of humility and compassion to some of those who speak against them.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. I’m not a member of the committee, but I’d like to congratulate the committee and the Chair on the extensive work that has gone into this report and I think it’s very good that we’re able to debate it during Refugee Week, and I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has accepted many of the committee’s recommendations. And although, as the report clearly says, overall asylum policy is of course the responsibility of the UK Government, I agree that it’s absolutely important that we do our utmost here in Wales to make people’s and their families’ lives better when they arrive as refugees and asylum seekers, especially when the services that they use are our responsibility. So, I think we have a clear role in this process because we do know that refugee and asylum seekers do face a host of problems when they arrive in this country—from poor housing, problems with language and also, I think, often a lack of understanding from us, from the public, about what the circumstances were that they have left, because I think there is a general lack of understanding of some of the horrific circumstances that asylum seekers have left.

It’s already been mentioned today: the good work that is going on in terms of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers, and I’m very proud that Cardiff has 52 organisations dedicated to working together in a City of Sanctuary networking group. I know that there are other groups in Swansea, Hay-on-Wye, Brecon and Talgarth, and I welcome the recommendation in the committee that there should be the seven steps adopted by the Welsh Government to becoming a nation of sanctuary.

But some of the issues that do affect the asylum seekers in particular most profoundly are issues that are part of the UK Government’s decisions, but they do affect them profoundly here. One of the biggest issues that’s been raised with me from asylum seekers over the years, really, is the fact that they’re not able to work, and I think that that is one of the big problems that has caused major difficulties in them being able to integrate easily, because many, obviously, have the qualifications and skills that we desperately need.

Towards the end of the last year I attended an event in the Pierhead, which was a joint event between the BBC World Service and Radio Wales, and people came to the Pierhead who’d come to this country as asylum seekers and they desperately wanted to work. And it wasn’t just for financial reasons, but because they wanted to give something back to the country that had taken them in. Many of the asylum seekers who I have met over the years have had skills that we really need. I’ve met doctors, teachers, people who could really help us as a country, but as things stand they can only apply for permission to take up jobs on the UK’s official shortage occupation list if they’ve waited for more than 12 months for their claim to be decided, and they’re not themselves considered to have caused the delay. So, I know that this is the decision of the UK Government, but I just feel that we should air this here in the National Assembly for Wales because it is having such a profound effect on people who are here living in our country, so I wanted to flag up that.

There’s already been quite a bit of discussion about housing, and I’m really pleased about the progress that has been made and that the Cabinet Secretary has moved forward. But one of the recommendations of the report is to make an immediate assessment of the UK Immigration Act 2016 and the effect that it’s going to have in Wales. I know that this has been brought up with the Cabinet Secretary quite a lot by the committee, and I just wanted to ask whether there’s any more information about when the right to rent checks will be introduced. Will they be introduced in Wales? How will it affect families? Will it affect families with children and is this likely to lead to more risk of destitution? I know the Cabinet Secretary, I believe, was trying to get clarification from the Home Office, so I wondered if there was anything he could tell us today in response to that.

Finally, I wanted to end on the issue of the children. I think it is absolutely to our shame as a nation that we’re only allowing in a very limited number of unaccompanied asylum seeker and refugee children, despite all the efforts of Lord Dubs in getting that amendment passed in the House of Lords. We understand from the report that the UK Government has now quietly closed the scheme with only 350 having been brought to Britain. So, I think this is an absolute disgrace, an absolute shame, because, as other people have said in this debate, children are children are children. Whatever’s happened to them, wherever they’ve come from, they need to be welcomed here in Wales, and I think it is a great shame that the UK Government has limited them in this way.

As a member of the committee, I also want to welcome this report. It is, indeed, a comprehensive piece of work. The committee has been very ably chaired by John Griffiths, and I also want to put on record my appreciation for the work of our committee staff, who have ably assisted us.

In my contribution, I wish to focus on some of the recommendations contained within the ‘“I used to be someone” Refugees and asylum seekers in Wales’ report. Recommendation 4 called on the Welsh Government to review the community cohesion national delivery plan 2016-17, and emphasises that the new,

‘improved Plan should include a communications strategy that emphasises the benefits of immigration to Welsh society and dispels myths and inaccuracies about refugees and asylum seekers.’

We have seen some of these portrayed earlier.

We have seen in the past few traumatic months how, within these islands, extremists of various warped ideologies have sought to sow division and hate, and we’ve also seen the overwhelming community response of unity and love from across different community groups and from individuals. I note the Welsh Government’s response that they’ve

‘funded the Asylum Rights Programme, through the Equality & Inclusion Programme, to work with refugees and asylum seekers to co-produce media reports which challenge negative stereotypes.’

This is vital, and I’m sure that Members will have seen the public concern and disquiet about how the recent terrorist attacks have been reported within the mainstream print media. The heinous attacks in Manchester, Westminster and London bridge were portrayed as acts of terrorism, committed by terrorists, yet ‘The Times’ newspaper, just yesterday, had on its front page headline the emotive phrase of ‘lone wolf’ to describe the latest terrorist in the UK, whilst also prominently referencing potential mitigating issues of the mental health suffering of that white suspect. For all our citizens, there must be no differentiation. Terrorist attacks are committed by terrorists, no matter what their skin colour. I stress this because it is vital that there is no perception that we are stigmatising one community over another.

Recommendation 15 seeks that,

‘The Welsh Government should do more to help refugees and asylum seekers access education and employment by’

three principal moves: firstly,

‘promoting the Credit and Qualifications Framework for Wales as widely as possible’;

secondly,

‘requiring Welsh universities to treat refugees as home students’;

and, thirdly, to create,

‘more opportunities for public sector internships’.

I’m heartened that the Welsh Government, in its response, emphatically

recognises the importance of education and employment for effective integration into society’,

and that it will update the ESOL policy for Wales and map ESOL provision as currently available. I note that the Welsh Government strategic equality plan includes the aim for the Welsh Government itself to become an exemplar of diversity and inclusion by 2020. That, also, has to be right. The Welsh Government and we here, as Members of the National Assembly for Wales, must model to the Welsh nation that Wales will always be an open, tolerant, multicultural and diverse country.

I was struck by the quality of the representations made to the committee—I also, as have others, have met asylum seekers and refugees as part of this work and outside of it—and of the Children’s Society, who helped clearly illuminate to me some key issues around the implementation of the 2016 Immigration Act in Wales, which Julie Morgan has already mentioned. This is engendering great concern in England. It is right, Cabinet Secretary, that Welsh Government in its response to our report is in favour of an evaluation of the Immigration Act 2016 on right-to-rent checks in England. But this roll-out should be evaluated by the Home Secretary prior to any roll-out across Wales, due to rises in reported concerns from landlords, refused tenants and the work of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants’ report—all such matters will no doubt contribute to the increase in both registered and reported hate crime.

Finally, here in the National Assembly for Wales, I would like to say that we all, here, in this place—I would like to say—have the will, the desire and the impetus to take on these many challenges, as it is in the interest of all of our citizens, and it is the humanity, values and decency of the Welsh people that drives us as representatives in this regard and in this report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I’d like to thank the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee for their considered report on refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. I’m also grateful for the time and effort given by those working in public services and refugee support organisations to ensure this process was as comprehensive as possible.

The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring refugees and asylum seekers who have fled war, violence and persecution are able to fulfil their potential. Wales has a proud history of providing sanctuary for refugees from across the world, and this tradition will continue. We will continue our focus on supporting refugees by developing an updated refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan, taking full account of the committee’s report and the recommendations. John Griffiths, the Chair, who ably chaired the committee, asked the question, ‘When will this happen?’ We will consult on the draft plan in the autumn, including the refugees and asylum seekers in that process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we cannot ignore the fact that much of the responsibility relating to asylum policy is reserved to the UK Government, and this means the solutions to some important and challenging problems raised by the committee must be implemented by the UK Government. We will work with them to achieve this, for example, by discussing possible solutions to improve conditions here in Wales, and this includes the standard of asylum accommodation, an independent complaints process, the availability of increased funding for transport, health screening reminders and ways to avoid destitution for asylum seekers and new refugees. Indeed, Bethan Jenkins, we have had much correspondence regarding the state of the some of the accommodation, which was absolutely shocking in terms of people being expected to live in it.

We’re also taking action ourselves and investing in significant support for refugees and asylum seekers here in Wales, and this includes approximately £1 million over the next three years, under the Asylum Rights programme, and this work, led by the Welsh Refugee Council and their partners, will provide quality advice and support for refugees and asylum seekers in a wide range of circumstances. I’ve also provided funding for the resettlement of vulnerable children under the Dubs scheme, and I, like Julie Morgan, am also disappointed about the closure of that scheme by the UK Government. This will support the capacity building in social services departments to ensure they can respond to the needs of these children, and these children are children, as Suzy Davies pointed out.

The Welsh Government also provides funding for the Refugee Well Housing Project, supporting individuals who have been granted refugee status to integrate into Welsh society. Additional funding has recently been invested in training mental health clinicians in treating PTSD in child and adult refugees and asylum seekers. The committee produced a number of recommendations relating to the devolved matters, and I will pick those up now.

I recognise the committee’s concern about the emergence of a two-tier system since the introduction of the Syrian refugee programme. We will do everything we can to minimise this, working to ensure all refugees are eligible to access integrated schemes in Wales, although we are constrained, again, by the UK Government funding conditions. We have to work within those constraints, but we will do what we can to help there.

We’ve already expanded the remit of the Wales refugee and asylum seekers taskforce and operations board, and we’ll be careful to ensure that any schemes and guidance we produce, including the delivery plan and community cohesion plan, meet the circumstances of all refugee groups as far as possible.

We recognise that the provision, also, of English for speakers of other languages is critical for the integration of refugees and asylum seekers, and we will update the ESOL policy by March 2018, and work with the Wales Strategic Migration Partnership’s ESOL co-ordination, to map formal and informal provision and identify barriers and the solutions, indeed, to accessing learning.

Will you give way?

One second; I will. Of course, where appropriate, we will also encourage refugees to access Welsh for adults provision, in that principle. On my visit to one of the centres in Cardiff, I did see volunteers working very hard, including refugees supporting other refugees, in the ESOL programme. I’ll take the intervention.

Can I just ask why it’s 2018? Because we heard from some witnesses who were saying that they were having to volunteer because there was simply nobody else to do it. Can we have some urgency in relation to potentially looking at this earlier because, at the moment, they’re so overstretched that I think this is something that warrants looking into?

I will take note of the Member’s contribution, and I will write to the Member in terms of the detail of why we came up with the 2018 date. It is something to do with the funding streams around that, but I will look at that more carefully.

I also accept the principles behind the committee’s recommendations regarding guardianship, the guardianship service and a destitution fund. We will explore if these schemes are available and desirable, with reference to developments in other parts of the UK and the distinctive Welsh context around that also.

I haven’t picked up Members’ contributions in detail today, other than I wanted to pick up the contribution by Gareth Bennett, in his contribution. I was surprised by his contribution. Where he said other people will be forced down the list to support housing refugees, can I say this is a myth? It’s complete rubbish, and I would hope that the Member would not use that contribution again. The generalisation of refugees, as Gareth Bennett has done today, is dangerous, is ill-informed and offensive. I must say, Dirprwy Lywydd, do we think that these children who find themselves in rubber dinghies, moving across oceans and the most dangerous seas, take this lightly and go by choice? Often fleeing conflict, war and genocide, they have to look for a safe haven, and I’m surprised at the Member’s contribution here today.

Finally, I strongly support the concept of developing Wales as a nation of sanctuary. However, without control of immigration policy, it would be extremely difficult to achieve some of the ‘Seven Steps to Sanctuary’, but in terms of this, set out by the Welsh Refugee Coalition, I will work with them to see what we can do to try and overcome some of those issues. It’s not through not wishing to participate. Nevertheless, as part of the process of developing our new delivery plan, we will explore issues further to determine what progress can be made. We’ve already made significant progress towards meeting these recommendations and we’ll continue to do so in the coming months.

Just picking up, finally, on one of the points with regard to the right-to-rent checks in Wales, I share the Members’ concerns—both Julie Morgan and Rhianon Passmore. I’ve written to the UK Government to ask them to evaluate the scheme. I am still awaiting a response to my letters from the UK Government, and I will pursue that with my diary team.

Would you just take an intervention? I’m really concerned—

Happy to do so.

[Continues.]—about the relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, about this private contract for housing and the lack of regulation of these landlords, because it’s not a landlord tenancy contract. And I just wondered if you could say a little bit more about that.

