National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. And the first question, Hefin David.

Thank you very much for that question. The Welsh Government, through Cadw, strives for an accessible, well-protected historic environment for Wales. In addition to the newly improved local residents pass, it will introduce new schemes to further promote access to its monuments, to avoid admission prices being a barrier for Welsh residents and under-represented audiences.

Thank you for that. I'd like to welcome the Minister to his post—a Minister for spreading joy around the nation. [Laughter.] And who better?

Earlier this year, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, when he was responsible, regarding a Cadw local residents scheme, which you just mentioned. That was because residents in Caerphilly were unable to access Cadw sites on geographical boundary reasons, which were related to the old Caerphilly urban district council boundaries. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to me on 28 July, when he said that there'd be a limited membership scheme, which would negate the need for these antiquated boundaries. And I was hoping now for an update on the implementation of the scheme, which I assume is the scheme to which you just referred. Would it now be available to residents in my constituency to access?

I can confirm that I have been made fully aware of the current Cadw local residents pass scheme, and particularly of the issues in Caerphilly in relation to local boundary issues, as you describe, where some residents who are living near the monument weren't able to apply for a pass. I am pleased to say that this review, to which my colleague the Cabinet Secretary referred, of a local residents pass across Wales, was undertaken over the summer and, as a result, a new and more inclusive membership offer will replace the previous pass, giving access to one named site on a regular basis. Therefore, the boundary issues you have mentioned are now being rectified, and new arrangements will replace the previous pass from the end of this month. Clearly, if there are any further difficulties, I'm sure you, along with my own family in Caernarfon who live within the town wall, will be very interested in what the Minister will have to say.

I must also welcome the new Minister to his new role. I was going to refer to you as the Minister for fun, but perhaps Minister for joy, as Hefin David has described you, is more appropriate. I look forward to working with you in the future, Minister.

As you may or may not know, my home village of Raglan in Monmouthshire is of course best known for its stunning castle, maintained by Cadw. And residents of the village are allowed completely free access to the castle by means of a residents pass, and have been since 1938, when ownership first passed from, I think it was the tenth Duke of Beaufort, to the Commissioner of Works, as was the case at that time.

The scheme has worked very well for those people who know it exists, but a lot of newcomers to the village weren't aware of that. So, in addition to some of the changes that you're planning as part of the review of the new improved residents pass, can you also make sure that people living adjacent to sites such as Raglan castle, and other Cadw sites across Wales, know full well their rights when it comes to supporting and entering those sites?

Well, I'm very keen that everyone who is able to benefit from the revised scheme will be able to do so. And, certainly, this relates closely to the statement I made yesterday, whereby the emphasis was on Cadw remaining in Government, but becoming an even more commercial organisation than it is already. And, as I implied yesterday, Cadw has produced substantial revenue. I'm certain that, having heard this exchange today, they will want to pursue their direct marketing for the beneficiaries of the new scheme as soon as the scheme is announced. And, certainly, if it would help the Member for Monmouth, I would be very pleased to visit his castle of Raglan to see the fine building, which I have passed on a number of occasions but haven't recently visited, and would be very happy to meet with some of the residents that might be beneficiaries of this pass, to make sure that they ensure that their rights are satisfied. 

We are taking a wide range of steps to support business, to equip people with the right skills they need for employment and to invest in quality infrastructure.

Further detail has emerged this week on your Government's attempts to transform the former industrial areas of the south of Wales, and I think most people would agree that the neglect of the former industrial areas right across this country has been a blight on both Governments in Westminster and various Labour Governments here. While I know the specific Valleys taskforce project is not under your direct jurisdiction, the economic fortunes of the whole of Wales should be a primary concern of yours. Many people in my constituency have been left wondering yet again if this Welsh Government has a defective map, without the Rhondda on it. I know that we're not the only area to be have been failed and neglected, so can you provide clarity as to what plans you have, in your capacity as Cabinet Secretary for the economy, to deliver long-lasting economic changes to the places that need it most, beyond bigger park and rides and faster trains to Cardiff?

Presiding Officer, I could make a cheap party political comment in response to the Member's question, given that a Plaid Cymru member did hold the economy and transport portfolio for many years, but I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'm going to say that there is an absolute determination to invest right across the length and breadth of Wales. And the Member is right to point to the aspirations and the targets contained within the Valleys taskforce work, which will aim to create jobs for 7,000 people who are currently deprived of the opportunity to secure quality, well-paid work. But the Member's not right to suggest that her part of Wales has been deprived of opportunity and investment. In recent times, more than 1,000 jobs have been created as a consequence of Welsh Government support in the former industrial areas of the Valleys. I can list a number of companies that we have been able to support directly. For the Rhondda valley, I can include SPC, for example. Wider, where there would be opportunity for people from the Rhondda to get employment, there were jobs created at Code Serve Ltd, at Monitize, at Tenneco-Walker. Jobs are being created at TVR, General Dynamics UK.

Of course, there is more to do, and that's why we are implementing the action plan that stems from the work of the Valleys taskforce. That's why we've reconfigured my department to ensure that we place a place-based approached at the heart of economic development. I'm able to tell the Member today that we've appointed a new regional deputy director for the region to make sure that we share the wealth more fairly across Wales. With 'Prosperity for All', we have two objectives for this Government: a cross-government approach that will seek to raise levels of wealth and well-being in the aggregate, but also to reduce inequality in both.  

Cabinet Secretary, last month the Welsh Government announced plans for a regeneration-led targeted investment programme worth some £100 million. I wonder what economic impact you expect this targeted programme to have in the former industrial areas of Wales, like the Glamorgan valleys.

Well, I do think that targeted regeneration investment has an absolutely crucial part to play in widening prosperity and building resilient communities right across the length and breadth of Wales, and I was pleased that my colleague announced recently a new three-year programme of targeted regeneration investment, amounting to, as the Member says, £100 million. This money will ensure that we see the sort of infrastructure required to support economic growth and business start-ups, and it will ensure that we get a higher quality of place. We know that place building is vitally important in developing resilient and sustainable economic growth. This £100 million will deliver that. 

Cabinet Secretary, despite 18 years of your Government's economic policies, the former industrial areas of Wales, particularly those in my region, continue to be among the poorest in Europe—shocking when you consider the expanded EU contains former Soviet satellite states. EU structural funding hasn't worked. The policies haven't work. We have an opportunity post Brexit to implement structural funding programmes that work for Wales. Cabinet Secretary, what discussions have you had with the UK Government about structural funding programmes for when we finally leave the EU? Diolch.

This is a very important question. It's something that was taken up by Government Ministers across departments. But I must just say that the Member, in identifying a record for this Labour Government spanning 18 years, should reflect on the fact that a record is the record: low unemployment that we now have in Wales—lower on average than the UK—and a record level of employment with a lower rate of economic inactivity. Again, I would say that there is more to be done, but recently we've seen GVA rise faster than the UK average. We are on the runway. My aim now is to make sure that we take off with a new approach to economic development, placing the focus on regions and empowering regions, identifying key strengths across each of the regions and making sure that there is a new contract between business and Government that ensures that we generate prosperity for all.

I would say, as well, that in terms of some of the other industrial areas—I'm conscious that the questions so far have been confined to south Wales—I think it's important to say that there are other post-industrial areas of Wales that are benefiting from Welsh Government investment and support. Just last week, in addition to the 100 new jobs that are being created at Ipsen in Wrexham, not far from there at the former Sharp site—a huge site—we are helping to create at least 250 new jobs with the headquartering of a major global firm.

Cabinet Secretary, I fully appreciate that the former industrial areas in south Wales have been devastated in years gone past, but many of them—in fact, many former mining communities—are actually now turning to tourism as an agenda, to look at the economy of tourism, but they're struggling with support for that tourism business.

The Rhondda valley and the Afan valley have linked up on the Rhondda tunnel and I know you've supported that project, but there are difficulties in individuals and organisations getting that support. What can you do to help that, particularly as councils are facing difficulties because they are cash-strapped?

I think the Member raises a really important point, namely that tourism plays a critical role not just in rural areas and not just in our cities and in advanced economies, but also in areas of Wales that have suffered from industrial decline. I know that my excellent new colleague, the Minister responsible for tourism, will have a keen focus, just as I did, on making sure that we provide opportunities for growth in the visitor economy across all communities.

As to some industrial areas, we've been particularly successful here in south-east Wales in recent times in promoting the area through a relentless focus on adventure tourism and outdoor activities as an adventure destination across Europe, and investment in particular in the mountain-biking sector has proven to be incredibly successful and has reaped rewards.

However, alongside that, there are other initiatives such as the regional engagement fund. There's also the product innovation fund, which is designed to reward those entrepreneurs who come forward with creative ideas that will attract more visitors to Wales. I would point to an excellent example of a post-industrial area, where that's proving incredibly successful—that fund—and that would be Blaenau Ffestiniog, where we have one of the world's greatest zip-wire facilities that has regenerated that entire community. I'm keen, as a Government and as a department, that we go on supporting industrial communities in the way that we've supported industrial communities such as Blaenau Ffestiniog and other areas of the north-west and also parts of the south-east Wales Valleys.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. As we know, Cabinet Secretary, one of the four companies bidding for the Wales and borders franchise suddenly and unexpectedly pulled out of the process on 30 October. I asked you in a written question what the reasons were for that decision and you said in a written statement on 9 November that that was because of their own commercial analysis of the contract. I think, in a statement that Arriva Trains Wales put out, which I think was agreed with the Welsh Government, that they also referred to a risk profile that was not attractive to them. So, can the Cabinet Secretary say what risks Arriva Trains Wales perceived that meant their lawyers advised them not to proceed with this bidding process?

I'd like to thank the Member for that question, but that is a matter for Arriva themselves. Our understanding is that Arriva analysed the balance of risk and reward. We've been very clear throughout this entire process that we expect any excess profits to be redirected into the transport infrastructure and transport services in Wales, and we don't shy away from doing that. We now have three world-class bidders that will be providing their final submissions by 21 December. This is an ambitious programme and I am determined to deliver on it, and I am confident that those bids from the three word-class companies will prove to be incredibly ambitious as well. 

Cabinet Secretary, isn't the real reason that Arriva pulled out because there are too many unknowns with this franchise? It's difficult for us to form a judgment of that because, of course, the Welsh Government has departed from the standard practice of actually publishing the invitation tender, but we do know, of course, that there are unknowns about the exact nature of the devolution of power and responsibility, and uncertainty about the finances of the franchise. We know that because there was a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport of the UK Government to you. Now, can we have at least some clarity on some of those issues that were raised? Can you say who will take the section 30 operator and last resort responsibility? Have you reached agreement with the UK Government on franchise funding of £1 billion that you asked for, which you said would be used for upgrading? Do you have detailed survey information from Network Rail of the track infrastructure for which you're about to assume responsibility? 

I'm sure the Member will appreciate that there are some details that I'm not able to divulge at this moment in time because the procurement process is a live one, and to do so could attract action from one or more bidders after the process has been completed. But I would say that survey work has been carried out and continues to be carried out on the asset, but funding discussions continue to take place with the UK Treasury. There is an acknowledgment of the historic underfunding of infrastructure on our railways in Wales, and there is acknowledgment that there have been historic growth costs that need to be addressed. But also, as this process is nearing a conclusion, as I say, I am confident that with bids from three world-class operators we will have an operator for the next franchise that will deliver a step change in the services that people are able to experience. And whilst this is a new process that we're following for a rail franchise, it's not a new process in its complete entirety. Indeed, we used this process for the procurement process for Superfast Cymru, and that proved to be, given that we now have more than 650,000 properties connected to superfast broadband, or with the potential to be connected to superfast broadband, it's proven to be extremely successful. 

Well, in the debate that later we'll be having on digital infrastructure Members will form their own view on whether Superfast Cymru should be held out as a paragon in terms of what we want to achieve with this contracting process. Can I just paraphrase the answers that he's just given me? So, the Welsh Government hasn't reached final agreement on franchise funding with the UK Government. You haven't got complete information of the entire situation of the track infrastructure; you're continuing with that, you said. And you didn't give us an answer on the operator of last resort responsibilities.

You said that the Transport for Wales team managing the procurement say the other bidders remain fully engaged in the process. Presumably, you thought that until you got the phone call at 5 p.m. on 27 October with regard to Arriva Wales. What effect do you think the knowledge that the incumbent operator—the one bidder that has more knowledge and information than all the other three—has pulled out will have on the three other bidders? Will the risk calculation now have risen for them? Will the bid price that they submit rise to reflect that? Can you say with certainty that no other bidders are about to drop out? What about the fact that Costain—of course, as the partners with Arriva—have dropped out as well of the metro construction courses? What effect will that have? 

And finally, just to test, Cabinet Secretary, how good your antennae are and how good the antennae of your team in Transport for Wales are, can you confirm if you were aware that one of the other bidders mothballed their team and put them on standstill for an entire month over the summer due to the delay in the franchising process? 

That delay in the franchising process I was deeply disappointed by. We overcame that. We now have three bidders—three bidders—who will be submitting their tenders by 21 December, and all three are world class. The alternative to the risks that the Member has identified would have been to do nothing and to maintain on the current terms the current franchise arrangements. Could you argue that that would be in the best interests of the passengers that have to experience services today? Because I don't think many of the people sitting around you would argue that that's the case. We are delivering a step change through the new franchise. We will deliver that with a world-class bidder. 

Conservatives' spokesperson, Russell George. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, after many years of trying to retrieve this information from you, you have now finally provided the breakdown of the numbers of jobs created, safeguarded and supported by Wales's eight enterprise zones, and I thank you for those figures. The enterprise zones made clear that just—I've got the figures here—2,998 new jobs have been created since the zones were first set up. That's despite £221 million of public funds having been allocated to the zones over the past five-year period. This means that the average cost of creating one new job in the enterprise zones has been just over £73,000. That's the equivalent of a business employing a full-time worker for just under three and a half years. Do you believe that spending over £73,000 to create a single job represents good value for the Welsh taxpayer?

I'm not sure that the Member is calculating on the basis of sustaining jobs as well, and securing jobs. For example, in Port Talbot, one of the most significant successes of this Government in recent times has been to secure the future of its steelworks within the enterprise zone area. Making sure that we secure jobs can be just as important as creating new employment opportunities as well. What we've done with enterprise zones—and there has been varied success; I would admit to that—but what we have done with enterprise zones is offer attractive places for investors, but also attractive incentives for existing businesses to remain operating successfully.

I appreciate your honesty with regard to there being a mixed picture on enterprise zones. I take on board as well that it's important to safeguard jobs, although I will say that, in a document from you here, it says,

'Enterprise Zones objectives are to: grow the local economy and provision of new jobs'.

So, the data reveals that less than a third of the jobs that have been supported by enterprise zones are new jobs. Is it the case that the Welsh Government's ambition for enterprise zones has diminished over time, in step with the failure to create new employment, and that the new zones are now simply a collection of subsidy farms that are failing to raise employment opportunities in the communities where they are supposed to be located?

I'm not sure I'd use the term 'subsidy farms' in front of any of the businesses that have benefited from enterprise zone status. What I would say though is that we have suffered, especially in recent times, from incredible uncertainty in terms of where the economy is going to go because of the referendum result. Again, we make no apology for investing in enterprise zones as one of many methods to secure current employment and to ensure that we go on growing employment opportunities. The Member is right about the long-term ambition for enterprise zones to attract and create new employment opportunities, but I still contend that, in many parts of Wales, securing work is just as important as creating new opportunities.

Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested in the zones, the economy of Wales, I would say, continues to lag behind most other parts of the UK. GVA per head in Wales in 2015 was £18,000, at the bottom of the league table of home nations for GVA per head and it has been at that bottom position for the past 20 consecutive years. In addition, weekly average earnings in Wales are £43 lower than in Scotland, despite it being in exactly the same place 20 years ago. So, can I ask, Cabinet Secretary: do you accept that the economic data on the performance of the Welsh economy in recent years further underlines the failure of the enterprise zones as the data clearly demonstrates that the zones have failed to boost the performance of the Welsh economy?

Well, I'd say that, in many enterprise zones, there's been tremendous success. Deeside, for example: huge numbers of new jobs have been created there and many, many more have been secured. Likewise in Cardiff. There has been success with the enterprise zone initiative, but that does not mean that it should not undergo further reform and change where necessary. I'm certainly looking at that.

But I would say, after the Member raised the issue of weekly average earnings, that I'd invite him to support this Labour Government's ambition to introduce fair work practices across our economy, to drive up working standards, to drive up wages, to make sure that we do reduce that weekly average earnings gap. Also, I'd hope that the Member would support our call for in-work welfare cuts to be stopped and to make sure that people are able to earn a decent wage for a decent day's work.

I think it's important to say as well, as I mentioned earlier, that, in terms of GVA per head, it's been growing faster on average recently in Wales than across the UK. As I said earlier, we are on that runway, but we need to ensure that we are investing in the right way to take off. And that's why we are reconfiguring the department to make sure that we place a greater focus on regional strengths, so that we grow the economies outside of the more intensely urban areas.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we constantly hear from the First Minister that we need to remain in the single market and the customs union. Do you agree with the situation that, regardless of the booming markets outside the European Union, that is the case?

I'm yet to be convinced that establishing trade agreements with countries outside the EU will compensate for the consequences that a hard Brexit or 'no deal' would result in. It's my firm belief, based on the evidence that I have seen and the lack of evidence to the contrary, that a transition arrangement must be secured, and eventually a deal must be secured that does not damage the country's economic prospects for the long term.

I've heard a lot said recently about preparations for a 'no deal' scenario, as though it's possible to prepare for a 'no deal' scenario in the same way that you could prepare for a soft Brexit. This is not the case; you can't prepare for a 'no deal' scenario to the extent that its impacts are fully mitigated. Preparing for a 'no deal' scenario, I think, is a bit like preparing to swim through lava; it will be a dangerous experience for the economy and we will not be able to compensate for it through establishing trade agreements with other countries outside the EU.

Well, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for those observations. And I can see that the EU is a very important market for British and Welsh products. But the fact is that our trade with Europe is falling rapidly, whilst our trade with the rest of the world is rising rapidly. So, does the Cabinet Secretary not agree that freeing ourselves from the shackles of EU legislation, and being able to trade with the rest of the world under our own terms has the potential to massively expand our trade outside the EU?

But the fact remains that—. The Member said that it has dropped significantly; it hasn't dropped significantly in terms of exports—from just over 60 per cent to just below 60 per cent—to the EU. So, the consequences of leaving with no deal in place would be pretty devastating for the Welsh economy, and it would not be compensated for by establishing deals elsewhere around the globe with third parties. It just will not be compensated for. What we need is certainty for the business community and a deal that does not damage our long-term economic prospects.

Well, let's have an honest and frank discussion about this European Union and our dependence on it.

The Office for National Statistics figures show that 80 per cent of our overseas earnings comes from the services sector, which is outside trade deals. So, even if the EU was to cut off its nose to spite its face and choose to implement tariffs on UK goods, the overall cost to the UK economy would be limited—much less than that envisaged by the remain camp.

If we examine this a little further, we would of course come under World Trade Organization rules, which might result in a 5 per cent tariff on goods, both from Europe and into Europe. Should this be the case, because of our trade deficit with Europe, this would yield some £4 billion net profit to the UK economy. Would you not agree that this would be ample money, not only to compensate Welsh farmers and businesses for any loss of trade, but most of the UK farming industry to boot?

I was recently at the WTO in Geneva. I met with various experts and came away from there having learnt a good deal about economic development, sustainable development and inclusive development, but I also learnt that the likely consequences of reverting to WTO rules could mean that the UK economy shrinks by between 8 and 10 per cent. That would not be good for the services sector, and it certainly would not be good for the manufacturing sector.

Although the Member highlighted the significance of the services sector to the UK economy, actually, manufacturing in Wales is crucially important. It offers a larger share of the economy as a whole than it does across the UK and we know that tariffs or technical barriers concerning the manufacture of goods in the UK could be hugely damaging for the UK and Welsh economies. So, once again, I would say that a 'no deal' scenario would be a desperate scenario for the Welsh and UK economies, not something that should be cheered, and certainly not something that could be prepared for as though it's some form of soft Brexit scenario.

Yes. The national transport finance plan is a live document and contains an ambitious programme of interventions that are in varying stages of development for south-east Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The work around junction 28 and Forge Lane roundabouts in my constituency has seen residents from Rogerstone, Bassaleg and Rhiwderin face a huge amount of disruption to their daily commute for many months. In that time, residents and commuters have been incredibly patient and understanding. However, with work on the Forge Lane roundabout coming to a close, the experience so far has not lived up to expectations. A new traffic lights system has recently been installed that has caused even further disruption and longer tailbacks during peak times. I know the Welsh Government have been urgently reviewing the situation, but can the Cabinet Secretary set out how traffic flow is being managed and provide myself, constituents and commuters reassurance that it will improve as a result?

I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Member for her keen interest in this matter and for representing her constituents vigorously on this very issue. I do recognise the disruption that has been caused as a consequence of these works, but we are trying to ensure that the work is completed as soon as possible. I was very pleased that the Member was able to meet with my project team, and I'm aware that that team are now preparing a report for Jayne Bryant, and I believe that that report should be ready and available this week. We'll share that report with you, and I can assure you that we have communicated and we will continue to communicate with all stakeholders regarding a project to help to minimise disruption to the people of Newport.

Cabinet Secretary, you recently announced a review of the project to dual the A465 for the Heads of the Valleys road because the project is running £220 million over budget and is behind its schedule. Work on this section of the road was due to be completed in spring 2019, but is likely to be delayed, resulting in additional costs, not only to public finances, but also to local companies, some of which may be forced to cease trading in the area, which we desperately need. When will you make a statement in this Chamber on this project, and what plans do you have to compensate the businesses adversely affected by the delay in the completion of this very important route? Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for his question and invite him to ask any companies in the region that believe they are suffering as a consequence of these roadworks to make contact with my department without delay? We may be able to assist, and, if we can, we certainly will do. But the site topography, the very area that has caused the delay—the traffic management requirements for that area and the complex ground conditions have meant that the contractors have found that the project is far more difficult to deliver than they'd originally envisaged and, indeed, planned for. It was for that reason that I requested a comprehensive commercial project review, and the outcome of this review I am expecting imminently. As soon as I have received that review, I will be making a further statement.

The Cabinet Secretary will be aware, I'm sure, of the fiasco of the Pwll-y-Pant roundabout in Caerphilly, and I am aware this isn't a Welsh Government road, but it is an important regional route, and it's having an enormous impact on local businesses and on people's daily lives. Can I ask if he, or his department, has engaged with the local authority in terms of looking at the nature of the contract between the local authority and the contractors? Is he looking at other options for the roadwork improvements around Pwll-y-Pant, perhaps the introduction of continental shifts, for example? Because local people cannot afford 12 months of disruption of this nature. There has to be a better way of improving the roads around Pwll-y-Pant.

I acknowledge entirely what the Member says. I will ask my officials to work with the local authority officials to identify ways of reducing the inconvenience to my colleague's constituents. I think it's important that, when roadworks take place, they are concluded as swiftly as possible with as little disruption as possible to those who use the roads. So, I'll ask my officials to engage directly with the local authority to find ways of minimising disruption and to bring the works to an end as soon as possible.

Yes. We are progressing a number of projects in mid and west Wales that include road, rail and public transport. The national transport finance plan sets out investment for transport, infrastructure and services from 2015 to 2020, across all parts of Wales.

I thank you for that and I see the signs along the way. One of the areas that has been brought to my attention—an area of concern—is the call by residents in Lower Town Fishguard for improvements on pedestrian access. Because—I'm sure you know the area, but there is a real pinch point and narrowing of that particular road where pedestrians and traffic meet, and it is deemed highly unsuitable and very unsafe. And I understand, Cabinet Secretary, that you received a petition signed by 98 people back in September and that you did say that your officials are considering alternative options and proposals for a footbridge to improve pedestrian safety, and that is very welcome. Can I ask has there been any further progress in that?

