National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

I have accepted an emergency question under Standing Order 12.67, and I call on Mick Antoniw to ask the emergency question. Mick Antoniw. 

Well, we can't allow different parts of the UK to be more favourably treated than others. If one part of the UK is granted continued participation in the single market and customs union, then we fully expect to be made the same offer. Things seem to have moved on though. Where the UK Government was clearly looking to do a deal with the EU yesterday, that deal was torpedoed by the DUP, which asks the question why it is that a small party in Northern Ireland has the ability to have a veto over what is good for the UK in terms of negotiations with the EU. My colleague from behind says, 'That is not strong and stable'. I agree entirely with him. But, really, the question is this: is the Prime Minister really in charge of the UK, or is the UK in the charge of 10 MPs from Northern Ireland?

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. You , like me, might have been under the misapprehension that we were living in a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament was there to represent all the interests of all the parts of the United Kingdom, and we now find, First Minister, that it is apparently being run and dictated to by just 10 people, who have strong right-wing and homophobic views, historic links to terrorism, and who are opposed even to the majority decision of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of the European Union. So, when the people of Wales were encouraged to leave the European Union because it would make Parliament sovereign again, do you think this is what they had in mind?

'No' is the answer. I don't think they had in mind a scenario where, first of all, the UK Government could be shaken down for £1.67 billion, and, secondly, the UK Government was not able to negotiate with the European Union because of a veto held by a small number of Members of Parliament. I don't think that's at all what people had in mind when they voted last year. 

Clearly, as successive Welsh Governments know, working in coalitions, which you are a de facto head of, and we've had two previous Governments in coalition, that is the reality of coalition government. But, last night, the Taoiseach said, 'We don't want a border in the Irish sea.' At lunchtime today, David Davis stated in the House of Commons that they are now close to concluding the first phase of negotiations, bringing forward trade negotiations, and the Government does not want a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK Government recognises the integrity of the EU single market but also of UK borders, and that they will not be treating any part of the UK differently. He also noted that Labour Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has said that staying in the single market would be interpreted as not respecting the referendum. 

Noting, therefore, that, last week, Bertie Ahern, the former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, stated that technology would be a partial solution to managing movements across the Irish border after Brexit, and the number of times you've raised this disparagingly, what research has your Government actually undertaken on the technologies being applied in many parts of the world that are managing goods and transporting across borders on precisely this basis?

I'm not sure it's our responsibility to do that, quite frankly, and the UK Government has said consistently that it's exploring the technology. In other words, it has no idea what technology might be used. Can I say to the Member that there is one example of an entity that is outside the customs union having a border with an entity within the customs union, and that is Gibraltar, and that border is very, very hard. It's far from being a soft border. Really, he seemed to be reading out a statement they should have delivered yesterday afternoon, and that is that the UK Government is close to a deal with the EU. Well, that clearly isn't the case after we saw the collapse of the negotiations last night. I'm surprised to hear that the DUP are actually in a coalition with the Conservative Government. I wasn't aware that they were actually in a coalition and had Ministers in a coalition.

But isn't the point this: that the UK Government has a responsibility to secure a deal that is good for the whole of the UK? It was quite clear yesterday—quite clear yesterday—that they were looking to arrange a special deal or special status for Northern Ireland. That was where the UK Government was yesterday lunchtime. Arlene Foster picks up the phone and says 'Theresa, sorry, we're not going to allow you to do this' and Theresa May then capitulates. Is there not a danger here that the whole of the UK and its interests will be made subject to the views of the largest party in Northern Ireland—true—but not a party that represents the majority of people in Northern Ireland? Can the Member not see there are dangers in that?

We've seen over the past 24 hours the prospect of one part of the UK getting a unique deal, and I reiterate that we in Plaid Cymru want Wales too to be able to benefit from any kind of distinct or special arrangements that would allow us also to be in the single market and the customs union. And nobody in their right minds would want to see a hard border on Ireland—I know the First Minister agrees with me on that. But shifting the hard border eastwards is not a solution that would work for Wales, and certainly not for my constituents and the port of Holyhead.

There are very grave implications for my own constituency, and the 1,000 people working either directly or indirectly in the port of Holyhead, in seeing a hard border at Holyhead. Holyhead is the second most busy port in Britain, in terms of ferries transporting goods. Now, trade is entirely reliant on the free flow of goods, and trade will seek simpler and easier routes. There is already evidence of more direct routes being sought for ships travelling from the European continent to the port of Holyhead.

Now, we have to consider all options. We would favour remaining in the single market. What consideration is being given, if we can’t achieve that, to creating a free trade area in Holyhead, or in Anglesey as a whole, or in other port areas in Wales as a way forward? I want an assurance that this Government will be looking at all options, including that one, and can I also ask for an assurance that the fate of our ports will be now be central to the work of the Welsh Government in persuading the UK Government to demonstrate that they are giving any consideration at all to our interests as a nation, because, at the moment, I see no evidence of that at all?

Well, a great deal of what the Member has said is correct. We have said on several occasions that 70 per cent of the trade between Great Britain and the island of Ireland goes through Welsh ports, and anything that stops that, or is a barrier to that, is something that will cost Holyhead, Pembroke Dock and Fishguard a great deal in jobs and in trade. What is the answer? Well, it’s quite clear: the United Kingdom should remain within the single market and also in the customs union. So, we wouldn’t want any kind of border as regards tariffs between Britain and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is the answer. And, of course, we’ve been telling the United Kingdom that they don’t have to interpret last year’s result as a result that has to lead to the hardest Brexit possible. It is quite possible to leave the European Union in a way that doesn’t endanger jobs in Wales and which keeps us in the single market and part of the customs union.

The only thing we've learned out of the fiasco of the weekend is that Theresa May isn't terribly good at politics, which we knew anyway from the last general election result. It would be inconceivable for the DUP ever to countenance the kind of deal that we read about, whereby there would be a special deal for Northern Ireland on trade, because that would compromise the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is the main purpose of the DUP's existence. So, that was never a runner. Eighty-five per cent of Northern Ireland's trade with the British Isles as a whole is done with the United Kingdom, not with the Irish republic, so it's not even in Ireland's economic interest to have the kind of deal that the EU would want. But I think the other lesson we draw from the events of the weekend is that a handful of Northern Irish MPs have far more influence with the British Government than the Welsh Government has, and I think that that's an indictment of the Welsh Government rather than the DUP.

[Inaudible.]—the Conservative Party, and the weakness of the Prime Minister. It is worrying to hear the leader of UKIP say, 'Well, the Prime Minister isn't terribly good at politics'—that perhaps is not the strongest attribute that somebody might have when they are in fact the Prime Minister.

There are two options here. Either, first of all, the DUP weren't asked their views, and then made their views very, very clear, or they were asked their views and went back on some kind of agreement with the UK Government. There are no other options available here. Either way, it's a sign of mismanagement by the UK Government of the situation. I thought what was being proposed yesterday was something that was interesting, in terms of a solution. Nobody wants to have a hard border—it's impossible to have a hard border, actually, on that island. I know that area well. It's impossible; it can't be done, and I thought there were ways of looking for a solution. But what we now seem to have is there is a veto on the part of one party, which represents roughly 37, 38 per cent of the population in Northern Ireland, in terms of what the future might hold, and that, surely, is not a situation that is sustainable as far as the future is concerned. And I would expect the UK Government to have dealt with this with the DUP beforehand in order to gain the DUP's support. It seems to me that either that didn't happen or it did happen and the DUP changed their minds. What other option could there be? 