Following on from the discussions I’d had previously with Bethan Jenkins in terms of whether we could include these within the Rent Smart Wales scheme, I’ve asked my team to give me further advice about where this might just fit in, to see whether there is more regulation that we can impose on this principle. But as Bethan Jenkins did mention, we have had discussions with some local authorities who are now pursuing this around the issues of acceptable places to live. I will update Members when I have some more information regarding that.

Finally, Wales is enriched by the diversity of cultures being resettled here, and we will continue to embrace that. Diolch.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the committee, John Griffiths, to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I will not be able to deal with all points, as only a limited amount of time is available to me, but can I begin by very much welcoming the wide-ranging and passionate debate we have heard this afternoon? I do believe it’s reflective of the importance of these issues, and also reflective of the commitment that committee members and clerks, and those who gave evidence and engaged with the committee’s work, demonstrated in addressing these issues and helping us to develop possible ways forward. I think it’s a great testament, actually, to Wales as a whole that what we have found across the country, in taking evidence and making visits, is communities really wanting to welcome refugees and asylum seekers to Wales, and wanting to support them when they are here. When there’s that personal contact—you know, host community, as it were, refugees and asylum seekers—stereotypes and myths very quickly break down, and it’s been a very encouraging and positive experience.

I’d very much like to thank Suzy Davies for highlighting some of the issues around preparedness of local authorities. I think we did find that there were communication difficulties there that need to be resolved, and there’s further work to be done on that. Bethan showed great commitment and passion around accommodation issues, and indeed the issues in general, which brought real urgency and, I believe, effectiveness to the work of the committee. A lot of the issues around English for speakers of other languages and the flexibility are crucially important, because obviously if you haven’t got the standard of English that is necessary to fully function as a citizen here, then it restricts you in terms of employment, in terms of volunteering, in terms of understanding the services that are available and making necessary communication. So that, I think, overlays everything that we’ve heard and everything that we’d like to see done.

Jenny, the Oasis centre in Splott was hugely uplifting, and the commitment from volunteers, as you mentioned, was heart-warming, I think, to us all. Joyce, again, the commitment to children and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the guardianship issues through your work on the cross-party group and on this committee is very, very important.

I think Julie Morgan, in pointing to these issues around being able to work, not being able to work, the restrictions involved, really went to the heart of much of what we heard, and indeed gave the title to the report—’I used to be someone’—because these people have so much experience, and such high-level skills, they offer so much, and it’s a great shame that there are these restrictions in place that stop that great offer to Wales coming to fruition in the timely way that it should.

Rhianon, on communication strategy, I think we were very impressed with Scotland and what they are doing to break down these stereotypes and myths, and the way that they refer to asylum seekers and refugees coming to Scotland as ‘new Scots’ I think was very, very positive, and they have built so much around that.

Gareth—I, too, as the Cabinet Secretary, regret Gareth Bennett’s remarks. I think the idea that we should somehow ensure standards of accommodation are lower than those generally available in Wales is wrong-headed in all ways. The idea that people experiencing war, persecution, and displacement are researching policies in countries around the world to choose which one they may go to on the basis of the largesse available, and those perceptions, is far-fetched in the extreme.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I can see that my time has come to a close, but can I just thank all Members who have contributed, and the Cabinet Secretary for his response? The committee now looks forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary over the months and years to come, and all the stakeholders, to make sure that commitments made by Welsh Government are delivered and help our communities support people seeking safety in what I hope will become our nation of sanctuary.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to note the committee’s report. Does any Member object? Therefore that motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move on to item 8 on the agenda, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on Brexit and the National Assembly for Wales. I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion—Steffan.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I formally move the motion in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. This is a timely debate, coming as it does on the day in which we’ve had a Brexit-heavy Queen’s Speech, and in the week where formal negotiations between the UK and EU begin. It is also the week when the Welsh Government has elaborated further on proposals first announced in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, the joint White Paper between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government on upholding devolution and creating shared governance structures between the devolved nations and the UK Government following our withdrawal from the EU.

Before going any further, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to take the opportunity on behalf of Plaid Cymru to set the record straight following exchanges between the First Minister and my party leader yesterday on the issue of single market membership. Yesterday, the First Minister said, and I quote:

‘her party has already agreed that you can’t be a member of the single market without being a member of the EU. That is what we agreed, if she remembers’.

In the strongest possible terms, I want to place on record that that is not true, it has never been true, and it never will be true either. Plaid Cymru’s position, since the day after the referendum last year, has been for the UK to remain a member of the single market following our departure from the EU. On 21 September last year, we tabled a motion in this Assembly calling for such an outcome, which was, sadly, defeated, making this Parliament the first in these islands to back a so-called hard Brexit.

The position of the Welsh Government was that single market membership did not exist outside the EU. That is not a position shared by Plaid Cymru. However, both parties engaged constructively in a process that led to the publication of the joint White Paper, recognising that ‘full and unfettered access to the single market’, the preferred term of the Welsh Government, and ‘single market membership’, the common short-hand term used by almost everyone else, were potentially one and the same in actuality.

That is why, throughout the joint White Paper, a new term, ‘single market participation’, was adopted to accommodate both those positions. That provided the basis for respect and co-operation in the national interest. Llywydd, it is a matter of integrity for me that my position and the position of my party is not misrepresented, and it is a matter of deep regret that it was yesterday.

It is important because the issue of single market membership is now the defining issue of our time. A Tory minority Government in Westminster, with a bloodied nose after the recent UK general election, has provided all of us who seek to avoid a hard Brexit with an opportunity to ensure a future relationship with the EU that upholds our economic interest and ensures a continued political partnership with our continental friends and allies—an opportunity that seemed remote just a few weeks ago. Indeed, I very much welcome a piece published in yesterday’s ‘The Guardian’ by more than 50 politicians, calling for continued single market membership. Its authors included many from Wales, including Madeleine Moon, Stephen Doughty, Lord Hain, Ann Clwyd and Chris Bryant.

Our motion today reaffirms this Assembly’s commitment to the Welsh White Paper, which remains in my opinion the most comprehensive publication published in the UK for a future relationship with the EU, and the framework for defending the Welsh constitution. We note with deep regret that the UK Government to date remains unwilling to properly engage with devolved Governments and Parliaments for a Brexit that works for all. Indeed, it is a reflection of the unbalanced nature of this over-centralised and unequal union that the most important peace-time negotiations in history have commenced without full and proper negotiations between the nations of these islands having even been attempted, let alone concluded.

The UK Government’s wait-and-see approach I believe will be exposed very soon as being unsustainable, unfair, and unsatisfactory to the people of Wales. They cannot afford to wait and see when the fate of their jobs and their communities hangs in the balance.

Thank you very much. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. We celebrate the fact that the National Assembly for Wales is the national Parliament of Wales and I’m pleased to move amendments 1 and 2, noting that the UK Government’s February 2017 policy paper, ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union’, states:

‘we have already committed that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them and we will use the opportunity of bringing decision making back to the UK to ensure that more decisions are devolved.’

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. As the Prime Minister said in her January Lancaster House speech,

‘being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement…the “4 freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people.’

She added:

‘It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.’

‘Instead’, she said,

‘we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.’

More recently, she’s also said we need to

‘ensure that we get the right trade deal so that farmers can continue to export their produce to the European Union but also…trade around the rest of the world’.

It is this and not hard Brexit that has been the UK Government’s stated goal throughout. Although, as the Prime Minister stated, if we threw away our negotiating position at a stroke by rejecting the idea of walking away with no deal, Brussels would think Christmas had come early. As the Chancellor said last weekend, no deal would be a bad deal, although one purpose-built to punish would be worse.

As negotiations now move forward, it is in the interests of both sides to recognise that there can only be two winners or two losers. The UK is the EU’s largest export partner, guaranteeing millions of jobs. It is overwhelmingly in the EU’s interest to agree a friendly UK-EU free trade deal. The UK is Ireland’s second largest trading partner in terms of value, and largest in terms of volume. In meetings with Irish Government representatives on Monday, the external affairs committee heard that the common travel area issue should be resolved without any real problem, and that Brexit would not close the time advantage of using the UK land bridge to access continental markets. As the Foreign Secretary said last weekend:

‘We can and must deliver on the will of the people. We can reflect the mandate of the more than 80% of MPs whose manifestos pledged them to support Brexit.’

‘If we get it right’, he said, ‘(and’, he said,

‘there is much more good will on both sides than you might think), then we can end up with a deep and special partnership with the EU; a strong EU buttressed by and supporting a strong UK—and still trading and co-operating closely with each other, too.’

‘We are going to deliver’,

he said,

‘not a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit—but an open Brexit, one that ensures that the UK is still turned outwards, and more engaged with the world than ever before.’

The First Minister was correct. You can only be a member of the single market if you are a full member. Although both Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have insisted that Labour is formally committed to taking Britain out of the single market and the customs union, Labour’s shadow Brexit Secretary said last weekend that the option of retaining UK membership of the EU customs union should be left on the table. This is counterintuitive because it would prevent the UK from negotiating international trade deals outside single market membership, and, as we also heard in Ireland on Monday, you can leave the customs union and still have customs arrangements afterwards.

To restate, Welsh Conservatives want agreed UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlement as funding schemes and initiatives are returned from the European Union. We therefore welcome confirmation, in notes accompanying today’s Queen’s Speech, that the repeal Bill, transferring existing EU legislation into UK law, will be a transitional arrangement to provide certainty immediately after exit and allow intensive discussion and consultation with devolved administrations on where lasting common frameworks are needed. I emphasise we believe those frameworks must be agreed. Thank you.

I thank Plaid Cymru today for bringing this important debate to the table. It follows the discussion yesterday on Brexit and devolution and, of course, it also gives us an opportunity today to consider some of the points that are in the Queen’s Speech. It’s nearly a year now since the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. It was a decision that I think will create detrimental impacts for our economy and jobs in our nation.

Nawr, byddwn yn trafod rhai o ganlyniadau Brexit, flwyddyn yn ddiweddarach, mewn cynhadledd rwy’n ei chynnal yn y Gelli Gandryll y penwythnos hwn, pan fyddwn yn clywed ystod eang o arbenigwyr, gan gynnwys Syr Keir Starmer, yr Arglwydd John Kerr, awdur erthygl 50, a Neil Kinnock, cyn Is-lywydd y Comisiwn Ewropeaidd, ynghyd â llawer o arbenigwyr eraill ym maes busnes, yr undebau llafur a’r byd academaidd. Nid oes llawer o docynnau ar ôl, os hoffai unrhyw un ymuno â ni.

One thing that we will discuss in the conference is the way that the results of the election have changed the position. Now, I believe and hope that a hard Brexit is no longer on the table. I’m going to define a hard Brexit, because I think that’s one of the problems, that nobody quite understands what a hard Brexit means. I think that a hard Brexit is one that puts immigration controls as a priority ahead of all other decisions in the negotiations. I hope now that we will move towards a sensible Brexit, a soft Brexit, which puts jobs and the economy as the priority. But we can’t win this argument unless our parties co-operate and collaborate where that’s possible, and I’m pleased to hear that Steffan Lewis agrees with that. And I do think it is important that we do work together. We need to calm down the rhetoric if at all possible. This is a hugely important issue for our country. It puts the role of our nation and our people first. The fact is that we are negotiating with 27 other nations, the 27 against one, and although I feel passionately as a European, I feel even greater passion towards my own nation, and I do think it’s important that we get the best possible deal for Wales and for the UK.

Today we heard the Queen’s Speech and the priorities of the UK Government. The Prime Minister has said that she wants to see a Brexit that works for the whole of the UK, but how is that possible unless she’s spoken to Wales? There has still been no discussion with the Welsh Government on the great repeal Bill, although it’s contained within the Queen’s Speech today and I’m sure that a draft of it is available. I’m pleased to see that Carwyn Jones yesterday announced that the Welsh Government is now looking to prepare a continuity Bill in case the great repeal Bill actually has detrimental impacts for the Welsh Government. It’s crucially important that the powers that belong to Wales but were handed to the EU when the Assembly was established come directly back to this place. There is no mention in the Queen’s Speech today in relation to agriculture or fisheries that the Welsh Government has any role; there is just a brief sentence taking it for granted that new national policies will be introduced.

Just on that point, does she share my concern that the sentence in the Queen’s Speech that says that powers won’t be withdrawn from the Assembly isn’t any kind of solution to what will come from those powers that are now at the European level, and should come directly to this Assembly in the wake of Brexit?