Can I thank the Member for her question and, again, her keen interest in this matter in Fishguard? I am aware of the area, and I can assure the Member that I'll carefully consider the petition, but what it calls for is a medium- to longer-term solution to the problem that we face right now, whereas I wish to see action taken in the short term as well, to remedy the problem. So, my officials are looking at options and are currently reviewing proposals for a footbridge at Lower Town to improve pedestrian safety. This review work is being undertaken in the current financial year, with a view of presenting me with the report and a recommendation on how best to proceed. I'm pleased to be able to say to the Member that heavy goods vehicles are prohibited from using this section of the A487, and it's difficult for such vehicles to navigate through this narrow area without coming close to pedestrians, so enforcement of the length and width restrictions in Lower Town is undertaken by Dyfed-Powys Police. So, I'd like to assure the Member once again that we're looking at solutions not just for the medium and long term, but for a solution now.

Cabinet Secretary, evidence given to the recent External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee inquiry into the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports showed that connectivity to Welsh ports is critical to their success. Now, indeed, conclusion 12 of that report states that the Welsh Government should make

'clear commitments on future development of infrastructure for which is it responsible, including highways.'

Therefore, can you tell us where the Welsh Government is in relation to dualling the A40 in my constituency, which would not only have a hugely beneficial impact on both of the ports in my constituency, but also on businesses and indeed local communities right across Pembrokeshire?

I'd like to issue a statement concerning the A40 and say that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales will play a crucial role in assessing the best forms of connected infrastructure linking ports and other facilities across Wales. The advertisements for the chair of the commission are due to be issued imminently, and I do think that, particularly in a post-Brexit environment, the role of our ports in generating growth and prosperity will become even more important. So, we need to ensure that investment is driven towards making them more connected and better connected to urban centres.

If I could ask the Cabinet Secretary—. As he prepares himself—. One of the most exciting proposals I’ve seen for transforming transport in the region is reopening the rail line between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. I think that’s an investment that will change people’s attitudes in west Wales, which will keep communities together and attract investment. We all know, and he himself particularly knows, where the Welsh Government has spent on railways in Wales, prosperity has followed that expenditure. 

Can you give us an update on the work that the Government is doing with the feasibility study on this rail line? And can you also tell us whether you have started to discuss with Network Rail—in an outline manner, I know, but have you had initial discussions—the possibility of this proposal going into the next framework for investment? Because I am of the view that, until everything is devolved, we need joint investment by the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government in this proposal.

I'd like to thank the Member for his question and say that the feasibility work is being undertaken at the moment. I believe it will be concluded in the new year. The UK Government is, of course, still responsible, unfortunately, for funding railway infrastructure in Wales. However, the feasibility study, once complete, will be used to inform Network Rail's, and indeed the UK Government's, planning process for rail infrastructure, and I am pleased to have been able to support this feasibility study. The Member highlights numerous benefits from upgrading rail infrastructure across Wales, including the potential of the Aberystwyth-Carmarthen railway line.

Well, rural Wales has specific opportunities, and also specific challenges, that must be faced, and these have been brought into sharpened focus as a consequence of Brexit. We are considering all the levers at our disposal, across all ministerial portfolios, in shaping and influencing an agenda of prosperity for all. 

Well, that doesn't sound like much, to be honest with you, Cabinet Secretary. If we are going to create an economy that leaves no-one behind, then we have to ensure that there's a level playing field. When you look at transport infrastructure, broadband speeds—crucial building blocks for many businesses to make a success of things—there's an overwhelming disparity in provision, and companies are at a competitive disadvantage. I recently visited a sawmill in Ceredigion, with my colleague Simon Thomas and Ben Lake, which needs decent broadband speeds in order to monitor the equipment, and that's broadband speed that they don't have most of the time. Incidentally, that system works fine in most of the other countries worldwide who use the same machines. Now, I know that broadband is not your direct responsibility, but what are you doing within your jurisdiction to ensure that communities and businesses located outside of the urban areas of this country are helped rather than hindered with their economic development?

Well, the Member is simply not right to suggest that rural Wales fares far worse than urban Wales in terms of—

Go and speak to the sawmill owners.

—superfast broadband connectivity. I recall, when I was responsible for skills and technology, that we chose Gwynedd as the pathfinder area for business exploitation of Superfast Cymru. If you look at some parts of rural Wales, they're amongst the best-connected parts of the UK. Superfast Cymru—[Interruption.] Superfast Cymru has delivered superfast broadband faster, sooner, at a quicker pace than in many parts of the UK. Yes, there are areas. I admit that there are areas of Wales that are still not connected, but that will be for the next phase—those hard-to-reach areas. We are providing the solutions. I know that you're providing many criticisms, but we are providing the solutions to what is a challenge that is global. There are only a few countries on this planet that currently have 100 per cent access to superfast broadband. Wales today, as a consequence of direct interventions of this Welsh Labour Government, stands as one of the best-connected countries, but we will continue to go further and connect businesses and dwellings to superfast broadband across the country.

Minister, one of the key things that the rural economy needs is, obviously, people to get their produce to market and sell that produce at the best price possible. Many constituents of mine, in the northern part of the region, access Raglan livestock market, along the Heads of the Valleys road. You've already answered part of the question when Mohammad Asghar, the Member for South Wales East, posed it to you, but I wonder: are you able to give us any clarity at all as to the timelines now in operation for the finishing of the eastern part of the upgrade, and, importantly, what likely cost overruns might be incurred by the Welsh Government? It is vital that we do understand that, because I have many constituents who've actually stopped going to Raglan livestock market now because of the chaos they've found themselves in, either stuck early in the morning going, or on their way back.

I'd like to take up that very issue, if I may, on behalf of the constituents that the Member has spoken with, and I'll ask my office to make direct contact, if that's okay, so that we can discuss with those businesses the problems that they face. The review should be with me imminently, and it's my intention to make a further statement as soon as it is available. That statement should provide details on the overrun, in terms of the schedule, and any cost overspend as well. This is, as I said to Mohammad Asghar, a hugely ambitious project, not without many, many challenges, not least the fact that it involves work through a very narrow gorge that is protected. However, we are delivering the project, the contractors are delivering the project, and it will lead to improved connectivity in the long term for the region.  

Yes. The road safety framework for Wales sets out the actions that we and our partners are taking to achieve our casualty reduction targets.

One of the accident black spots that there has been in my constituency in recent years has been on the A494 trunk road, particularly in the area between Loggerheads and the Clwyd Gate area near Llanbedr DC. I was very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for making his officials available for a site meeting along that stretch of the road in late October, and also for the follow-up correspondence that was sent by the Cabinet Secretary following that meeting. Can you tell me the timescales for the improvements that your letter set out, and what further action might be taken to reduce the speed of traffic, in particular, on this busy road?

Can I thank the Member for his question and for showing such an interest in this part of Wales? I would agree that this specific area is a black spot in terms of road traffic accidents. It can be unsafe at times for pedestrians as well, and I'm determined to make sure that it is improved in terms of safety. There are two parts of the A494 that the Member has recently raised with me that I believe require action. First of all, moving to the A494 section at Llanbedr DC, I can tell the Member that draft traffic orders will be published at the beginning of December, and I hope to see work commence as soon as possible there. With regard to the A494 at Loggerheads approaching the Clwyd Gate, the amber lights attached to the warning signs, which I know the Member was concerned about, on the approaches to the Colomendy centre have been repaired, and vehicle-activated signs will be installed in this financial year.

In terms of the extension of the 40 mph speed limit west from Loggerheads, before a draft order is published, consideration is going to be given to terminating the proposed extension of the 40 mph speed limit west from Loggerheads beyond the Tafarn-y-Gelyn junction, so that we can ensure that the orders are published in the correct way. The visibility from the B5430 junction to the east along the A494 will also be checked, and I can assure the Member that any obstructing vegetation within the highway boundary will be removed. A review of the white lining of the bends to the east of the Clwyd Gate will be undertaken, and signing and lining measures will also be investigated regarding the safety of pedestrians as well, crossing at the Clwyd Gate. I hope these measures will be to the satisfaction of the Member and his constituents, but if any further site visit is required, I would be happy to attend, along with my officials.

From February, Cabinet Secretary, the responsibility of traffic officers of the Welsh trunk road agency will be expanded to include the A483 from Chester—the Posthouse—down to Chirk and parts of the A55 on Anglesey. Now, extending that service without adding to resources means that the service will be spread more thinly and there will be implications for, or a risk to, the quality of the service as a result of that. What assurances can you give, given that there are going to be additional responsibilities? Shouldn’t there also be additional resources available, too?

I've asked my officials to address these concerns, which have been raised with me as well by employees. I think it's important that any concerns about the safety of officials is taken on board and addressed immediately. I have also asked my officials to look at the resourcing of that particular service to ensure that there are sufficient people on hand to be able to deal with any incidents. I have also asked for the issue of pay to be examined as well, with a view to ensuring that any concerns over disparities can be addressed.

And finally, question 7—Steffan Lewis.

Yes. The appointment of the operator and development partner to deliver the next Wales and borders rail services and the metro will lead to a step change in services and connectivity in south-east Wales, along with the rest of Wales and the borders.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. In March 2015, it was announced that there would be a dualling of the Ebbw Vale line as part of a £40 million initiative that would deliver a half-hourly service. This was amid much fanfare. There were public engagement events and a great deal of media coverage and it was said that dualling the track would be complete by the following winter, to be followed swiftly by new platforms and new signalling. A letter I’ve received from Network Rail reveals that all physical works were put on hold in December 2016 as the Welsh Government initiated a pause-and-review period, and now we’re approaching winter 2017 with no half-hourly service and the work remains incomplete. Will the Cabinet Secretary please apologise to the people of the Ebbw valley for this delay? Will he give them a full explanation and will he provide them with a new completion date?

I can say to the Member that my officials are working with Network Rail to review the scheme, as he said—to review the objectives, to review the delivery plan and the cost estimates to deliver the most effective infrastructure solution to enhance frequency of services along the Ebbw line. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that communities along that line are better connected. In terms of the metro project, increasing the capacity of the Ebbw line to four trains an hour should be considered as part of the metro phases, and I’ve requested in the meantime that we focus on driving efficiency to deliver best value for money.

The outcome of the review that I commissioned will inform the most cost-effective methodology for completing the infrastructure works. They are works that we are committed to, and I would say to the Member’s constituents that we are determined to ensure that we deliver a step change in the service that they receive, that we are determined to better connect these communities together, and that we will do it for the least cost to the taxpayer.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Mark Reckless.

I thank the Member for that question. The First Minister has established the commission on justice in Wales, as he knows, and that commission will consider these matters. I have no doubt that the legal profession in Wales will engage fully with the work of the commission.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Member on his appointment as Counsel General? It gives me particular pleasure personally to have done so having attended university with him some quarter of a century ago now. As lawyers, we might see it as a good thing were the size of the legal profession to expand, but I wonder: speaking on behalf of the Government, does he have a view on whether a larger legal profession, on account of devolution and potentially a distinct jurisdiction, would be a good thing for Wales? Does he see any risk in distinguishing our legal system more clearly from that of England, perhaps for businesses who might be needing to pay for those lawyers?

Can I firstly thank the Member for the opportunity of addressing my first question on the matter of a separate legal jurisdiction? It provides me with the opportunity of paying tribute to my predecessor for his work in relation to that matter, both as Counsel General and previously on the back benches. The commission’s work will ensure that there is going to be a holistic analysis of all the issues relevant to the question of jurisdiction and the implications of that, including on the legal profession in Wales. The legal profession is an important sector to the economy of Wales. It employs thousands of people and contributes hundreds of millions to the economy of Wales, and as part of the commission’s terms of reference, there is explicit reference to promoting the strength and sustainability of the Welsh legal services sector and maximising its contribution to the prosperity of Wales.

The joint jurisdiction of England and Wales no longer reflects the reality of devolution and the growing divergence of law in Wales and in England. The Welsh Government’s position has been stated on a number of occasions. His question is about a separate jurisdiction, but previously the Welsh Government has proposed a distinct jurisdiction that would involve England and Wales becoming distinct legal territories and importantly would allow solicitors and barristers to practice in both jurisdictions without barrier. There seems to me no reason why that is incompatible with a distinct or a separate jurisdiction, and in fact a new approach to jurisdiction could create new opportunities and new work and career structures. We look forward to the commission’s ideas around that.

May I also welcome Jeremy Miles to his new post, despite attempting to prevent him from taking up his post up last week? I’m looking forward to working with him on these issues, and, certainly, Plaid Cymru has a great interest in what he has just outlined.

Could he just explain, as the First Minister has established the commission, what role he will have now as the new Counsel General to promote the work of this commission and the work of the profession in a broader sense? It’s something that Mick Antoniw was very interested in, and I also pay tribute to the work that he undertook during this Assembly on those issues.

Specifically, in looking at the work of the commission, is he of the view that this commission will share its work with the public in a broader sense, publish papers, publish the work as it goes on and so forth? Therefore, will there be an opportunity for us as Assembly Members and everybody who takes an interest in this to follow the work of the commission and the philosophy and ideas behind it, and then see how we can collaborate with the outcomes?

One of the benefits of establishing a commission of this kind, in my view, is the ability to air new ideas on jurisdiction and the profession and so on in a way that can inspire the public to become involved with questions that can be quite technical and complex. I think that’s an important role for the commission to play, and I hope that it will develop in that way, in due time.

Members will know that my advice is legally privileged. However, Members also know that the Human Rights Act 1998 is embedded as a fundamental element of the devolution settlement, through the Government of Wales Act 2006, and it consequently impacts on legislation made both by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. Firstly, can I congratulate you, obviously, on your appointment as Counsel General, and wish you well in your work going forward?

We know that Wales has a proud record when it comes to embedding human rights in our legislation policies and our actions, but we face a number of uncertainties ahead as the UK negotiates to leave the European Union. Could you consider what further action the Welsh Government can take to make sure that human rights remain at the heart of Welsh law?

I thank the Member for that further question, and for her advocacy of human rights issues generally. As she will know, the human rights Act affects the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly in two very direct ways. Firstly, they are public authorities for the purposes of the Act, which means they can't act in a way incompatible with convention rights, and an Assembly Bill is outside legislative competence if it's incompatible with those rights. The Assembly has, on occasion, proactively legislated to reflect human rights, including in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

She asks about the Welsh Government's position on this. The First Minister, in his advice to the House of Lords EU Select Committee in 2015, made it very clear, and it remains the Government's position, that it's fundamentally opposed to any previously proposed repeal of the human rights Act. The UK Government mentioned briefly that it was putting that question to one side whilst it became clearer what was happening in relation to EU withdrawal, but it indicated it would return to that question at that point. 

In the context of Brexit, which her question specifically refers to, the Welsh Government has been clear in its position that UK withdrawal from the EU should in no way lead to a dilution in human rights protections. For that reason, there's a concern that the EU withdrawal Bill makes provisions to stop the charter of fundamental rights of the EU having legal affect in the UK. The charter provides protections for human rights within the scope of EU law, and our consistent position is that a UK Bill should preserve that as part of the body of law derived from the UK that is to be given domestic effect on exit.

We should be proud of our advocacy of human rights in this place. We should be proud of the involvement of the UK in building the infrastructure of human rights internationally, and in particular the contribution that Welsh lawyers made in the establishment of the convention when it was brought into life.

This question again engages the law officers' convention, but I can say that the Welsh Government has been actively engaged in working with the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The work has included participation in the JMC mechanisms, proposing amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill to deal with concerns about devolved matters, and the publication of clear policy on Brexit-related matters.

Counsel General, I've been very disappointed by the way in which the Labour Party has been voting at Westminster in recent weeks on crucial votes surrounding the Brexit process. One of those votes is particularly relevant to you, in your interest as Counsel General. A Plaid Cymru amendment, which would have made legislative consent motions over Brexit in this place legally binding, was not supported by your party in Westminster. Meanwhile, the party of Government in Scotland, as well as the Liberal Democrats—both parties that you are working with in this Government here—did support our amendment, and saw no problem with it. Indeed, a single Labour Member from Wales also saw no problem, broke the whip, and supported our amendment. Can you explain to this Chamber whether the Welsh Government is doing anything to ensure that Wales has a say over how the Brexit process unfolds? And can you explain why that work isn't reflected in the actions of Labour MPs?

Well, extensive work is under way across the Welsh Government to ensure that we maximise our influence within the UK, and influence the formal EU negotiations, to achieve our objectives. We've made significant progress recently, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance indicated yesterday to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, in relation to the development of common frameworks in particular. And the Welsh Government's overall position on EU exit was set out in our White Paper 'Securing Wales' Future', obviously, which we agreed with Plaid Cymru.

We've got specific concerns in relation to the EU Withdrawal Bill, as she is aware, and we've worked in concert with the Scottish Government to table amendments to deal with that Bill's deficiencies, in particular in relation to devolved matters. And we remain willing to work with the UK Government on this matter.

We have decided to operate in conjunction with the Scottish Government to put forward a series of amendments to the Bill to address deficiencies in terms of devolution in particular. The approach the Government's taken is to seek the widest possible cross-party support in Parliament for those amendments. And the First Minister has indicated that, obviously, he wants to see this Assembly having a voice over the withdrawal agreement, once the terms of this are clear.

Well, as one of the Members who has been most consistent in questioning the Counsel General, the Member will know that the question engages the law officers' convention once again. Nevertheless, I can say that any so-called implementation period would need to be agreed between the UK and the EU. So, it can’t be assumed either that there will be such a period or what its terms will be. Until that becomes clear, the legal basis remains undecided.

Thank you for that answer. It was a comprehensive answer, considering you said you couldn’t answer. And I’m grateful to you for that, because there is a question that does have an impact on decisions in this place, especially in the fields of agriculture and environment, namely that there is no certainty at the moment that this transitional period, which everybody takes for granted will happen after article 50 comes into force, is going to be on a strong legal basis, in order to be a precedent for the decisions that will take place in this Assembly.

May I ask you, therefore, what further steps can the Government take in its role, and he in his role as the Counsel General, to support that, to ensure that that legal basis is clear, before we make some of the most important decisions in the history of this Assembly towards supporting our rural communities?

Well, the view of the UK Prime Minister, that there should be a transitional period, is an acceptance of the legal reality that we need more time to agree terms in the longer term. But it isn’t a matter simply for the UK, as I mentioned, and there are a number of important questions that remain unanswered at the moment that will have to be answered before the legal position becomes clear. For example, the jurisdiction of the European Court, the relationship between the UK and any new legislation brought in by the EU, and the ability of the UK to negotiate trade agreements. And the truth is that, at the moment, we are at a very early stage, unfortunately, in those negotiations, and that’s a cause for concern.

The Welsh Government supports the existence of the transitional period, as long as it supports the economy and jobs in Wales, and the economy more broadly. But we must also bear in mind that we must ensure a long-term relationship that is in the interests of Wales, not just in that transitional period.

Well, once again, I'm afraid this question engages the law officers' convention, but I understand that no decision on the future of the site has been made. And should matters proceed to the acquiring of the site, the matter of the covenant would have to be addressed. 

Well, can I join others in welcoming you to your post, Counsel General, and can I also put on record my appreciation to the former Counsel General for the work he did as well?

Counsel General, the answer you gave me is obviously disappointing. I appreciate the legal side of things, but the covenant has a schedule that highlights matters relating to the usage of land, and states, in paragraph 2:

'Not to use the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof other than as an industrial park in accordance with the planning permissions granted'.

And paragraph 3 states:

'not use the (demised premises, property) or permit the same to be used for offensive, noisy or dangerous trade business manufacture or occupation of for any purpose or in the manner which may be a nuisance to the Agency or the owners or occupiers of neighbouring or adjacent premises.'

Now that clearly places a responsibility upon the Welsh Government, as the landowners, to ensure that any development of this land should not impact detrimentally upon occupiers of neighbouring or adjacent properties, many of which are residential properties. Isn't it time that you advised the Welsh Government not to accept the consequences that could follow, and to actually tell the Ministry of Justice that they will undoubtedly create a nuisance through the proposed development, and possibly include scenarios where danger may occur, as we've seen on prison estates across the UK? Otherwise, I think you're preparing the Welsh Government for many, many legal cases, as my constituents will be seeking a recourse. 

Well, the Member has raised this matter several times in this Chamber, and he is tempting me to go outside the boundaries of my authority into a policy area. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint him in that and resist that. I'm afraid that the question he's asking is squarely within the matter of the covenant, so I'm not able to elaborate further on what I have said, but the relevant Cabinet Secretary will have heard his comments.

Counsel General, plainly the restrictive covenant on the site in terms of industrial use, as highlighted, is reinforced within the local planning context, via the Neath Port Talbot local development plan. So, what is your view, in terms of the legalities around the conflict between a proposed prison development and the land-use allocation within the LDP for economic use? And do you agree that that possibility undermines Welsh Government planning legislation and guidance, particularly with regard to the statutory need to ensure that local development plans are evidence based and sound?

I thank you for that question. As I say, no decision has been taken on the future of the site, and the matter of the covenant will have to be addressed in due course if that were to proceed. But above and beyond that, I can't be drawn on his question any further. 

I can't disclose legal advice, but, under the new settlement, planning will continue to be devolved. Oil and gas is a reserved matter, but the granting and regulation of petroleum licences, and access to land in Wales for the purposes of such licences, is an exception to this reservation.

Thank you to the Counsel General for confirming the legal situation. I asked the question to the First Minister yesterday. We didn’t reach it on the list, but the First Minister answered to me that it was the intention of the Welsh Government, with these powers, to look at planning policy in order to ban fracking in Wales. May I tell the Counsel General and the Assembly that I have received a copy of the legal opinion, prepared by Paul Brown QC, at the request of Friends of the Earth? This barrister goes through the options available to the Welsh Government for banning fracking, and comes to the conclusion that, yes, as the First Minister said yesterday, there is a way of using planning policy. But he also comes to the conclusion that there is a way for this Assembly to pass a specific Act, and I will quote:

Prohibiting the grant of new licences to search and bore for and get petroleum in the Welsh onshore area by means of fracking and CBM.

Therefore, it is clear to me that there are options for the Government here in terms of planning policy against fracking, or, indeed, a legal Act. So, will the Counsel General be working, therefore, with the First Minister to ensure that we have those options by the end of the new legal year, as it were, when this legislation comes into force next April, so that the Assembly can take the specific steps to ban fracking in Wales?

I recognise the Member’s commitment in this general area. I took interest in the debate that he held at the end of October, where the motion was supported by the Cabinet Secretary at the time.

I am aware of that legal opinion, and officials are considering its content. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to trespass on a policy area that is within the remit of the Cabinet Secretary, but I do understand that, at the end of last year, the Cabinet Secretary made a statement on energy policy generally, which talked about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Again, in September of this year, ambitious targets were set for that, and that is a positive development.

Letters have been issued to senior planning officials recently, informing them of the intention to consult on strengthening planning policy, specifically in the context of fossil fuels.

Can I also congratulate the new Counsel General on his appointment? Simon Thomas is again concentrating on the banning of fracking. Simon Thomas and I don't disagree on a lot of things regarding this, but I think it's far more important to have the power to ban test drilling. As you are well aware, in an area near where you used to live and near where I live, there is substantial test drilling going ahead, and as I've said on more than one occasion, people don't test drill because they're bored and looking for something to do, they test drill because they think they're going to find an opportunity to be able to frack in the near future. Consequently, if we stop the test drilling, it'll have a very important effect on them knowing where it is beneficial to frack. So, will you have the power, or will the Welsh Government have the power, to ban test drilling when the Act goes through—under the new Act, sorry?

There is already a precautionary planning framework, which exists in relation to unconventional oil and gas extraction. The town and country planning directive of 2015 does not include exploratory boreholes, as he mentioned, which sometimes are part of routine engineering works.

The cumulative impact of UK Government reductions in legal aid, increases in court fees and closures of local court buildings is of great concern to the Welsh Government. The Government takes every opportunity to raise our views on these matters with the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the people of Wales.

The cumulative impact of UK Government reductions in legal aid, increases in court fees and closures of local court buildings is of great concern to the Welsh Government. The Government takes every opportunity to raise our views on these matters with the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the people of Wales.

Thank you Counsel General. I'd like to join others in congratulating and welcoming you to your new role.

As you've stated there in your answer, I can see you understand that the introduction of tribunal fees and continuing increases in court fees have alarmed many professionals in the sector. Alongside this, advice centres, which provide straightforward advice to people, have closed across the country. Do you agree, Counsel General, that the access of citizens to justice is a fundamental right and one that shouldn't be restricted by either income or geography. What steps can we take here in Wales to ensure that access to justice is available to all?