Thank you, First Minister. 

Questions to the First Minister now as listed on the agenda, and the first question is from Darren Millar. 

Yes. Any complaints regarding adherence to the ministerial code should be submitted to me as First Minister.

As you will be aware from our exchange, First Minister, last week, I hope to provide evidence to the independent investigator looking at the allegations of bullying in the Welsh Government. What assurances can you provide to this Assembly, Carl Sargeant's family and others that any AM with information will be able to contribute without fear of reprisals and that the collective responsibility, which usually binds members of the Welsh Government, will be waived for the purposes of all the investigations that you have announced? 

Well, all Members can provide such evidence as they think they have. It's a matter ultimately, of course, for the adviser to decide how the process is then taken forward. 

Section 2.9 of the ministerial code states that responsibility for special advisers rests with the First Minister and the First Minister alone, and that's been reflected in the First Minister's entry in the list of ministerial responsibilities, where there's an explicit reference to special advisers. That has been the case up until the amended version of ministerial responsibilities, which now under the First Minister's entry omits that reference to special advisers. Why is that, First Minister? Are you trying to conceal or evade your responsibilities? 

No, of course not. That's nonsense. It's to do with the situation of senior civil servants. I'm not responsible for senior civil servants or any other part of—. Sorry, it's not senior civil servants; it's those who are not senior civil servants. I'm not responsible for the civil service. I appoint special advisers. The line manager of special advisers is somebody different in terms of their pay and conditions, but I appoint them and that will remain the case in the future.  

First Minister, you've finally referred yourself for investigation under the ministerial code. I've been asking you to do so for months, on three separate occasions when I believe you've misled this Senedd. You've either ignored the calls or just smeared me instead. Now, the ministerial code is clear: if you knowingly mislead the Assembly, you will be expected to tender your resignation. If you are found to have misled this Assembly, will you resign? And will you now refer yourself for investigation under the ministerial code on the other matters that I've raised previously?  

No, because all the Member raises is frivolous nonsense, as well he knows, and without any basis in fact at all. The adviser is there. I have said that I will refer myself to the adviser in terms of a suggested breach of the ministerial code and that's exactly what will happen. 

Yes. We want teaching in Wales to be a first choice profession so that we can attract the very best. In addition to our incentives, we are working with the sector, including the regional consortia, to actively promote the profession, to recruit the very best and brightest individuals into teaching. 

First Minister, I'm pleased to say that, in the South Wales Central region, there were two gold award winners and a silver award winner in the Pearson teaching awards that were announced in October. These are very prestigious awards, as you know. However, despite these outstanding examples of best practice, recent Welsh Government figures have shown that, since 2007, the number of job adverts across Wales for teachers has risen by 9.4 per cent, while the number of applications has dropped by nearly 19 per cent. Do you believe the Welsh Government has got a role to play in highlighting what a rewarding profession teaching is and how much best practice there is in some of our schools?  

Yes, I do, and, just to give the Member some idea of what we've been doing: we've been working with regional consortia to actively promote a recruitment and retention offer to support recruitment to initial teacher education in Wales; there's £20,000 available to graduates with a first or postgraduate degree undertaking secondary postgraduate ITE programmes in maths, Welsh, computer science, physics and chemistry; there's £15,000 available for those who are modern language students who fit the same criteria. In Wales, we have seen a 3.9 per cent increase in UCAS applications for Wales ITE providers in 2016 compared to 2015. So, that is encouraging news and shows that the incentives that I've mentioned, along with the other things that we are doing, are proving to be attractive to potential teachers.

You'll be aware of the debate about supply teachers, and some of our most experienced teachers are earning poor wages because of the situation whereby agencies take a large chunk of the pay available to them from schools. In Denmark, it's against the law to make a profit out of education, First Minister. Legislation like that here would solve the problem with regard to supply teachers. As a matter of principle, would you be open to such legislation here in Wales?

I think that goes a step, perhaps, too far. What I am interested in is what we can do when pay and conditions are devolved, which has been the problem for us, how we can then improve the conditions of supply teachers as well. In the meantime, I know the Cabinet Secretary, on 5 October, announced in Plenary £2.7 million to support a school-based supply cluster arrangement. That'll see recently qualified teachers, who might otherwise find themselves in supply roles, employed in maintained schools on a supernumerary basis and paid at national pay rates. But, yes, it is right to say that, when we see pay and conditions devolved, there will be then the opportunity to look again at whether the current arrangements for supply teaching are adequate.

There have been problems with the retention of teaching assistants, or TAs. Often, TAs qualify as higher level TAs, but find that they aren't given the salary or responsibilities appropriate to the new level. This has contributed to many leaving the profession. What steps can the Welsh Government take to address this problem?

It's a matter, of course, for schools in terms of what they do. The local management of schools means that schools have a certain degree of autonomy in terms of how they employ people, but it is clearly in the interests of schools to ensure that they provide the right terms and conditions in order to retain the teaching assistants that they need.

First Minister, the education Cabinet Secretary recommitted in the Chamber on 24 October the Welsh Government's mission to promote teaching in Wales as a high-status, valued and flexible profession. I know personally, as a former teacher and visiting lecturer, how demanding and challenging, as well as exciting and satisfying, the teaching profession can be.

First Minister, the Welsh Labour Government has announced, as you said, support of £2.7 million across the current and next academic years to fund 15 local authorities in supporting the school-based supply cluster arrangements across 86 schools and in times of austerity. That will enable the appointment of approximately 50 recently qualified teachers on a supernumerary basis to work across school clusters, covering for teacher absence and ensuring a high level of localised teaching.

In addition, savings will be realised from school supply budgets. First Minister, how then will the Welsh Government measure the success of this highly innovative approach and what possibility will there be for its roll-out to cover my constituency in Islwyn, so the benefits are felt by all schools in the Gwent valleys?

Can I thank the Member for her question and the passionate way in which she represents her constituency and the people who live in it? I can say to her the response from schools and local authorities involved in the £2.7 million supply cluster project, or pilot, rather, has been extremely positive. Arrangements are in place to closely monitor and evaluate the initiative, including commissioning a formal research project to evidence the benefits of the pilot as a catalyst and to look at viable future alternative supply models.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. On 13 November, Adam Price tabled a written question, which asked the First Minister if 

'he continues to be responsible for "staffing including the terms and conditions of Special Advisers'.

The answer came 10 days later:

'I retain a close interest in staffing but responsibility rests with the Permanent Secretary.'

But the code of conduct for special advisers says something that is diametrically the opposite of that:

'The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the First Minister who made the appointment.'

So, how does the First Minister reconcile what that said on paper with what he's just told Adam Price?

I'm not responsible for the civil service in any way shape or form; I am responsible for special advisers and for their appointment. In terms of their pay and conditions as a line manager, that's the responsibility of somebody else. 

Conduct.

Conduct, yes, I am responsible for the conduct of special advisers.

Good. In which case, can the First Minister then confirm that the inquiry that is being undertaken, one of many—another day, another inquiry today—by James Hamilton will involve, also, an inquiry into the conduct of special advisers, because they are specifically responsible to him, the First Minister, ultimately, for their political conduct?

No. The inquiry will look at whether I have breached the ministerial code in relation to the answers I gave in November 2014 and November 2017.