I don’t think that what’s contained within the Queen’s Speech makes it sufficiently clear exactly where those powers will lie, and that they should come directly back to us here. The fact that she mentions and assumes that there will be a pan-Britain agriculture policy takes this Chamber for granted, and it’s not acceptable. I would like to ask the more enlightened Members of the Conservative party in the Chamber today to have a quiet word to explain to Theresa May how devolution works.

It’s interesting to see that the customs Bill and a Bill that would allow Britain to form its own trade deals is to be introduced. Now, we will only need these Bills if we leave the customs union, but I don’t think that Theresa May should assume that there will be a majority in Parliament in favour of exiting the customs union, and that’s why I am a little concerned. I have promised Steffan Lewis that I won’t be too malicious on this, and I don’t want to make an issue of this, but the third point in Plaid Cymru’s motion today—. Whilst I agree entirely that the Assembly should have a role in future trade deals with the EU, because, of course, it will have an impact upon us, I am not currently comfortable with the wording of the motion, which accepts the fact that we will leave the customs union, talking about deals with other countries in the way that it is currently worded. So, I hope that Plaid Cymru will accept the point I make for the reasons that I’ve explained. I don’t want to make a big thing of this, but that’s why I am slightly concerned that we are accepting that we are to exit the customs union. I don’t think we should do that. Thank you.

Of course, following on from that point, the paving legislation in the Queen’s Speech today, which referred to the trade deals—they created an entire department, of course, for this very purpose, so the UK Government is clearly still wedded to this path.

The point about the customs union is well made. It isn’t true, of course, that single market membership and trade deals are incompatible. Indeed, EFTA members—all of whom, effectively, by different mechanisms, are inside the single market, either through a bilateral arrangement in the case of Switzerland or through the EEA—are free to engage in agreeing trade deals, either collectively or, indeed, individually. Switzerland, for example, has just ratified a trade deal last week with the Philippines, and it’s open to other EFTA members to want to do that.

So, single market membership—we often hear from the hard Brexiteers that it would prevent the trade deals. Actually, single market membership doesn’t prevent trade deals from being embraced at all. The key point—

Yes, I will give way.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I just want one clarification. We keep talking about single market membership. Is there a legal definition of single market membership, so we can be clear about what it actually means?

I don’t want to detain people on this point, because I think Steffan Lewis set it out very admirably. I almost feel as if I am in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ moment here, you know, when I hear mature politicians actually refusing to accept the term that everyone else in the world uses, including European Union officials and including the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Actually, Full Fact, which did a laudable service during the election campaign, catching politicians out when they’re economical with the old actualité—they even said, ‘Yes, single market membership does exist. It is this—’. The single market is a binary—you’re either in it or you’re outside of it, and that is the issue. You can choose your own language, if you like. There, we were charitable, in Plaid Cymru, in coming up with this term that nobody else uses, by the way—’participation in the single market’—but what you can’t say is that single market membership doesn’t exist, because the entire rest of the world calls it that.

Let’s get back to the core—[Interruption.] Even Stephen Kinnock uses ‘single market membership’—you want to have a word with him. Let’s get back to the core point of the third paragraph of this motion, which is the voice of Wales. If there are going to be trade deals, who’s going to be listening to us? Of course, we have to contrast our situation with the situation that the Walloon Parliament was in—a member of the comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. Of course, they were holding it up because of some concerns that they had back in February. What people may not realise is, actually, the same process has been followed in Canada, and it’s only in the last week that CETA has been ratified in Canada, because it had to go to every single province and territory, and Quebec was the last province to support it.

The same principle applies in Australia—the Singapore-Australia free trade agreement, for example, and the provision of mutual recognition of goods between Australia and New Zealand. All of the territories—the states and territories—of Australia had to agree to those agreements, and that’s despite the fact that section 92 of the constitution of Australia refers to ‘trade, commerce and intercourse’ between the states being ‘absolutely free’.

They recognise the importance, in a federal situation, of actually recognising the interests of those devolved state territories, and yet what we get from the UK Government at the moment is the promise of the return of the board of trade and Her Majesty’s trade commissioners—it’s back to the eighteenth century. I was almost wondering whether they’re going to bring back the East India Company as well.

I’m all for the politics of the united front, and this is a front where we have to join forces, because we cannot allow a situation where our legitimate and distinct economic interests are ignored by the centre.

From looking around the Chamber today, I think we’re suffering—apart from Plaid Cymru and UKIP—with Brexit weariness. At least we’re here to engage in the argument.

We have no difficulty, of course, in supporting Plaid Cymru on the first two points of this motion. As I’ve said many, many times before, the Brexit process should not in any way be used to undermine or to row back on the devolution settlement, which the people of Wales have voted for twice in referenda. That would be a betrayal of everything that we stand for.

But point 3 is totally unrealistic. The difference, of course, between Canada and Australia is that in their federal systems, they don’t have the massive imbalance of populations that we have in the United Kingdom between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Where England is 85 per cent of the population of the country, it’s inevitable in those circumstances the United Kingdom Government is not going to accept what this motion asks for. Therefore, I simply can’t understand why it’s being put forward. All that you do in those circumstances is to undermine the good point, which is that of course the interests of Wales should be properly considered and taken into account by the United Kingdom Government, because they are inevitably different from other parts of the country, in particular in agriculture as we know. The import/export position in Wales is different from the United Kingdom as a whole.

Even though we’re massively in deficit with trade with the EU—we export to them £250 billion a year of goods, they export to us well over £300 billion. So, 7 per cent of our UK GDP is accounted for—only 7 per cent, and 93 per cent is trade either internally or with the rest of the world; let’s keep it in perspective, I say that to Eluned Morgan—then there’s a bigger percentage of our gross national product that is consumed by what we purchase from them. That is our bargaining counter with them.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Can you accept that it is vital to focus on what we can do and where we can try to influence? When you say that we are in a huge deficit, we in Wales are not. We have a surplus.

I said that a moment ago. To carry on debating on the basis that the United Kingdom has the slightest possibility of adopting this policy is a complete and utter waste of time and actually undermines the good points that we could make. That is the burden of what I want to say in this debate.

The idea that single market membership, however defined, is going to be a runner is, again, not practical politics. Why are we flogging this dead horse? We would be in the single market on that basis but unable to take part in the decision-making processes. That, in a sense, is worse than what we’ve got now. Not only that, but we would be making a financial contribution, which was one of the arguments for leaving the EU in the first place. We contribute, as we know, net, every year, £8 billion, and a very significant part of that would continue to be paid if we were members of the single market, even on the basis of the Swiss model or the Norwegian model, both of which are very different, of course.

Switzerland is free to—and has done, in fact—enter into a free trade agreement with China, whereas the EU has been wholly unable to agree one in the last 50 years. You look down the list of the 56 countries that the EU have trade agreements with: they include Jersey and Guernsey, for example, Andorra, Montenegro and San Marino. They don’t have any trade agreements with any country of any serious size in the world apart from South Korea and Mexico.

Will you take an intervention?

I don’t think I’ve got time, I’m sorry. The great opportunity that lies for us in being outside the customs union is that we can enter into trade agreements with the major players in the world. It is difficult; it takes time, obviously, to enter into free trade agreements. We don’t have that possibility when the details of those agreements have to be agreed with 27 other member states, which is why the EU has been incapable of entering into these. Canada is coming up but how long has it taken to negotiate that? There is now not going to be a trade deal with the United States, but we can agree one. The United States is vastly important to the Welsh economy because they’re our biggest single national export destination. So, this is the freedom that we have as a result of being outside the EU.

I’m surprised that Plaid Cymru continues to fight this battle, which was lost a year ago. Yes, of course the British Government should talk meaningfully on a regular basis to the Welsh Government, but if all the First Minister does is to carry on banging on about something that the British Government is never going to agree to, what is the point of those discussions? If you want to succeed, go with the grain and not against it. I’ve urged him therefore to involve Andrew R.T. Davies and myself in a common approach to the United Kingdom Government, because, after all, this is a battle that we have fought and won. I’ve been fighting this battle since before most of the Members opposite there were born, having joined the Anti-Common Market League in 1967. And, of course, I want the outcome for Wales that they want, but at least the method that I employ is one that has a ghost of a chance of success, whereas theirs has none whatsoever.

Now, with the Brexit referendum, article 50, the great repeal Bill and the Wales Act 2017, there’s been a lot of political uncertainty and dangers for us as a nation in all of this. Everyone talks about respecting the result of the referendum, but what is missing is the need to respect the decision taken by the people of Wales in 2011 and the decision to have more powers for this Senedd. People in Wales didn’t vote to give up those powers, but with the Wales Act 2017, we have seen the roll-back of those powers—193 issues reserved to Westminster, taken back to that place, in addition to all of those things related to those issues, however weak those links may be. Without forgetting the Henry VIII powers also, where UK Government Ministers can change legislation made in this place without telling us.

Now, with the great repeal Bill, that consultation paper with the blue cover, saying, in paragraph 4.2, that Westminster—

Thank you for the intervention. As a fellow member of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I’m sure you realise that there is no way to bring forward any subordinate legislation in Westminster that impacts on this place without this committee discussing it, and introducing a report to this place.

Henry VIII powers—you clearly need to read them in detail.

To return back to the consultation paper on the great repeal Bill, paragraph 4.2 says that Westminster is to take powers back from Brussels, with the risk that they will retain those in devolved areas. Having seen powers rolled back in the Wales Act, we are at risk of losing further powers under the great repeal Bill—agriculture, environment, transport—

Yr Amgylchedd: fel hyrwyddwr rhywogaethau’r flwyddyn dros y morlo llwyd—amser cinio eto—mae fy ffrindiau dyfrol newydd yn poeni’n fawr ynglŷn â Chymru’n colli pwerau amgylcheddol a fu gennym yma ers blynyddoedd, pwerau rydym am iddynt aros yma am flynyddoedd. Dyna beth rwy’n ei glywed oddi ar greigiau Pen Pyrod.

In these areas, therefore, the discussions and negotiations with Europe are on a Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England basis. That’s what happens in the devolved fields: the four nations. It always has been the case and it should continue in that vein. And with the great repeal Bill, there is a convention from Westminster of consulting with Wales and Scotland in devolved areas prior to legislation, but with the Wales Act, the use of the word ‘normally’ is crucial, because one could argue, with the great repeal Bill, that it isn’t a ‘normal’ case. Therefore, Westminster wouldn’t have to discuss these issues with us.

And Theresa May stated, to quote:

Ni chaf fy nal yn wystl gan unrhyw weinyddiaethau datganoledig

neu ‘genedlaetholwyr ymrannol’, pwy bynnag yw’r rheini.

That was last October. The political landscape has been transformed, clearly, for her in a frightening way, and since the general election also. She’s expected now to work with the devolved nations and not to roll back powers from this place to Westminster.

A vote was won here in the Senedd recently to get a continuity Bill in order to keep hold of all of the European legislation in those devolved areas, and to retain those powers here in Wales—to keep the grey seal happy—a continuation of the current situation, therefore. Agriculture, the environment and the regulations of those fields already sit here in this Senedd, and we need a continuation of that, not to see those powers rolled back to Westminster. A continuity Bill is therefore required. Thank you.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, two weeks ago, on the Wednesday before this month’s general election, I had to explain to the Chamber that the Government would be unable to support some elements in a detailed Plaid Cymru motion on Brexit, because at the time I said that I thought it was very important that, as we entered the post-election period, we stick to the fundamental case that we set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, as agreed between our two parties. Today, the Government side will vote for this much tighter motion because we believe that it articulates some shared Welsh interests, and I was very glad to hear what Steffan Lewis said in introducing the debate about the way in which our joint White Paper continues to represent the best statement of our joint view.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I should be clear that the Government would not support either of the two Conservative amendments. They appear to have been drafted as though the general election had never taken place. Indeed, they reflect the position of the Conservative Party more generally, trapped in the headlights of a car crash of their own making. It is simply not good enough to repeat the position taken by the Prime Minister in the days before she threw away her majority. That position was put before the electorate on 8 June. We were told that it was the key question that had motivated the calling of the election, and when the public has decided otherwise, the UK Government cannot simply cannot carry on, as the Conservative Party amendments to this debate do, as if nothing had happened.