I do agree that access to justice is a fundamental right and I worry that the UK Government's perspective is to move to a model where justice is paid for by the users of the courts system. My view, and that of the Welsh Government, is that justice is an essential public good, which is incumbent on the state to provide, rather than expect individuals to pay for the discretionary item.

Welsh Ministers, including my predecessor and also Carl Sargeant, if I may say, expressed our opinions as a Government strongly to the Ministry of Justice on several occasions, including in relation to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and court closures and indeed the court fees issues, which she has just highlighted now.

You mentioned the employment tribunal fees case. The Supreme Court there found that the Order brought forward by the National Union of Journalists was unlawful under both domestic and European Union law, confirming a number of the points that he Welsh Government had previously made.

The Welsh Government is already in touch with the Ministry of Justice team responsible for the post-implementation review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, and that review will be crucial in providing an evidence base for looking at an impact of changes to legal aid in Wales.

The Government provides substantial funding to advice services across Wales, with the objective of delivering social welfare services to compensate, in some respects, for the cuts that you just highlighted.

Thank you to the Counsel General.

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

Thank you, Darren. Regional consortia receive funding from their constituent local authorities, their trading income and from a Welsh Government grant. They are rightly accountable to their joint governance committees made up of locally elected members to make sure that they deliver on their statutory duties. I also challenge them through regular challenge-and-review meetings. 

I'm sure that you, like everybody else in this Chamber, were shocked at the revelations that appeared in the media last week regarding the payment of a sum of at least £10,000 to Sir Clive Woodward for an hour-long talk at an event, and found those rather remarkable, especially given the current financial climate that many schools find themselves in, having to in some cases, unfortunately, lay off staff. I also think it's a bit of an insult to many of the unsung heroes in our schools—the many inspirational teachers and headteachers who could easily have given an inspirational talk, probably for free, had they been approached by the educational consortia.

Back in 2015, the Wales Audit Office raised concerns about regional consortia, and they said that there was an insufficient focus within the consortia on value for money. Now, I appreciate what you say about the governance arrangements between the partners that invest into those regional education consortia, but you are one of those partners as Welsh Government. There is no legislative structure or basis for the regional consortia. These are not organisations that are subject in quite the same way to proper scrutiny, audit and inspection by either Estyn or the Wales Audit Office, although, of course, the audit office can follow the money. Estyn do, of course, inspect, but there are loopholes within the inspection regime that mean that the regional consortia could resist inspection should they so wish. So, what action are you going to take to look at the legislative framework on which the regional consortia are established to see whether we can get some better governance arrangements that are more consistent across Wales, so that we can stop this sort of waste of taxpayers' money in the future and make sure that more money that is designed for improving education actually makes a difference on the front line?  

Thank you, Darren. Can I make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the regional consortia have resisted any inspection? Indeed—[Interruption.] Well, you just said that they have resisted. 

No, I haven't. 

I want to make it absolutely clear—I want to make it absolutely clear—that there is no evidence to suggest that the regional consortia have tried to resist inspection. In fact, GwE has just received another inspection from the Estyn inspectorate. So, let's be absolutely clear about that. 

But having said that, Darren, I do share your concerns that such a large amount of money was used in the way that has been reported and, frankly, I'm not going to stand here and make excuses for GwE. Officials have been directly in touch with the consortia to express my concern about their expenditure, and I will be raising this directly with the managing director at my challenge-and-review session, which, actually, is tomorrow in Llandudno. 

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary. The next question, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The capital value of the scheme is, as the Member said, currently estimated to be around £400 million. The business case is currently in development. Its detail will determine the final cost of the project.  

I was wondering if possibly the Cabinet Secretary could address the key point in the question, which is the concern about the soaring cost, potentially. In the interests of transparency, it is true, isn't it, that this is effectively a modified private finance scheme with a public sector equity stake, but the standard form that is being used was based originally on the Department of Health private finance initiative model standard form, which was then used for the Scottish not-for-profit distributing scheme that was called PFI by another name by his colleagues in Scotland. Can he say whether the operation and maintenance role for the road will cover those sections built under the mutual investment model contract only or will they also encompass the capital-funded sections as well? Are there other options available to us? Could the Welsh Government—it doesn't have the power currently to issue bonds itself, but local authorities do—back a joint local authority bond, say, I don't know, at 2.5 per cent interest with some degree of inflation indexation, marketed to public sector pension funds? And might that not be a better alternative than a private finance scheme, albeit a modified one as currently proposed?

First of all, Llywydd, let me say that I don't recognise the figures that were quoted in the original question. I don't think they are—they barely amount to speculation let alone anything that anybody should seek to rely on.

The mutual investment model, which the Member welcomed when I made a statement on it on 28 February, is a made-in-Wales model. It does retain some core elements of Scotland's non-profit distributing model, but it has a series of other innovations in it to make sure that it protects the Welsh public interest.

I look at every scheme that the Welsh Government proposes to see if there would be any more financially efficient way of financing that necessary investment, and we have certainly looked at the idea of bond issue. To date, I've not seen any convincing evidence that would suggest to me that bond financing would be a more effective way of securing the necessary investment to complete the dualling of the Heads of the Valleys road, but I can certainly assure the Member that the range of possibilities available to us is always under consideration and, if there were a way of doing this that provided better value to the Welsh taxpayer, we would not in any way be averse to considering it.

If I can just pick up on the last aspect of your answer there, Cabinet Secretary, on value, Adam Price focused very much on the overall cost of the scheme. I've had some experience recently within my constituency of the cost of the Clydach gorge part of the scheme, from Gilwern up to Brynmawr, and I attended a meeting of local residents and councillors who, though very supportive of the project in general and looking forward to the end goal where they have a fantastic new road, are concerned about—they described it as a slackness with the financial administration of the project.

The local impression is that road closures—sometimes necessary—are happening without the statutory notification that is required by law. Modifications are being made to the design of the scheme without the usual consultation process. One example is that an important flyover at Gilwern is behind schedule because of a water main issue that local people believe should have been sorted out a long time ago and is yet to be resolved.

Cabinet Secretary, there's often slippage, particularly in road projects. We accept that and we accept the need for this project long term, but can you look at the financial oversight that the Welsh Government is applying to the Heads of the Valleys scheme, specifically the Clydach gorge part but the rest of the scheme as well, to make sure that you are achieving your aim of value for money? At the moment, the perception at least in my constituency locally is that there is slippage beyond what is acceptable and that value for money is not being achieved.

I thank Nick Ramsay for drawing my attention to those points. I'm very happy to look at them. As far as the part of the road that was the subject of the original question goes, I want to be clear that we are absolutely committed to doing all of that in a way that is consistent with the necessary legal permissions—draft Orders and an environmental statement for the section have recently been published, and we are part way through securing the necessary statutory consents, which would lead to the powers to build the road and complete the dualling of the A465. So, on that aspect, I can give him an assurance that we are determined to do everything in the best possible way.

In terms of the financial management of other aspects of the dualling, I'll look carefully at the points that he's raised this afternoon.

The finance Secretary said a moment ago that he didn't recognise the figures that were produced by the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. Can he tell us what figure, then, he would recognise in this context?

And, as regards value for money, when the Department for Transport did a study of the benefits of the dualling of the A465 several years ago, they suggested that they came out at £1.52 of benefits for every £1 spent. If there is a significant increase in the cost of the project, of course, that relationship will substantially worsen. The Department for Transport regards schemes as often low value for money if the benefits are below £1.50 for every  £1 invested. So, are we not in danger, if costs are not contained on this project, of ending up with another white elephant fiasco, and that's money that could've been applied in other ways to the benefit of the people of Wales?

Well, the general point that the Member makes is the obvious one—that, if costs go up, the cost benefit analysis alters. Do I think that completing the A465 road so that it can bring the necessary economic benefits to that part of Wales is a white elephant? No, I certainly do not. It's a very important part of the infrastructure that this Government is determined to bring to those parts of Valleys communities where connectivity is intimately connected to future economic prosperity.

As to the question of the figure that I do recognise, that is the figure that I gave in my answer, and that is that the capital value of the scheme is currently estimated to be some £400 million.

As Nick Ramsay alluded to, there are considerable cost overruns projected on the eastern side of the Heads of the Valleys dualling, and we've seen figures that obviously have indicated substantial cost associated with the final section on the western side. I think everyone supports these improvements, because, overall, they will drive economic activity along the Heads of the Valleys, but what is deeply concerning is the potential knock-on effects for other capital projects if some of these figures do become a reality being talked about for the two projects: the one at the eastern end, which is under construction at the moment, and the proposed final dualling on the western end.

As finance Secretary, are you committed to making up that shortfall that the department might find itself with, with these considerable cost overruns, so that other capital projects around Wales will not have a detrimental impact on the money that's available to them and the timeline for delivery of those important transport projects across Wales?

Can I begin, Llywydd, by thanking Andrew R.T. Davies for his expression of support for the scheme as a whole? And let me just say to him that, as the finance Secretary, I am always in conversations with my Cabinet colleagues, making sure that they are delivering the capital programmes that I have agreed with them in line with the costs that were originally identified.

I certainly don't write any blank cheques for anybody about picking up extra costs where they are incurred, but I'm always willing to talk to Cabinet colleagues about very important Welsh Government priorities and making sure that we manage our capital programme in a way that provides the maximum impact for Welsh citizens in transport, in health, in education and in all the important responsibilities that we discharge.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The final question, Leanne Wood.

I thank Leanne Wood for that question. The Welsh Government has consistently called on the UK Government to end the pay cap and to provide the additional funding needed to do so. No sums of money for that purpose flow to Wales in the figures published in today's budget.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. In today's UK budget announcement, the Chancellor stated that UK Government departments could begin lifting the public sector pay cap, depending on the decision of the pay review bodies. The note on public sector pay issued by the Treasury today states in this instance that pay is the responsibility of the devolved Government in Wales. They are expecting you to make a decision on this.

Now, I've previously asked the Labour Welsh Government to take action on the public sector pay cap, either lifting it in full or starting within the NHS, and, to date, your Government has refused to do that, preferring to wait, as you've just said, for the Conservative UK Government to take action. This course of inaction on your behalf means that Wales, under Labour, could become the only devolved nation that is committed to keeping the pay cap on our nurses, NHS staff and public sector workers. This will, in effect, keep nurses in poverty, hold wages down and damage morale.

You stated in December 2016 that Wales now has, and I quote, 'long-term, fair funding' through the fiscal framework. So, I ask you today: when will you contact the pay review bodies as Cabinet Secretary responsible for the pay cap, and will you follow Plaid Cymru's proposal by announcing plans to start implementing above-inflation pay rises in the public sector, beginning in April 2018?

Llywydd, let me be clear about the Welsh Government's position: we are committed to lifting the pay cap, and I've said that time after time. I will follow Plaid Cymru's proposals very closely, and I will follow them with more attention when the leader of Plaid Cymru is able to say where she will take the money from in order to implement the policy to which she is attached. Because without money coming from—[Interruption.] Without money coming from the UK Treasury to lift the pay cap, for which they are responsible, the only way that could be funded in Wales is by taking money away from other public services. That is not a course of action that I think is supported here in Wales. We will lift the pay cap as soon as money to do so flows to Wales in the way it should to allow us to do so, and we have made a public commitment, which I repeat this afternoon, that every penny that comes to Wales in order to lift the pay cap will be spent for that purpose.

People who believe that Welsh money should be spent for that purpose, rather than UK money, which is what should be spent for it, have a responsibility not to say things in general, but to tell Welsh people absolutely specifically where they would take that money from—

This is nurses being paid, nurses' money.

—where they would take that money from, which hospital they will take it from, which school they will take it from, which part of the Welsh public sector will that money come from. When you're prepared to answer that question, then you'll be entitled to be taken seriously.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the 90-second statements. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. 

Today, the world heard the long-awaited verdict in the trial of General Ratko Mladić. The judgment and sentencing before the Yugoslav war crimes court in the Hague marks the culmination of a case spanning 22 years. Mladić was convicted of 10 counts, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, all of them committed during the conflict that claimed 100,000 lives and left 2.2 million others homeless. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Some of us have campaigned from the sidelines in the pursuit of international justice, but for those who lost husbands and sons 20 years ago, during the Srebrenica massacre and other war crimes, the wounds are still very fresh. One woman lost her husband and both sons at Srebrenica. She said,

'We have been sentenced without a trial. Our children were sentenced to death and expulsion, and we survivors were sentenced to stay living in hell.'

Llywydd, in 2014, I had the honour of leading an Assembly Commission delegation to Bosnia, and to Srebrenica in particular. It was followed by a memorial event in the Senedd that was led by Mr Howard Tucker, the Welsh detective who transformed the work of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Howard served as the head of the ICTY office Bosnia-Herzegovina for eight years during the peak of its activity. Without his outstanding leadership, some of the most notorious war criminals since the second world war would not have been brought to justice. Central to his approach was the skill of community policing. Witnesses had to be identified and supported. Many, initially, were too terrified to speak.

To conclude, Llywydd, today we mark the closure of a horrific chapter in world history, but we must remember and learn the lessons of Srebrenica and address hatreds in our own societies. We must continue to remember its relevance in countering intolerance and discrimination in the UK and elsewhere, and in promoting stronger and more cohesive communities. We must remember Srebrenica and its lessons, and teach them to future generations so that they can live in a peaceful and inclusive society. 

The next item on our agenda is the motions to elect Members to committees and, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24 and 12.40, I propose that the motions to elect Members to committees are grouped for debate and for voting. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motions formally.

Formally.

The proposal is to agree the motions. Does any Member object? The motions are therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is the debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report, 'Digital Infrastructure in Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion in my name. This report is in regard to digital infrastructure in Wales. Connectivity is no longer a 'nice to have' when it comes to living and working in Wales for many people, including some of the businesses we spoke to as part of our inquiry. It is now considered an essential service like water or electricity—even in some quite unlikely places. To launch this report, I visited Mead Farm in Caldicot, a food business that relies on digital infrastructure to track the location, health and well-being of its cows and to market its fresh breakfast products in the local area.

In recent years, more and more people are getting connected at increasingly high speeds, and this is good news, but a consequence of this improvement is that frustration and a sense of injustice grows in those left behind. Those who are connected at low speeds look enviously on at those able to access higher speeds, and those with nothing at all are left with the greatest frustrations. While the Welsh Government's Superfast Cymru scheme, delivered in partnership with BT, has connected high numbers of people—when complete, about 96 per cent of premises in Wales will be able to access it, we're told—there remain pockets where it will not reach, and the roll-out of mobile phone coverage is following in a similar pattern.

I received a letter last month from Mrs James in Glandwr, near Whitland, which eloquently put the issues into context, so I'll read part of her letter out:

'We have slow broadband, which means downloading or watching items such as BBC Three is practically impossible. On a personal level farming relies on online submission of forms more and more, and the lack of mobile signal while out working for hours in the fields leads to lost time in contacting colleagues and the health and safety aspect is very worrying with one fatality a week in agriculture at the moment. The school buses which travel along the valley find it worrying that if they have a breakdown they are unable to leave the bus with 70 pupils onboard to get help. Villagers have been trying to get smart meters installed but are unable to without the most basic signal.'

I receive similar complaints in my own consistency every week, and I'm sure other Members are not much different to myself. As a committee, we want to see everyone in Wales able to access the internet at fast speeds, whether for work or entertainment, but we also need to build a structure that is fit for the future. Our demand for bandwidth has massively grown, and is likely to continue to do so. Where, once, we needed enough to send some e-mails or to look at a website, now we routinely stream tv programmes and films to a range of devices, at home and at work. 

We have made a series of recommendations to help Wales develop a digital infrastructure that is as fast and reliable as that enjoyed elsewhere in the UK, but Wales's geography puts us in a difficult position. Rhodri Williams, director of Ofcom Wales, told the committee that Wales needs 67 masts per million of the population to broadcast terrestrial television. The number in England is 12. And despite having more masts, we still don’t have the same level of coverage. So, to get mobile coverage on a par with England, Wales will need a greater number of masts, and for that to happen, we'll have to make it easier for that to happen. Filling in the gaps so that everyone can receive a good service is the minimum requirement. More can be done to help people take up those services once available, and to take potentially controversial steps to ensure that the connectivity many of us take for granted, is available to all.

We also need to ensure that capacity is there. There are too many examples where streets have been 'enabled'—I say that in inverted commas—for superfast broadband, but individuals can’t access it because of lack of capacity of the cabinet or exchange. There's clearly no point in having the infrastructure in the ground if residents can't actually benefit from it.

Furthermore, as early as last week, Members will have been told that premises in their constituencies are still to be upgraded for fibre broadband by the end of 2017. However, the Welsh Government also say—and I quote here—that the Superfast Cymru contract with BT closes in December 2017, and the costs of addressing any premises that suffer delay beyond that date will not be met by the Welsh Government through this contract. The committee would be grateful for further clarity on this point, especially as the Superfast Cymru website has recently changed. Those that were previously listed as being in scope and due for an upgrade before the end of the year have now been told to check back after this date for the status of their premises.

Would the Member give way?

I would, yes.

I'm grateful to the Member. I also would like clarification on behalf of scores—if not hundreds—of my constituents by now who have been told, 'Everything will be done by the end of this year', and are still awaiting confirmation of that. Can he share with the Chamber whether the committee were able to ascertain the number of delayed contracts in that position, and whether it was likely or not that the whole contract would be delivered, in fact?

Well, certainly, we've had confirmation from BT that they believe that the contract will be delivered, according to the contract, and I will come on to address some of the communication issues that you've raised, actually, towards the end of my contribution.

I think what Simon Thomas has also said concerns many other Members as well, because the prospect of premises, of course, being left behind, or left in the lurch, increases substantially after the so-called drop-dead date at the end of 31 December, unless the Welsh Government, of course, intends to pick up the baton again as part of its successor scheme. I would be grateful, of course, for clarity from the Cabinet Secretary, and the Cabinet Secretary heard Simon Thomas's comments with regard to this as well.

I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted all 12 of the recommendations—three in principle. However, on some, agreement isn’t the same as action, of course. The Government’s mobile action plan was plucked from the ether just prior to the Minister’s appearance to give evidence to this inquiry, and that has to be widely welcomed, I should say. But progress since then, I have to say, has been slow, and Wales has already been playing catch-up with Scotland. The action plan needs a bit more action, I would say. It needs to move at a faster upload speed.

The Superfast Cymru scheme is rapidly drawing to a close next month. In many ways, it's fair to say, I think that the scheme has been successful, bringing high–speed internet to many areas that might not have otherwise had it sooner. This is where I come to Simon Thomas's point. We are not the first inquiry to highlight the communication problems that have dogged the programme. Future schemes will need to address this, and we think that should be built into future contracts. I'm pleased to see that the Minister looks like she's nodding to that.

One final thing: the committee has received some evidence from people concerned about electrohypersensitivity, where people suffer from a reaction to wi-fi or mobile phone signals. While this was outside our terms of reference, I have received some further correspondence on this, and since we're debating this today, I would ask the Minister if any consideration has been given to this issue. So, I do look forward to the debate this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing comments from other Members.

I do think that, as we look at this policy area—it does make you feel particularly depressed, because this was the technology that had the potential for us to undo the disbenefits of being geographically peripheral, or being located in a rural location. It was this technology that was supposed to provide the solution for rural business, but, because of the lack of progress that’s taken place, we are still in a disadvantaged situation compared to the main centres of urban population in England, and so on and so forth. Therefore, we must have better leadership from the Welsh Government. The system that we have, or the policy approach that we have, clearly isn’t delivering. So, never think that—. Of course, the technology is moving forward constantly, and we will soon be talking about terabits. If the Welsh Government truly wants Wales to be a test bed for driverless car technologies, for example, then we must move further ahead. So, it’s not through having an agreement on a contract with BT—that’s not the best way of doing that, I would suggest.

If we look at the figures, we heard the Cabinet Secretary saying that Wales is forging ahead. What planet is he on? We can’t have a reasonable policy discussion if we don’t accept the reality of the situation. As the House of Commons Library has demonstrated, seven out of 10 of the council wards that have the slowest connections in Britain are in Wales, six of them in the Mid and West Wales region, and one of them, Llanfihangel Aberbythych, in my constituency. I saw that an FOI request was published last week by the Welsh Government—that is, the information was published by the Welsh Government—that demonstrates where we are in terms of the areas that have been connected under superfast. Ceredigion is only 68.9 per cent—these are your own figures, which were published last week. We know that the average across the UK is around 93 or 94 per cent—that’s for England—and it’s set to be 95 per cent by the end of this year and 98 per cent, according to the UK Government, by the end of this decade. But 68 per cent in Ceredigion—what impact does the Welsh Government think that has on the viability of the economy in those areas? We must look at an alternative model.

It’s interesting to see the alternative models that have succeeded, for example, in the United States, where hundreds of cities own their own telecommunications companies. Because many of them, in areas such as Colorado and Kentucky, facing the same problems as our rural areas, have decided, 'Enough is enough. We are not going to rely on major, monopolistic companies. We’re going to take the reins ourselves.' Some of them partner with smaller, local or regional companies. Some of them own their own companies, very similar to the old Kingston Communications in Hull, of course, which was very successful, and very similar to what the Basque Government did back in the 1990s, having faced the same difficulties. Again, the Basque Country Government decided, 'Well, rather than just handing out this money to a large, private sector monopoly, why don’t we invest our funds into our own company?’ Of course, Euskaltel has proved that that investment was a wise move, and it’s paid off, because they have been able to make progress. And one of the committee's recommendations, of course, is that the Welsh Government should look at these alternative models at all levels.

There was a suggestion in the Western Mail last month that there was an opportunity in terms of this terabit infrastructure to generate investment that would mean that Wales, for once, would be in the vanguard.

As a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee I’d like to place on record how important I thought this report actually was. My thanks to all those who came to give evidence to our inquiry.

Since being elected, one of the thorniest issues I’ve had to deal with in my postbag relates to internet provision to domestic properties. One such example relates to the village of Penderyn in my constituency, and this was a subject before the Petitions Committee just last year. Since then I’ve come across all too frequent examples of seemingly isolated properties falling through gaps in provision, but perhaps what shocked me most of all was the case of the new Coed Dyffryn estate in Cwmbach. The estate was built around four years ago by Persimmon, and ever since residents were caught in a notspot no-man’s land. Residents moving into their new properties found that they had a severely inadequate service, making it almost impossible to work, study or even just shop. One constituent told me how he would have to drive to a local supermarket just to use their Wi-Fi to run his business, and no-one wanted to help. Persimmon blamed BT. BT says it was Persimmon’s fault. The UK Government actually advised residents to crowdfund a solution.

I’m happy to say that my intervention seems to have led to a resolution. Openreach have agreed to invest the capital needed to complete the work to connect the empty cabinet frustratingly close to the new houses. Coed Dyffryn residents should be able to finally benefit from superfast speeds before the end of the year. I would like to place on record my thanks to the then Minister for Skills and Science for her support in closing this case, and put on record how glad I am to see her retain responsibility for digital infrastructure. Her proactive comments in committee last week around enabling AMs to get it right for their constituents are to be welcomed, but what made this example particularly frustrating is that this was not a housing estate in the middle of the wilds. Rather, it was an urbanised area situated between Aberdare and Mountain Ash.

It was against this casework backdrop that I approached the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee inquiry into digital infrastructure in Wales. As the Chair reminded us, despite the peculiar geographic and demographic challenges in Wales, the Welsh Government has succeeded in ensuring that 24 out of every 25 Welsh properties have access to Superfast Cymru. This is a phenomenal achievement, but we cannot forget that twenty-fifth property. The frustration experienced by my constituents was palpable, and this is a common phenomenon among those who lose out.

We need to see bold solutions to fill in the gaps, and I think recommendation 2 is really important from this perspective. This is around providing finance to small operators or even promoting public models of ownership. I found the evidence from the Ger-y-Gors community forum to be particularly inspiring, and an example of when the right community with the right skills could come together to deliver the right solution. I think there are a lot of lessons for us to take from this. It’s good that the Welsh Government has accepted this recommendation in principle, and I look forward to their exploration of funding and ownership models in the context of the successor to Superfast Cymru.