So, is the First Minister saying that the conduct of special advisers will not be part of the terms of the inquiry of James Hamilton?

Well, I've referred myself, under the ministerial code, to the adviser. It will be a matter for the independent adviser to decide how, then, to take the inquiry forward.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

First Minister, as you said earlier, the Democratic Unionist Party torpedoed the UK's attempt to move on to the next stage in the Brexit talks, and the border in Ireland is the sticking point. None of us want a return to a hard border, but neither do we want to see barriers between Wales and our nearest neighbours. Barriers will be bad news for the port of Holyhead, as we heard earlier, for Stena Line, for Irish Ferries, for jobs, and bad news for other Welsh ports as well. There will be delays to business, and gridlock for passengers is the risk. We all know how much influence the DUP has. What influence can you use to protect the port of Holyhead from a new hard border?

Well, we have spoken to the Irish Government about this and informed them, of course, of our concerns and they share our concerns. The last thing they want to see is a hard border between Wales and Ireland as a maritime border, and we are working with them in order to ensure that doesn't happen.

First Minister, I used the word 'influence' on purpose. The Welsh national interest can only be protected if our MPs vote the right way on crucial Brexit divisions. Plaid Cymru's solution to the border problem, as you'll be aware, is for the UK to stay in the customs union. The UK Labour Party is supposed to be the official opposition in Westminster. You've just said, earlier on, that you want Wales to remain in the single market and that membership of the customs union is the solution to this problem. We heard earlier, also, about the importance of parliamentary democracy. Can you tell us, therefore, why Labour MPs voted against the UK membership of the customs union as recently as 20 November?

First of all, it is gratifying to see that Labour and Plaid Cymru MPs have worked together in order to make sure that we look to try and get our amendments through the Commons and the Lords, which I very much welcome. She will know my view, and that is that I believe we should have full, unfettered access to the single market. We've agreed the same position. I also believe that the UK is best served by staying within the customs union. There will be different views in my party in London, and those views are well known, as some Members have put them. But my view is, as First Minister, that we are best served by staying in the customs union and having that access to the single market.

The problem here is that we have a number of Labour views. We don't have clarity as to what the Labour position is, and there has been a failure by Labour MPs to protect our interests here in Wales, by the way that they vote. We're facing a weak and divided Tory Government, but a consensus has been allowed to be built over leaving the single market and the customs union. You've said that if a distinct deal is offered to another UK country, you expect that to be offered to Wales. Perhaps I trust Westminster a lot less than you do, First Minister, but as things stand, I expect Westminster not to offer us such a deal. But we can change that situation if we want to. In the absence of any action or initiative from the UK Labour Party, this Assembly can speak out. You have the power to ensure that Wales doesn't settle for second best here. As First Minister of this country, will you ensure that, when the time comes, Labour MPs in Westminster will back a distinct deal for Wales?

Well, I think they've shown that through their actions last night, in fairness. 

No, they haven't.

It's not as if they haven't been supportive of the amendments that we have put down. But the perspective I have is this: I want to see a good deal for the whole UK. I think that's by far the easiest solution. Having a deal specifically for Wales is more difficult; there's no question about that. It's more difficult. It's not impossible; it's certainly more difficult. I would like to see the UK as a whole remain in the customs union, have full and unfettered access to the single market, and that means, of course, that Welsh businesses will be able to access the UK market, which is hugely important for them, and the EU market at the same time. I don't see that there needs to be any kind of competition between those two aims.

Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, did Leighton Andrews make a complaint of any nature in 2014 about the conduct or behaviour of members of staff in the Welsh Government or your office?

No. 

First Minister, why have you subsequently, then, when we've been questioning you in this Chamber, indicated that you had issues brought to your attention by the individual I named and others, and that you dealt with those issues at that time? Because there are quite clearly two stories running here, and it is difficult for the impartial observer to try and get to the truth of what people want to hear, which is what was actually going on in 2014 and what action was taken by you. So, can you clear up who is telling the truth: Leighton Andrews or yourself?

I just answered your question. There were no allegations of bullying.

So, you're saying that, in the answers you gave this Chamber over the last several weeks, where you identified—and these were your words—issues were addressed and actions were taken, that those issues were not related to behaviour of the nature that has been described by Leighton Andrews, by the special adviser or by other individuals who've gone to the press indicating such an atmosphere existed on the fifth floor, and they were brought to your attention. And you did say, in this Chamber, that you did take action. So, what action did you take, and what were the issues you were referring to in your previous answers?

Issues that did not involve bullying. I've said no allegation was made by Leighton Andrews to me in regard to bullying. Were there issues that arose? Yes, there would be conflicts now and again between people—disputes about the titles of Bills, for example. When you have a talented team of people, sometimes they will rub up against each other.

Let me just make one thing clear: the narrative, the political narrative he's trying to create is that somehow the Government—[Interruption.] Oh, he's not, is he? That somehow, in 2014, the Government was in chaos and has been ever since. We delivered on all our manifesto promises between 2011 and 2016. We got back into power in 2016. The people of Wales trusted us to do that. Far from being ineffective, far from being a Government where people constantly spent their time arguing with each other, we were a Government that delivered for the people of Wales and delivered our manifesto as we promised. 

The Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs chairs the Brexit round table for her portfolio. It has met on a regular basis since July 2016, and the Welsh Government also engages with stakeholders across all policy areas on EU transition through established forums.

Thank you. It's important, of course, in the context of what we’ve been discussing this afternoon, that the Government at every level is involved in all ways possible in terms of defending Wales’s interest. I know that in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee of the Assembly on 20 November, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance mentioned the round-table arrangements for the Minister for agriculture. He talked about the working party of the Cabinet Secretary for Education. He talked about a group chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the economy. And another area that will be very sensitive to our departure from the European Union will be health and social care. In staffing, we’ll have to push for visas in order to attract staff to work in Wales specifically. There are concerns, as a result of losing the European Medicines Agency, in terms of how Wales can make bilateral agreements with the new agency in Europe in order to continue to test medicines in Wales, and so on. So, there’s a broad range of areas that will need to be addressed.

So, can you tell us what work the health Secretary is doing in leading a team on Brexit? Because there is concern within the health sector in Wales that this is one area that is being neglected somewhat at the moment, and we simply can’t afford that to happen.

We are working extremely closely at the moment with health and social care organisations in order to understand the impact of Brexit, and so they can also understand the impact on themselves and how we can discuss that. Since the referendum itself, the Government has been working with health and care organisations in order to consider which parts will be impacted by Brexit. Also, workshops have been held between the UK Government and Welsh Government to consider the legal and executive impact of Brexit as regards a number of issues. So, a number of things have taken place in order to ensure that the health service can consider what problems can arise because of Brexit, especially a hard Brexit.

In his letter yesterday to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, the UK Parliament's Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said

‘The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has held numerous discussions with the Welsh Government—including a number of bilateral discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’

but

‘There is agreement between the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas and we have together agreed a set of principles that will underpin our work’.

And that 

‘We have agreed a programme of intense discussions with the Welsh Government, led by the First Secretary of State, to take this forward.’

Could you tell us a little bit more about what that programme of discussions is and how you'll be informing this Assembly about the developments that arise from them?

The discussions are not with the Secretary of State, particularly, for Wales, but the different Secretaries of State who have portfolio responsibilities in Whitehall. They are called 'deep dives', for reasons that escape me, actually, but what they are looking to do is to see where there is a need—first of all, is there a need for a common framework, secondly, what should that common framework look like. But key to this all, of course, is that any common framework in any area must be agreed and not imposed by the UK Government.