Now, the motion before the Assembly asserts our democratic credentials in representing Welsh interests. It reaffirms our long-held position that devolved competencies exercised at the EU level remain, as Dr Dai Lloyd just articulated, and with all the authority that he brought from his friends at the end of Worm’s Head—that those competencies remain here in the National Assembly once Brexit has taken place. Last week, the First Minister published our paper on Brexit and devolution. The document makes it clear that, as we have repeatedly emphasised, after we have left the European Union, powers already devolved to Wales remain devolved. And let me be absolutely clear with Members that we will oppose any attempt by the UK Government to reclaim any powers over areas of devolved competence for itself. And that is a position that we have articulated—

Will you give way?

Yes, of course.

Simply, given your current comment there and your earlier comment in your first referral to the amendments, and amendment 1—amendment 1 commits that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed, and talks about the opportunity of bringing more decision making to the devolved level. From what you’re saying, you don’t oppose that, and surely, in recognising amendment 1, you’d be acknowledging that commitment.

The problem with the amendment, and the problem with what the Member has just said, is the deep ambiguity that lies behind that statement. As we’ve already heard in this debate, the Queen’s Speech today has a sentence in it that appears to act in precisely the opposite direction, saying that there are to be national arrangements in the fields of the environment and agriculture that cannot be achieved without taking away from this National Assembly responsibilities that are already devolved to it. We have made crystal clear to the UK Government, both before and since the general election, that if they choose to go down that route—and we have explained to them why there is absolutely no need for them to go down that route, because we will be prepared to come to the table and discuss ways of achieving sensible UK-wide arrangements without them acting in that way—but if they choose to do it, there will be a fight on their hands. It is a fight that they do not need to have, but it will be, Dirprwy Lywydd, a fight of their own making.

Now, we say that devolution is an established part of the UK constitution, and that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU must therefore respect and reflect the reality of devolution. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister last week. He stressed that the repeal Bill—interesting to see that the word ‘great’ has disappeared from the repeal Bill, in line with the more modest ambitions of Mrs May—but the First Minister made it clear to the Prime Minister that the—[Interruption.] Humility—that is what lies behind the absence of greatness. The First Minister made it clear that that Bill must fully respect existing devolution settlements and, as I’ve said, that the Welsh Government stands ready to work constructively and positively with the UK Government to help frame the legislation to achieve just that. I have spoken directly with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union since the general election, and once again, I laid out our position on that matter, and both Simon Thomas and Eluned Morgan are right to sound a note of concern about how that is now represented in the Queen’s Speech.

In a document that the First Minister has published, we propose the establishment of a UK council of Ministers for discussing and agreeing such frameworks. The policy document ‘Brexit and Devolution’ makes it clear that a UK council of Ministers could be utilised to gain agreement on areas where reserved powers and devolved powers are interconnected, and devolved administrations have a strong interest in UK Government policy, even when that policy is not formally devolved. UK-wide discussions and agreement in some aspects of non-devolved policy will be needed in order to ensure that policies have legitimacy across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Of course.

Just at this point I’d like to intervene rather than reply, because I think this point is important. He’s talked about the relationship between himself and his Government and the other Governments in the United Kingdom, and how that might be re-established. Can he give some assurances that there is any sign from Westminster at the moment that they are re-engaging with Welsh Government Ministers, that ministerial meetings are taking place, bilaterals are taking place, quadrilaterals—whatever is needed to get a shift on for some of these discussions that we need to have?

Well, that machinery of Government is resuming. As I said, I’ve spoken myself directly to David Davis, I have a call with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow, and I’ve come directly to the Chamber from a meeting of the JMC Europe, in which I represented Wales—Scottish Ministers were involved, and a series of UK Government Ministers were around that table as well. It’s not the absence of machinery, Dirprwy Lywydd, which has been frustrating over recent months, it is the spirit within which that machinery has been conducted, and that’s what we need to see altered.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I hope you will just allow me to deal finally with the third point in the motion, because it’s an important point that Eluned Morgan raised and I want to make sure that the Welsh Government’s position is clear in supporting the motion. Because this part of the motion refers to future trade deals, it’s an example of a policy area in which, while non-devolved, there is a direct Welsh interest in it, given the inter-dependencies with key aspects of the policy and regulatory context for devolved areas, such as steel, agriculture and fisheries.

We’ve made it clear that full and unfettered participation in the single market is our top priority. That’s fundamentally important to us in Wales, and we continue to believe that the UK should remain part of a customs union, at least for a transitional period, and we’ve been unconvinced by the UK Government’s arguments for leaving. I understand, of course, that remaining part of a customs union would mean, for as long as we were within it, that there couldn’t be any trade negotiations between the UK and other countries around the world. It’s in this context that we support the Plaid Cymru motion. We’re not accepting that trade deals with other countries is preferable to a continued membership of a customs union, but if we’re unable to be in that position, then the motion reflects where we would need to be.

Llywydd, let me end by saying that I want to stress that I believe the position we outlined in the White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, continues to represent the right approach to secure the best outcome for Wales. It’s a document that has not simply stood the test of time, I believe it is more relevant today even than on the day that it was published, and its ability to influence events is stronger today than it was back when we first published it. I look forward to continuing to argue for it with others in this Chamber who are of the same mind.

Thank you very much. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for closing the debate in a consensual manner, and I will return to some of his points in a few moments’ time. But the purpose of the Plaid Cymru debate today was to ensure that we keep a focus here in Wales on what is crucially important for Wales, for Wales’s economy and for our communities. We do that without any apology that there is another Brexit debate. There are eight Bills related to Brexit in the Queen’s Speech, so I can tell you, if you’re sick and tired of Brexit by now, then there’s far more to come over the next two years from the Westminster Parliament.

But we propose and move this motion because we believe that the political situation has changed, because the UK Government, and the Conservative Party specifically, went to the country just two months ago—just two months ago—seeking a mandate for the kind of Brexit that they wanted to see. And what was that Brexit? It’s been called a hard Brexit, but it was set out very clearly in the Lancaster House speech. It was a Brexit that left the European Union, yes, but also left the single market and exited the customs union. Plaid Cymru is of the view that we should remain within both of those institutions, and that is what’s been agreed between ourselves and the Labour Party in the White Paper.

But more importantly still, the people—not just the people of Wales, but people from across the UK—said that they were against the Brexit that Theresa May wanted to push forward. It’s true that one couldn’t discover exactly what kind of Brexit people wanted to see through the election of a hung Parliament, but it wasn’t the kind of Brexit that would destroy the Welsh economy and Welsh jobs. By now, of course, we have seen the u-turn that’s happened with the Chancellor now talking of protecting jobs, the Chancellor talking about keeping some sort of customs regime, and the Chancellor talking about a transitional period—something that wasn’t on the Conservative Party’s agenda prior to the election and something that has totally changed. That’s why Plaid Cymru believed that it was important that the Assembly should restate, if not unanimously, but certainly in terms of a party majority here, that these are the principles that we should base the Brexit negotiations on.

We are strongly of the view that all the powers and resources currently exercised at the EU level within the devolved competencies should be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales after Wales leaves the European Union. I was quite fond of Eluned Morgan’s concept that these powers had been lent to the European Union and should be returned. That might not be legally accurate, but I think we understand the concept in her remarks. That’s why the pledge made in amendment 1 by the Conservatives and in the Queen’s Speech—something that we’ve heard in the past, if truth be told—that powers will not be removed from the Assembly, well, that’s nowhere near enough for us. And it shouldn’t be enough for any party elected to the national Parliament of Wales, because that pledge not to withdraw powers from us doesn’t answer the question of what will happen to those powers that are released at the EU level and then should be returned directly to Wales in our view.

Hoffwn droi at rai o’r cyfraniadau unigol i’r ddadl yn awr, a dweud yn gyntaf oll fy mod yn meddwl bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ymdrin yn ddigonol—yn fwy na digonol—â’r pwynt yn ymwneud â’r undeb tollau a’r pryderon a oedd gan Eluned Morgan. Hoffwn gofnodi bod safbwynt Plaid Cymru yn union yr un fath â’r safbwynt a nodwyd gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a chredwn y dylem aros yn yr undeb tollau, am y tro o leiaf. Ond pe bai trafodaethau i fod—mae hwn yn bwynt pwysig: nid oes gennym ddewis ynglŷn â hyn; Llywodraeth San Steffan fydd yn penderfynu hyn—pe bai’r trafodaethau hynny’n digwydd, yna does bosibl na ddylem fod yn rhan ohonynt a chael llais cyfartal â chenhedloedd eraill y Deyrnas Unedig yn y trafodaethau ar gytundebau masnach.

Dywedodd Neil Hamilton fod hyn yn afrealistig, oherwydd bod yr enghreifftiau a roddodd Adam Price, boed yn Awstralia neu Ganada, yn wledydd o fath gwahanol gyda gwahanol wladwriaethau gofodol a gwahanol boblogaethau. Wel, mae 13.6 miliwn o bobl yn Ontario a 146,000 o bobl ar Ynys Tywysog Edward—ni wyddwn fod y Tywysog Edward wedi cael swydd fel ynys, ond dyna ni. Dyna’r gwahaniaeth go iawn, rwy’n meddwl: yng Nghanada, mae’r ddwy ohonynt yn daleithiau; roedd gan y ddwy ohonynt lais cyfartal yn y cytundeb masnach a luniwyd gan Ganada i fod yn gytundeb masnach ar gyfer Canada. Felly, nid wyf yn credu bod ei ddadl yn dal dŵr. Ac rwy’n credu bod dadl Neil Hamilton a dadl Mark Isherwood yn rhannu ffynhonnell gyffredin, rhaid i mi ddweud. Mae sylfaen y ddadl yr un fath. Y sylfaen yw ein bod yn wlad wych, y DU, mae’n anghredadwy pa mor wych ydym ni, ac felly bydd yn rhaid i’r Ewropeaid hyn lunio cytundebau â ni. Wel, nid yw masnach yn gweithio fel yna. Crybwyllodd Adam Price y gallai fod yn rhaid inni fynd yn ôl i’r ddeunawfed ganrif. Wel, ewch yn ôl i’r bedwaredd ganrif ar bymtheg; ewch yn ôl at Disraeli. Beth a ddywedodd Disraeli am fasnach?

Nid egwyddor yw masnach rydd. Dull ydyw.

A phan ddaw’n bryd inni drafod ein perthynas â’r 27 o wledydd Ewropeaidd eraill sydd ar ôl, bydd ganddynt oll ddulliau y bydd angen i bob un eu harfer, a bydd egwyddor masnach rydd, nad yw mor egwyddorol â hynny beth bynnag, yn cael ei haberthu o bryd i’w gilydd ar allor realiti gwleidyddol. Dyna pam ei bod yn bwysig i lais Cymru gael ei glywed yn y trafodaethau hyn, ac nad yw’n cael ei wanhau mewn unrhyw ddull na modd.

Dywedodd Eluned Morgan ei bod yn pryderu y byddwn yn dal i wynebu effeithiau economaidd difrifol o’r penderfyniad i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid hi yw’r unig un. Mae Mark Carney yn credu y byddwn yn wynebu effeithiau economaidd difrifol. Rhybuddiodd yn araith Mansion House ddau ddiwrnod yn ôl yn unig fod gwasgfa ar gyflogau ar ei ffordd o ganlyniad uniongyrchol i hynny.

Ac mae’n bwysig. Wrth i’r morloi gyfarth o Rosili, mae’n bwysig hefyd ein bod yn diogelu nid yn unig yr economi, ond y safonau a’r amddiffyniadau a hawliau gweithwyr sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd fel aelodau o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid oherwydd ein bod eisiau gwneud hynny yn syml am eu bod yn bodoli, ond oherwydd ein bod yn credu bod Llywodraeth Geidwadol wedi’i chynnal gan y DUP yn gweld y rhain fel pethau sy’n barod i gael eu cymryd oddi wrthym. Ac mae’n rhaid diogelu Bil diddymu, a fydd yn eu cadw dros dro yn unig efallai tra bod y Ceidwadwyr a’r DUP yn gweithio ar fanylion yr hyn y byddent yn hoffi ein hamddifadu ohono o ran ein hawliau, yn y cyd-destun Cymreig. A dyna pam y mae morloi Rhosili—a morloi Sir Benfro yn ogystal, os caf ddweud, sy’n cael eu diogelu lawn cystal gan Dai Lloyd rwy’n siŵr—yn iawn i alw am Fil parhad yn awr, rwy’n credu: ein bod yn datgan yr hyn rydym yn ceisio ei warchod yma yn ein Cynulliad ein hunain.