It’s a little over six years since the United Nations declared access to the internet to be a fundamental human right. As the UN notes, in its ability to promote self-expression, the internet is key to a range of human rights and to the progress of society as a whole. Similarly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made the case for the role of digital technologies in tackling poverty. Again, this refers to the ways it can empower the most disadvantaged in society, as well as offering practical solutions out of poverty. Let us not forget the consequences of people needing to apply for universal credit online too. That’s why I think the committee’s recommendation 4 is fundamentally important. Improving digital infrastructure can and must run alongside community empowerment. Part of the frustration felt by the Coed Dyffryn residents was that they believed they were being ignored. We must therefore ensure the hardest-to-reach communities and individuals are now engaged in the process to ensure that potential solutions can be tailored to their needs. But communities must also be at the heart of our approach to issues like planning and physical infrastructure. Sharing masts or siting them in the best place for local residents can provide peace of mind to people in areas like Bryntirion, also in the Cynon Valley. I hope that these needs can be considered as future models for delivery are developed.

Can I say how proud I am to have taken part in the production of this report and to also make note of the very adequate way in which the Chair has taken us through the procedures needed? The EIS committee's report on digital infrastructure throws up a number of questions, but first I would like to acknowledge the excellent progress that the Welsh Government has made with the massive expansion of the connectivity levels in Wales with its superfast broadband project. But the former Cabinet Secretary, in evidence to the economy and infrastructure—I say 'former'; I'm afraid I see you're still sitting with us and you're still going to answer the questions there, Minister.

But the Cabinet Secretary, in evidence to the economy and infrastructure committee, stated that there was a very real possibility that BT may miss its December deadline for the full implementation of its remit, and there seemed to be some confusion as to how to proceed with the implementation of the contract to eliminate the residual notspots. It would help if we could have absolute clarity as to how and when and what form this procurement process will take.

We also heard that the take-up of high-speed broadband, when it became available, has not been as expected. It has been concluded that this could be put down to a lack of information from BT and, to a certain extent, the Welsh Government, as to the advantages superfast can bring to the business sector. Again, there seems to have been a great deal of confusion as to exactly when and where superfast broadband had been made available. This was particularly frustrating for the business sector. It would be beneficial to know if this has now been adequately addressed and if there is evidence available to show that take-up figures have improved over recent months.

We do note and acknowledge that the Welsh Government has set up an exploitation fund, levered from a number of sources, which is designed to help business engage with this new technology and it will be interesting to see if this fund will achieve its aims. It is said that, at the end of the Superfast Cymru contract with BT, there is estimated to be around 4 per cent of the country without superfast broadband. We acknowledge that filling this gap will be far more expensive per connection than under the last contract, but we urge the Welsh Government to press on with its excellent progress made so far and make superfast broadband universal throughout Wales, and, in so doing, make Wales one of the world leaders in online access.

Turning to mobile phone coverage, again we acknowledge the progress made so far, but a number of obstacles have been identified by mobile suppliers, citing such things as planning delays, access to land, difficulty with electricity supply, and arrangements with necessary traffic disruptions. We urge the Welsh Government to use all its powers to alleviate these obstacles so that even rural Wales will be free of the scourge of notspots—a situation that has been cited as being one of the main factors inhibiting business growth in our rural communities.

Again, we wish to acknowledge the excellent progress made in this area by the Welsh Government and offer our support in its further implementation.

I’m afraid that I can’t share the contentment that some have with the progress made under this contract, or in general with broadband in Wales. Vikki Howells mentioned that only one out of every 25 homes has no access to broadband, but it appears to me, through the letters that I have, that whole villages are full of these one-in-25 homes in the area that I represent. By now, letters regarding access to broadband—in my postbag and in e-mail—have surpassed health. I’ve got more letters about broadband than health, and I’ve never seen that as an Assembly Member or as a Member of Parliament. It’s clear that access to broadband has speeded up as the current contract comes to an end at the end of the year, but a number have complained that they haven’t seen the access that they’d been expecting. There was a website showing people when their village was going to have access and when their house was going to be part of it. The publicity money was taken out of that website, so now, people don’t know when that is going to happen. By now, I’m afraid we’re in a situation where I feel that, despite the efforts of the Welsh Government, I’m not sure that we’ve had the service that we expected to have after spending over £150 million on BT and Openreach. I don’t think they’ve performed fully according to their contract, and I will speak in a while about what we should do about that.

For the areas that I represent, adequate access to broadband is now completely essential. You’re talking in general about 10 Mbps, as Adam Price mentioned. By now, the expectations of people about how they can deal with the local economy has gone beyond that. We don’t want to see people having to move from rural areas, to move from west Wales, in order to get nearer to the market. When you have an electronic market, it should be able to be used anywhere in Wales.

Adam mentioned the fact that a study by the library of the House of Commons had found that seven out of 10 wards that had the slowest broadband were in Wales, and that six of them were in Mid and West Wales. But it’s worse than that, because, when I looked at the figures, I was surprised to see the figures that the House of Commons library had. They said that these figures were bad. For example, Trelech in Carmarthen west has 3.8 Mbps, Yscir has 4.2 Mbps, and Llanfihangel Aberbythych has 4.2 Mbps.

Over the summer, I have conducted my own survey, in Meirion-Dwyfor, in Ceredigion, and in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, about what is the speed that people are actually receiving in their homes. They are as low as 0.2 Mbps; they would be really pleased to have 4.1 Mbps or 4.2 Mbps. I don’t know where these figures come from; perhaps from the house next door to the cabinet or something. The reality of what you get 100 yards, or more than 100 yards, down the copper line from the Cabinet in rural Wales is completely different from these figures, and there is a desperate need to look at that.

Now, I'm delighted to see that the Minister has retained her responsibility for this. Perhaps there's a bit of copper wire that's keeping her, around her ankles or something, which refuses to let her go. She will know, because she's signed many a letter to me, just how much correspondence we've had over the last few months, as we come to the end of this period. I could write her letters for her now. I mean no disrespect to her, but they contain the same paragraphs, just slightly ordered in different ways, just to break the boredom: 'We're liaising with BT'; 'There's promises that it will be completed by the end of December 2017'; 'The superfast company contract ends in December 2017, and we're not going to pay any more after that.' And then, this classic line: 'We make it clear that failure to do so will see severe financial penalties.' I'd like to understand, when the Minister replies—the Cabinet Secretary, sorry—just what the nature of those penalties are. Because I don't think my constituents are interested in penalties—they just want broadband. They want this contract delivered to them, and delivered to what has been promised.

And just to give an example, I'm afraid, because this goes a bit further than just BT and some of the, I think, rather patronising attitude that some people have towards businesses in rural areas—some idea that you should put up with second-class service, simply because you've chosen to remain in your area—the letter I quoted a little bit from there was one of the most recent I've had with the Minister, which was with regards to the sawmills in Cenarth, which was mentioned by Leanne Wood in questions to Ken Skates earlier. Again, the promise has been to deliver superfast broadband to those sawmills by the end of December. Now, the sawmills have made several million pounds of investment in equipment that is run internationally—in Belgium; that's where the headquarters of this equipment is. If something goes wrong with the equipment, they go down the line to Belgium for it to get sorted out. We could have an argument about whether that's good or bad, but that's what sawmills do; that's what sawmills all over the western world do. And I don't want that sawmill moved from the Teifi valley closer to Belgium, or closer to an internet connection. It's employing 20 to 30 people in the Teifi valley—Welsh speakers as well. It's an indigenous Welsh-owned family business.

The letter from the Minister says that she will do everything she can to deliver this. But I've got a copy of an e-mail from a Welsh Government official, and I'm afraid that reads very differently. The e-mail says, 'I'm not saying the broadband is good enough, but, just maybe, the sawmill management should have checked that before spending millions.' That's the attitude that pervades broadband connection in rural Wales, and we have to overcome that attitude and give serious attention to broadband provision and entitlement. 

When I write my Hollywood screenplay blockbuster, I will be using the Ger-y-Gors story as an example. We took evidence on 19 January from Duncan and Ray Taylor, and they told us the story, with no telecommunications experience whatsoever, of how they established a mast that delivered broadband. I've been looking on their website, and what they did was negotiated and accessed a number of grants made available to them through the Welsh Government and the European agricultural fund, secured the generosity of community members in terms of use and access to their land, gained planning permission, constructed 600m of access road, commissioned the laying of a 1.5-mile power line to the site, and constructed a 25m telecommunications mast to full mobile operator specifications. And, since August 2014, they have been broadcasting wireless broadband from the mast situated near the quarry at Ystrad Meurig to anyone wishing to subscribe to the service. What an inspiring story. They had trouble as well getting hold of a mast, because they were seen as competition to the bigger companies, which is utterly absurd, and I think that was recognised as absurd by those who gave evidence from those companies to our committee. 

They shouldn't be the norm, but communities should be able to do this where they can, which is why recommendation 2, that the Welsh Government should consider establishing a repayable grant or equity scheme to enable small operators to fill in the gaps in the network, is such an important recommendation, and why it's good that it's been accepted in principle. I'd also say: I don't know whether Adam Price has been speaking as the economy spokesperson or as a member of the committee, because he does wear these two hats; he's the living embodiment of the need for more Assembly Members, because sometimes he doesn't know which mode he's in. I think his speech was a bit of both, actually; it was a bit of constructive proposals and a bit of party political criticism, none the worse for that.

But I would say that the Cabinet Secretary and leader of the house has been heroic in the way she's pursued these issues. She hasn't given up. She has come to my constituency to meet with businesses that have struggled with these issues. She's introduced me to civil servants who have listened, and I have had assurances, particularly with regard to the Castle Reach and Kingsmead estates in Caerphilly, that, by the drop-dead date, these issues should be resolved, and I have every reason to believe BT. At this time point in time, though, if we are let down, then there will be consequences. There have to be consequences, and I'd like the Minister to emphasise that there will be consequences. I'm going to give them until February, actually, after the drop-dead date, to come in and get the broadband operators to come and provide the services. But BT have given those assurances that Openreach will have these areas connected, and I hope that that will happen. 

The Minister also visited businesses located at Penallta industrial estate, for example, and they haven't been able to get broadband access. They're relying on Airband to deliver services, but even so, that service hasn't been excellent either. We know that if 'Our Valleys, Our Future' is going to work, then connecting these areas, these final stages, must be solved, otherwise we will end up with areas that are suffering and will not achieve the ambitions of the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' aspirations. 

So, notwithstanding the Ger-y-Gors project, which was inspirational, we also need this Government lead, which the Cabinet Secretary has been providing. There are residents in my constituency who don't live in Ystrad Meurig; they live just half an hour from the M4 in the south end of Caerphilly. They must have twenty-first century broadband access. I commend this report to the Assembly because it does contain an action plan for achieving that, and I think the thing now to do is to get on and accept those recommendations. 

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to start by very much thanking the Chair and members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee for their report and all of their hard work in this area. I want to start by acknowledging some of the things that Members have said in the Chamber. I have been to most bits of Wales. I don't believe I've actually visited the constituencies of some Members who contributed, but I make the offer again: I'm more than happy to do so.  

I've attended a number of large and small meetings across Wales. I'm due to go up to north Wales very shortly to have another couple up there. The reason that we've been doing that is: first of all, we want people to understand what the Superfast Cymru scheme is and why it's structured in the way that it is, which I will touch on again in a moment, but also, more importantly, to understand what we can do with the successor scheme to make sure that all the communities are connected.

We're very pleased to acknowledge that there will be a number of solutions that we need to look at for the successor project. The reason that the recommendation is accepted in principle is only because we wanted to look at a wide range of solutions that might be available, including things like community interest companies and social enterprises, but also just things like combining grants in a particular way, looking at community Wi-Fi schemes. There are several examples of these around Wales already.

One of the things we're also going to look at is how we can use publicly installed broadband structures to put community Wi-Fi in place, for example. So, the reason that they're in principle is only so that we can explore them in the widest of possibilities.

Would you give way on that?

Yes, certainly.

I don't want to detain us too much on the details of what might be the successor scheme, but is she suggesting that there could be alternatives to Openreach and BT? And secondly, is she also looking at this in a technology-free sort of way, if you like? Because we've just had an announcement, for example, in the budget today of 5G investment, and in some parts I think we could be thinking beyond actual wires and cables to houses. 

Yes, absolutely—I accept all of those points. I'll come on to some of the complications of mobile in a minute, but since this scheme started, one of the problems, of course, is that technology has moved very significantly, and actually, although mobile isn't devolved to Wales, as I keep saying, actually there's almost no difference between internet access and mobile. So, broadband, as we call it, is fibre broadband, but actually 5G access is just as good if you can get it there. That's one of the continuing conversations with the UK Government about the edges of the devolution settlement, which makes some of these things difficult as the technology moves, which I will come on to.

In terms of the delivery, the Superfast Cymru project was let after an open market review to comply with state aid rules. That open market review told us where the various telecommunications companies at that time intended to have commercial roll-out. We are not allowed to go in the intervention area anywhere where there's commercial roll-out. So, largely, this project is entirely rural. So, my own constituency in Swansea has no superfast at all because, obviously, there's commercial roll-out intended. But I can assure Members that that hasn't meant that everybody has got superfast and I can't actually do anything about it because it's not in the intervention area. One of the things that Vikki Howells highlighted is the difficulty of new estates built after the open market review. Members will remember that we conducted a further open market review, which brought another 42,000 premises in, as telecommunications companies decided to change where they were going to go with the commercial roll-out.

Also, in order to get to the largest number of premises across Wales, it has no geographical bias whatsoever. It's a conversation that I've had with a large number of you, including the Llywydd, on a number of occasions, because what we try to do is get to the largest number of premises in Wales with the money available. So, we have not told Openreach and BT where to go; they just go where they can get the biggest number of premises connected. We are technology-neutral. It's entirely a matter for them where they go. So, they decide whether it's fibre to the cabinet that will connect the most number of properties, or fibre to the premises. We do have pockets of villages where the whole village is left out, because actually that's what you'd expect. It's been said to me, for example, that some people feel that only a few properties have been connected to tick some sort of box. I can assure you that that's not the case. They are paid for premises passed. If they can connect a whole village, they obviously get the whole village as premises passed. There's no benefit to them in connecting some part of a network.

Where fibre to the cabinet is used, there is frustration, because if you're about a kilometre away, that's about the cut-off for superfast speed—about 30 Mbps—and there's a shadow that goes out to 24 Mbps for some people. BT are only paid for premises passed that reach the thresholds. They are allowed to have some properties in the shadow area, but most of the properties have to come over 30 Mbps and actually almost all the premises come in at around 80 Mbps to 100 Mbps once they're connected.

We have been pushing them very hard over the last two years. I have extremely regular, very fractious meetings with them about where they are and whether they've started the build. I completely accept the comms point that the committee has made and that a large number of Members have made to me. BT were extremely optimistic in announcing where they were going to get to and have been less good at giving people good information about why that's not going to happen, and we've had a lot of conversations with them about not being optimistic, as they see it, and I totally acknowledge that we need to do better in comms in terms of the Superfast Cymru 2 successor project.

They are still telling us that they will make it; they are connecting in a phenomenal number of premises per week at the moment—more than they've ever done previously in the contract due to the number of flames we're holding their feet to. They tell us they'll make it. If they don't, there are financial penalties, which I won't reveal here for all sorts of commercial reasons but which will, obviously, be eventually auditable, and all of the money will go back into Superfast 2. We absolutely concur that we don't want money: we want connection—absolutely. So, what we're trying to do is get them to get the network out as far as it will go with this project so that when we come to Superfast 2 we have the best possible start. We've just done an open-market review on consultation in terms of Superfast 2 and we're just analysing them.

Officials intend to start that procurement exercise shortly, with the view to the new project starting as close to the beginning of next year as we can manage it because we want to keep the roll-out going. However, I will invite any Member who has a whole community, or any problem at all in their area, to invite me to come down and talk to them. We also have a business exploitation team that's extremely happy to come and talk to either individuals or whole groups of people about what the best solution for them is, and we are going to structure the procurement so that we can handle those sorts of things. Also, the procurement, though, will want to get to the largest number of people as possible with the amount of money we have, so we've got to balance those two things off, and I intend to do that.

We will continue our two voucher schemes. I wish that Simon Thomas would tell me who the official is who sent that e-mail because I wish to put on record that I do not concur with its sentiments in any way whatsoever. My own—[Interruption.] Well, I hope you will send it to me. [Interruption.] Certainly.

Thanks for giving way. I've been privy to your tour around Wales—you've visited an area in my constituency and I know you've been very helpful with constituents of Trelleck Grange. Would you accept that part of their frustration was that the neighbouring village of Tintern was totally well connected, so even though they were in a rural area, actually, they were neighbouring an area that was very well connected, and yet BT seemed to drop down an iron curtain at a certain point just a 100 yd down the road, which, if that hadn't happened, then they would have been connected a long time ago, and that that needs to be dealt with in the future of this roll-out?

I accept that that is a very frustrating thing to have happen and there's some frustrations around the way that BT has restructured its copper network, and we had a spirited conversation about what the new wiring on the pole was, as I recollect, when I visited you. I've become an expert in what wires on poles are and how they're connected recently, which is a new skill that I hear that you didn't have. We accept those frustrations, but, as I say, the contract doesn't allow us to tell BT where to go, it only tells us how many premises they'll connect, and the reason for that was that was the cheapest way to connect the highest number of premises, though I completely accept the frustrations in communication that that has given rise to. That won't be the way we do the second phase because we will want to target communities that have particular issues. We discussed that in your constituency and I'm very happy to discuss it in others.

I will say this, though, in terms of the saw mill, for example: one of the frustrations we have is that sometimes businesses wait for superfast to get to them and then discover that, actually, 100 Mbps isn't enough, and that if they are communicating with head offices elsewhere in the world that they should upgrade to an ultrafast connection as fast as possible. We have a business exploitation team: very helpful individuals who can come and talk to the business about whether that might be the best way forward, and I would certainly recommend that, and I can sort that out if Simon Thomas wants to send me the detail. I'd be very grateful to have the other detail as well on that point, however.

Turning to mobile, you will know that we had the mobile roundtable and followed by the mobile action plan, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for planning—amongst other things—is about to publish the research into planning. Russell George highlighted the number of masts necessary to get the signal across Wales. There is a balance to be drawn between covering our national parks with masts and getting all of these signals done and we are talking as well to the Home Office about using their emergency network to allow others to hang equipment onto that network, because I personally think it's a terrible shame to cover the beautiful landscape of Wales with lots and lots of masts in order to have different companies have different infrastructures when, actually, they could share, and we would all get a much better service. However, that's an ongoing discussion and, as I say, it's not actually devolved to Wales.

What I would like to finish by saying, though, Llywydd, is this: we remain absolutely committed to getting broadband connection to every property in Wales. Without this last superfast intervention, many properties in rural Wales would never have had any hope whatsoever of receiving broadband. I share the frustration of those left behind but we are determined to cover them off in the second programme, and in an as innovative and imaginative a way as we possibly can. Diolch. 

I call on Russell George to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to the Members who took part in this debate this afternoon. If I can perhaps comment on each one. Now, Adam Price rightly pointed out the disparity of connectivity in rural Wales in particular, and also mentioned Ceredigion, which is absolutely lagging behind other parts of Wales and the UK in comparison. And Adam mentioned alternative solutions and, of course, those were heard by the Minister, and I would hope that those can be considered as part of a successor scheme. 

Vikki Howells commented on examples of poor communication. These examples are very familiar to me, I have to say. And David Rowlands, thank you for your kind words towards me, and David, of course, pointed out the issues about trying to resolve issues that the mobile operators had raised with us. I think, as a committee, I was certainly keen to address the mobile phone operators' asks, if only to stop them making excuses when they come back in the future. You know, we can say, 'We've delivered your asks; now why are there continuing to be issues?'  

Simon, of course, also talked about his own survey, which reminds me I did take my own survey in my own constituency in regard to speed, and I totally agree with Simon, in that people don't want, and they're not interested in hearing about BT being fined. All they want is connectivity. That's what's important to them. 

I'm so pleased that Hefin David mentioned Duncan and Ray Taylor who came to committee and gave evidence to us. I think it's probably the longest answer allowed in a committee session—I think I asked a question and 15 minutes later Mr Taylor was still talking. 

And everybody was still listening. 

And everybody was still listening and we didn't want to stop him. Nobody was interested in stopping Mr Taylor because he was an inspiration, and his story was fantastic. He was an inspiration, and I think, as a committee, we just felt every community needs a Mr Taylor. [Interruption.] Did you hear Mr Taylor? [Laughter.]

I have to say that I certainly air my frustrations to the Cabinet Secretary on the roll-out on a regular basis, and I often think that I write more e-mails to the Cabinet Secretary than anybody else, but I've got the feeling this afternoon that there are many other Members in that boat as well. But I have to say I am pleased that Julie James has retained responsibility in this area, because I have to say she has a great knowledge in this area and, clearly, the First Minister had this in mind when he had his Cabinet reshuffle; he obviously didn't want to take that responsibility from her—he couldn't find anybody else who was willing to take it on, perhaps. [Laughter.] But I do feel that the Cabinet Secretary has also been very open with us. She often says publicly—she airs her own frustrations about BT, and also I know that the Cabinet Secretary's been very busy touring Wales, up and down, meeting communities. I said to the Cabinet Secretary, 'How many can I get? What's the limit?', and in fairness, she said, 'However many you want. That's fine—get them all around the table.' So, I made sure I got the biggest possible table I could find. I think I managed to get 60 people around the table, but credit to the Cabinet Secretary who was willing to face a room of angry people and face them out.    

But, yes, communication I think has been absolutely diabolical, I have to say. It's terrible. I know at times I've been here myself standing in this position with two letters from the then Minister to the same constituent—one saying one thing and the other, a month later, saying something else. It's really frustrating when all people want to know is when they're going to get connected. And if they aren't going to get connected, they want to know they're not going to get a connection so they can look at other solutions. But I'm grateful at least that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted that issue. 

I thank Members who took part in this debate today and Members who also took part in our deliberations in our committee, some of whom have now left the committee after being elevated to Government—thank you for your contribution as well. Also, if I could also thank the committee clerking team and the integrated team because this has been a difficult piece of work because, as soon as the teams start to draft that report, based on the committee's and the Members' direction, then things change and technology changes and Ministers make statements during that drafting. So, it has been a difficult task for them and there were quite a lot of technical issues that were also coming up in detail. So, I think credit to them as well in that regard.

I look forward to the day when we have a debate in this Chamber when we are having a debate on 100 per cent of Wales being able to receive superfast broadband, good speeds and everyone is able to get a good mobile signal on their phones. I look forward to that day. Thank you to all who took part in the debate today.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion—Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Royal British Legion officially launched its Honour the Covenant Campaign in London in September 2007 and in Wales there was an event held in this National Assembly the following month.

Since the early nineteenth century, men and women have served and fought for their country under the terms of the military covenant, which states that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserved, those who have served in the past and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration, it says, is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.

Having been the guest speaker at the Royal British Legion north Wales district annual conference the previous weekend, I did a short debate here in January 2008 supporting the legion's campaign, and I concluded that this must be fought until it is won and that the Welsh Government must do everything within its power to assist this.

The armed forces covenant was published in May 2011, introducing a statutory duty from 2012 to lay an annual report before the UK Parliament that considers the effects of service on regulars and reservists, veterans, their families and the bereaved and also to examine areas of potential disadvantage and the need for special provision where appropriate. The Welsh Government and all local authorities in Wales signed the covenant and subscribed to work with partner organisations to uphold its principles.

The UK Government's 2017 response to the Defence Select Committee report, which followed the 2016 armed forces covenant annual report, commented on progress in Wales. In spite of this, however, there has not yet been an independent review of progress and delivery across Wales since the establishment of the covenant.

In September 2016, a number of armed forces charities working in Wales answered a call for submissions to inform the upcoming priorities for the Assembly's Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, stating that there would be considerable merit in the committee undertaking a review of the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Wales. As no indication was received to suggest that an inquiry was planned, the Assembly cross-party group on the armed forces and cadets took a decision to undertake the inquiry that is the subject of this debate. Our motion, therefore, proposes that the National Assembly for Wales welcomes the cross-party group's report, notes its recommendations and calls on the Welsh Government to consider those recommendations.