We are committed to maximising transparency and openness through our publication scheme.

Thank you, First Minister. As you will be aware, the last few months have seen some pretty torrid times in politics, and I think the esteem in which we are held is suffering. I think the Welsh public will expect us to be far more open and transparent going forward. I have recently received an answer to a written question from the Cabinet Secretary for health and well-being that contradicts an almost identical question tabled by my colleague David Melding less than two months earlier. What can you do to ensure that your Government is providing consistent information to questions tabled by Assembly Members? It is merely our attempt to conduct proper scrutiny, which is our duty on behalf of the public, for whom we are the elected representatives.

The Member has me at a disadvantage. I don't know what the questions were or what the answers were, but if she provides me with those questions I will, of course, investigate.

As we seek the most transparent answer possible on some of the issues that are most important to the Assembly today, I return to the question asked by Andrew R.T. Davies, because, when you responded to Andrew R.T. Davies, you said very clearly that you weren’t dealing with any accusations of bullying, but a far broader question was asked of you. So, may I ask that question again? Did you receive any complaint or comment by Leighton Andrews around October 2014 that related to behaviour—not just bullying, but behaviour in general—of any member of your staff or Government? And, in dealing with such a comment or complaint from Leighton Andrews, did you promise him that someone would look into those comments?

Well, things are shifting now, because there were complaints made by everybody on occasion. Some people said, 'I want to be listened to; I’m not happy with this'. That’s quite natural. He is familiar with this, as one who was a special adviser in the previous Government. And there was a great deal of discussion within the Government then about some of the problems that were arising, and people were saying, 'Well, this should happen', 'That should happen instead.' That’s quite a natural process in the way a Government is run. And how do you judge a Government? Well, by their actions, and we have a good record. In terms of was there any kind of allegation—because that was the original question, remember—of bullying from Leighton Andrews, the answer is 'no'.

First Minister, you're now investigating a potential leak after it was alleged that many people knew about your Cabinet reshuffle before it happened. It also seems that there are many people here who know who the complainants are against Carl Sargeant and the nature of the complaints. It can't be raised here because of data protection laws. By Friday there were—. On the Monday of the week in question, you said you had no complaints over the last months against your AMs. By Friday, you said that you had three. So, I'd like you to state on the record whether or not you're aware of those complaints being co-ordinated in any way.

That's a remarkable suggestion, I have to say. I hope he has evidence for that. First of all, I'm not sure what he's talking about on the Monday—he's not clear about that. If he is saying that, if it wasn't for data protection, he would out complainants, then he needs to take a long serious hard look at his own character.

Yes. The Welsh Government is committed to supporting mental well-being before, during and after pregnancy. As well as developing community perinatal mental health teams across Wales since 2015, we have committed to providing in-patient care in Wales as part of the draft budget agreement.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. As he mentioned, because of the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, there will be a return of in-patient perinatal mental health services in this country. It was expected, though, that by now the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee would have come back with a report on how in-patient perinatal mental health services could be delivered. I wonder if he could outline the reasons for this delay, and perhaps could elaborate on what timeline he expects to be followed in the new year.  

We have invested since 2015-16 an additional £1.5 million each year to provide a community mental health service within every health board in Wales. Each health board now has a community service in place, with more than 2,300 women being seen across Wales since the start of last year. Those new teams do help to improve perinatal mental health outcomes for new mothers, as well as their babies and families. We have also committed to providing specialist in-patient care in Wales within the draft budget for 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the all-Wales steering group on perinatal mental health has been asked to draw up options for in-patient care in Wales by the end of January.

Given that up to one in five women are affected by perinatal mental illness, the view of—the Royal College of Psychiatrists have stated that there has always been a shortfall of perinatal mental health services in Wales and that is a worry. The recent report of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, published in October, noted that the Betsi board had still not filled the majority of posts within their new perinatal mental health service teams, despite funding having been provided to them for that, and that was the same month that you actually took them into special measures. Can you now confirm, First Minister, whether, after 30 months of your Government's intervention, this board has now completed recruitment to this service and that it is now fully operational?

The evidence base suggested that there wouldn't be sufficient demand to provide a unit in north Wales alone. WHSSC, it's right to say, was asked to work with Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board to consider options in the north of Wales, and the Cabinet Secretary has committed to establish a clinician-led managed clinical network to help drive forward improvements to perinatal mental health services in Wales.

First Minister, like all mental health services, perinatal mental health services in Wales are facing the twofold pressure of increased demand and staff shortages. In evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee, nearly all local health boards highlighted the fact that a lack of sufficient clinical psychologists is impacting their ability to provide a comprehensive service to new mothers. First Minister, can you outline the steps your Government is taking to increase the numbers of clinical psychologists in Wales? Thank you.

I think I've answered the question in terms of the money that we have put forward. I can say that, with the establishment of community teams across Wales, we're well placed to recognise severe postpartum mental ill health. The consensus is that there's now sufficient demand to re-establish specialist in-patient care in the south of Wales, and I know that last week the Cabinet Secretary wrote to the Children, Young People and Education Committee in response to its recent inquiry into perinatal mental health in Wales.

I have been made aware that wholesaler Palmer and Harvey has gone into administration. For any business in Wales impacted by the announcement, guidance and support are available through the Business Wales service.

Thank you. I was contacted last week by a constituent who was extremely concerned about the impact that this will have on their small family-owned business. Palmer and Harvey is the main supplier, and that is the case for hundreds of convenience stores in rural areas. I was informed by the constituent that Palmer and Harvey customers do have accounts with agreed terms that allow shops to pay either monthly or fortnightly. So, even if an alternative supplier does have the stock to supply affected businesses, they're concerned that it could take time to put in place necessary financial and licence checks to allow new accounts to be opened, certainly this side of Christmas. So, it is the case that the only option available to businesses would be cash purchases, and many of those won't be in that position. So, my constituents do fear that the cash-and-carrys local to them will simply not, in the short term, be able to set up delivery schedules for services to meet their needs and, in turn, the needs of those local constituents. So, First Minister, is it possible in any way for the Welsh Government to make enquiries and give what assurances they can to affected businesses and individuals in mid and west Wales and elsewhere at this time?  

I can say that Business Wales is available to provide information, guidance and support to any business impacted by the announcement, and I would encourage them to make contact. Business Wales advises and supports businesses on all aspects of their operation, including evaluating their supply chains to identify alternative suppliers, which includes Welsh companies. And supporting the development of local supply chains and clusters so that more economic value and employment is retained locally will be part of the new regionally-focused model of economic development, which we will set out in the economic action plan. 

First Minister, 10,000 firms went out of business last year in Wales. The number of firms still in business after five years is just 43 per cent, which is below the UK average. Now, understandably, some firms will go out of business due to changes in the market and for other reasons, but can I ask what your explanation is to why businesses are more likely to go out of business in Wales, and can I also ask how the Government is addressing this trend? 

In terms of why businesses in Wales, some businesses, fail, we know that that will happen from time to time, unfortunately. The latest phase of Business Wales aims to create 10,000 new businesses, 28,300 new jobs and provide support to help inspire the next generation, and that service provides support right across Wales for aspiring entrepreneurs, start-ups and existing microbusinesses and small and medium-sized enterprises, including social enterprises.  