Roedd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn dyner iawn ac yn eithaf hael, rwy’n meddwl, yn ei agwedd at y modd rydym wedi gosod y ddadl hon—nid yn unig y cynnig ynddo’i hun, ond cyd-destun y cynnig. Ond rhaid i mi ddweud hyn, gan fynd yn ôl at yr agoriad a’r sylwadau manwl iawn, wedi’u dadlau’n dda gan Steffan Lewis, nid ydym wedi clywed eglurhad clir, mewn gwirionedd, o safbwynt Llywodraeth Cymru yn awr. Rydym yn gwybod beth oedd yn y Papur Gwyn, ac rydym yn derbyn hynny, ond mae gwleidyddiaeth yn newid—rwy’n derbyn hynny—a gadewch inni fod yn onest, nid y Ceidwadwyr yn unig a newidiwyd gan yr etholiad cyffredinol, fe newidiodd y Blaid Lafur hefyd. Rydym yn wynebu math gwahanol o Blaid Lafur bellach.

Felly, ble rydym yn awr? Ac nid wyf yn credu mai dadl yw’r lle iawn i ddatrys y mathau hyn o fanylion. Mae’n gwestiwn diwinyddol i ryw raddau. Ond rydym yn awyddus i gael y drafodaeth hon oherwydd ein bod eisiau deall ble, yn awr, pan fo gennych dros 50 o ASau Llafur a gwleidyddion o bwys, ac arglwyddi, sy’n dweud, ‘Aelodaeth o’r farchnad sengl ydyw’ pan fyddant yn ysgrifennu, ynghyd â Cheidwadwyr eraill, ‘Rydym am barhau’n aelodau o’r farchnad sengl’—rhywbeth y gall Plaid Cymru ei gefnogi—ac eto ni allwn gael y Prif Weinidog i ateb Leanne Wood a dweud, ‘Ie, aelodaeth o’r farchnad sengl.’ Ni allem ei gael i ddweud ‘cymryd rhan’ yn yr union ffordd y mae’n ei ddweud yn y Papur Gwyn.

Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n rhywbeth sydd angen ei ddatrys, gan fy mod hefyd yn meddwl bod yna lawer o waith i’w wneud ar ran pobl Cymru yma, ac rwy’n meddwl yn sicr fod mwy nag un blaid yn y Cynulliad sy’n gallu gwneud hyn, a cheir unigolion o fwy na dwy blaid. Rwy’n meddwl bod yna unigolion mewn mannau eraill a allai fod â diddordeb mewn symud hyn ymlaen hefyd. A hoffwn ein gweld yn cydweithio cymaint â phosibl ar y materion hyn, ond er mwyn gwneud hynny, mae’n rhaid i’r Prif Weinidog ei hun roi ymrwymiad clir iawn ynglŷn â’r hyn y mae’n ceisio ei gyflawni ar ran Cymru.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any member object? [Objection.] Therefore we’ll vote on this item in voting time.

The next debate we go to is UKIP’s debate on immigration policy, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The world population at the moment is about 7.5 billion people, and 7 billion of them are subject to United Kingdom immigration control. They have no right to enter the United Kingdom to live, work or to study, unless they can obtain a visa, and in many cases—most cases, in fact—they need a visa just to visit. Yet, if you’re a citizen of the European Union, you can come here as a legal right to look for work, take work up, to live, to study—do whatever you like. That’s an inherent part of membership of the single market.

And what I don’t understand is why the parties who take a different view from us on immigration—those who are going to oppose this motion today—want to discriminate against the rest of the world, because that’s what our immigration policy does. If it’s a benefit to Wales and the United Kingdom to have an open door to immigration in the EU, why isn’t it similarly to our advantage to have an open door with the rest of the world? This is not something that is ever answered by those who are starry-eyed about the effects of membership of the EU upon—[Interruption.] We’re talking about free movement of people here, which is a different matter altogether from the single market. If it’s beneficial for us to take any number of individuals who are simply citizens of the EU to become part of our economy, or just our geographical land mass in the EU, and that’s a good thing for Britain, why isn’t it a good thing if we do the same for the rest of the world? What is it that distinguishes Europeans from Africans or Asians or Americans? Let’s have the answer to that question in the course of this debate because what we want in UKIP is a non-discriminatory immigration policy, which—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed we do. We want to have the same points-based approach that Australia applies towards all countries, and that will accommodate our need for specific skills whilst excluding too great an inflow of people who have no skills, or few skills, the effect of which, as our motion says—I’ll give way to Steffan in a second if he wants to intervene—which actually imposes wage compression upon those at the bottom of the income scale. I give way.

I’m grateful to the Member for giving way. He just said that the UKIP policy was a points-based system. A couple of weeks ago, it was a ‘one-in, one-out’ immigration system. I wonder if he could clarify what the policy might be next week.

Well, our policy is the one that we stood on in the general election, in our manifesto, which is—

The one in Westminster.

No. It is a non-discriminatory immigration policy that is based on skills. The overall general target, over a period of five years, is to reduce net migration to zero.

[Inaudible.]—one in, one out.

Yes, net migration is what we’re talking about. At the moment, we’re adding 0.5 million people to the UK population every single year by a combination of immigration and natural population increase. That is fundamentally unsustainable in the longer term. The population of the UK in 2001 was 59 million. It was 65 million in 2015. It will be 73 million in 2023. Of course, we have no idea, actually, how many people are in the United Kingdom, and certainly we have no idea how many people are overstaying their visas and therefore are illegal immigrants, because exit checks were scrapped by the Blair Government in 1998 and therefore it’s impossible to tell. So, the immigration problem is actually much worse than the headline statistics appear to say.

The principal victims of this, of course, have been people on low incomes. There can hardly be any dispute about that. It’s a simple problem of supply and demand—basic economics. There are plenty of academic studies, apart from the Bank of England one cited in this motion, that demonstrate that point.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way.

I understand the point he’s trying to make, but could he explain, from his perspective, why it is that Germany has had higher immigration but has succeeded in having higher wages?

Well, Germany has a different problem. They will have a declining population over the next few years because their replacement rates are even lower than ours. There is a population bulge, which has long since been exceeded in Germany, and the German population will actually fall over the next 30 years. The opposite situation applies in the United Kingdom. We are adding, as I said at the start of my speech, 0.5 million people to our population every single year. Of course, if migration is, to all intents and purposes, in broad balance, this does not have a depressing effect upon wages generally. But the problem with the amendment that Plaid Cymru put down is that the academic study, which is referred to there, doesn’t actually look at the different segments of employment and the effect that immigration has upon different income levels within the global totals. So, the average figure doesn’t tell the whole story and, actually, is an obfuscation. It actually obscures the problem that we need to do something about. Because for many, many people now the minimum wage is the maximum wage, and that is not an acceptable situation, in my view. Eighty per cent of those who’ve come here from the EU are designated as low skilled or people who don’t have any skills at all.

I will give way, yes.

Do you not accept, however, that that is more to do with exploitative employers than it is to do with people coming in here? Because unskilled workers in this country are being exploited by employers that could pay higher wages and they choose not to.

Well, it’s a problem of supply and demand. If you increase supply relative to the demand, you will depress the price. It’s the inevitable consequence, I’m afraid. Of course, there are exploitative employers, and we’ve referred to this many times. David Rowlands, in this Chamber, has raised many times the problem of car washes, for example, and people who are employed at a fraction of the minimum wage through gangmasters and agencies, which are very, very difficult to police, and we know there hasn’t been a single prosecution in Wales for breach of the minimum wage legislation that’s now been in force for many years. So, there is undoubtedly wage compression going on, in addition to the illegal employment of individuals at poverty wages. The only way in which we will begin to solve this problem is if we do introduce some system of immigration control that is meaningful and which is related to employment opportunities that exist. At the minute, the United Kingdom is in a relative economic upswing, so lots of these difficulties are disguised. If we, as we inevitably will do in due course, go into a downswing again, then the problem is going to be manifested not just in terms of wage compression, but actually increasing unemployment. Yet again, it’s the people at the bottom of the heap in society who are the ones who’ll be paying the price.

Admittedly, in Wales immigration has not created these kinds of problems to anything like the same extent that they have in parts of England, because 90 per cent of those who’ve come here from the EU actually end up in the south and south-east of England. But the United Kingdom is a relatively small—geographically—country, and has a highly homogeneous labour market, and the ripple effects are felt further out from the epicentre. Therefore, it does have a depressing effect upon wages in Wales, which is of great seriousness because Wales is the poorest part of the United Kingdom, and in fact parts of Wales are some of the poorest parts of the continent of Europe. It’s a scandal, actually, that average incomes in Wales relative to the rest of the country have gone down in recent years, and our GVA is about 75 per cent of the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, anything that exacerbates these problems for those on low incomes is much to be deprecated. I gave way, certainly.

I’m genuinely interested in his reply. The 30 per cent income per capita gap between Wales and the rest of the UK—how much of that does he think is caused by immigration?

Well, I can’t answer that question. I don’t know the statistics. But the point that I’m making is that, whatever that figure is—[Interruption.] It may be tiny, and perhaps this is not the day to quote Tesco, considering the announcement of the closure of their call centre in Cardiff, but, in the sense that every little helps, anything that we can do to reduce this downward pressure on wages is something that we should do.

I cannot understand what possible argument there can be for an open door to this country for people doing low-skilled jobs when we still have unemployment to mop up and where wage levels at the bottom end of the income scale are continually being depressed. Of course, that has implications for the Exchequer as well, because in-work benefits therefore compensate for the lower wages that are brought about as a result of this excess supply of labour. It’s the speed of the influx that is the problem. If this happened over a long period of time, then, of course, it balances out, but, when we have the kind of migratory inflows that we’ve experienced in the last 10 years in particular, then it’s a serious problem.

Before 2004, immigration and emigration within the EU and the United Kingdom were broadly in balance. It wasn’t an issue. It was only when the former Soviet Union satellite countries joined the EU that we began to see these significant flows across borders, because, of course, they start from a very, very low base in terms of average income in their economies. So, inevitably, the western countries, and particularly Britain, being outside the eurozone, are a natural magnet, and who can blame them? Of course they want to better their condition of life, and overall these are very good people and with a great work ethic. It’s not the problem of the migrants themselves, but the scale of the inflows, which is what has excited our motion today.

So, I do implore Members not to engage in any kinds of Mickey-Mouse exchanges. I know we haven’t had them so far in the exchanges that were interventions in my speech, but all talk about this being racism and prejudice and it’s the far right and so on simply undermines what is a serious argument for ordinary people, and particularly those who are the most vulnerable in society. So, it’s to call attention to this and the advantages that we will get as a result of leaving the European Union and the single market—because it will enable us to control our own borders in a meaningful way, as we want, to protect our own people—that this motion is brought before the house today.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I formally move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies, and I thank UKIP for bringing the debate today. I will try not to detain the Chamber too long today, as they are already reporting it’s the hottest day possible outside. After spending yesterday talking again about Brexit, on the First Minister’s statement, where there wasn’t much that, as an institution, we can deal with on that, I do have to say, whilst it’s perfectly legitimate to debate immigration, and it’s a point that many people do raise when we’re on the doorsteps and talking around Wales, as an institution, there’s not a lot we can actually do about it, to be honest with you, because obviously it’s a reserved matter.

But, from the Welsh Conservative point of view, and my view in particular, I do believe that it is something we should welcome, the ability for people to move around, to be able to come and go as they please, and, in particular, immigration, in my view, has enriched us as a country—as Wales, but as an United Kingdom as well. Without a shadow of a doubt, economically, we are far wealthier as a country by the ability for people to bring their skills, bring their talents, into our country, whether that be in the medical profession, whether that be in manufacturing, or, an area I understand greatly, the agricultural sector, where much economic activity basically depends on the ability for people to come into our country on short-term work permits, visas, call them what you will, or, actually, under the rights secured over time, and actually help economic activity in communities the length and breadth of Wales. Frankly, that economic activity would just cease to exist unless that ability to move around was safeguarded and some sort of facility enabled.

If you look at the higher education sector in particular, it is vital that the gains that we have made over the last 20 to 30 years in the field of research, to be at the forefront of many areas of research, are protected as we go into the Brexit negotiations in particular. That ability to learn and that ability to come into the country and practice in our seats of learning is a vital component of a dynamic twenty-first century economy, which, again, I do believe that we need to be acutely aware of.