Having considered the evidence received, the report made 23 recommendations in seven areas. It found that, in order to uphold the covenant, the Welsh Government should consider the appointment of an armed forces commissioner for Wales to improve the accountability of public sector organisations for the delivery of the armed forces covenant. The commissioner should be required to publish an annual report to be laid in the National Assembly for Wales on adherence to the covenant. A commissioner would support the specific needs of veterans, represent these to Welsh Government and properly scrutinise service delivery for veterans carried out by Welsh Government, NHS Wales and local authorities.

As with the other recommendations in this report, this role has been supported and endorsed by the armed forces community and armed service heads. The report calls for the Welsh Government to establish key performance indicators for devolved public sector organisations in Wales to monitor adherence to the covenant; to supplement its Welcome to Wales initiative with a single national armed forces helpline for service personnel, veterans and their families; to work with a ministerial expert group to identify priority projects and co-ordinate funding bids at an all-Wales level; and work with the third sector to deliver a compulsory public sector e-learning module to support awareness of the armed forces covenant.

The report recommends that the Welsh Government should continue to work with both the UK Government and the Office for National Statistics to ensure that the questions in the 2021 census are sufficient to identify both the size and needs of the armed forces and veteran community in Wales.

It calls on the Welsh Government to establish a Welsh armed forces privilege card scheme. Given the concerns over the capacity of Veterans NHS Wales to meet the demands of patients and its variable waiting times, the report recommended that funding for the service should be reviewed and increased; targets for access to the service should be established, and performance against the targets should be regularly published. 

Waiting lists for Veterans NHS Wales are nine months in the Swansea area and average five to six months elsewhere. Although they've secured three years' extra funding from Help for Heroes to employ three full-time therapists to bring waiting lists down, they expect waiting times to rise again without additional investment. Although the Welsh Government has announced £100,000 additional funding, Veterans NHS Wales told the cross-party group last year that they need £1 million annually to meet the mental health needs of the armed forces community in Wales, and therefore reduce pressure and cost on other services.

When Andrew R. T. Davies and I met a group of women veterans earlier this year, all of whom had suffered injuries on service, and all of whom told us that they were also dealing with mental health issues as a consequence of their service, they told us that, quote, 'It's now taking three months to get an appointment with Veterans NHS Wales, and then three to six months to see a specialist, who can then only deal with mild to medium trauma, because there are no acute services.' And they're having to travel to England for treatment for their mental health and rely on charities.

The report also called on the Welsh Government to develop an action plan to promote greater awareness of priority NHS treatment for service-related injuries and illnesses amongst health service staff; to ensure that family members of service personnel posted to Wales who are on an NHS waiting list are not disadvantaged by having to wait longer for treatment than they would prior to being posted to Wales; to review and update the 'A guide to improving the health and well-being of prisoners in Wales who are veterans' document; and to provide core funding to third sector partners delivering peer mentoring schemes.

Although Change Step, led by the charity Cais, has secured 12 months' funding from Help for Heroes to embed a peer mentor into each Welsh health board, Veterans NHS Wales highlights the need for additional funding to keep the peer mentors in post as part of their core team, to mirror the Scottish veteran model.

In 2007, the Legion's Honour the Covenant campaign already noted that veterans who are not assisted by Ministry of Defence-supported Combat Stress, or another specialist organisation, need to be able to access mental health care and receive priority treatment. With the announcement that Combat Stress is scrapping residential care at its Audley Court centre in Shropshire, we must also address concerns that Welsh veterans will now be forced to travel across the UK for residential care, because there is no provision in Wales.

In recognition of the specific challenges faced by children from service families, and in order to address the disadvantage compared to other parts of the UK, the report recommended that the Welsh Government should consider the introduction of a service pupil premium. As the Royal British Legion states, in England, this has provided important practical support to service children in education. Schools in Wales should have access to a similar fund for the approximately 2,500 children who currently attend schools in Wales.

The report also calls for regional education consortia to appoint armed forces champions; flexibility for Welsh secondary schools to allow the children of service personnel to be enrolled mid term, as is already the case for infant classes; and more schools to participate in the cadet expansion programme. The report recommends extension of the successful Cymru'n Cofio Wales Remembers first world war project to enable other important military anniversaries to be marked. And it calls on the Welsh Government to work with the Welsh Local Government Association to ensure that all of Wales's civic war memorials are adequately maintained, and with Wales's military museums to establish travelling exhibitions.

The report calls for development of further partnerships between registered social landlords and the third sector to support additional supported housing accommodation for vulnerable veterans in Wales, and for registered social landlords to waive local connection requirements for former partners of service personnel leaving service family accommodation.

Finally, the report calls for the Welsh Government to establish an employment scheme to assist service leavers, veterans and reservists, and support the partners of service personnel when their partners are posted to Wales. For the second year running, the Welsh Government has said that it is developing an employment pathway, but Veterans NHS Wales figures show that only a third are employed. One hundred years after the signing of the treaty that led to the end of the first world war, this is a covenant that must endure.

Thank you. I have selected the three amendments to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services to move formally amendment 1.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Steffan Lewis to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Steffan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure for me to move formally the amendments in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

On Remembrance Day, two weeks ago, people from all communities came together to remember those who'd lost their lives in all conflicts, and, in particular, those who died in the first world war. During the remembrance period, of course, it is our opportunity to reflect upon the sacrifice of all those, past and present, who have served in our armed forces. We thank them for what they do on our behalf.

Earlier this year, we marked the centenary of the battle of Passchendaele, one of the bloodiest events of the first world war. Half a million men from both sides died fighting over just 5 miles of land. It was an unimaginable and senseless tragedy. Over the next few years, there will be more centenaries. We will remember the horrors of the first world war and the millions of people who lost their lives. We will also remember the men who returned from war, traumatised, brutalised, to find a society without enough work or housing and that didn't yet understand the effects that their experience would have on them.

Today, we can do better to support those who have served on our behalf and for their families. Plaid Cymru welcomes very much the report of the cross-party group on armed forces and cadets, and I pay tribute to the chair of the cross-party group for his leadership and the work that has been undertaken. It is encouraging to see that good progress has been made, and the report also sets out a number of important recommendations to further improve the services available.

The national housing pathway for veterans serves an important role in providing additional support to former servicepeople and their families. Finding housing, perhaps after many years in the armed forces and in an unfamiliar area, can be daunting and difficult, but it is key to ensuring that those leaving the forces find stability. Plaid Cymru's first amendment to the debate today calls for an update on the implementation of that pathway. Now it has been published, it is important that it forms a routine and active role in the service provision offered to ex-service personnel. It is also sometimes too easy for Government, for guidance documents that it publishes to end up sitting in a drawer and for them not to form a constant feature in informing day-to-day practice by front-line staff. I hope that the Government will update the Assembly on the roll-out of the pathway and the monitoring that they are doing of its effectiveness.

Good data about the demand for additional support and the success of what is already available is crucial. It is, therefore, to be welcomed that the national rough sleeping count survey includes a question about service in the armed forces. Plaid Cymru's second amendment, therefore, today calls for that data to be published, so that it can be used by both Government and third sector organisations, and other public services, to guide the work that they do. If we can identify the way that homelessness and service in the armed forces are linked, we can better tackle the causes of the problems that it raises.

As a nation, we make a collective promise to those who serve in the armed forces that they and their families will be treated fairly. At this time of year, as we remember the sacrifices they make, we also have a duty to consider whether we are upholding that promise. I hope the Welsh Government will accept the recommendations of the cross-party group report in full and constantly strive to improve the support it provides to them.

This year marks the centenary of the third battle of Ypres. This terrible battle has come to symbolise the horrors associated with the first world war. It is frequently known by the name of the village where it culminated, Passchendaele. Although there is no-one left alive today who served in what was called 'the war to end all wars', it reminds us of the enormous debt we owe to those who are serving and who have served in our armed forces. It is estimated there could be as many as 230,000 veterans in Wales alone.

Sadly, in some cases, it is clear we are not providing our veterans with the care and support they richly deserve. Leaving the military after a long period of service presents many challenges. Often, it involves having to relocate, find a new home, new employment and a change of lifestyle—in some cases, drastic lifestyle. However, as this report highlights, the delivery of services for our armed forces community can be inconsistent. This is a direct result of lack of awareness about what the armed forces covenant means in practice and operation.

I believe we need an armed forces commissioner in Wales to co-ordinate and provide the support our veterans deserve from public sector organisations. This commissioner would enhance the work of the Veterans' Gateway helpline being set up in Nantgarw, providing a new 24-hour service for armed forces veterans from across the United Kingdom returning to civilian life. Housing, health and other services have often failed to meet their needs, and this can lead to social isolation and reduced health and well-being also. 

Safe and secure housing is vital for veterans when entering civil life. There are a number of schemes in Wales that recognise this. We, on this side of the Chamber, believe that quickly delivering appropriate housing would be complemented by a veteran needs assessment as soon as possible and at early stages. This could form the basis for service delivery and provide solid evidence to close any gaps in provision. A number of veterans become homeless due to an inability to come to terms with their traumatic experiences, to the extent that they interrupt everyday tasks. 

Post-traumatic stress disorder is an anxiety disorder caused by experiencing distressful and distressing events—in and during the war. In some cases, it can lead to an increase in alcohol and drug misuse. The symptoms of mental ill health need to be recognised early, and greater support is required in this area also. The Welsh Government recently announced additional funding to increase consultant psychiatrist sessions by 50 per cent—this is very welcome news. It is vital that this additional funding is used to develop Wales-wide improvements to the service. No veteran in need of specialist support should be left languishing on a waiting list.

The education of children of service personnel can also suffer due to a disrupted lifestyle. The pupil deprivation grant is only available to the children eligible for free school meals. Deputy Presiding Officer, most servicemen and women's children do not meet this criteria. In England, there is a service pupil premium of £300,000 per child, payable direct to the schools. No such premium exists in Wales, leaving service children here disadvantaged compared to those living in England. The Welsh Government should introduce a service pupil premium to address this issue.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I personally have experienced this in life: the armed forces, they are there to give the extreme sacrifice to the nation. And they're not only done to this nation; they're done globally. I am personally an example. When, in 1947, India was divided, it was the Royal Air Force officers, who my family owes for the rest of our children and grandchildren—they flew us from Delhi to Peshawar, with my mother and father and three children, empty-handed. That was actually the scenario of the second world war, which I think—. The Royal Air Force has not only given to this country, but the whole world. Our service personnel have never let us down. I hope that this National Assembly will acknowledge this by voting for this motion today. Thank you.

Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate on the important subject of the armed forces covenant. We agree, in UKIP, that a high priority should be given to the welfare of both people serving in the forces and veterans. We are also keen to see the encouragement of cadet activity. So, we broadly share the enthusiasms of the Conservative group in this area, and we commend the energy of Darren Millar in getting together a very knowledgeable group of people as his advisers on the cross-party group, which he has been involved in setting up. I know that Mark Isherwood has been very active as well. The group has come up with some sound recommendations, which we fully support.

We also acknowledge that the armed forces covenant has been well supported in Wales—to a large measure, down to the efforts of the Welsh Government. So, I am going to be supportive today of their efforts as well. Now, I remember Carl Sargeant, in a debate a few weeks ago on housing matters, admonishing me somewhat because he felt I wasn't supportive enough of what the Welsh Government was doing in that area. Now, I slightly disagreed with Carl on that point, as I did on a few points, in fact, because I felt it was my job, as an opposition Member, to question him on things rather than just offer phrases of support. But I think it is generally acknowledged that, in the sphere of the armed forces covenant, we have made good progress in Wales, and I think Carl's efforts were a big factor in that. So, I would like to acknowledge that today.

Now, the point of the cross-party group is to ensure that things continue to progress, that we all focus on the right priorities regarding armed forces and veterans' issues, and those priorities have been agreed by the cross-party group in close concert with groups representing the armed forces and veterans themselves. The Welsh Government also has its own multi-agency expert group; so, it's good to see that everyone is working collaboratively in this area.

Housing is a recurring factor in several of the priorities that have been expressed by the CPG report. We do have a problem with veterans becoming homeless. It is currently estimated that some 7,000 ex-service people are homeless in the UK. We don't know how many there are in Wales, and there are hopes expressed in the report that the rough-sleeping count could capture some important details regarding this. So, hopefully, we can use this data in future to obtain crucial information in this area.

There are also issues around the provision of housing for serving and former members of the armed forces and their families, which have been alluded to earlier. These form part of the priorities in the CPG report, and we support the report's objective of making it easier for services families to obtain good housing. Another important provision is the pupil premium, and there are stiff challenges over mental health provisions, which must be addressed, to which Mark Isherwood was referring earlier.

In terms of the amendments set out today, we are happy to support all of the amendments. The Government point out their own progress, which we are happy to acknowledge. Plaid Cymru have looked particularly at the homelessness issue, and they call for an update on the implementation of the national housing pathway. We also support that call. Plaid also want measures put in place to obtain strong data on the homeless figures. They want the Government to publish the figures collated in the national rough-sleeping count. Again, that would be a good step forward, and we fully support that call.

So, to summarise, we have made good progress in implementing the armed forces covenant here in Wales, and I do believe, in many respects, we compare well with England, but we need to keep on the ball. So, this report is very welcome, and UKIP are very keen to support the recommendations of the report.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon, and I welcome the Minister to his role. I think this is the first debate that he will have contributed in since taking that role. But it'd also be opportune to pay tribute to the former Minister, Carl Sargeant, who, I think, on two occasions in Government, held this particular portfolio responsibility. It was a responsibility that he had a lot of pride in and obviously achieved a lot of success as well. I can remember many debates that we brought forward over the years that Carl responded to. It is pleasing to see on a cross-party basis many of the points that were brought forward in that debate, such as better access to healthcare, improvements in housing and, importantly, genuine reporting back to the Assembly on the initiatives that the Welsh Government are taking forward to try and make the lot of our armed services that much better when they get discharged from the military. Because it is important to reflect that Wales, as a country, with about 5 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, put forward about 10, 12 per cent of the armed services personnel historically and, in today’s much smaller armed forces footprint, we still have a far bigger percentage of Welsh service personnel in all aspects of the military. So, it is important that, as the Parliament of Wales, we do watch what the Government's doing, point out where the Government might be going wrong, laud them where they are making progress, and this report goes a long way in trying to offer a road map, with a series of recommendations to try and seek those improvements.

I do think it's important to reflect on the work of the cross-party group. The cross-party group, under the very able chairmanship of Darren Millar, has succeeded in raising the profile of the armed services here in the Assembly, and also the Assembly within the armed forces community, because I think that’s really important. It was only some 12 months ago that several Members from this institution tromped up to the Sennybridge training camp and saw the wonderment that is the training programme that the army put on for their soldiers. Some engaged far more willingly than others, putting the camouflage gear on and face paint. I think that they were just aspiring to be soldiers themselves—the chairman, in particular, trying to do that. In recent times, in September, obviously spending some time with the RAF in Valley, and seeing the footprint up in north Wales as to the great work—and, considering it's very close to the centenary of the RAF, how appropriate that was for the all-party group to attend RAF Valley and see what a great economic boost to the island Valley is. Because the many personnel that they bring on to the island obviously leave with fond memories and come back over the years as well. I know that there’s a commitment from the navy to, obviously, host the all-party group as well.

So, I do hope that the Minister, in his contribution this afternoon, will engage with the report and ultimately map out how he would take forward some—or, indeed, all—of the recommendations in it. Because they are made from the armed forces community, because, being a cross-party group, obviously, the community came together in compiling this report. It is worth noting that the call for a commissioner to be put in place to support the Government’s work and, obviously, to report back to the Assembly on progress in some of the areas that need progress isn’t on the lines of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales or the Older People's Commissioner for Wales, which is a different commissioner altogether. Scotland have a very good role model that we could look to, and it can be done with very modest means and drive forward progress in this field. I also think that the recommendations in the report that obviously capture, at the moment, the centenary commemorations around the first world war are worthy of consideration, as to how those commemorations can, as we go forward, be taken on. Because, obviously, as has been pointed out earlier, there are no veterans left from those conflicts now, and it is incumbent on us to make sure that future generations do have the ability to remember, recall, and ultimately never forget those tragic lessons that we needed to learn to defend our democracy and defend our way of life. Again, I do commend the Government on the way that they have put those events together, but I do believe that, as the report highlights, it does need to have some thought now as to what we do post the commemorations and the series of commemorations on other conflicts that the armed forces have been engaged with.

I was very pleased to see such prominence around the military covenant. Because it was the current mayor of the Vale of Glamorgan, Councillor Janice Charles, when she was the cabinet member back in 2009, I think it was, who signed the Vale of Glamorgan Council up to be the first council in Wales to be signed up to the military covenant. Now, I’m very pleased to say that all 22 local authorities are signed up to the commitments within that covenant. But, above all, what is really important, I think, is to focus on the positives that the military can offer a young person who wishes to seek a career in our armed forces. It is right that we focus on the support that we put in place for people coming out of the armed services. But, if I could just close on this one point, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is worth reflecting that, when people do go into the workplace, coming out of the military, there is a high recognition for the experience of working in and leading teams, flexibility and the ability to work in stressful, fast-paced, dynamic environments, a dependable and strong work ethic, displaying integrity and loyalty, and expertise in culturally diverse and global working environments. Those are the characteristics that any employer would be very pleased to welcome into their team in civvy street, as it were, and I do believe that sometimes we do need to be promoting more about the positives that the armed forces can offer young people, from wherever they might come, and in particular with the great tradition we have here in Wales of providing a higher number of service personnel than maybe our percentage of the overall population of the UK. So, I hope the Chamber will find support for this motion before it today.

Can I say that I thought it was very important the cross-party group commended the partnerships formed with the voluntary sector, because these can lead to some of the most innovative and relevant services that are available to our veterans? I want to mention one particular example in particular, and that's Woody's Lodge, which is based at HMS Cambria in Sully. I think quite a few people in this Chamber have visited it, and indeed they have held an event here in the Senedd, which I believe was sponsored by Jane Hutt.

It's an outstanding project, and it's one that provides services for armed forces veterans, recent leavers, which is a key group, I think, and reservists—many people now serve in our reserve forces, and they see combat and then come back and are working in our emergency services or the NHS or in the private sector, whatever. I think ongoing help for those people is very important. Also, Woody's Lodge has extended its services to emergency services—the uniformed services that often face profound trauma in pursuance of their duties. 

As its own mission statement says, it is there to provide a space for people to find themselves, and I think that's very, very important—that, after harsh experiences, people are given that space, but also the ability, with many people who will directly share their experiences, to reminisce on the positives as well. And, you know, there are many benefits to be had from serving in our armed forces.

The team at Woody's Lodge give support and guidance on a one-to-one basis and provide in particular help with benefits, health matters, and ways to build up confidence and self-esteem, which some people have lost, especially having left the type of atmosphere and daily routine you get in the armed forces, and then have perhaps not quite fitted back into civvy street very effectively, and then years later find themselves without any self-esteem or confidence to get out and get a job.

So, I think these are very, very important services that help, and, of course, they have a range of key partners to help in this excellent work. It really is a model of effective joint working. They work with the Royal British Legion, Age Cymru, the NHS—particularly mental health services—the Department of Work and Pensions, and many others. I would like to mention, as we've been talking about the first world war, that veterans of the second world war are now in advanced old age, over 90. There's a special project running at Woody's Lodge, Project 360 Degrees, which is  a project aimed at older veterans, which is led by Age Cymru and funded by the aged veterans fund. I think it's excellent, the work that they're doing there.

Woody's Lodge wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the group of volunteers that have raised a remarkable amount of money, both from the public sector grant bodies, but also from the private sector. I would commend the work of Dr David Trotman in this area, which has been an inspiration.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to talk about one other issue—it was mentioned by my colleague Mark Isherwood—and that's the need for better data on veterans. I think we're all aware of the campaign by the British legion to have a question on the national census about service in the armed forces, and I was very pleased to sign up to that campaign, as I know many, many other Assembly Members did as well. But I think we should also put pressure on the Office for National Statistics, together with the UK and the Welsh Governments, to improve data collection on veterans whenever possible, because with better data we would be able to shape better services for veterans. I think that's a very, very important part of the covenant we have with them when they have performed these services on our behalf. For many, many reasons, including the humanitarian reasons that Mohammad Asghar referred to, they really are deserving of the fullest support we can give them, and I'm very pleased to support this motion.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services—Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start my contribution this afternoon by paying tribute to the work of Carl Sargeant, who didn't just lead but drove much of the work on this area. Members on all sides of the Chamber have paid tribute to Carl and his work during this debate this afternoon and it is testament to the work that he did as a portfolio holder responsible for the work on the armed forces in Wales that we are where we are today. I think all of us owe a great debt of gratitude to Carl Sargeant for the work he did in this field.

At the same time, I'm also grateful to Darren Millar for the work he does as chair of the all-party group on the armed forces. I think, in fact, I was a founding member of that group some time ago. It demonstrates the value and importance of cross-party groups that we have a report in front of us this afternoon of the quality that we have seen. I will say that Darren has written to me as chair of the all-party group, inviting me to a future meeting. That's an invitation I'm very grateful of and will be glad to accept. I would be delighted to attend a meeting of the group to consider the report and the recommendations that they've made. I think all the recommendations are well founded in terms of the arguments made for them and reinforce the very real debt that we owe to our armed forces. 

We've heard this afternoon that November is a time of remembrance. It is a time to reflect on the contribution of the armed forces to our country and the debt that we owe all those who have served. I think we have a very real responsibility, as we remember the terrible events of a century ago, to also remember those who are living in our communities today who have served in more recent conflict. We have an absolute responsibility to all those who have served in the armed forces and I hope that the Government's work does set out to not just deliver on the words of that covenant but on the spirit of it as well.

Members will be aware that I made a written statement on this matter some weeks ago, and in that written statement I sought to set out the Welsh Government's support for the armed forces community. We are making good progress throughout Wales, as Members have acknowledged, and I'm confident that we can build on this success by continuing this approach, sharing resources and best practice. The motion is a motion that this Government will seek to amend and support. We will also support both of the Plaid Cymru amendments. 

I want to look positively at all the recommendations of the report of the cross-party group and look at how we can continue to build upon the foundations that we've made. I see the motion and the report as building upon the good work already completed by the Welsh Government and complementary to that work. I see this report as contributing to a positive vision of the future and enabling us as Welsh Government, with the armed forces community, to work to continue to deliver support and services for our armed forces community.

We know already that many positive steps have been taken to improve the support available to veterans and their families. This progress has been acknowledged and I hope that our amendment to this motion recognises that. It also seeks to recognise the important role played by the armed forces expert group. With its strong multi-agency membership, it will continue to help us to identify issues affecting the armed forces community and work to address all of those issues. I'm pleased that the group, for example, is considering the links between early service leavers and adverse childhood experiences. We recognise that more needs to be done to understand why members of the military choose to leave the services early, and I give an undertaking, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I will share the findings with Members as soon as we're able to do so.

The expert group has previously considered the idea of having an armed forces commissioner. Whilst I'm not yet convinced that a commissioner would add value to the structures we already have in place, I am open to that conversation. That is not a door I wish to close this afternoon; it is a conversation I wish to have and a conversation that I welcome. I also welcome the Office for National Statistics recent announcement that the 2021 census will include questions to identify the size and needs of the armed forces community in Wales. Members will be aware that part of the expert group has previously explored the idea of a veterans ID card, and concluded that it would be of limited value. It was agreed to publicise and promote the defence privilege card as a preferred option. This was a highly successful campaign, with an increase in the membership of 89 per cent compared with 39 per cent in the rest of the United Kingdom, enabling members to access discounts across a broad range of outlets.

There is a wealth of support available to our armed forces community in Wales. As set out in our amendment, we are working with key partners to raise awareness of the services in place for both serving and ex-service personnel and their families. I hope that our evolving policies will continue to reflect their changing needs, and I give an undertaking to the Chamber—. The Conservative leader asked us if we would continue to report back to the Chamber; I give that undertaking this afternoon that we will continue to report back to the Chamber on a regular basis on the progress that is being made.