I'm extremely concerned about the time claimants are waiting for their first payment, and the fact that many of our most vulnerable people in Torfaen and elsewhere are struggling to deal with the complexities of universal credit, and we have called on the UK Government to halt the roll-out. 

Thank you, First Minister. As you've highlighted, in July Torfaen became the second part of Wales to go live with the full service operation of universal credit, and after just two months our main housing provider, Bron Afon Community Housing Limited, had recorded £27,000-worth of arrears, with 300 tenants in arrears. Citizens Advice Torfaen is monitoring closely the impact locally, which has, as you've alluded to, included delays and difficulties accessing payments, and particular problems for young people. Now, in Torfaen we are fortunate in that the local authority, CAB and housing providers are all working together in partnership to support people through these difficulties, but, with the UK Government intent on continuing with this ill-conceived roll-out of universal credit, it's going to be essential that similar arrangements are put in place throughout Wales. What more can the Welsh Government do to ensure that there is that planning in place across Wales to ensure that all communities are supported through this process?  

The Minister has written to the Minister of State for Employment requesting more details in relation to the UK autumn budget changes, particularly where universal claimants are in receipt of housing costs, to understand how the new support arrangements will work for claimants in relation to the universal credit. The Minister is also seeking reassurance that the Department for Work and Pensions will be able to offer financial support to universal credit claimants over the Christmas period. As far as we're concerned, there is £5.97 million of grant funding in place this year to provide advice on social welfare issues, delivered through three projects.    

First Minister, you say you support the principle of universal credit, and the aim of universal credit and the UK Government's wider welfare reforms is to help people get in and stay in work. Given that unemployment in Torfaen is historically low and has fallen further in the past year, isn't that something you should be supporting constructively and trying to work with the UK Government? 

Well, it doesn't work; that's the problem. Regardless of what the principle is, it clearly doesn't work. There'll be people left high and dry without any money. We know that it's a mess. We know that there are members of his own party—well, I don't know if he is a member of the Conservative party or not—there are members who sit in the same party on that side in Westminster who have made the same points to the UK Government. The point is that this is a mess of the UK Government's making, and ordinary people are suffering.

As the Member will be aware, this question relates to legal information that's privileged, so I can't respond to him on that point.

First Minister, I asked your Counsel General the same type of question about a fortnight ago and I got a typical lawyer's answer, or perhaps a typical Counsel General's answer. My constituents want clarity. There's a debate tomorrow afternoon in this Chamber about that prison, and they're seeking that clarity, particularly on the Welsh Government's views on its responsibilities under the covenant. Can the First Minister reassure my constituents that the Welsh Government has no plans to change the covenant and will seek to abide by its principles of keeping the use of the land for industrial purposes, and to avoid nuisance for neighbours, which would mean telling the MOJ 'no' when they wish to purchase or lease the land for the development of a prison, which, in my book, does not come under an industrial development?

What I can say to the Member is this: the Ministry of Justice have not asked the Welsh Government to sell them the land at the Baglan site, and no decision on the future of the site has been made. I can say that a letter was written by Carl Sargeant to David Lidington, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 26 October 2017. That letter sought confirmation whether it's still the intention that the proposed prison at Baglan would be a category C establishment or whether there are plans to house other prisoners in the proposed prison. In addition, the letter requested confirmation of the effect that a new prison in south Wales would have on the prisons of Cardiff and Swansea. We have not received a response to that letter. And there will be no further action from the Welsh Government until that response is forthcoming.

That's a very interesting answer, First Minister. I think, however, you are possibly able to tell us—as it's a matter of public record—which parties would be entitled to enforce the covenant that's in the documentation at the moment. Are you able to tell us, as well, how many expressions of interest have been made in that land during the period of Welsh Government ownership, and which have been put off by the existence of the covenant?

It's very difficult to give a view on whether an expression of interest has been put off, because, of course, you wouldn't know of the expression of interest in the first place. What I can say is that it's the Ministry of Justice—that her party, of course, are responsible for—who want to build on this land. From our perspective, we are quite clear that until and unless we get the clarification that we wish to have, we will take no further steps in relation to this land. We will examine very carefully whether this land is, in fact, the right place for a prison to go.

Legal advice I've received, and I quote, says: 'Assuming this is correct, there is a covenant and that covenant is legally valid. It means that the site is affected by an obligation in favour of a third party limiting its use to an industrial park only. In those circumstances, building a prison on the site could be a breach of the covenant. In the event of a breach, the party with the benefit of the covenant could take steps to enforce it, e.g. by seeking an injunction restraining the development and/or claiming compensation.'

So, from this legal advice, which clearly shows there are many tools within the Welsh Government's box to block the proposed prison and force the MOJ into compulsory purchase, the only reason not to do this, as far as I could understand, would be that the Welsh Government wants to have this prison in Baglan. Will you seek a commitment here today that the Welsh Government will oppose releasing this land to the MOJ, so that, therefore, posing the question to the UK Government is no longer necessary in future?

We await the response from the UK Government. I'd say quite clearly to the Member that there will be no action on this point unless there is a satisfactory response to that letter, and even then, we will consider whether, in fact, this land is the right place for a prison.

Thank you, First Minister. 

A point of order arising out of questions. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice as much as anyone's as to whether Standing Orders can help us actually get the correct answers to questions in this Chamber. You will have heard my question was very specific to the First Minister about whether he'd received any comments about the behaviour of his staff from Leighton Andrews, to which he gave no reply—[Interruption.]

I'm listening to this point of order in order to decide whether it is a point of order or not.

Thank you. I think we'll listen to the current Presiding Officer in these regards, if we may. In the last 15 minutes, Leighton Andrews has issued his own statement saying as follows:

'In November 2014, I told the First Minister face to face that I believed that the Code for Special Advisers had been broken. I asked him to carry out a formal investigation. He said he would.'

He said he would. Can we reconcile these two questions by giving the First Minister an opportunity to add to what he told myself, Angela Burns and Andrew Davies?

The Member knows that we can't use points of order just in order to extend First Minister's questions. Your comments, or the comments of former AMs, are now on the record this afternoon. 

We now move on to business questions. The leader of the house—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. The only change to this week's business is the timings for oral Assembly questions tomorrow. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement, found amongst the meeting papers that are available to Members electronically.

May I ask for a statement from the Welsh Government on the UK Government's industrial strategy, published last month? The strategy commits the UK Government to work in partnership across all four nations to create the conditions where successful businesses can emerge and grow to help young people develop the skills they need to do the highly paid and highly skilled jobs of the future. Can I ask for a statement from the Welsh Government confirming their willingness to engage in a constructive manner with Westminster to meet the aims of the industrial strategy in Wales, please? 

I was very glad to see the industrial strategy published. It had a number of things of great interest to the Welsh Government in it, not least the emphasis on digital and data, which is very welcome indeed. The Cabinet Secretary for economy and infrastructure, who isn't here today to hear your question, will be bringing forward his own economic action plan, which will of course detail how it dovetails with the UK industrial strategy, amongst a number of other things.

I've received many, many representations from parents in the Port Talbot area whereby they're claiming that specialist provision of a playgroup for children with additional learning needs at Action for Children at Neath Port Talbot Hospital is under threat and that it may lead to closure. Also they've told me that the autism family support worker is under threat of losing their position. This scheme is obviously funded by the Welsh Government through Families First, and this has raised its head previously a few years ago. One parent has told me, and I quote: 'Action for Children's services were a lifeline that was most important to us when we were thrust into an unfamiliar world, facing the uncertainty of the diagnosis process and the task of learning a whole new set of skills. The difference that this provision made to us was marked and indispensable.'