But it is a fact that, for many people, immigration is a concern that they seem to have. I think very often it’s a perceived concern rather than a real concern—very often coming across in some extreme programmes that are put on telly that seem to create an image, an impression, of a situation that is far removed from any community that I understand here in Wales or I actually see here in Wales. I do think, as politicians, it is for us, along with others, to promote the benefits that we see, both to the economy and to ourselves as a society, about the ability to be able to move around and ultimately ingrain ourselves and incorporate ourselves in each other’s culture and way of life.

So, that’s why we have put the amendment down today that actually calls for the Assembly to reflect on the welcoming nature Wales has, on the open economy that we have had and I hope we’ll very much continue to have as we go forward, once the Brexit negotiations are concluded, but reflecting on what was an important plank of the Brexit discussions around taking back control and bringing to this country the ability for the democratic institutions of this country to actually set the parameters of what we want as a country.

It might be that you suddenly get a Government that would say, ‘We will take everyone and have an open borders policy’, but that would be for people to vote for that Government. On the other hand, you flip the coin, you could get a Government that would take a very different view and say, ‘No, we pull the drawbridge up and no-one comes in’, but that’s democracy at the end of the day. That, surely, is what we put politicians in places to do, to achieve the will of what people are thinking in that country, and that’s why we have elections.

So, that’s why I very often stand proudly, trying to promote the virtues, as I see it, of a very diverse society, a culturally mixed society, and an economy, as I said, that does thrive on that ability for people to go from Britain to other parts of the world, and from other parts of the world to come into Britain, and, in particular, Wales. When we look at many of our key public services in particular, they would just cease to function unless we were able to obviously attract and secure the professionalism and dynamics that they can bring in to assist the growth of the NHS and the growth of many of our other public services. So, with those points, that is why I hope that the house this afternoon will find favour with the Conservative amendment that is before us on the order paper and vote for that amendment, because it does call on the Assembly to reflect on what we have as a country, being a welcoming, dynamic and diverse country, whilst recognising the genuine concerns that people have over the recent decade or so, where some people perceive that there has been a dramatic change in the culture and the society that they live in, and, therefore, does call on the Government to bring forward the policies to address those concerns.

I call on Steffan Lewis to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. From the outset, I’d like to reaffirm Plaid Cymru’s view, and a view, I think, that is shared across most of the Chamber, that those who come to this country and make this nation their home are welcome, that we value the skills they bring, the contribution they make to our economy, and the enrichment they add to our society. We also reaffirm our call for a speedy resolution to the status of EU nationals currently residing in the UK, and hope that an agreement is made soon in the Brexit negotiations that is humane and fair.

It is regrettable that in recent years the language surrounding the issue of immigration has been divisive and demeaning. Indeed, it’s always struck me as rather peculiar how some can regard a foreign national moving to the UK as an immigrant, but a British national moving overseas is romantically labelled an ‘expat’. The truth is, of course, that we are all, somewhere along the line, migrants. That has been the common characteristic of our species since the dawn of time. In any case, I want to briefly touch upon the economic and policy implications of migrations. In terms of EU nationals in Wales, there are fewer than 80,000, around 80 per cent of whom are in employment, and a greater proportion of the remaining 20 per cent are probably students. Of that 80,000 or so EU nationals, a significant number are Irish nationals, who, it is proposed by even the most enthusiastic advocates of closed borders, would continue to have free-movement rights with the UK post Brexit. Indeed, I understand that it is the current position of the UK Independence Party that the 1949 Ireland Act and its provisions regarding the rights of Irish citizens to freely travel to and from the UK should remain in place post Brexit, which begs the question, I suppose, of why you are discriminating against the nationals of other nation states, when you’re not discriminating against the nationals of the Republic of Ireland. That’s a matter for you to answer. Some 13,000 academic staff in Welsh universities came from EU countries, and nearly 50 per cent of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified elsewhere in the EU. In the health and social care sector, as of September 2015, around 1,400 EU nationals were employed in NHS Wales. Indeed, you are more likely to be treated by a migrant in the NHS than to be behind a migrant in an NHS queue.

A report published by the London School of Economics this month on migration and the UK economy concluded that neither immigration as a whole, nor EU immigration in particular, has had significant negative effects on employment, wages and age inequality in the UK. The LSE paper also states that, at UK level, any falls in EU immigration are likely to lead to lower living standards for those who were born in the UK.

Indeed, we’re already seeing the real impact of the declining numbers of overseas applicants to our universities. It is worth noting, too, that, in countries with a points-based migration system, per capita migration levels are higher. As for the so-called ‘one-in, one-out’ policy, that would lead us to a damaging situation where a much-needed doctor could be stuck at Dover until a UK resident decides to leave the country, and that would be a preposterous position to be in. It is also—[Interruption.] It is also worth noting that Germany, with higher migration per capita than the UK, has stable GDP figures, public spending rose by 4.2 per cent last year, gross monthly earnings are on the rise, unemployment is at 3.9 per cent and there’s higher than average productivity in that country than in this state, which would suggest that conditions for workers in the UK are a result of the intentional structure of the economy on the part of successive Governments at Westminster. Indeed, I recall, in 1998, Gordon Brown celebrating the fact that even with the introduction of such measures as the minimum wage, the UK labour market was among the least regulated around the world, and that was a cause for celebration.

Now, of course, we are living with the consequences of a light-touch approach to our labour laws in the UK. Declining wages, exploitative working conditions, light-touch regulation and a diminishing industrial base have been the cornerstone of British economic policy since the 1980s at least, and working people, particularly in the former industrial communities of Wales, are paying the price, literally. So, we need an economic paradigm shift in this country that is place based, industry driven and centred on the worker and their rights, no matter where they were born.

I call on the leader of the house to move formally amendment 3, tabled in her name.

Formally.

I’d like to confine my comments to the Conservatives’ amendments. First, can I take point 1? That is, of course, after ignoring the usual fallacious point of ‘delete all’, a gambit that should be disallowed. Amendments should be instruments to alter, not annul motions, and I notice that the other two parties are using exactly same ploy this evening. But I will be magnanimous in saying that we would agree with the points made in amendments 2 and 4 by Plaid Cymru, and in 2(b) by the Labour Party.

First, can I take point 1? UKIP acknowledges the fact that Britain and Wales have always had a welcoming society and understands the part played by immigrants in the history of these islands. However, to pursue a policy of uncontrolled open immigration when we have upwards of 1.5 million unemployed is an indictment of both Conservative and Labour Governments.

As an example, some 80,000 British students each year fail to find places on nursing courses, whilst the NHS continues to hire thousands of nurses from abroad. Add this to the fact that there are thousands of 40-plus nurses who have left to have families and now wish to come back to nursing but cannot do so because they find the NHS prefers younger foreign nurses. Perhaps the fact that it costs the NHS £70,000 to train a nurse—[Interruption.] I think, Steffan, we’ve heard you most of the evening, so if I could just be allowed my time at this rostrum. They hire three foreign-trained nurses for an average salary of £24,000—that is their reason for doing this. Let’s get away from this nonsense of the NHS coming to a halt if we do not import nurses. The simple truth is that we want nurses on the cheap. The same, of course, applies to doctors, so we continue to plunder third-world countries to meet our own needs.

I wish now to turn to the second point of the Conservative amendments. Recent events indicate that the UK Government shows scant regard for public services—recently highlighted cuts in the police and fire service bear witness to that. As for our universities continuing to recruit the brightest and the best from around the world, this is something they were doing well before the European Union and the advent of uncontrolled immigration. The difference, of course, was that those students actually paid their tuition fees. Today, the stark fact is that many abscond without repaying their student loans, leaving us with a £5 billion debt at 2013 figures.

As for skilled labour for the business sector, we’re actually turning away skilled labour from across the world in favour of unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the European Union.

Yes, of course.

Just to say, universities in Wales are suffering because of the Conservative Government’s immigration policies, which are turning away students who could come to the UK. I know this from experience. I have to say, David Rowlands, I don’t think you’re right about that.

Well, providing those students pay their way and actually do pay for their education here, we ought to be welcoming them. Absolutely.

I’ll deal with Conservatives’ third amendment with a reminder of the Conservative pledges under Cameron before the previous general election. He said:

‘Our plan to control immigration will put you, your family and the British people first. We will reduce the number of people coming to our country with tough new welfare conditions and robust enforcement.’

Though how this was to reduce immigration, given the oft-repeated statement that immigrants do not come here for benefits, appeared to be something of an anomaly. However, he went on to say:

‘We will keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands’,

not the present hundreds of thousands. ‘We will control migration’—[Interruption.] Did you want to say something, Carl? I will give way if you want. No. Okay.

‘We will control migration from the European Union, by reforming welfare rules’.

Again, intimating that UK welfare rules encourage immigration.

‘We will clamp down on illegal immigration and abuse of the minimum wage’.

Well, we see that that is not being done.

‘We will enhance our border security and strengthen the enforcement of immigration rules’.

And lastly,

‘Develop a fund to ease pressure on local areas and public services.’

All this proves the amendment put forward by the Conservative group, and the points under that amendment, show the turmoil that now exists under the Conservatives with regard to immigration, and that the Assembly Conservatives’ amendments seem to put them at complete odds with their Westminster counterparts.

We are invited in this debate to treat UKIP as having clean hands on the issue of immigration. We are invited to regard the fact that UKIP have been elected to this place as cleansing the stain of insinuation, dog whistle and bigotry—but they do not have clean hands. Getting elected to the Assembly does not erase the stain of former campaigns where they ran posters of refugees fleeing persecution as a line of migrants into the EU, where they used migrants as scapegoats for all our ills: Romanian crime waves and, ludicrously, M4 congestion. None of you—Neil Hamilton, Caroline Jones, Gareth Bennett, Michelle Brown, David Rowlands—none of you have denounced that campaign.

UKIP instead has played on people’s fears; fears of pressures in their lives. You hid the fact—[Interruption.] You hid the fact that public services depend on migrants, pitting community against community. You hid the fact that working-age populations aren’t big enough for the support we want to give our pensioners, pitting generation against generation.

People do have fears about immigration. We do need an immigration system that reflects our national economic interest and reflects our commitment to compassion. But, you have forfeited any right to be heard on this issue by the distortions and prejudice that you’ve dripped into people’s ears for years—[Interruption.] I’m about to finish.

People look to politicians for leadership and honesty and the results of the general election campaign show they found neither in UKIP.

And Jeremy, that is precisely—

Gareth Bennett. Gareth Bennett.

[Continues.]—why we are here, because you did not listen to the people.

Gareth Bennett.

We’re having this debate today because we are coming out of the EU and we need to work out what kind of Brexit we actually want, in particular, what kind of immigration policy we want. Our motion talks about a firm but fair system of immigration, it notes the Bank of England’s paper on the impact of immigration on wages and it looks at the issue of balancing immigration and emigration as a medium-term aim.

There are many amendments to our motion that have come from the other parties and my colleague David Rowlands has just looked at the Conservative ones.

Now, to some extent, the Labour and Plaid Cymru positions on this subject were laid out in their joint document, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, which they brought out earlier this year. So, we can look to that for some detail of the immigration policies that they propose, which are also reflected in their amendments today.

Some of the points raised in their joint paper are quite interesting in themselves. For instance, the document states that an additional 100,000 construction workers are estimated to be needed in the UK by 2020. I note that there are lots of unemployed young people in the former industrial areas of Wales. I would say this skills shortage, combined with our latent labour force, could provide a perfect opportunity to reinvigorate apprenticeships and relieve the problem of NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training. It could, in other words, be an opportunity rather than a problem.

Some of the skills shortages highlighted in their joint paper are decidedly odd. For instance, 50 per cent of vets are from outside the UK, yet we are traditionally a nation of animal lovers, so why aren’t we able to train our own vets? The basic premise that Labour and Plaid are highlighting—[Interruption.] Well, why aren’t we? Vets are one example—there are many others. Why aren’t we able to do that? [Interruption.] Okay.

The basic premise that Labour and Plaid are highlighting in their document is a skills shortage. The worry they are trying to perpetuate is that a so-called hard Brexit would harm businesses’ access to skills, yet the vast majority of EU migrants who come to the UK come to fill low-skilled jobs. So, it is not actually businesses’ access to skills that is likely to be affected so much as their access to cheap labour. It is sometimes curious to note that the Labour Party is worried about businesses being able to access cheap labour since they normally portray themselves as the party that wants to raise wages. Yet, in their position on migration, they actually position themselves in such a way as to become a party that effectively wants to keep wages down.