At the same time, Deputy Presiding Officer, Veterans' NHS Wales continues to progress. Established in 2010, this service has received approximately 2,900 referrals to date. Its pioneering methods, such as talking therapies and virtual reality techniques, are helping veterans deal with the personal trauma as a result of service experiences. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services has already announced an addition £100,000 annual funding to increase capacity within Veterans' NHS Wales, bringing the total amount of Welsh Government funding to nearly £700,000 per year. We give an undertaking that we will continue to look at ways of ensuring that this continues to meet the needs of veterans in our health service. This is the only service of its kind in the United Kingdom, and I hope that we will all join together to applaud its success.

We also know that some veterans may struggle to secure accommodation. Working in partnership with Welsh Government has produced a housing pathway to help veterans and their families to make an informed choice about their accommodation needs on transferring back into civilian life. On this basis, I'm very happy to support Plaid Cymru's amendment 2. The housing pathway is a success, and I would be happy to continue to update Members. I'm also happy to support amendment 3, and I will include this information in future conversations and debates.

The report outlines that service leavers, veterans and reservists may need help to secure employment. I can confirm that the Welsh Government is developing an employment pathway with our key partners. Aiming to identify employment choices and support available, the pathway will provide options for those seeking employment. Our package of support makes clear our commitment to supporting armed forces veterans in Wales. Developed in collaboration with our partners, it includes Welsh Government policy areas, key initiatives and information from other supporting organisations.

I am aware that service children may face challenges as a result of deployment. Whilst I am not yet convinced that our service pupil premium would be the best way forward, I also recognise that this is a conversation that we can continue to have. In correspondence to the Secretary of State for Defence, we have asked for further consideration to be given to the continuation of the service children education support fund. I would also say, Deputy Presiding Officer, we have published a 'Welcome to Wales' package tailored specifically for our service personnel and their families. Members should have no doubt about the importance that this Government attaches to the delivery of the covenant in Wales.

I want to finish my contribution today by saying how proud I am of what we and our partners in the armed forces have achieved in seeking to deliver on the commitment we have made. I will attend the newly established UK ministerial covenant and veterans board. Our presence will help to progress the work of the covenant in collaboration with our United Kingdom colleagues as well as our own armed forces expert group. We all need to learn from each other and to share good practice.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I think the nature and the tone of the debate this afternoon has demonstrated the power of unity across all sides of this Chamber. We owe our armed forces a debt that will never be repaid, but this Government, and this whole Assembly, stands alongside the armed forces community, and we will continue to work collectively together to ensure that all veterans and all service personnel in Wales have the support that they need, require and deserve. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank everybody who has taken part in what I think has been a very important debate on some very decent and good-quality recommendations in a report that was the result of significant work from the cross-party group? I believe that this is a report that has the potential to add to the tremendous work that has already been done here in Wales to improve the lot of veterans and armed forces personnel in our country. As has quite rightly been said by a number of people, we've made significant progress—more progress, I believe, than any other part of the United Kingdom—and that's a record of which I am proud to have had a small part to play in as an Assembly Member working collaboratively with all Members in all parties of this Assembly to bring that agenda forward. 

I also want to pay tribute—as the Minister did and as Andrew R.T. Davies did—to the work of Carl Sargeant as the previous portfolio holder. He was instrumental in ensuring that some of the significant improvements that we've seen in recent years have been delivered. One of the most important parts of that was actually getting the armed forces community together, particularly the voluntary sector, which has often in the past been splintered and siloed and worked in ways that have not been collaborative. The way in which now we have an armed forces conference each year—one in the south, one in the north—has really helped to overcome some of those obstacles.

Quite rightly, a number of third sector organisations have been mentioned in the debate today, from Woody's Lodge that David Melding mentioned, right up to the larger-scale organisations like the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Combat Stress and others. Many of those organisations are partner members of the cross-party group. They attend on a regular basis and contribute to our work and help to shape our agenda. I want to put on record my thanks to each and every one of them for their contribution too. 

We mustn't ever forget that our armed forces—our British armed forces—have a reach beyond our shores. As Mohammad Asghar quite rightly said, they've had a huge role to play historically around the globe, making a positive contribution in all sorts of different ways to all sorts of nations. In this year where we are commemorating the hundredth anniversary of Armistice Day, the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Falklands conflict, and in the year ahead where we will mark the hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Royal Air Force, we would do well to remember that our armed forces constantly move from one anniversary to the next in a seamless way. That's why I think it's very important to build on the success that we've seen from the Cymru'n Cofio programme of events that Sir Deian Hopkin put together, and to make sure that that legacy of remembrance continues into the future. 

I'm not going to go through all of the recommendations, but the principal recommendation in this report was the need to have an armed forces commissioner. I'm very pleased, Cabinet Secretary, that you haven't shut the door on that proposal, because we do know that up in Scotland, where they have a veterans commissioner, it has made a difference to the lives of veterans. The cross-party group was very keen to see that principle extended not just for the veteran community, but to have a commissioner that would be responsible for improving the lot of all the armed forces, and ensuring the delivery of the principles of the covenant that Wales has subscribed to. I was very proud of the fact that Wales was the first nation in the UK to see all 22 local authorities subscribing to the covenant, to see its own Government subscribing to the covenant and to see all health boards subscribing to the covenant. We've got champions in all of these places, but having an armed forces commissioner who can hold each of the constituent bodies to account for their delivery against those covenant principles, we believe, as a cross-party group, would make the biggest possible difference to ensuring that the covenant is fully upheld. So, I was pleased to hear you keep the door ajar on that suggestion, and I look forward to working with you in your capacity as the portfolio holder—and it's a very welcome appointment indeed. I know of your dedication and commitment to the armed forces historically and, as you quite rightly said, you've been a founder member of the cross-party group, and we look forward to working with you to deliver as many of these recommendations as possible in the future. So, thank you to everyone who's taken part in the debate and we look forward to the continuing discussions.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? No. [Objection.] That was a bit—. Yes, okay, so we'll defer voting under this item until voting time. You stopped me mid-breath there; you were very lucky.

We move on to item 7, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on new Welsh taxes, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion—Neil.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the agenda. It has, as usual, been attempted to be amended by other parties by deleting our motion in its entirety and substituting their own. But there are parts of the amendments that I agree with.

I certainly agree with Plaid Cymru on tax devolution to Wales, and it provides an opportunity to enhance the accountability of the Welsh Government. That's an extremely good thing that they should be held responsible for raising the money that they spend so enthusiastically. I agree that there should be consultation on any innovative taxes that the Welsh Government might introduce, and I certainly support Plaid Cymru and indeed the Government in their desire to devolve air passenger duty to Wales and indeed corporation tax to Wales. I've strongly supported this because that would enable us to abolish air passenger duty, where I would be at one with the Welsh Government, and to reduce corporation tax to, as I've said many times before, compensate for some of the historical complications and difficulties that we face in Wales.

As regards the Conservative amendments, again, I accept most of those, though I'm rather surprised to see the Conservative Party believing that a comprehensive tax base encourages greater prosperity. When I was in the Conservative Party, I thought we were the low tax party that wanted to reduce the impact of taxation upon the economy because of its effect upon incentives and so on, but times change and sometimes parties change with them, evidently. So I—

That's a very mischievous comment. I think you're misunderstanding what we meant by 'comprehensive'. We didn't mean a higher tax base, we meant a comprehensive tax base that takes into account all factors and provides a competitive environment for the economy. That's what we meant.

Well, I can't be responsible for the obscurity of the Conservatives' language, but I am glad to have that illumination.

In the Finance Committee a few weeks ago, when the finance Secretary gave evidence to us, I was intrigued to hear Eluned Morgan in ecstatic tones say that the most exciting part of his announcement about devolved taxes at the beginning of October was that we've got a new tax. Now, there are many things I get excited about, but new taxes are not one of them, and I suppose it shows the difference in mindset between a socialist on the one hand and somebody with libertarian instincts like me on the other.

So, I see taxation, of course, as inevitable in a modern society to pay for the things that are provided through the Government, but nevertheless we should always, I think, seek to create a tax system that does not get in the way of wealth creation, and, I don't believe, as our motion says in the final paragraph, that we should place extra tax burdens on individuals and businesses or punish individuals for their lifestyle choices.

Low-tax economies generally tend to be the ones that are most successful. Now, the finance Secretary has criticised me on more than one occasion for mentioning Singapore. The last time I raised the position of Singapore, he referred to my dystopian vision of Britain as a Singapore-style economy. Well, it would be a very good thing if we did replicate Singapore's success in the modern world. In 1965, when Singapore became independent, their average income was $500 a year; now it's $55,000 a year—the average income in Singapore. That has come about because of the pro-business culture of the Singaporean Government in the last half century. 

In the period from 1965 to 2015, there was a 3,700 per cent increase in the average income of people in Singapore, compared with only 300 per cent in the United States. And if we just take the 15 years from 2000 to 2015, there was a 35 per cent increase in the standard of living in Singapore, compared with only 8 per cent in the United States. They do seem to understand how to create wealth and prosperity, so perhaps we can learn something from them. Ninety per cent of Singaporeans are owner-occupiers, and it's not because they don't have good education or good health services either; there are many studies that show that Singapore has some of the highest standards in the world.

Now, the Welsh Government is in the process of using its freedom to set new taxes and to vary taxes, I think, to go in entirely the wrong direction. The possibility of introducing a tourist tax, I think, has been roundly condemned by anybody who has anything to do with the tourist industry. It is of massive importance to the Welsh economy, particularly in Mid and West Wales, which I represent. Wales, at the moment, has 5 per cent of the UK population, but only 3 per cent of the UK's tourists and only 2 per cent of tourist spend. It seems to me to be quite quixotic to be imposing taxes, or proposing the imposition of taxes upon tourists, particularly as the United Kingdom, in the World Economic Forum study of the taxes upon tourism around the world, is placed in position 135 out of 136 countries in terms of competitiveness. We should be doing all that we can to encourage, not discourage tourism into Wales and the United Kingdom generally.

Of course, the hospitality industry in Wales has roundly condemned this proposal. Anthony Rosser, who is the chairman of the British Hospitality Association in Wales, and manager of the Lake Vyrnwy hotel, says:

'We already have very real worries over the recent cauldron of costs that have boiled over in the last 18 months, including increases in business rates, wage increases, rising inflation and food and energy hikes. Increasing costs like this will, of course, be handing an unfair advantage to our competitors in England.'

So, my party will be roundly opposing any proposal to introduce a tourist tax if one is presented to us in due course.

The latest announcement is not a tax as such, but equivalent to a tax—the proposal to introduce minimum alcohol prices into Wales. This is supposedly to cure the problems of excessive alcohol drinking, but it can never do that, given the mess of alcohol duties and taxes generally throughout the United Kingdom. We have the highest alcohol taxes in Europe, overall—77 per cent of the price of a bottle of Scotch is accounted for by tax—[Interruption.] Yes.

So, you're saying that the cost of alcohol in this country is higher, due to taxation, than that in Scandinavia.

Well, I am saying that, actually. I'm saying that the proportion of the cost that consumers pay is higher in the United Kingdom than it is anywhere else in Europe. I can provide the figures for the honourable Member if he wishes, but with only three minutes to go, I don't think I have got time.

But we have the highest rate of beer duty in Europe, at 52.2p a pint. That's 13 times the duty in Germany or Spain. What is it about Britain or Wales that creates an alcohol problem? It certainly isn't the existence of cheap alcohol, so we must look elsewhere for the solution to the social problems that excessive drinking of alcohol by a small minority of irresponsible people brings about.

There is no logic whatever to the alcoholic duties in Britain, because alcohol duty per unit on beer is 8p, on strong beer, it's 18p, on cider, it's 8p. But strong cider is actually taxed at a lower rate than ordinary ciders, and strong sparkling cider is five times the rate of ordinary cider. Wine is taxed at 20p a unit, and sparkling wine at 25p a unit. So, there's no logic to the differences in the way alcohol is priced at all. Taxing stronger ales and beers through a minimum alcohol price is only likely to lead to a diversion from one type of alcohol to another, rather than to reduce the social problems that excessive drinking causes.

Also, there are other taxes that might be in prospect, like a sugar tax. Most of these taxes, of course, are going to bare most heavily upon those in society who are least able to cope with the extra tax burden. The poorest 10 per cent of people in the United Kingdom spend 20 per cent of their gross income on a combination of duties and value added tax. We have a highly regressive system of indirect taxation in this country. We should surely not be trying to make that worse than it is.

But there's a general principle here: the extent to which the state should be trying to influence people's behaviour in their lifestyle choices through the tax system. If there's a problem of public order that is created as a result of binge drinking on Saturday nights in city centres, then we can cope with that better by enforcing the law on public disorder. Years ago, the police used to arrest people for falling over in the street drunk and vomiting in gutters. Now, it's almost a form of popular entertainment to watch this happening in the city centre. So, it's not the price of alcohol that is the problem. If people go out to get hammered on a Saturday night, then they will do that anyway, regardless of the price, unless you're going to introduce really draconian increases in duties beyond what we have now.

So, this debate is called today as a kind of plea to move Wales in the direction of a low-tax economy that is going to maximise the potential for wealth creation in what is one of the poorest parts of western Europe. That's not an accolade that I want Wales to continue to have. We are now, as we know, the poorest part of the United Kingdom, amongst all the nations and regions of England. Twenty years ago, we were second from bottom, now we are bottom. Do we not want to do something about that? If we do have the opportunity to use income tax as a means of influencing the economy, surely we should seek to make Wales a kind of internal tax haven in the United Kingdom. That's not just for libertarian reasons of wanting people to keep in their own pockets as much as possible of the money that they themselves have earned. What I earn and what you earn and what the public at large earns does not belong to the state. So, I believe in, as Mr Gladstone used to put it, money fructifying in the pockets of the people. If we go back to Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations—I'd like to end my speech with this reflection—where he says:

'It is the highest impertinence and presumption…in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense...They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.'

Thank you.

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 now call on Steffan Lewis to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today. Obviously, I disagree with almost every word that the previous speaker said, but perhaps that won’t be a great deal of surprise. I move formally the amendment tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The fact, of course, that we are talking about taxation policy in Wales is a huge step for us as a nation after 800 years without the right to raise taxes at all, and it won’t be news for the UKIP speaker, and I’m sure that he is not surprised, that almost every time now we put forward an amendment that deletes every word in the original motion. But that’s a reflection of the fact that we come from very different parts of the political spectrum and that we have different political ideals as well.

In the first instance, Plaid Cymru has been of the opinion that devolution of taxation strengthens democracy, because now the Welsh Government has to consider the fiscal results and economic results of its own policies and its own legislation, because it now has responsibility for some of the taxes that are placed on people in Wales. This is of benefit to the people of Wales and it places more responsibility and accountability on the Government here.

More generally, Plaid Cymru sees fiscal policy with regard to taxation as a way of creating a business environment that can lead to sustainable growth and a way of creating change in personal behaviour, which is beneficial for such things as health and in getting to grips with climate change, and importantly as a way of raising funds to invest in our people and in our public services. Of course, for me, as someone who wants to see Wales as an independent nation, it’s vital that we get to grips with the fiscal health of our own nation—not just because of constitutional aims, but to create vibrant and viable public services and communities.

In our amendment today, we welcome the Welsh Government’s consultation on the possibility of introducing new taxes that can support policies with regard to the environment, health and social issues. We of course particularly welcome the fact that the consultation considers the possibility of a tax on disposable plastics, which is a Plaid Cymru manifesto promise, and we hope that this will be introduced ultimately.

Of course, we’ve already put forward a tax on sugary drinks, which is something that, at the time, faced opposition from a number of parties in this Chamber, if I remember rightly, but which now is something that is welcomed and supported by everyone, as if they always had supported it. But, regardless, we do welcome the fact that there was support, ultimately.

We would reiterate our call for the devolution of corporation tax and air passenger duty. These are vital to the economic future of Wales, and there’s no reason for the Westminster Government to refuse to transfer them to Wales, especially as we consider the fiscal powers of the two other devolved nations. It’s not fair that the Westminster Government has the right to give a fiscal advantage in terms of taxes and the economy to nations as it sees fit. It’s up to the people and the Government of Wales and the Assembly of Wales to decide on the powers that we want in order to improve the lives of people in this country.

To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I’d also like to take this opportunity to underline the importance of this institution and the Government ensuring that there is an awareness and an interest among the people of Wales in fiscal issues affecting the nation. Because, as we are now pursuing this idea of being a more normal nation that has taxation powers, we need to change how we undertake business here. We’ve seen today how much of a political occasion in terms of the news that the budget day for the United Kingdom is, with huge scrutiny and the public very aware of the importance of the statement made in Westminster. We need to ensure that there is a similar process here to raise awareness among the citizens of Wales about the decisions that are made—the fiscal decisions that are made—that will affect them, and also to convey the level of importance that exists in the national budget for Wales.
 

Thank you very much. I call on Nick Ramsay to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch. I'm pleased to move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies. This is one of those debates, I feel, where the amendments say it all. The Plaid, Welsh Conservative and Government amendments are all 'delete all', seeking to delete the motion and annihilate each other in the process. It's very generous of you, Neil Hamilton, to say that you would accept most of our amendment, given that it did delete most of your motion—but I take what you said in the spirit you meant it.

To be fair to the UKIP motion, it does make a couple of important points. Point 2 is right to say that the focus of Welsh Government should be on economic growth and the creation of well-paid jobs. That is what you would hope for from any Government. Yes, the Government should also support the most vulnerable in society, but you've got to have that initial wealth generation to share its dividends. And before Steffan Lewis jumps up and says I'm talking about trickle-down economics from the 1980s, I'm not; I'm simply talking about the importance of wealth generation to any economy. However, point 1 of the motion does get a little bogged down in rather emotive UKIP language, such as using

'Wales as an experimental tax laboratory'.

I must say, it does make the Welsh Government sound a little bit like Dr Bunsen and Beaker from The Muppet Show—Mark Isherwood liked that one. Maybe that was intentional from UKIP. Someone's clearly had a lot of fun up in your research department. Look, I do get where UKIP are coming from on part of this, but to be fair to the Welsh Government, the Wales Bill 2016 legislation does require the creation of new Welsh land transaction tax, stamp duty and land disposal tax by switching off the existing UK equivalents in Wales. Beyond that, the partial devolution of income tax in April 2019 is also a result of that UK legislation, although I appreciate it did feature as part of the Welsh Government negotiations with the Treasury in delivering the much-needed fiscal framework.

Okay, turning to the greatly debated new taxes: well, again, the Wales Bill legislation does allow for—the Welsh Government would say, 'even encourage'—the Government to look at the case for new taxes as a way of, yes, raising revenue, but also increasing accountability. Longer term Members of this place will have longer experience of this place as just a spending authority, which that new legislation has attempted to change. Where the Welsh Conservatives do diverge from the Welsh Government is the type of taxes that may or may not be considered as part of that process. Our amendment 2 cites the importance of a comprehensive tax base, which was raised earlier. By that, we mean one that is transparent, understandable and—most of all—competitive.

New Welsh taxes mustn't be something that is 'done' to people. I can see the Cabinet Secretary laughing—it might be over something else; I'm not sure. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary has said this, himself, in the past: rather, there should be a trust, a contract between the Government and the people when it comes to taxation. We shouldn't just be thinking, 'Right, how can we squeeze more money out of the tax base?' No matter how attractive that naturally is to any Government, particularly at a time when economic constraints are tight. No, we have to put the needs of the economy at the forefront—what will help the economy nurture business and create the right tax and employment environment.

On the issue of the so-called tourism tax, look, I don't intend to reopen this one today. I think comments by the Welsh Conservatives—and other parties, indeed—in previous debates make our position on that quite clear. What I would say is that the Welsh Government is completely within its rights to consider new taxes, but that process or mechanism must be one that recognises the balance between the potential harm and good to the economy, and making sure that the consideration itself of new taxation doesn't outweigh the benefits. We know how perceptions can grow, and people can be worried by even the suggestion of a change to an existing system. The Cabinet Secretary, and indeed his predecessor, said that there should be no change for change's sake. I thought that was a good maxim then, and I think it's a good maxim now. I know that it's one that the Cabinet Secretary agrees with. So, I think we should be sticking with that.

Can I say, finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, that there is no mention of borrowing in the motion? Clearly, one important aspect of tax devolution—at least it has been in debates in previous years in this Chamber—is to provide a revenue stream to support borrowing for capital projects—borrowing that has been a staple to local authorities for a long time, and to other bodies in Wales, but the Welsh Government, the Welsh Assembly has not been able to access. So, taxation devolution, if it does nothing else for good—and in the longer term we have to look at the effects that that taxation has—it does at least allow us to have a borrowing stream to invest in important capital projects. In summary, Deputy Presiding Officer, tax devolution, like it or not, is a fact of the new political landscape created by the Wales Bill. Like all tools, you can use them badly, or you can use the wrong tool for the wrong job, but that is an issue for all of us here.

On the issue, finally, of the consent of the electorate, well, of course, that doesn't just mean a referendum; that can also mean a general Assembly election, and I would hope that, moving forward, all parties here will be upfront about the tax proposals in their manifestos and in the run-up to future Assembly elections.

I do hope that the Cabinet Secretary will look again at the way that new legislation is implemented in Wales, to ensure that Wales does ultimately get a sustainable, competitive and popular—or as popular as possible—tax base in years to come.

Can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move formally amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James?

Formally, Chair.

Thank you very much. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Taxation, despite being one of the most divisive of topics, is one of the most important economic levers a Government can control. We all agree with the decision to give the Assembly powers over taxation. This has signalled the change from us being a spending institution to one now with responsibility for raising some of the funding we spend on public services.

UKIP believes in a low-tax economy. We would like to see lower taxes on business in order to attract large employers to Wales—a reduction perhaps in corporation tax. Unfortunately, membership of the single market prohibits this. The EU is currently taking action against Ireland for their deal with Apple, and Luxembourg for their deal with Amazon. Following Brexit, we may be able to incentivise Apple or Amazon to locate to a low-tax Wales, provided we leave the single market. We know the Welsh Government is at odds with us on this decision, but we respect everyone’s decision here, and everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

We would also like to see lower income taxes. We spend vastly more per head on health and education than they do in England. Indeed, we spend more per head on all public services. In England, they spend about £8,800 per head. Here in Wales, we spend a little over £10,000 per head—around 10 per cent more than the UK average. However, tax revenues are much lower, at around £7,500 per person, and any proposals to lower income tax in Wales would increase the fiscal deficit and place a greater burden on our English counterparts as well.

So, the Welsh Government would like to introduce a whole raft of new taxes. They are considering introducing a tourism tax, citing that a small levy on tourists has been introduced elsewhere in the world. A tourism tax would be bad for Welsh tourism. In my region alone, I have two main tourist areas. A small levy may not deter tourists, but the bureaucratic and fiscal burden that this would place on our tourism businesses would damage the tourism economy. What proponents of the tourism tax don’t tell you is that the countries that adopt this tax offer reduced VAT rates to the tourism sector, which helps offset the burden of collecting and processing tax.

The Welsh Government’s proposals for a vacant land tax risks undermining the fragile house building sector by making house building more expensive in Wales. We can ill afford the demand for house building in Wales to stall now, at this crucial time, when we need affordable house building to be encouraged to enable our many young people to get a foot on the housing ladder.

Proposals to introduce a disposable plastics tax warrant further consideration, certainly, but it should be UK wide if we are to avoid the packaging industry, which is a large employer in Wales.

The Welsh Government are also proposing to introduce a tax for people to pay for social care, and people are asking what they pay national insurance and tax for, and feel that that this is possibly a duplication of payment.

Of course, there have been even more ideas for new taxes, which can be explored further: a sugar tax, a sunbed tax, a water tax. Wales doesn’t need new taxes; it doesn’t need an increase in the tax burden. What Wales needs is a Welsh Government that can spend the taxes it receives wisely.  We need to encourage economic growth and learn from any past mistakes that have been made, because a mistake is an opportunity, after all, to learn and do it differently next time. As a person who is passionate about my country, I want Wales to reach its full potential, and I look forward to working with any party that wants to see Wales succeed. Diolch yn fawr.