Would it be possible for the Minister with responsibility for this area to give a statement to AMs as a matter of urgency, for us to understand whether it's closing full stop or whether there will be another provider coming instead of it? What I understand is that the criteria for the application process has changed, so it may not be that it's going altogether, but it may be that somebody else is coming in to provide it. Whatever the issue is, we need to know, because people are becoming anxious in the area about what provision is going to be provided for their children in the hospital. Any advice or any support that the Welsh Government can give would be very useful indeed. 

I'm familiar with the scheme, as it happens, and it's a very good scheme indeed. I know that there are a large number of parents who have relied very heavily on the scheme in the past and I've had similar representations to the Member made to me about the benefit that the scheme has brought to families. The Minister responsible is here and has listened very carefully to your comments. I'm sure he'll be able to bring something forward in due course that will allay people's fears.

Leader of the house, the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs is aware of concerns raised about the complexity of the application process for rural development grants via the WEFO website for third sector organisations who've been allocated funding in the current round. Can the Welsh Government assure me that these concerns are being addressed in order to facilitate the draw-down of rural development grants for local projects such as the Ogmore village hall association?  

Thank you very much for that question. The current system is not new; WEFO Online has been used for the successful management of EU-funded projects since 2008. The majority of applicants have successfully completed the online claims process with the existing guidance and support. However, we are aware that some applicants do have issues submitting their claims and officials work closely with them on a case-by-case basis. The guidance explains that the claims process is being reviewed by officials in response to feedback from applicants to that effect. We're not aware that any applicants have actually dropped out because of that process, but with regard to Ogmore, I can confirm that officials met with the trustees last Thursday to support them in submitting their claim. 

Dramatic pause. Suzy Davies.

Dramatic questions. Diolch, Llywydd. I wonder if we could have an update from the Cabinet Secretary for health, please, on the draft dementia strategy, now that he's had time to hear concerns raised at the cross-party group from dementia representatives. It's not published yet, of course, but some concerns were raised that perhaps it wasn't as innovative as they were expecting or that it was still too clinical in its model. I'm wondering whether—I see that you're here—you might agree to do that fairly soon. 

Secondly, in September, following some pressure from my party, the Government undertook to review how potential conflicts of interest were managed in the case of a former civil servant with links to a film production company that subsequently received a Welsh Government loan. On 1 November, which is two months later, I was told that the review was being finalised, and, as of today, I'm still not sure what the outcome of that was and whether it has been finalised. I think this was probably a very straightforward review, but there's still a—. I think you'd have to agree that it's unacceptable not just in terms of transparency but in terms of uncertainty for the individual who was the subject of that review, and I'm wondering if you could arrange for an urgent update to the Assembly on that, please.

Finally, I wonder if I could ask for your assistance as business manager, actually. On 29 September and 4 October, I submitted a total of 16 written questions about film policy and its delivery process to the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, of which two have been answered. I've been told more than once that I will get a full set of answers to remaining questions, and I haven't. An attempt to resubmit some of those questions via a freedom of information request were rebuffed on the basis that they required explanations that were not held in a recorded form, and that is completely unacceptable when they relate, amongst other things, to conflicts of interests managing that, which, of course, should be minuted. I wonder if you could investigate, please, why I haven't had an answer to those questions.

In terms of the dementia strategy, I've had myself several meetings with the health Secretary about the dementia strategy, and I'm very aware that he's taken on board a large number of the issues that were raised with him by the various groups, including groups of people who have dementia themselves, and that he's on course to publish the new strategy, taking into account all of those views, in the new year. I see he's nodding at me, so that remains the case.

In terms of the conflicts of interest, I don't know whether that's related to the second one or not, but it's obviously the same topic—[Interrupion.] Different subjects, same topic. I think the best thing for us to do there is to actually discuss it outside and I will undertake to broker with the Member meetings with the various people she's mentioned to see if we can reach a satisfactory solution.

Could I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services following the news yesterday that the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, CSSIW, has classed 14 care homes in Wales as services of concern, meaning there's a possibility of suspending the service or, indeed, of cancelling their registration? I'm particularly concerned about the disproportionate nature or spread of those homes, with 10 of the 14 being located in north Wales, which, of course, is an area that I represent. I previously called for the expansion of the remit of CHCs, community health councils, to include social care, rather than abolishing them, which is the proposal of the Government at this moment in time. The intention of the Government is, of course, to create what could be a remote national body, no doubt based in Cardiff. My question is: why not use the boots on the ground that the CHCs already have, and that they are, certainly in north Wales, using very, very effectively, to scrutinise the service? Let's extend that to scrutinising care homes so that we can ultimately raise their standards.

North Wales Newspapers was one of the largest independent newspaper companies remaining before it was recently taken over by Newsquest, employing around 250 workers, publishing 13 newspapers, including the daily Leader in north-east Wales. Newsquest has announced now 20 job losses, and the entire production department is being outsourced to Oxford. There are fears, of course, that other departments will follow, as we've seen when other newspapers have been taken over by Newsquest. Newsquest and Trinity Mirror together have complete control now over all six daily papers that we have here in Wales and around 60 per cent of our local newspapers. We've argued here for greater media coverage in Wales to better reflect our lives in a devolved context, so how can that happen when jobs are being outsourced by Newsquest to Oxford and the largest newspaper chain in the north could now be left with what could be effectively a skeleton staff? So, I'd like to hear from the relevant Minister what the Government is doing to protect these jobs that are clearly now at risk, to ensure that we protect what local news coverage we have across Wales, and also to ensure that what limited plurality we still have within Welsh media isn't eroded further.

Thank you for those two very important questions. In terms of the community health councils and their role in social care, the Minister was listening carefully all the way through. The Member characterised the consultation in not quite the way I understand it to be, and I think we do need to let the consultation take its course and see where we go with that. It is a consultation about the future of the CHCs, and I'm sure the Member, like me, has met with the CHC in his area and has had a number of representations. We need to let that consultation take its course. 

In terms of the specifics about the care homes, I'm afraid I don't know very much about that at all, but the health Secretary was here listening to you, as was the Minister, and I'm sure, between them, they'll be able to address some of the concerns you raise.

In terms of the news issue, I share the Member's concern about the lack of diversity in local news, and a similar fate has befallen my own local newspaper and radio station, as it happens. I think that it would be very appropriate for the Minister in question to take a view and report back to the Assembly in due course when she has something that she can say usefully to us on that subject. 

I have two items I wanted to raise with the leader of the house. Over the weekend, we all heard the news from the Royal Bank of Scotland that so many more bank closures would be taking place, and I think it's 20 in Wales. Two of them are in my constituency of Cardiff North, in Whitchurch and in the Heath hospital, and already I've been contacted, and I'm sure other Members have been, about what a loss this is to the community. I know that RBS are saying that fewer people are using the bank branches, and I'm sure that is true, but, for elderly and disabled people, it's very important that they do have a bank to go to. And of course, there's the issue of the contribution to the high street and the importance for local businesses. So, I wondered if we could have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy about this further detrimental step, because we have debated this in the Assembly many times before, but the value of these banks to the community just does not seem to be recognised. So, that was the one statement I wanted.