Plaid, of course, have signed up to many of the same positions as Labour. There is an argument advanced by Labour and Plaid, in their document, that, post Brexit, we should not have the same freedom of movement of workers that we have now, but we should have a different system, and this will be related to jobs or offers of jobs, as the First Minister has explained to us in the Chamber. Well, when we look at the actual wording of the Labour/Plaid Cymru document, it is decidedly vague on this point of the job offer. I quote:

‘This might involve the prior offer of a job or the ability to secure an offer within a short time of arrival in the country’.

End of quote. [Interruption.] I haven’t got time, Simon.

You’ve got plenty of time.

Well, maybe I have time, but I don’t have the inclination.

That’s a different answer.

That was an excellent answer.

I’m afraid this approach seems to beg more questions than it delivers answers. What is the evidence of this job offer? What checks would there be to prevent—[Interruption.]

Can we allow Gareth Bennett to continue, please?

Thank you. What is the evidence of this job offer? What checks would there be to prevent bogus job offers? What exactly constitutes a short time? How would these people be tracked if they had a job and then left it?

Finally, the joint Labour and Plaid Cymru document says that it wants, and I quote,

‘A strong culture of enforcement of legislation to prevent the exploitation of workers.’

End of quote. But we know, as it is a matter of record, that there have been pitifully few successful prosecutions by HMRC for not paying the minimum wage. The joint document says it will push for ‘much stronger enforcement’ of minimum wage legislation. What the document signally doesn’t say is how it will do this, which puts rather a gaping hole in their plan to stop worker exploitation. So, I would be interested to hear what the Government Minister has to say about this today.

I wanted to speak briefly in this debate to make an appeal to all Members here and to everyone who might aspire to become an elected Member in the future.

A lot has been said about immigration and many people in the immigration debate confuse refugees with free movement of people in a way that isn’t helpful. The way in which this debate has taken place has, in some instances, left a very nasty taste in the mouth, in particular the way in which immigration was represented during the EU referendum debate. I refer here to that toxic poster that evoked an anti-refugee poster from 1930s Germany. If you put those two posters together, the similarities are remarkable. Yet the status of refugees was never an issue in the EU referendum. Pulling out of the EU will make no difference to our international obligations to provide asylum for those fleeing war or persecution, and to give the impression that it would was misleading at best, vicious propaganda at worst. And there are consequences to the tone of this debate. I’m sure everyone in this Chamber was as dismayed and abhorred as I was to hear the news about a man who had moved to Cardiff, driving a hired van into a group of people outside a London mosque. An appalling incident, I’m sure everyone would agree. And we must all take it upon ourselves to reduce the likelihood of something like that happening again.

And I’d like to take this opportunity this afternoon to say this to all of our Muslim neighbours: we know that the vast majority of you would abhor violent extremism as much as we do, and I’m sure that you are concerned in this current climate. Plaid Cymru believes that everyone must work together to root out violent extremism from our communities and to create the conditions whereby we can all live together as good neighbours without fear and without hate. But we can’t do that if politicians and aspiring politicians give false information, use Nazi-style propaganda to make their points, and speak in a tone in this debate that fuels people’s fears, prejudices and bigotry. We are one Wales. Everyone living here deserves respect and deserves to be included in our society and in our communities. All of us should feel safe as we good around our daily business. People of colour should be able to live without racism. Muslims should be able to live without Islamophobia.

I’ve not named names here this afternoon. We all know the tone that I am referring to, and, unfortunately, this isn’t just confined to one particular political party. Wherever it comes from, some people take their cues from politicians. We all have to take that responsibility seriously and I appeal to politicians everywhere to step up to that responsibility.

I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Llywydd. I am responding to this debate this afternoon and I will start by saying how important migration has been, as such an important part of Wales’s history and it will be an important part of our future today, and I think that’s been certainly reflected from contributions in parts of this Chamber today. It’s very much reflected in the White Paper that we jointly put forward with Plaid Cymru, and much of what I say in my response will be very much underpinned by the White Paper. Citizens of other countries who live in Wales make huge contributions to our economy, our public services and our communities, and we heard a bit about that, a flavour of that, in the earlier inspiring debate on refugees in Wales. And of course we have to also say—and I very much support Steffan’s opening remarks on this point, in moving his amendment—that it is vital that the rights of EEA nationals currently in the UK are protected. We’ve been repeatedly calling for that as a Welsh Government, as well as for rights to be reciprocal for UK citizens in EEA countries.

We do recognise that we need to manage migration, as Jeremy Miles has said, through connecting migration more closely to employment, offering flexibility, supporting our ambition for full and unfettered access to the European single market. And exploitation of our workforce, of course, is a key and important issue to debate in this Assembly. Too many workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers, undermining wage levels and terms and conditions for all workers, and we recognise that migrants can be particularly vulnerable to this. But the issue we need address here is not immigration but exploitation, and, of course, the UK Government can do much more to tackle exploitation by employers who don’t pay the minimum wage or who deny workers their statutory rights, and the Welsh Government is already doing what it can to drive compliance with labour laws, and these are important issues to debate. For example, our code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains sets out our clear expectations for employers across Wales to embed ethical work practices in their organisations and stop labour exploitation. It should be noted, of course, that we have much lower levels of migration in Wales than most other parts of the UK, and many people who have chosen to live and work in Wales play a vital role in delivering our public services. In the Welsh NHS alone, there are over 1,300 dedicated staff from the EU. In fact, 7 per cent of all Welsh doctors are from the EU. But there are also many people born overseas who work in our key economic sectors who play a role in the success of our academic institutions—Andrew R.T. Davies acknowledged this—in terms of research in our universities. These are people who we equally want to see staying in Wales and coming to live and work in Wales in the future.

Clearly, we want to ensure that people in Wales are able to access high-quality jobs and, to do so, to provide the support they need at school or later in life to develop the skills they need to access these opportunities. So, we’re doing that through the skills priorities set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, which includes supporting people seeking employability skills, creating apprentice opportunities and promoting innovation and connectivity. Where there are skills shortages and gaps, our actions will help to address these in the longer term. But, in the shorter term, we need to be able to recruit staff from overseas to fill key vacancies.

UKIP asked us to note the Bank of England working paper. Its findings may be relevant, but they have to be taken into account in terms of the wider context. I would also draw attention to the London School of Economics paper, which, Steffan Lewis, your amendment responds to, because it’s worth repeating what Steffan Lewis said. It concluded that there are no significantly large negative effects on employment, wages and wage inequality for the UK-born population. But I would also draw attention to the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which showed immigration creates a net benefit for the public finances.

But I would also like to make a point in terms of the factors that I think UKIP should be addressing. I draw attention to the factors that have a far greater effect on people’s earnings, such as inflation, which is at its highest point in years, which the Bank of England has attributed to the depreciation of sterling and the run-up to and then the aftermath of last year’s referendum. Fiscal austerity, again, results in a very severe squeeze on public sector pay. The lack of investment in infrastructure is another notable feature of the UK Government’s policies of fiscal austerity, weakening productivity, and that, in turn, leads to lower pay growth. The legislated minimum wage and the way it’s enforced will also influence wage levels and growth, and the Welsh Government is itself accredited as a living wage employer by the Living Wage Foundation. The Welsh NHS has been paying the real living wage to all its employees since 2015, and we’re promoting the benefits of the real living wage more broadly across the public sector and the economy. It does form part of our code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains.

The Welsh Government has outlined an approach comprising a focus on migration linked to employment, supported by strong labour laws and increased opportunities for all. We believe this is the best option for our wider economy and our workforce, and that it gives the UK the best options going into negotiations. There are aspects of both the Conservative and Plaid Cymru amendments that we can agree with, which endorse this approach.

I think, finally, Llywydd, I would say that it would have been welcome if UKIP had taken the opportunity to not only welcome the work undertaken by the Welsh Government to tackle exploitation of our workforce wherever they come from, but also to join us in calling for an end to the era of austerity, low wages and the public sector pay cap, all still driven by a Conservative Government, which means our public sector workforce have been trapped in low wage growth for seven years. This debate, I fear, does reveal sharp divisions in this Senedd with the politics espoused by UKIP, which are abhorrent to the majority in this place. I think, Llywydd, this is a week where we’re celebrating the contribution of refugees in Wales, and it is relevant to this debate following an inspiring debate this afternoon on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, a debate about the contribution that refugees are making and want to make, and the ways in which we’re seeking to support them to do so. It’s very sad that that debate, that very inspiring debate, has been followed by a debate where, again, the true nature of UKIP’s divisive and negative views reside. Jeremy Miles was right to draw attention to UKIP’s form on this, as, indeed, was Leanne Wood.

I would say, finally, this motion goes against the grain of the values and the political perspective of the majority of people in this Assembly and the people whom we represent in Wales. Wales can be a sanctuary. It can be a welcoming country with a vibrant economy. We will debate with UKIP, but we will never, never, never agree with the ill-informed and bigoted views that UKIP is proclaiming today. I urge you to support our amendment.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suppose it was inevitable that other parties’ contributors to this debate would just refuse to engage with the real burden of our motion, which was wage compression. There’s no dispute by UKIP about the virtues of migration. Indeed, I went out of my way in my speech to say that the real problems that we are seeing today have arisen only since 2004 in relation to EU migration, because of the speed of the inflows that we’ve experienced, and that has had an inevitable impact upon low wages, which is something that the LSE study neglects to deal with. The Bank of England study and many others that I could have named—and I could list them now, because I’ve got all of the reports with me—have come to the same conclusion, and it’s obvious anyway: when you increase supply relative to demand, then you tend to depress price.

It’s a great shame that the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru in particular refuse to engage with what the overwhelming majority of British people feel: that immigration has been out of control, continues to be out of control and must be controlled. If they simply stick their heads under the bedclothes and refuse to acknowledge the problem, then that’s what produces social unrest. That is, at the moment, fortunately, not the position in the United Kingdom, but if we went into a downswing, it might well be in due course.

This debate has nothing whatever to do with refugees—a complete red herring raised by the leader of Plaid Cymru. This is a debate about the economic effects of migration, and I do deprecate the contribution of Jeremy Miles and, indeed, the attempt by the leader of Plaid Cymru yet again to smear us as racists and haters of foreigners, et cetera. If we were to expose the record of many prominent members of the Labour Party, with their anti-Semitic rants and references, including the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who has many times refused to apologise for describing Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia who murder Jews, as friends, then I can smear the Labour Party with the same brush. What about Naz Shah, Member of Parliament, who has tweeted that Israelis should be transported to the United States from the Middle East, so the Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference from the United States? Are they going to condemn Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah? Are they representative of the views of the Labour Party? They are more representative of the views of the Labour Party, because, with the likes of Ken Livingstone still in the Labour Party, who has himself been responsible for making violently anti-Semitic remarks, they are far more at risk of being tainted with racism than UKIP will ever be.

This debate—[Interruption.] This debate was intended to be a serious debate about the economic effects of immigration, and it’s pathetic, actually, that other Members, like Jeremy Miles, have been so infantile as to pervert it into the kind of name-calling that has been seen today. The education Secretary is just as bad, from a sedentary position, as well. If she were in school, she’d be sent to the back of the class or sent out of the room for disorderly behaviour. So, it’s only UKIP that actually will raise these issues, which is why we got 12 per cent of the vote in the election last May, and we do have a democratic right to be here to speak for those who voted for us, and that we will continue to do. I urge everybody to vote for our motion today.

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

Motions now to agree membership of committees. Unless there are any objections, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, I propose that the motions to elect Members to committees are grouped for debate. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motions—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

Formally. Therefore, unless any Member objects, in accordance with Standing Order 12.40, I propose that the votes on the motion to elect members to committees are grouped. The proposal is to agree the motions. Does any Member object? The motions are therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Voting time is the next item, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. The first vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on Brexit, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote, therefore, is on the UKIP debate on immigration policy, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of David Rowlands and Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, no abstentions, 45 against. And therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1, therefore, and 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 Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 38 against. And therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2: if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

A vote now on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 16 against. And therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 16 against. And therefore, the amendment is agreed.

The next item is the short debate, and therefore—. Please leave the Chamber quietly because business continues. I therefore call on Vikki Howells to speak on the topic that she has chosen—Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Llywydd. Like the hydra of Greek legend, poverty in Wales is a many-headed monster. It presents a variety of challenges, and seemingly, as each one is overcome, two further problems arise in its place. However, unlike the mythical hydra, poverty is all too real and impacts on the lives and well-being of those affected across Wales on a daily basis. For my short debate today, I will explore some of the ways in which poverty manifests itself in Wales, considering the multifaceted challenges it poses and drawing up some possible solutions. I’m delighted to be able to give Hefin David a minute of my time today.