With the UK budget today, I think some of the implications of tax devolution, perhaps, hit home rather more clearly than they did before, because the implications for Wales of decisions made on tax don't just reflect those that are made in this Siambr, but also those that are made in Westminster. I served on the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill committee as that went through and listened to what the Cabinet Secretary said. Since then, he's announced just a few weeks ago some changes to how LTT will apply here compared to SDLT in England after April. Many in my region, particularly in the large parts where house prices are relatively low, will welcome that they will pay up to £500 less stamp duty if the house is between £125,000 and, I think, £400,000—unless, of course, they are a first-time buyer. 

We welcome this eye-catching tax cut, which we will enjoy perhaps for four-and-a-bit months in Wales until the Cabinet Secretary potentially takes that away when that tax is devolved and becomes the land transaction tax. Now, I don’t know if that was his intention. He set out what his intentions were a few weeks ago, and perhaps he will now reconsider them in light of the decision that has been made in Westminster, because we may be seeing something of a mini house price boom in Monmouthshire over coming weeks. Not only is there the abolition of the Severn tolls, but there is the potential for first-time buyers purchasing a house worth more than £150,000 to make savings of up to £5,000 if they move and manage to complete between now and early April, when the Cabinet Secretary will take responsibility for their taxation. I wonder in the context of this debate whether he might perhaps make it clear to those people whether it is indeed a sensible thing for them to rush into buying a house now to try and avoid his higher rates from April—or will he reconsider those rates in light of the decision that’s been made today?

I also wonder whether he will look to gouge more money from some of the higher prices—not just house prices, but commercial property prices. One of the significant announcements he made is that, from April, we will be charging a higher rate on the higher-value commercial properties, and one thing I think that the Welsh Government has done quite well is what it's done to support and develop the office market in Cardiff, and perhaps to try and draw in employment, including many people from my region. But if the transaction tax goes up from 5 per cent to 6 per cent on those commercial properties and those big office developments then I wonder if some of those developers may choose to concentrate their activities on England rather than perhaps to make the purchases, and, in many cases, developments, they otherwise would in Wales, particularly if they fear that this is just the beginning of an attempt to gouge them for more money.

We have a comprehensive tax base—that is what we say in section 2, and I’ve always understood that the tax base multiplied by the tax rate led to the total tax take. I think Nigel Lawson set this out particularly well in his Mais lecture in 1984, that what he wanted to do was to expand the tax base but reduce the tax rate. That was a much better way of raising money, so I’m glad we have that in our amendment for the motion today. But I wonder, in developing that comprehensive tax base in Wales—. I congratulate the Government again on what they’re doing on the childcare offer, and the focus on putting that on children whose parents are working and trying to help people into work. One of the implications of that is, potentially—and this will be from September 2020, except for the pilots, and once we have tax devolution—that might lead to people paying more income tax, if that offer actually does help raise employment, or perhaps the amount of hours people are working. For the first time, that benefit, given the devolution settlement in tax, would flow through to Wales and the Exchequer in a way, perhaps, that it hadn’t before. I also hope that the Government will co-operate more closely with the UK Government and look very hard for ways it can reduce tax avoidance, using the levers and powers that it has.

I’m running out of time now, and we won’t benefit until April 2019, but I do have some ideas on that front that I would very much welcome discussing further with the Cabinet Secretary.

Since being elected in 2011, most of the discussions I’ve heard in the Senedd regarding taxation have been about reducing it—although not quite as extreme as Neil Hamilton this afternoon—rather than the need for taxation to pay for public services. When you look at the cost of private education and private healthcare, it puts into perspective the value for money we all get from our taxation system.

Taxation is raised to pay for public services. Too many people believe we can have the same quality of public services as Scandinavia but have a taxation system that is more akin to that of the United States of America. It is not by random chance or serendipity that those countries with higher tax levels have the best public services and those with lower tax levels the poorest. It’s because taxation is necessary to raise the money to pay for the public services that we all need—services such as the roads I travelled on into the Assembly today, the safety of people in work, the safety of food, education, the health service, which I and my constituents depend upon, and the policing of our streets. Quality public services, be they health, education, or infrastructure, come at a substantial cost to the public purse, and the only way of paying for them is via taxation. Taxation can be on income, profit, consumption, expenditure, or value of land and property, or a combination of all of them. But, if people want quality public services, these are the taxes needed to pay for them.

Whilst nobody likes to pay taxes and some rich individuals and multinational companies are experts at reducing their tax payments, for multinational companies, corporation tax is an optional payment whose value can be reduced by such things as intracompany payments for intellectual property rights, or transfer charges for goods and services, or ensuring that the point of sale for goods for people in Britain occurs outside Britain and profit occurs offshore. All of these have been used by some of the largest companies in order to reduce the amount of corporation tax they pay in Britain.

On devolving corporation tax, while I suspect that Plaid Cymru want to do it so they can reduce it, unless reduced to almost zero, it will not be competitive with the offshore British protectorates, such as the British Virgin Islands, for multinational companies. I don't think corporation tax has got much of a life left in it. It is going to, at some stage, have to be replaced, because it is only paid by smaller companies who only deal in the country they're in.

Providing quality public services means that if some people do not pay then either public services suffer or others have to make up the shortfall. Every time tax cuts are made, they are shown as beneficial and they appear to be for those who are paying less tax and have more money in their pocket. The effect that these reductions in Government income have on public expenditure on services such as health, local government and education are completely ignored until the cuts start affecting people. Some of those in favour of reducing public expenditure are amongst the first to oppose any cuts in services. 

The more difficult a tax is to avoid, the more unpopular it is with the rich and powerful. By far the most difficult taxes to avoid are the property taxes—non-domestic rates, council tax. There are no tricks, such as using internal company transactions or having non-domiciled status, to avoid paying the tax. The buildings, whether they are residential, manufacturing, commercial or retail, are not movable and the tax becomes liable on the property and has to be paid.

I also welcome the Welsh Government’s consultation on the possibility of introducing innovative taxes and the list of a levy to fund social care, a disposable plastic tax, a tax—[Interruption.] Certainly.

Thank you for giving way. I think you will recall the Bevan Foundation report, 'Tax for Good: New taxes for a better Wales', which was published last year and included a proposal for a tax on takeaway packaging. And then, of course, as you said, the Cabinet Secretary consulted widely on ideas for new taxes and published a shortlist, which included, of course, the disposable plastic tax. Today, we hear the Chancellor is following our chancellor Mark Drakeford's lead in considering such a tax. So, do you agree that Wales is at the forefront in considering such a tax to protect the environment, as we were with the plastic bag levy?

Yes, certainly. I've supported a tax on disposable expanded polystyrene packaging, especially that used for food trays in takeaway restaurants, for a very long time.

On the tourist tax, it's common around the rest of the world. I actually paid a tourist tax when I was in Dubrovnik; I just didn't know I was paying it. I only discovered it when I looked at places that had a tourist tax.

If you look at the cost of hotel rooms—for personal reasons, I spend a lot of time staying in Travelodges in Bangor and Caernarfon, and the price of a room there can vary quite dramatically. It's nothing to do with taxation; it's due to supply and demand.

If we desire quality public services, then we have to pay for them via taxation. This is not the start of a campaign for higher taxes, but it is linking taxation with expenditure. Can I just say—? I want to live in a country where, when you have an accident, the first responder checks your pulse, not your insurance policy.

Thank you very much and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Less than five months ago, in this Chamber, we debated the power to create new taxes here in Wales. The Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion that recognised the need to test the new machinery that has been created for developing a new tax and welcomed a wide range of potential ideas for using this power. Indeed, in his contribution to that debate, Neil Hamilton commented how he would certainly support the Government motion. He remarked how he was in favour of maintaining the link between Government decisions and accountability for them through the system of raising taxes. He even agreed that devolution of taxation does give us opportunities.

Well, less than five months later, those opportunities have now turned into complaints that experiments could risk reputational damage to this institution—the sort of experiments that we've seen during the whole period of devolution: the experiment that was extending free travel on buses to older people and disabled people; the experiment that was banning smoking in enclosed public places and extending that to cars where children are carried only a year or so ago; the experiment that was the plastic bag levy; the experiment that was organ donation. This place is based on experimentation. It's what devolution was always meant to be: a living laboratory in which different parts of the United Kingdom are able to try out new ideas, to learn from one another, to see what is effective. And to think that experimentation is something that leads to reputational damage I think is to fly in the facts of the way in which devolution has embedded itself in the minds and in the places that we live in. And we intend to go on doing that. We certainly intend to go on doing it as far as minimum unit pricing is concerned—not a tax measure, of course, but another way in which, by using new and innovative policy approaches, we can make a difference in the lives of people here in Wales. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

I'm very grateful for your taking the intervention. I don't disagree with you that devolution does give us that opportunity to try new things and, in fact, many of those things I've been a passionate supporter of, that you listed, but you do accept that sometimes when you raise the prospect of a new tax, there is the potential to cause some reputational damage to either a Government or a nation in terms of particular industries that might be the subject of that tax. That certainly appears to be what might be happening with the tourism tax idea—just the fact that an idea has been discussed and that the door's not yet shut on it. 

Well, I wouldn't agree with him about that, Dirprwy Lywydd. I don't think it does damage reputations to discuss ideas, even when there are ideas we might disagree about. I think it is possible to have a debate about ideas that contributes to the reputation of this institution rather than, as the motion suggests, diminishing it.

There will be Members in the Chamber, I know, who will remember that famous historian, Alan Taylor—A.J.P Taylor—and will remember his review of a book by his rival historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, in which Alan Taylor said that the book 'would have damaged Trevor-Roper's reputation as a serious historian had he ever had one', and I cannot help but think that the motion is doing the same as far as the reputation of the UK Independence Party is concerned. It's not about damage to the reputation of the Welsh Government or the National Assembly for Wales. It might have done damage to the reputation of the UK Independence Party, had it ever had one to damage. 

Now then, having turned its back on experimentation, the motion then turns its back on taxation itself. The mover offered us his normal assertion that cutting taxes is the way to prosperity. In that very strange combination of enthusiasm for both libertarianism and Singapore, he said to us—it is very hard to hold those two things in your mind at the same time, I agree—. He failed to draw any attention to the fact that there is no evidence in general that lower taxes boost growth, though badly designed taxes can hamper it, and, indeed, the OECD has found that taxes used effectively, for example, to combat inequality, support economic growth, rather than frustrate it. The language of burden and punishment in the motion tells its own story, and it sets the party that moved this resolution aside from other parties in this Chamber.

By contrast, Steffan Lewis, in moving the Plaid Cymru amendment, recognised the opportunities bought about by tax devolution and the sense in exploring innovative tax possibilities. He highlighted a particular form of plastics tax and he restated the call to the UK Government to devolve air passenger duty to Wales. There is little in the amendment with which we would disagree, and a great deal with which we are in agreement. Members will understand that the sequence in which we will vote this afternoon means that we will have to oppose the Plaid Cymru amendment in order to reach the Government amendment, but that is procedural rather than substantive in terms of what that amendment had to say. Indeed, the Conservative Party amendment had two components of its three that we could have supported. I won't dwell on the tourism tax either, as Nick Ramsay didn't, simply to say that there is no proposal to introduce a tax on the tourism industry. There is a debate on four potential new taxes, none of which is yet at the proposal stage. 

As Jane Hutt has said, you cannot help but notice, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up two of our four ideas over recent days. Today, he has proposed a new plastics tax and over the weekend a vacant land tax was clearly in his mind when he complained of the way in which planning permissions granted in London fail to be taken up by those who have those planning permissions, and leave the land sitting vacant rather than being brought into productive use. 

I'll take the chance to respond specifically to the point that Mark Reckless raised on the land transaction tax. I'm tempted to point out that it is lucky for Welsh taxpayers that the Government resisted his amendments during the passage of that Bill, which would have required me to have laid regulations by now before this Assembly on tax rates and bands. Simon Thomas, I can see, remembered the debate in which I said that. It would give a false sense of certainty to people in Wales if I were to bring those regulations in front of this Assembly before I had an opportunity to consider the impact on the rates and bands I proposed of any changes made in the Chancellor's budget. Because those regulations are not in front of the Assembly, I now have an opportunity to consider the changes that have been announced today, and I certainly will do that. And the regulations that I will bring forward will be regulations constructed in the light of the full facts.  

Will the Member give way? 

Yes. 

He talks about not engendering uncertainty, but those first-time buyers, particularly in the higher value areas, who may be rushing in because they fear he's going to increase their tax rate next April, as he said before—would they be wise to do that or should they hold off?  

Let me at least reassure them of this: they will not be knocked over in the rush, because the number of first-time buyers in Wales who are buying houses worth £300,000 means that it would be perfectly possible to form an orderly queue in order to get the advice that the Member is looking for. And I will do my best to resolve the uncertainty created by the Chancellor today by coming forward with proposals that I will be able to reflect on in the light of today's announcements. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I've before in front of the Assembly set out the way in which this Government wants to go about its tax responsibilities, not in the old way of producing conjuring tricks out of hats, as we've heard this afternoon, but in a way that is open, that is engaged and that encourages members of the public to be part of this consideration. In July, we voted unanimously in favour of an approach that was based on that way of doing things. I hope that we'll be able to reaffirm our commitment to this new way of exercising our fiscal responsibilities in Wales again this afternoon.     

Thank you very much. I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to follow the finance Minister. I always enjoy his donnish humour—and his reference to A.J.P. Taylor, a great historian. A.J.P. Taylor was fearless in championing unpopular people and unpopular causes, so I'm sure he would have been more sympathetic to me than the finance Secretary. His books contain many great truths; I remember once he said, when asked what the future was going to be, that historians have difficulty enough in predicting the past, let alone predicting the future. That's something that the finance Secretary, of course, will have to do in respect of the effects of the UK budget and the changes that he might make in consequence, if any. 

But it was an interesting point that Mark Reckless made, and it's an interesting illustration of the possibility of tax competition within the United Kingdom, which should, in my view, have a depressing effect upon tax rates. And I think the other point that Mark Reckless made that is worth remembering is the Lawson dictum that we should concentrate upon broadening the tax base and then reducing tax rates. The experience of the 1980s certainly was one of massive increases in public revenues on the one hand whilst we had substantial reductions in the rates of taxes, particularly personal taxation. So, the great boom at the end of the 1980s, which was wrecked by the exchange rate mechanism, of course, was entirely the result, in my opinion—[Interruption.]—entirely, in my opinion, as a result of the tax reductions in the Howe and Lawson budgets in the 1980s. If only Nigel Lawson had not got fixated upon Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the Government's economic policy of that time would not have been undermined.

We've had an interesting debate. Nick Ramsay took me to task for the colourful language of the motion, but I recall that Steffan Lewis not so long ago wrote an article in a newspaper saying about how the Senedd was rather too boring, so I think he ought, actually, to applaud my colourful language in the motion today. Just to go back to Nick Ramsay's speech as well, I didn't say that I accepted the Conservative amendments; I did say that I agreed with them. Acceptance and agreement are two totally different things, of course.

But there is a broad agreement around the Assembly on devolution of taxes. I'm, personally, as I've said before, strongly in favour of them. Of course, we do have the opportunity to experiment—I'm not against experimentation per se. What I'm against experimenting with are taxes that are likely to do damage to the Welsh economy and the prosperity of our nation. So, it's the nature of the use that is made of the freedoms that we now have, and which I hope are going to be extended in due course, that is the essence of this debate.

Mike Hedges made some interesting points in his speech with which I couldn't disagree. Of course, if we want quality public services, we have to pay for them, but you can design a tax system that is going to maximise the public revenues on the one hand or minimise them on the other, and what we need is a tax system that is going to do that. Of course, we're not talking about privatising the health service or education, and therefore they will have to be funded by taxation in some shape or form. But if you look at the history of taxation in Britain since the war, in spite of massive differences in tax policies under successive Governments, the tax take as a proportion of GDP has remained remarkably constant at around 35 per cent, even in the years of high-taxing Labour Governments and relatively low-taxing Tory Governments. That should tell us something—that if we are to succeed in future in making the country more prosperous then we should go for simpler taxes and lower taxes.

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will now proceed to voting time. Okay, thank you.

We turn to the vote on the Welsh Conservative debate on support for the armed forces. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the proposal is not agreed, we'll vote on the amendments tabled to that motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 15, 32 against, no abstentions. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 47, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 47, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 47, none against, no abstentions. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 47, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to vote on the UKIP debate on new Welsh taxes. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Again, if the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, five, no abstentions and 42 against. Therefore, that motion is not agreed.

We'll now move to vote on the amendments. 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 Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, eight, no abstentions and 39 against. Therefore, that amendment is not agreed.

We move to vote on amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 is deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, eight abstentions and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, 42, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion, 42, no abstentions and five against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to the first of the short debates this afternoon. If you're leaving the Chamber, please do so quietly and quickly. If you're leaving the Chamber, please do so. If not, please sit down. I now move to the short debate and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to speak on the topic he has chosen. Llyr.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss today an issue that needs to be addressed urgently, in my view, that being the safeguarding response to children who go missing or who are at risk of going missing. I look forward, also, to hearing contributions from Dawn Bowden and David Melding in this debate this afternoon.

Now, it's a timely issue to discuss, because the current all-Wales protocol for missing children is being revised as part of updating the all-Wales child protection procedures. This revision, clearly, is welcome, but it is important that, in revising the protocol, expertise is drawn from a range of voices to inform how we can better safeguard children who go missing from home or from care.

Two voices I would like to commend to the Minister are the Children's Society and the Church in Wales, who, earlier this year, wrote a report called 'The Knowledge Gap', examining the safeguarding response to missing children in Wales. Now, the report includes some tangible and achievable recommendations that, if implemented, would help improve our safeguarding response to these children.

Many people may be surprised at the scale of missing children in Wales, which, last year, saw around 4,500 children and young people going missing from home or care. And these children went missing more than 11,000 times collectively. In the police force area that covers my own region in north Wales, over 700 children went missing almost 1,500 times during 2015-16.

Now, there are many reasons why children are, or feel forced to go, missing. A child may face a range of hardships at home, such as neglect, abuse or domestic violence. A child in care may be unhappy with his or her placement or may be placed into care outside of his or her local area, removing access to support networks and often causing them to go missing to the place they know as home. Children from home or care could also be groomed and exploited by people who they thought were friends, boyfriends or girlfriends. These are just some of the push-and-pull factors that many children and young people face that drive them into a missing episode.

Unfortunately, while these children may believe that they're escaping from a source of danger or unhappiness, they are at increased risk, of course, of harm during the missing episode. Children who go missing face the risk of sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation or human trafficking, and according to the Children's Society's research, 25 per cent of children who had run away overnight had either been hurt or harmed or had slept rough or with someone they had just met or had stolen or begged to survive. Now, these children face complex risks, and we need to make sure that we have a multi-agency response that keeps these children safe.

I want to focus my comments on three areas that largely determine the response children receive when they go missing, on which there is room for improvement in the current response to missing children. To do this, I'll structure my contribution this afternoon on the safeguarding process taken when a child is reported as missing.

So, firstly, I want to turn to information sharing. When a child is first reported as missing, as first responders, of course, the police will start to look for the child and, crucially, they'll decide, on a spectrum of risk, how unsafe the child may be and determine, therefore, their response accordingly. Now, to increase the chances of finding the child and keeping them safe, the police need information about where the child could be and whom he or she might be with. Without a complete picture of the risks these children face, drawn from a range of agencies, police officers will be unable to adequately assess the risks faced by children, leaving those children, of course, in danger. This is especially the case with children who are at risk of exploitation or trafficking.

The most effective way of having a robust risk assessment for these children is through multi-agency working. This involves members from police, health, education, children's services and the third sector all sharing information to build a holistic profile of a child at risk of going missing and to use that information to provide a child with appropriate support to prevent him or her from going missing repeatedly. Now, the Gwent multi-agency missing team exemplified the effectiveness of this, with missing incidents in the area decreasing by over 30 per cent since its inception, and I know we'll be hearing more about that later on in this debate.

However, findings from the Children's Society and the Church in Wales's joint report show that, of the local authorities who have provided information, 12 said that they don't share risk assessments with police and don't have a multi-agency partnership in place to allow agencies to share information. Now, this makes the police's task of trying to find the child more difficult and, therefore, could put a child who is known to be at risk in even more danger. There has to be a way for agencies across Wales to be able to share information with each other. Not only does doing so potentially protect a child from risks and, in extreme cases, save a child's life, but it can also enable agencies to better target their resources, thereby, of course, realising savings in the medium to longer term.

The UK Government has announced the creation of a new national missing persons database that will enable police forces to track missing children across boundaries. As children and, indeed, adults who go missing or face risks don't respect administrative boundaries, well, we need to ensure that these boundaries don't prevent close working and sharing information to keep those children safe. One way in which we can move forward with this in Wales is that local authorities, the all-Wales heads of children's services and police forces in Wales should agree a procedure whereby local authorities can place a marker on police systems identifying the risks to children so that the police have a clear understanding of the risks facing children when they go missing and then they can respond accordingly. This will help the police understand the risks to children when they go missing and help keep them safe.

Secondly, I want to turn to another vital part of the puzzle in keeping children safe. When a child is found or returns from a missing episode, he or she should be offered a debrief, which can also be called a return home interview. Now, a debrief gives a child an opportunity to talk about the missing episode, which can involve discussing where the child was during the episode and whom he or she was with. Debriefs also allow practitioners to understand the reasons why a child may have gone missing.

Although debriefs, by themselves, can't stop children from going missing repeatedly, they can be an effective safeguarding tool that can help to provide a child with support that could help prevent them from going missing again. If the interview provider is independent of statutory services, as they should be, a child may find it easier to trust the interview provider and the process, and, therefore, this introduces the child to a person in whom he or she could confide, instead of going missing in future. However, under the current all-Wales protocol for missing children, offering missing children a debrief is not a statutory requirement, whereas it is a legal duty in England. 'The Knowledge Gap' report illustrates the consequences of this lack of legal requirement. The report shows that four out of the 13 local authorities who provided information provide debriefs on a case-by-case basis, meaning that children who go missing aren't guaranteed an opportunity to talk about their experience and given support to, potentially, prevent them from going missing repeatedly. In north Wales, I know the situation has become urgent. Since the police innovation fund, which paid for debrief provision in north Wales, was discontinued by the UK Government, it's alarming that the average number of debriefs provided per quarter has decreased dramatically. So, to help address this, revising the all-Wales protocol for missing children provides us with a vital opportunity to make offering debriefs a statutory requirement across Wales, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on this recommendation in particular, later on.

Finally, I wanted to turn to a group of children who are particularly at risk of going missing and therefore need a particular response. Now, these are children who are in care of the local authority but are placed in another authority area, known, of course, as children placed out of area. In some cases, looked-after children may need to be placed out of their home local authority area to safeguard them from risks identified in their home area. In 2015-16, around 1,500 children in Wales lived in placements outside of their local authority area. Now, this equates to around 27 per cent of all looked-after children in Wales. And it's now known that children who are placed out of their local authority areas are more likely to go missing—one of the key reasons for this being that, of course, they may try to return to any support networks they may have back in their home area. If a child who is placed out of area has had previous experiences of going missing, then this should be noted in any risk assessments that are passed on from the local authority placing the child to the local authority who is receiving the child into their care. This information should also be shared with the receiving police force, who may be the first statutory agency to pick up the child when they first go missing. 

Unfortunately, research from the Children's Society and the Church in Wales shows that 13 out of the 14 local authorities who responded to this question don't provide police forces with risk assessments of children placed in their areas, stating that it would be the responsibility of the placing local authority to do so. However, that is contradicted by the fact that only five out of the same 13 local authorities stated that they themselves shared a risk assessment with the police when they placed a child in a different area. So, it's clear that the police are vital. They're a vital agency in protecting children who go missing and should be informed when a child, and a child at high risk of going missing by the nature of their placement, is placed in their area. And I would echo the Children's Society and the Church in Wales's recommendation that this becomes a statutory requirement for local authorities to notify and share a risk assessment with the receiving police force when they place a child in their area.

Llywydd, I hope that you agree that this issue is urgent and timely. Revising the all-Wales protocol for missing children is an opportunity to put right the issues raised in this debate and endeavour to provide effective safeguarding support for all children in Wales who go missing. Good work is happening in Wales to safeguard missing children, and it's an endeavour we share, I'm sure, across parties, to keep improving our response to these vulnerable children and young people. We now have the opportunity to spread this good work across the country, and I would urge the Government, in response to this debate, to take action. Diolch. 