And, then, the other issue was, on Saturday, I visited Organicafé, as part of Small Business Saturday. It is a very innovative, organic cafe in Birchgrove in my constituency, which has just won Best Cafe in the Welsh Italian Awards. The owners only actually came from Italy two years ago, and they've made a fantastic success there, so I was really pleased to visit it and highlight their achievements. But it made me think that there has been a big growth in cafe culture, and I just wondered whether it would be worth looking at the value of the cafe culture to our economy as well. 

I can't resist answering that one first because I'm familiar with the cafe, and I would like to congratulate them on their award—it's well deserved. My son put me in the knowledge on the cafe, and it is indeed a fantastic little place, for those people who haven't visited it yet. Italian cafes have played an enormous role in the growth of cafe culture in Wales for a very long time, in fact, and certainly in the village I grew up in, in north Swansea, the Moruzzis were very instrumental in both kindling my love of ice cream, which possibly wasn't as good for me as it might have been, which I continue to have, and also, actually, just in promoting cafe culture in general as a place to meet and often discuss really quite progressive politics. So, I'm grateful to them for that as well. And I think that they do make a big contribution to our economy, and I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy will be taking that into account when he produces his action plan in the future. 

In terms of banking, I share the Member's concern about the closure of bank branches. I've had a number of meetings myself with a number of the big banks around their closure policy. They do produce statistics about the use of branch banking and so on, and a number of them do have good policies in terms of contacting older people and people with particular problems in mobility and so on about their banking. There is an arrangement in place with Post Office Counters, in actual fact, to do some banking, and we've made representations to them, I know, in my previous role, about ensuring that the Post Office Counters staff have the right training and that there are appropriate premises in which to conduct what might be a quite personal transaction in some cases for people who want to conduct banking transfers there. But I don't see any reason at all why we couldn't ask the Cabinet Secretary for the economy to make this Assembly's concerns known again.

Can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on the situation faced by emergency departments in north Wales? The leader of the house will be aware that there were reports in the media over the weekend about tweets from the emergency department at Ysbyty Gwynedd, which claimed that some people were spending up to two days or more in the emergency department whilst waiting for medical beds. Now, we know that there is a problem at other north Wales hospitals. The poorest-performing hospital as far as the four-hour emergency department target is concerned in the whole of Wales is Glan Clwyd Hospital, in Bodelwyddan. This appears to be a significant problem in north Wales, which, clearly, people will want to have addressed prior to the very cold weather that may come over the winter period. Now, we heard a statement a few weeks ago, which was issued by the Cabinet Secretary for health, on winter preparedness, and he gave the impression that everything was fine. Well, things clearly aren't fine in north Wales. We need to know precisely what additional support is going to be put into place to make sure that patients, in an emergency, can get the services that they need.

That's a very important point that the Member raises, obviously. The Cabinet Secretary for health has made a number of contributions in this place to winter preparedness, and indeed to delayed transfers of care, and a number of other issues affecting waiting lists, and so on, in north Wales. He was here listening to your point and I'm sure he'll take it to account the next time he addresses us on the subject.

I'm looking at two statements from the leader of the Chamber. The Government has rightly issued statements about terrorist atrocities over the past 18 months. We have a Yemenese community in Cardiff, and in Wales, and civilians in the Yemen are being bombed and starved to death every single day. I'm wondering what the Welsh Government position is on this, and the daily terror—Saudi Arabian-backed terror—that the civilian population of the Yemen have to face every single day.

The second one is about mesh implants. I'm looking for a Government statement on the number of people who have received these mesh implants in Wales over the last seven years, and also the number of people who have had those implants without actually giving their consent and are in a lot of pain now. I'm wondering also what recourse is available to those people and what treatment they can be offered to help with their chronic symptoms.

Well, on that second one, the Cabinet Secretary has already made a commitment to bring forward a statement on mesh implants, which—he's nodding at me—I'm sure he will be doing very soon.

In terms of various war situations and other atrocities, around the world, obviously the Welsh Government shares your concern that people have to live in such appalling situations. We don't have, obviously, foreign policy powers here. What we do have though is a policy that welcomes refugees and asylum seekers from all over the globe, where we can provide them with sanctuary. And I'm very proud that we're a nation that can do so.

I thank the leader of the house.

The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on public good and a prosperous Wales—consultation response. I call on the Secretary to make the statement—Kirsty Williams.

Llywydd, in the summer, I published a White Paper on the reform of the post-compulsory education and training system. The consultation closed in late October, and I'd like to take this opportunity to update Members on progress and to announce that we are moving forward to a technical consultation.

In the White Paper, I set out the Government’s proposals for reform, covering further and higher education, research and innovation, work-based learning and adult community learning, and we sought views on the way forward. At the heart of the proposal for a reformed system is a new body: the tertiary education and research commission for Wales. Not only would this replace the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, but it would also take on a wider set of functions, many of which are currently undertaken by the Government. In doing so, the new commission would provide oversight, strategic direction and leadership for the whole sector.

Over recent months, officials held a number of stakeholder events across the nation. This provided a dedicated opportunity for detailed discussions on the proposals. In addition, a separate learner consultation series of events was held in both north and south Wales, and a young persons consultation was also undertaken, because it is this group that will be most affected by the proposed changes.

I would like to thank all those who attended for sharing their views with us and helping to shape the next stage of our proposals. Although I cannot hope to do justice to the rich detail of the responses here today, I’m pleased to say that the proposals have received broad support. A summary of the responses will be published on the Government’s website.

The strategic planning role of the proposed commission was welcomed. There was agreement that funding from the commission to learning and training providers should be made dependent in some way on Welsh Ministers’ agreement to its strategic plan. The majority of respondents outside the higher education sector in principle supported the introduction of outcome agreements but wanted more detail on their operation. We will develop further detail on this approach for stakeholders’ consideration. Respondents saw a role for the proposed commission in supporting students to change courses and providers, and to protect students in the case of provider failure. A majority also agreed that widening access for underrepresented groups remains an issue, as does the lack of opportunities for part-time study. Members will know that these are driving principles for our student support reforms.

Turning to the quality of provision, the vast majority of stakeholders supported a role for the commission in enhancing quality. Opinion was, however, divided on whether one common quality assurance framework for the whole of the PCET system would be the right way forward. Clearly, more work is needed here, and the complementary review that is being undertaken by Professor Harvey Weingarten will contribute much to the development of these proposals as we go forward.  

Whether or not the proposed commission should have responsibility for sixth forms was a specific question asked in the consultation. Again, this is an area where we will look to do further work, but it should be said that a majority of respondents were of the opinion that sixth forms should be treated as part of the PCET system. Some respondents felt that sixth forms should be phased in at a later date rather than being part of the commission’s remit at the outset. I thank respondents for raising these and other matters that we will now consider further in developing our proposals for the next stage of consultation.

As well as what stakeholders have told us in response to the White Paper, we also need to consider other developments and their impact on our proposals for PCET reform. The recent review of the activities of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol recommended that it broadens its remit from higher education to cover the whole of the PCET sector. I am delighted that this is very much in tune with our proposals for PCET reform, and the relationship between the proposed commission and the Coleg will be a key consideration as we move forward.