Whilst definitions of what exactly constitutes poverty can be disputed, there is no argument about the scale of the number of people affected: 700,000 people—just under one in four people in Wales—are living in poverty, according to figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That’s 700,000 people whose lives and chances are constrained and blighted by poverty. If we took the more broadly based approach, going beyond simply considering relative income poverty, as has been suggested by groups such as the Bevan Foundation, the number could be even greater. Whilst these figures have largely remained static, despite the best efforts of Government, there have also been changes in the demographics most likely to find themselves living in poverty today. Indeed, the variation amongst how people experience poverty takes me back to the analogy with which I opened my short debate: different groups of people in different areas can experience poverty in different ways, but it is possible to detect certain trends.

Previously, being of pensionable age could be synonymous with living in poverty. This has changed, in large part, due to the actions of the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government, but it is still estimated that around 50,000 older people live in parlous financial circumstances. Similarly, whilst well-meant commitments to end child poverty within a generation may not have been met, it is still useful to notice the analysis of the Institute of Fiscal Studies. This shows that child and pensioner poverty would either have stayed the same or risen, rather than fallen substantially, if not for the policy decisions of the previous UK Labour Government. This progress is to be welcomed, but child poverty’s persistence still affects far too many of our young people, with charities suggesting a third of Welsh children experience poverty, with significant impacts on their life chances.

Trends are especially pronounced in certain parts of Wales, and the shape of poverty can vary between different Welsh regions. Across large parts of Wales, there seem to be challenges presented by a dearth of good-quality well-paid jobs. In some parts of Wales, such as the predominantly rural areas, challenges seem to be around in-work poverty, where people are employed in poorly paid jobs with insufficient numbers of hours. The contrast is with Valleys constituencies, like my own, where the problem can be a lack of jobs in the first place, let alone those that pay well and are secure.

A further clear link is that between gender and poverty. Indeed, as Chwarae Teg reminds us, drawing on research from University of Oxford, poverty is not gender neutral. Welsh women are more likely to be engaged in part-time or elementary work, with average earnings of under £8,000 a year. A marginalised role in the workplace is reflected by a central role in the home, meaning that both the causes and experiences of women’s poverty differ from that of men.

In all this variety, poverty truly is a multiheaded beast. The ways in which it can impact also shows diversity. I want to focus on four of these today. Firstly, I want to talk about food poverty. Since being elected I have been proud to work with the Merthyr Cynon Foodbank, part of the Trussell Trust network of over 400 food banks, to both highlight their work in my own constituency and the simply unacceptable fact of people across the country not having enough to eat. It is shocking that, in 2016-17, the Trussell Trust foodbank network in Wales provided over 95,000 three-day emergency food supplies to people in crisis, which was a 10 per cent increase on the previous year; 34,803 supplies—over a third—went to children. The Trussell Trust suggests most of its users are not unique as, on average, people need multiple foodbank referrals. Furthermore, where news reports tell of police officers and nurses who are having to turn to food banks, we see that this is, indeed, a widespread phenomenon. Food banks and their supporters do excellent work, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them, but it is little short of scandalous that, in one of the richest countries in the world, people rely on their presence to ensure that citizens do not go hungry.

Secondly, I want to touch on fuel poverty. Households experience this when, in order to adequately warm their homes, they need to spend 10 per cent or more of their income on energy costs. I recently met with National Energy Action Cymru to discuss fuel poverty, and look forward to working with them on the planned cross-party group on this issue. NEA Cymru highlighted that whilst Government energy efficiency improvements have brought a welcome reduction in the levels of fuel poverty, 291,000 households are still unable to afford to adequately heat their homes. Of these, 3 per cent of Welsh households are estimated to be in severe fuel poverty, needing to spend 20 per cent or more of their income on energy to achieve an adequate level of warmth. There is a poverty premium associated with this issue, caused by the reliance on expensive pre-payment meters that are on average 20 per cent more expensive.

Fuel poverty can literally be a matter of life or death. NEA Cymru has calculated that 540 winter deaths during 2015-16 were attributable to cold homes. This means that between four and five people in Wales died every day of that winter period because of this.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the impacts of poverty on educational attainment and life chances. The gap in attainment has narrowed over recent years, but we cannot escape the stark reality that, from the age of 3, and at every stage of subsequent education, children from low-income backgrounds will achieve worse results at school than those from better-off homes. This impacts on their ability to tap into their talents and can lead to marginalised employment experiences during their adult lives. As Save the Children have said, a child and young person growing up in poverty is more likely to be low paid, unemployed and welfare dependent in adult life. Certain groups can face particular barriers within education, and again, bespoke solutions to these challenges must be developed.

Fourthly, I want to consider briefly the impact of poverty on health, well-being and mental health in particular. This is an issue of particular concern for me. The second-worst lowest super-output area in Wales for health outcomes is in my constituency, which has a disproportionate number of LSOAs amongst the bottom 10 per cent. This manifests in long-term illness rates, prevalence of unhealthy lifestyle choices, emotional distress and many other ways that I simply do not have time to fully explore today. I just want to cite two brief facts. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health earlier this year stated that poverty is the biggest threat to children’s health in Wales. They noted that children from the most disadvantaged fifth of the population are 70 per cent more likely to die in childhood than those living in the most affluent parts of Wales. This echoed the thought-provoking annual report from the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, which was published last November. The report explored the social gradient in health, whereby inequalities in population health outcomes are associated with the socioeconomic status of individuals. People in poverty are less likely to experience good health for the bulk of their lives than those who do not live in poverty. The CMO’s report also performs a useful role in explaining why this matters to all of us. Poverty-related health inequalities cost Wales an estimated £3 billion to £4 billion annually, and that’s in addition to the economic benefits lost by people not being able to thrive and achieve. As Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson pointed out in ‘The Spirit Level’, more equal societies do better for all their citizens.

What can we do? My starting point here is that we must recognise that, to a certain extent, our hands are tied by the decisions taken in Westminster. For example, levers like the social security system are reserved to Westminster. The Trussell Trust has suggested that we have not yet seen the full effects of changes like the roll-out of universal credit, and our ability to absorb their impact is limited. Similarly, on fuel poverty, decisions on energy prices and the winter fuel allowance are out of our hands, and the overall context of an ideological Tory commitment to public sector austerity has removed billions of pounds from budgets and inflicted untold damage on our ability to tackle poverty. Money has been removed from the health and educational sectors that could have tackled health or educational inequality, hurting the essential services people in poverty are more likely to rely on, and resulting in an economy that has not grown sufficiently to create the high-quality jobs that offer one crucial way out of poverty. It is good that the Chancellor has recognised we are weary of austerity, but action must now follow his words. However, in the meantime, here in Wales, we must make sure we can use the tools we do possess as effectively as we can. I welcome the fact that poverty reduction is at the heart of the Welsh Government’s well-being objectives, but I do not have time here today to address the full range of actions taken across Government to help those affected.

For the final part of my short debate today, I will limit myself to two aspects of our response. The first relates to Communities First. I note the communities Secretary’s comments from the equality committee this morning that the programme hasn’t delivered the fundamental change it should have done, but that equally it did stop poverty getting worse. Communities First did deliver some real wins in my constituency. I want to place on record my thanks to the staff who helped in this. In any future programme, I hope the most successful elements of the policy will be retained. This in particular applies to the employability agenda and I want to address this as a second key aspect.

The critical tool by which we can get people out of poverty is by increasing employment opportunities, making work pay, empowering our citizens to not just get jobs, but get good jobs, and tear down the barriers that stand in the way of doing so. For areas like Cynon Valley and indeed the rest of the northern Valleys, one solution is provided by improving and enhancing transport links. Schemes like the metro can be transformational, but fares and charges must be affordable. As I have mentioned here in this Chamber before, a return rail journey from Cardiff to Aberdare currently costs the same as an hour’s pay on the national living wage.

We must also create job opportunities in areas like the Valleys. There are some really good ideas here and I look forward to following the progress of Better Jobs Closer to Home. The Wales TUC made a really good case and I’m glad the Welsh Government has run with this. There are also opportunities in growing the foundational economy, making a better success of what’s already there. It is welcome that the economy Secretary has noted the role of this in reducing inequalities between people and between our communities.

Joined-up approaches like the city deal can play a key role in tackling poverty, as involved council leaders have suggested, although this aim must be a concrete one to ensure it does not slip down the agenda, as concerns from the Bevan Foundation have said. Policies like the new Welsh Government childcare offer are vital for enhancing and improving women’s work and tackling gendered aspects of the question. To tackle poverty we must be innovative and recognise its disparate challenges. We must also work together across all tiers of Government, and both private and public sectors, and not relent or waver from our purpose. But, if we do that, we can slay the beast.

In spite of the bleak facts that Vikki Howells has presented there, she’s also presented, towards the end of her speech, a very optimistic and forward-thinking set of tools to help us with the route out of this. Poverty is a gross injustice and we recognise it as a gross injustice, and we can be therefore justifiably angry about what poverty does to our communities. Therefore, we should welcome the fact that Vikki Howells has identified these ideas that can help us alleviate these issues and, as she said, slay the beast. And indeed, on these benches, across these Labour benches, we’ve been holding discussions on those things and feeding into Welsh Government what can be done. She’s mentioned Better Jobs Closer to Home—not just about work, but about the quality of work; the foundational economy; connecting the northern Valleys; and quality housing. If we can achieve these things through the economic strategy and the work of the Cabinet Secretary, then we can build on the work that the previous UK Labour Government did in alleviating poverty.

Thank you very much and I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to reply to the debate. Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by thanking Vikki Howells for bringing forward this important debate today, and Members who’ve contributed? As you’ll know, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure now leads on these issues, but I’m very happy to stand in for him today.

I want to begin my contribution by saying that we’re incredibly proud of the interventions the Welsh Government have made to strengthen the Welsh economy—an approach that has helped bring jobs to our communities and supported individuals and families to be more prosperous. Thanks to programmes such as Jobs Growth Wales, ReAct and Lift, and support from Welsh businesses, we have seen strong economic growth in our communities over recent years.

There are 8,000 more people in work in Wales than 12 months ago, with employment up by 1 per cent over the year to a near-historic rate, and, meanwhile, improvements in economic inactivity in Wales have outperformed the UK average and fallen by 1.1 per cent over the year. But, listening to Vikki Howells, she is right: there is much, much more to do. As a pro-business Government, we’ve brought high-quality jobs to Wales through investments by Aston Martin, TVR and General Dynamics. However, as the Welsh Government will be clear, despite these successes, we have not cracked the issues of structural poverty impacting on Welsh communities right across Wales. That is why the Welsh Government is currently in the process of refreshing its approach to tackling poverty.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of cross-cutting measures to provide economic opportunity for all, and he has emphasised the need for a new approach right across Government—one in which our communities are supported to be more resilient in the face of the economic challenges that lie ahead. As the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure has made very clear, resilient communities are underpinned by good-quality local employment, connected infrastructure and skills for work: exactly what Vikki Howells was talking about. The next five years will present a huge challenge for our communities. The withdrawal from the European Union and the full impact of welfare reform will be compounded by the increasing pace of technological change and its impact on work and the labour market.

I listened carefully to the contribution of both Members, and I hope also that the now new Chancellor makes a choice about the austerity measures they have had in place, and makes the right choice to stop that now. I would urge the Chancellor and the UK Government to reconsider those interventions that they consider. But we shouldn’t take it all away from the Conservative Government: what they have had success in doing—one of the economic successes they’ve had—is growing food banks. It’s an absolutely tragedy that we have people—we have nurses; we have firefighters—we have people in all our communities using foodbanks, and 34,800 children accepting food parcels in a community today is something that the UK Government should be ashamed of.

The issue around fuel poverty, the attainment rate, poverty and health and mental well-being are things that cross-Government interventions are looking at. The housing agenda is also with that too. I’m grateful to the Member for raising this important issue. I spoke at a children’s conference this morning, where the concern of agencies was about welfare reform and the impact that will have on our children longer term. I’ve talked many times about the impact of neglect and adverse childhood experiences, and the fact that if we don’t pick that up now, we will pay the price in many years to come.

So, I’d like to finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, by thanking Vikki Howells and the contributions by other Members, and to say, ‘This has to be on the agenda, at the forefront of Government policy.’ I’m grateful to the Member for highlighting the issues that she’s raised today in her very positive contribution, but also a thought-provoking contribution. We should make sure that we act on that as a collective Government to make the changes in her communities, and communities right across Wales. Diolch.

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