Can I thank Llyr for the opportunity of making a short contribution on this very important issue? I'm grateful to him for making reference in his speech to the work of the Gwent missing children's hub, which covers the Rhymney side of my constituency. I hope that my contribution can highlight, just in a little more detail, some of the useful work taking place there. I'd certainly urge Members from other parts of Wales who are taking a keen interest in this matter to visit the Gwent project, because it operates pretty much in line with the way that Llyr has set out as being necessary to reduce the risk. It brings together a range of partners in one hub that gives the clear benefit of the close working relationships that can act quickly and, most vitally, act together when reports of missing children are received.

As Llyr has already said, missing children reports are often received by the police as the initial emergency call, but experience shows that other partners may well be involved in the case of a missing child. Partners find that, by pooling their knowledge and expertise, then solutions can be found. The hub has also allowed more work to develop in response to child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Importantly, the hub allows for follow-up and support work to young people and their families, where appropriate. There was an evaluation report on the project just last year, which pointed to the— 

Can you wind this up, please?

—lessons learned up until that point in time. But as the Gwent hub is the only one of its type in Wales, and has shown some proved benefits in dealing with missing children and the wider issues associated with this, now would seem an appropriate time for other Welsh police forces and agencies to consider this model to help tackle many of the issues that Llyr has raised.

Can I commend Llyr for bringing forward this very important short debate? Like him, I think 'The Knowledge Gap' is a really important report, and I want to put on record my thanks to the Children's Society and the Church in Wales. I was delighted to be able to host and chair the launch of the report, actually, in the Senedd.

Can I say to Dawn that she makes really important points about the excellent practice in Gwent? South Wales Police are also developing really good practice, especially on the collecting of data and the need for joint working and looking at issues like policy on restraint. A lot of children go missing, and they're known about because the staff that could have intervened feel they cannot restrain. So, there are lots of layers to this problem that need careful thought. But I do commend the work of the police in this area.

Can I say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the work of Carl Sargeant was really important? The leadership he gave on missing children was outstanding, and indeed he, after hearing the presentation by South Wales Police, asked for the ministerial group on outcomes for children to receive that presentation and have a full discussion, to which Gwent Police also came along. It was really, really important. These are highly vulnerable children, as we have heard, and there are now some very practical ways in which we could improve practice in this area, but it is something that needs vigilance and quick action, I think, because the outcomes for some of these children, when they're away from where they should be, in terms of their exploitation, criminally or whatever—it's a really, really critical area that needs attention. Thank you.

I call the Minister for Children and Social Care to reply to the debate—Huw Irranca Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just begin by thanking Llyr for bringing forward this debate today, and also for outlining the challenges ahead, as well as some of the good work that is going on, and putting it forward with calmness and consideration, but also with passion for actually meeting these challenges and seeking improvements within this field? And equally the points raised by my colleagues: Dawn Bowden referring to the good work on a multi-agency basis on the ground in Gwent already, and what lessons we can learn from that, which I'll turn back to in a moment; and also David Melding, who, of course, as colleagues will know, chairs the ministerial advisory group on the outcomes of children. This is an area that I know that that advisory group are looking at as well, to bring forward the improvements that have been referred to. So, can I thank them all for bringing this debate to this Chamber here today?

Let me touch on some of the issues. I'm going to go through in detail as well some of the ways that we think are the ways forward. I am, as David Melding has referred to, stepping into some quite big boots here, after the leadership of Carl Sargeant within this area.

Well, first of all, as we know, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 came into force last year. At the heart of this Act is working with people to achieve what matters to them—better use of preventative services. This will have more of an impact on a person's life chances, and it allows us to use those resources to help more people. I'm very aware, as Members are, that every missing episode carries with it the potential for a child to come to serious harm in a number of ways. The reasons for why children go missing are varied, they're complex, they're unique to each situation and each individual child, but we know, when a child goes missing, they may be exposed to a range of emotional, physical and sexual risks as well. So, it is very important that agencies work together, when a child goes missing, to share information and to provide a rapid response so that the child can first be located and made safe as soon as possible.

The way in which we respond to children following a missing episode is also very important. We need a proportionate approach, and an approach that is focused on the child, in each incident when a child goes missing, which considers their individual needs and whether there are well-being, care, support, child protection issues that need to be addressed. I’m pleased to say that my officials, under the leadership of my predecessor, Carl Sargeant, have been involved in a period of very active engagement with front-line service providers who work with children who go missing. The work has helped us better understand the real issues on the ground, to ensure that our policy response is a really informed one that fully understands the landscape as it currently exists in Wales, and what we can do better. So, I have agreed to fund work to gather the views of children themselves—that is critical—so that their experience and their opinions about the decisions that are made about them inform the policies we now develop to keep them safe.

The Welsh Government has also provided funding to the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Regional Safeguarding Children Board to review and develop national protection procedures for Wales on behalf of ADSS Cymru, and in consultation with regional safeguarding boards. The Welsh Government is also supporting this through the facilitation of work with multi-agency groups to develop national practice guidance on specific safeguarding issues, to be used in conjunction with the national protection procedures. This important piece of work is expected to be fully complete by December 2018. It’s ongoing now; now is the time to feed in the ideas.

At the heart of this work is my commitment to move away from a process-driven approach to safeguarding and ticking boxes to a clear person-centred approach in line with the intent of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. So, a multi-agency task and finish group has been established, under the ministerial advisory group of improving outcomes for children, to consider such an approach in relation to children missing from home or care. This group is developing national practice guidance, to be used in conjunction with the national protection procedures. The national practice guidance on children missing from home or care will support a consistent and proportionate approach to every child who goes missing in Wales, and this will include arrangements for every child to have their need for information, advice and assistance considered in a proportionate way that also promotes their well-being.

Now, some children and their families will benefit from information and advice about preventative services. Some children may need to have their care and support needs assessed, and some children will also need a wrap-around child-protection plan. Those with existing plans may need these reviewed after an episode of going missing. This specific issue of going missing, we can agree, has to be addressed through a multi-agency strategy meeting, where required, that will inform a child-centred assessment, planning or review response, dependent on the well-being and safeguarding needs of that individual child. I’m aware, as the Member has said, that he is a signatory to a letter from the Children’s Society, which raises a number of issues relating to missing children that I’d like to address. By the way, I’m happy to meet as well and to discuss it.

On the issue of proactive data sharing with the police, I’m pleased to say that South Wales Police, as David Melding has already mentioned, are providing dedicated time, working in consultation with the other three forces in Wales, to develop a process for the recording and sharing of information needed for the police to risk-assess individual children in care, should they go missing. This will be considered as part of the work of practice guidance on children missing from home or care. I can give you that assurance.    

Will you take an intervention?

Indeed I will give way.

I did a whole report on this myself in 2013, and there were protocols put in place in 2011. I was at the launch of the Gwent project, and here we are, where it is only a project. How quickly can other children, like the children in my area, expect to see the services that, in my opinion, they rightly deserve, and that those authorities who were told in 2011 to work together start doing so?

My friend is absolutely right. I think there has been acknowledgement here in the Chamber today of the good work that is going on, but it is not universal. That is the issue that the ministerial advisory group are looking at. This report is a welcome contribution to that. But it is true that we know, actually, what works, and we can see it working, and we funded much of that. We now need to see it rolled out much better, and I'll turn to some of the other issues. But, you're right, and I commend my friend Joyce on the commitment she's shown to this, pushing this agenda forward over several years.

 On the issue of the statutory duty, if I can turn to that, to provide debrief interviews to missing children equivalent to the existing provisions in England—by the way, the approach in England is very different. It's noticeably different. England don't have national procedures, as we do, and that necessitates they have to have individual protocols. There are no national procedures. We're actually ahead of the game here, and it is acknowledged. 

But on that issue, I remain concerned that this in and of itself as a focus may not improve safeguarding responses to individual children, and in fact, if I can draw Llyr's attention to a Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary report published just last year, it suggested that the implementation of the statutory duty in England is inconsistent, and that—and I'll quote briefly—

'while there are many examples of positive practice and initiatives through multi-agency working'

—in England, this is, by the way—

'we have found no evidence that the police service and the other organisations with responsibilities for the welfare of children understand the outcomes this achieves for children, or use this understanding to inform their planning and operational practice'. 

We have to be an intelligent intervention and make it work for the outcomes, not simply tick the box, 'We've done it', debrief done, and so on. The criticism is there. Now, there is good evidence, by the way, that in some parts it is working. I think the report refers to Worcester and elsewhere. But there's also evidence it's very variable, and it's the ability there to say, 'We've done it. Good. Done'. 

I firmly believe that a multi-agency child-centred approach based on individual needs within the operation of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, supported here in this Assembly, offers a much more robust and child-centred safeguarding response. You will also be aware, and it's been mentioned in the Chamber today, of existing good practice in Wales, through services, as Dawn mentioned, such as the Gwent missing project, and, as David mentioned, the south Wales independent child advocacy missing service, which provide debrief services and ongoing support. We know there's good practice out there. It provides advocacy and they provide referral to ensure that those children at the greatest risk have strong safety plans in place. 

On the issue of looked-after children going missing from out-of-area placements, the ministerial advisory group on improving outcomes for children includes a work programme looking specifically at residential care, including out-of-area placement. This includes work on notifications, placement planning and placement choice. This work programme is well advanced, and resources have been made available from central Government for research and scoping work to inform a way forward, and we will ensure, by the way, that the Children's Society report is taken into account as that work is developed.

I'm not sure if I responded to my friend when she was asking about the timetable, but, as I made clear in my earlier remarks, by 2018 we hope to have the outcomes for all of this work so we can then say, 'This is the way to proceed'.

So, I would like to thank the Children's Society for their report and the contribution that it makes to informing the evidence that it provides as part of this strategic approach to improving the real outcomes of all children in Wales. I'm sure that Members will agree that the breadth of actions that we've heard from today that this Government, with partners on the ground, has put in place, will help both children but also the professionals who work tirelessly to support them to achieve their outcomes. I would like to thank once again all the Members—Llyr and all others who've contributed to this—and I think it's notable to see how many Members are here at the close of play today to hear this debate, how important this is, and how, actually, we can do things differently and better in Wales, and we need to drive this good practice right out across the land. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much. 

We move to the second short debate this afternoon, and I call on Neil Hamilton to speak on the topic he has chosen. Neil.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure for being here at the end of this day—fortunately, it's not too late in the day, on account of the business that we've already dispatched. But this is an important issue, obviously. Exports do matter greatly to Wales, and exports to the EU matter proportionately to a greater extent in Wales than other parts of the United Kingdom. The value of Welsh exports was £12.3 billion in 2016, and two thirds of that £12 billion were exported to the EU. So, of course the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU is of vital importance to the health of the Welsh economy.

I'm afraid that I think the Government takes far too gloomy a view of the prospects for Wales post Brexit. Whereas they see threats and dangers, I see opportunities. Of course, any change is bound to affect different industries in different ways and, after 40-odd years inside the EU, the process of transition is going to be a challenge for some industries, and that can't be denied. But I do think that, on balance, this is going to be good for the United Kingdom. And what's good for the United Kingdom generally will be good for Wales, although we must obviously ensure that those who have a more difficult time in coping with the process of transition are helped to do so.  

But, project fear is still alive and well in many parts of the country and many industries. All these fears hitherto that have been adumbrated have proved to be utterly false. We're now 18 months beyond the Brexit referendum and the cliff edge that we were supposed to fall off is still there and we haven't fallen over it. Agriculture has some particular problems to face if we don't do a deal with the EU on free trade, but even the NFU has said in the last few weeks,

'There can be no doubt that while Brexit has resulted in one of the biggest challenges to face our industry in generations, we must embrace the opportunity presented to us to further develop and grow our world-class Welsh agricultural industry. The Union firmly believes that we can make a success of Brexit if our collective focus is centred on supporting our industry to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population with safe, quality, affordable food, alongside maintaining and enhancing our cherished environment and meeting our climate change obligations.'

So, the NFU are embracing the opportunity of Brexit, and I invite the Welsh Government to follow their example. The referendum has happened, we are leaving the EU, we have to get on with the job. Doom and gloom predictions, at this stage, benefit nobody; they only strengthen the arm of the EU in negotiations with the UK Government, which nobody in his right mind in the UK would want.

In the last few days, we've had another interesting reversal of project fear, because Siemens, Europe’s biggest manufacturing industry, which employs 15,000 people in the UK, has reversed its position on Brexit. Only two years ago, Joe Kaeser, the chief executive of Siemens said,

'Brexit would disrupt the economy in the short-term and we believe that uncertainty about the UK's future relationship with the EU could have more significant and negative long-term effects'

which

'could make the UK a less attractive place to do business and may become a factor when Siemens is considering future investment here.'

Well, only a few days ago, Siemens announced the cutting of 3,000 jobs in Germany and 1,000 more across Europe and the cutting of 2,000 jobs in the United States, but at the same time they announced a €39 million investment in Britain to expand its largest UK plant, in Lincoln, which employs 1,500 people.

So, it's not all doom and gloom. Far from it. Michael Bloomberg, who's another massive remainer, although an American, also was in London only a few weeks ago to open a new European headquarters for Bloomberg in the City, which is 3.2 acres in size—it's an absolutely massive development.

'We are opening a brand new European headquarters in London—two big, expensive buildings. Would I have done it if I knew they were going to drop out? I’ve had some thoughts that maybe...but...we are going to be very happy.'

He says,

'Whatever London and the UK’s relationship to the EU proves to be, London’s language, timezone, talent, infrastructure and culture all position it to grow as a global capital for years to come. We are very optimistic about London’s future and we are really excited to be a part of it.'

So, although Wales is not big in financial services, the ripple effects of the financial services industry in London will percolate out to the rest of the country.

And obviously, amongst those who were pro Brexit, like Sir James Dyson, you would expect them to be optimistic about the future. He’s a massive manufacturing business who trades worldwide. He is making huge investments not that far from Cardiff—60 miles away, on the Wiltshire-Gloucestershire border—he's investing up to £3 billion in a new technology park to develop electric vehicles, fundamentally, and technology in which Britain leads the world. I just wish that he had moved slightly further west—as I have done, leading the way—to Wales, to put that manufacturing and research facility nearer to Cardiff. He says,

'There's always uncertainty in business, about exchange rates, conditions in markets, natural disasters...I think uncertainty is an opportunity, and the opportunity here is actually that the rest of the world is growing at a far greater rate than Europe, so the opportunity is to export to the rest of the world and to capitalise on that.'

So, I think there's every reason to think that the Welsh economy is going to benefit in the medium and longer term—and even in the short term—from Brexit. We have had one of the most ridiculous statements that I've seen from project fear in the last couple of years in relation to the chief executive of Aston Martin recently, who was predicting that car production would come to a complete halt at Aston Martin if we didn't do a deal with the EU. That was based upon a prediction that there might not be type approval for cars made in Britain in the EU and vice versa. Well, Aston Martin exported 600 cars to the EU last year, and if they couldn't sell their cars into Germany at £160,000 a time, the Germans would not be able to sell their 820,000 cars a year to Britain, which is 14 per cent of their entire manufacturing of passenger cars. Eighteen per cent of German passenger car exports come to Britain. Somehow or other, I don't think that this is going to come about. And so, we need to look at the realities here: the impact of the kind of predictions such as we had from Aston Martin would be so great and disastrous—even to a powerful economy the size of Germany—that it's inconceivable that this would be allowed to happen, particularly now that Chancellor Merkel has some more pressing problems at home trying to form a Government: something which has not obtained in Germany since the years of the Weimar Republic. So, things are very much changing. There are uncertainties in Germany as well as there are in Britain, and we should reflect upon that as being just a fact of life.

Now, obviously, agriculture is very important to Wales, and I want to spend a couple of minutes just talking about that because there are particular sectors of agriculture for which Brexit will be a challenge, because even if we do manage to do a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, there may be certain wrinkles in relation to agricultural products because of the protectionist nature of the common agricultural policy. This is something that we can't shy away from, and I've never denied that, particularly for exports of lamb, this is going to be a big challenge for us, but we've got to see this in perspective, you know? The market for these products is relatively small compared with the total market—. You know, we're talking about £120 million a year exports of sheep meat from Wales: £120 million is peanuts in the context of the economy of Wales and the United Kingdom. If there are temporary and transitional problems in the export of lamb, then we will have the resources to deal with them because of the £8 billion a year net contribution that we make to the EU that we will no longer be paying, and there is also, of course, the massive opportunity with import substitution: we're only 66 per cent self-sufficient in the production of lamb. So, a third of the market for lamb currently, a lot of it comes from New Zealand, true, but a lot of it comes from elsewhere as well. In relation to beef, we're only two thirds self-sufficient again. Imports of pork, we're only 40 per cent self-sufficient; and poultry, we're 73 per cent self-sufficient. So, there's a big home market that we've got, which we can continue to develop to take up whatever we can't export to the EU.

It's not a zero-sum game here: there are opportunities for us as well as the problems. And for European agriculture, of course, it's going to create massive difficulties as well, because we're—. And particularly in certain products, I mean, I don't think Danish farmers are going to be too keen to find that they can't any longer sell us pork and bacon, for example. And goodness knows what kind of deal we'll be able to do with the Irish Republic under the current intransigent attitude of Monsieur Barnier, but it's of massive importance to the Irish economy that we have some kind of a deal that frees up trade between us in agricultural products, because, overwhelmingly, the imports to this country of beef and dairy products come from the Irish Republic, and agriculture's a much, much higher proportion of the value of the Irish economy than it is of the British and even the Welsh economy.

So, I think that there is plenty of scope for us to be optimistic, but the Welsh Government, of course, has to play its part in this as well, and it should want to play a positive part in the development of future trade links. I know that the Cabinet Secretary goes frequently on trade missions around the world, and he will know that the rest of the world, which is 85 per cent or more of the global economy outside the EU, is a massive opportunity for Wales. But, we need to have the legislative infrastructure and the tax infrastructure, which we were debating earlier on this afternoon, that is going to maximise those opportunities.

If we use the new freedoms that we'll get by the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Cardiff, as well as from Brussels to Westminster—we'll obviously have control of agricultural policy here in Cardiff and environmental policy as well—we can revisit much of the legislation that has been imposed upon us in the last 40 years, which was never debated in any parliamentary institution. I was both a member of the Council of Ministers in the EU and also a Minister in the UK Government at Westminster, and I was a Member of Parliament for many years, presented with statutory instruments imposing regulations upon us, which we could debate but couldn't amend and certainly couldn't vote down. So, much of this legislation has never actually had any formal legislative scrutiny.

There must be scope, particularly where legislation has been on the statute book for such a long time unamended, for us to tweak the details in a way that will, without prejudicing the interests of the public and protection of the environment, et cetera, enable us to make life easier for small businesses in particular, which are very important in Wales, especially in agriculture, where the bulk of self-employment in Wales is in rural areas. It must give us the opportunity, I think, to make life easier, cheaper, and therefore to make these businesses more efficient and better able to cope with the challenges that are to come.

So, I say to the Welsh Government: let's embrace the future; let us rise to the challenge, but do it in an optimistic way. We created a great empire around the world in the nineteenth century, and we were the workshop of the world. Britain has been a fount of innovation and still is. If you look at the number of Nobel prizes that we've won, there are more Nobel prize winners in the common room of Trinity College Cambridge than in the whole of France. So, we are, as a nation, inventive, innovative and enterprising, and so I invite the Welsh Government to play its part in ensuring that Wales has a prosperous future.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to have the chance to respond to this short debate and I'd like to thank Neil Hamilton for his contribution and to members of UKIP for remaining in the Chamber.

I've greatly valued the opportunity to listen to the Member outlining his optimistic vision of a post-Brexit Wales and a post-Brexit UK, but it's still our view that having full and unfettered access to the EU's single market for not only goods and services, but also capital, is a top priority in order to protect jobs and the Welsh economy, because it's vital that businesses in Wales are not disadvantaged through unnecessary tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade.

The prevailing economic analysis from most reliable independent commentators continues to be in line with the analysis contained within our White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future'. We've also commissioned, though, Cardiff Business School to undertake research to extend our analysis, drawing on discussions with businesses from a range of sectors. The report considers the potential impacts of both World Trade Organization tariff and non-tariff barriers across 17 sectors, along with other risk factors, such as the susceptibility of different sectors to labour market risks and corporate investment cycles. And the findings of this work bring a Wales perspective to the range of reports and analysis currently being produced on EU exit. It also, I think, contains useful information that aligns well with reports produced by stakeholders, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses. 

We'll be publishing this work as soon as possible. Part of the task that we gave Cardiff Business School was to look at the opportunities, but I have to say that many businesses that we are speaking to have been finding it difficult to articulate what those opportunities might be. Businesses are often too busy focusing on how they can best manage the changes to come and how to plan in this continued period of deep uncertainty, with many telling us that they are currently forced to plan based on the worst-case scenario.

Much of the future deal, of course, is still unclear, and this presents us with some challenges when it comes to identifying the opportunities and being able to communicate them to businesses. The UK Government, unfortunately, has not yet shared with the Welsh Government the supposed set of 58 sectoral impact studies, and neither has it shared with us a post-referendum overall economic assessment of the impact of Brexit on Wales. We’ll continue to press for any relevant analysis to be shared with us.

We do continue to engage with businesses on EU transition through our established mechanisms, such as the council for economic development, and EU transition is a standing item on the agenda for the council. We’ve also established a sub-group concerned with this very subject. While we await further information from the UK Government on what the future deal might look like, we continue to engage extensively, not only with businesses throughout Wales, but with key organisations that will be incredibly important to future trading relationships, and one of those organisations, of course, is the World Trade Organization.

I visited the WTO at the end of October with the specific intention of building relationships between Wales and the organisation. As the UK leaves the EU, it’s essential that we can represent Welsh interests at the WTO level. The WTO is an extremely important trade organisation that facilitates trade relationships between countries, as well as providing a set of trade rules for countries to abide by and a place for them to settle trade disputes. The UK will need to re-establish itself as an independent member of the WTO when we leave the EU, so it’s absolutely vital that Welsh interests are considered as part of the process of leaving the EU and becoming a member in its own right again of the WTO.

In the absence of clear facts on the Brexit deal, I do believe that it’s important to focus some of our efforts on providing SMEs with advice on how to access support and how to begin to prepare for some of the changes, whether they be challenges or threats, that may lie ahead. So we’re looking at delivering a Brexit portal for businesses. This would provide SMEs with a digital diagnostic that will signpost access to support in key areas, and the actions that SMEs can take to mitigate the risk and to maximise the opportunity, wherever they may be. The diagnostic would be updated as further information becomes available.

Promoting Wales’s place in a globally competitive world is also at the core of our international strategy. We will aim to protect our share of European trade during the Brexit negotiations, and indeed beyond, while supporting businesses looking to enter new and expanding markets around the world. We are a world-facing country, and as we prepare for a future outside the European Union it’s more important than ever before to sell Wales to the world, and to meet with potential investors right around the globe. We embrace the world and its horizons, and when new trade opportunities open up, we will work with businesses to help our economy prosper.

The UK Government launched its trade White Paper preparing for our future UK trade policy document in October, and has since published the trade Bill and the taxation Bill this month. But at this stage of the EU-UK negotiations it’s still unclear whether the Welsh Government’s priority of maintaining full and unfettered access to the EU single market is fully compatible with the UK Government’s desire for an independent trade policy and the creation of new free trade agreements across the globe.

We are particularly concerned that an independent trade policy in all likelihood would mean leaving the customs union with the EU, and this would likely lead to trade barriers at the border, and issues with the border in Northern Ireland. So, we’ll continue to push the UK Government on these points. In addition, a soft border in Northern Ireland, as we all know, could create issues for Welsh ports as there may well be an incentive to route goods through Northern Ireland.

We're not convinced that leaving the customs union with the EU would be of benefit to Wales—at least not in the short term—and yet we are yet to see any evidence from the UK Government to suggest otherwise. More than 60 per cent of identifiable goods from Wales go to the EU, and that level of trade would not be easy to replace. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, our position is that trade with new markets should be in addition to trade with the EU and not an alternative. We continue to be clear, above all, that a 'no deal' scenario would not be acceptable to us. 

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