The proposals for Research and Innovation Wales to be a statutory committee of the commission is clearly going to be influenced by stakeholder responses but also by the outcomes of the Reid review. This will report early in the new year and we will of course take Professor Reid’s views on board as we move forward. In the light of the responses to our initial White Paper proposals, I propose to issue a further technical consultation document early in the new year, setting out in more detail how we envisage the new commission might work. We are a Government that is committed to listening and I recognise that issues may yet emerge that are not covered by the technical consultation. I am, therefore, committed to continuing close engagement with stakeholders and across the Chamber as we move forward with our reforms.

I am heartened that, in the light of our proposals to reform the PCET system, stakeholders from the different sectors are already seeking out ways to work more effectively together in partnership, and that augurs really well for the future. Within Government we are also laying the foundations for a smooth transition to a transformed PCET system. We are taking an important first step towards that transition by making a series of new appointments to the current HEFCW council. The first of the new members joined the council on 1 December and the other new appointees will take up their roles early in 2018 as current members stand down.

These appointments will be for three years in the first instance and will help broaden the council’s reach and perspective. I am delighted that we have been able to attract such high-calibre individuals to these roles, which will be critical to helping us realise our ambitions for tertiary education, research and training. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the HEFCW council who will be stepping down as a result of these changes. They have made a significant contribution to Welsh higher education over many years.

Deputy Presiding Officer, there is no doubting the scale of our ambitions and the scale of these reforms. I welcome the broad consensus that exists and the agreement that simply maintaining the status quo is not a viable option. It's not a viable option for learners, for providers or the nation as a whole. We are committed to working in partnership to get this right and to ensuring a PCET system that will meet the needs of all and help build a more prosperous and successful Wales. 

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement today and for advance notice of that statement, and, indeed, all of the individuals who responded to the public consultation on the White Paper?

As the Cabinet Secretary knows, the proposal to establish a tertiary education and research commission for Wales is one that we Welsh Conservatives fully support. And whilst I appreciate the notice that the Government is now going to move forward to a technical consultation, I think it's very important to make clear that we're facing serious challenges in the post-compulsory education sector right now, and we have to move towards improving that situation as soon as possible.

So, these reforms, I believe, give us a crucial opportunity to create the flexible and agile education and training system that we all want to see and that was alluded to in the Government's White Paper.

I just wondered, though, whether you could give us a clear timescale for the completion of the technical consultation and when you expect to be able to implement any recommendations that emerge from that, once you've considered those consultation responses, in order that we can get to the place that we all want to be as soon as possible.

You didn't refer to vocational pathways in your statement today, and you did briefly mention part-time study, but only very briefly. As you know, the new commission, I believe, gives us an exciting opportunity to champion vocational qualifications and, indeed, part-time study. I know that they've been given a bit of lip service in the past, I think it's fair to say, from some of your predecessors—not you, I hasten to add—but we need some bold changes in the post-compulsory education system if we're going to fulfil the ambition that we've got for part-time students and, indeed, for vocational learners as well.

So, I just wonder whether you could outline if there are any plans to ensure that the new commission gives equal priority to vocational and part-time learning, to make sure that there's not an overemphasis by that new commission on higher education which, I think it's fair to say, there has been, potentially, in the past.

You also mentioned widening access for underrepresented groups—another thing that I very much welcome. One of the things that sometimes puts a barrier up for underrepresented groups is the flexibility of courses and the financing that is sometimes needed to support people in accessing those courses. So, I think that we clearly need to see some change in terms of how education courses can be accessed and delivered. Some of those groups that face those barriers are, of course, Gypsy/Traveller groups, ethnic minority groups and, indeed, looked-after children—they're significantly underrepresented in post-compulsory education. So, I wonder whether you could tell us what precisely you're going to do, in particular to support those groups and what you'll be tasking the new commission with in terms of improving access to post-compulsory education for those individuals. 

In addition, in terms of the financing and the flexibility arrangements, clearly we need to be looking at how people access courses and how people can switch, perhaps, from one course to another if their circumstances change. Sometimes, people are knocked out of the system because they've got a health need for a period, and obviously it's important that they have the opportunity to be able to pick back up their studies. Sometimes, people relocate from one part of the country to another during the middle of a course and it's important that they can take and bank some credits with them from the courses that they've started. And yet, these are currently big issues that are not easily resolved with the current post-compulsory education system. So, I wonder whether these will be particular issues that you'll want the commission to focus on.

The other thing that I didn't hear you refer to today was something that really underpins the whole purpose of this reform, and that is careers. We know that we want to match people with appropriate careers that they can enjoy and have fulfilled lives in, but we also know that there's a dearth, frankly, of high-quality careers advice available to people in Wales, particularly those who are beyond compulsory education age. So, I'm talking adults, perhaps, in later life who are hoping to return to the workforce, or have been made redundant, or through circumstances are having to switch careers and may need some support, advice and guidance in order to get them into the right place. So, again, I wonder whether the commission could have a role in this and whether that is something that you would want them to have a look at.

Just finally, if I may, on the Welsh language, I know that there is a separate piece of work that is being done in terms of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol and its role, but can you assure us that the role of the college will be integral, really, to the way that this commission operates, so that we can all ensure that there's a concerted effort, across the whole of the education sector, to support the ambition that we all have in this Chamber, which is to see those 1 million Welsh speakers within the time frame set by the Welsh Government of 2050? Thank you.

Can I thank Darren Millar for that series of questions, and for his in principle support for the reform agenda that we have before us? Darren, like me, understands that the status quo is not an option, and some of the problems and commentary that Darren has just made about some of the challenges that face students are one of the driving factors behind the reform.

We need a system that is truly listening to student voice, that recognises that simply seeing students as traditional 18-year-old school leavers is not appropriate any more, and we need to develop a system of post-compulsory education that recognises that people will come in and out of education throughout their lives and their careers as we adapt to an ever-changing economy. Students will need the flexibility to be able to study, sometimes full time, or sometimes part time, alongside working or, perhaps, caring responsibilities. The whole focus of creating a single body to oversee this entire sector gives us the opportunity to be able to establish such a system, and I welcome his support for it.

If I could turn to some of the specific issues that he raises, Darren, like you, I think we have to acknowledge that, despite many debates in this Chamber and many speeches by Ministers, Cabinet Secretaries and, indeed, opposition politicians, academic and vocational routes through education are still not regarded as equally valuable. That is something that I regret very much. Evidence suggests that learners—young learners, especially—and their parents are not always receiving the best information and advice to steer them towards learning and career choices that are right for them. That was one of the strongest messages that we had as a result of our learner consultation: young people are saying, 'We're not getting the advice that we need to be able to make those choices.' Again, one of the rationales behind this reform is to say that these courses, these pathways into employment, into learning and studying, are of equal status. Depending on what your aspirations are, what your career ambitions are, then there is no single right way or wrong way, or better way or less good way of achieving that. Again, that's one of the rationales behind this reform.

But we have to get information right; we have to get it right for young people, and we have to get it right for older people who may be facing career changes or may be looking for new opportunities as a result of redundancy or a change in life circumstances. I think it's fair to say that, perhaps, we have not developed this as much as we would like, and it's something that is a constant source of conversation between myself and the Minister, as well as the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, as we look at employability programmes and economic development in the round. We will need to do further work in this area to get the offer right, because if we listen to students and young people, they're not getting it at the moment. We have to be honest about that, otherwise there's no point in carrying out the consultation if we're not prepared to take on board what people are telling us.

Access, of course, is at the heart of our student support reforms. That's why we will be unique in the UK when we will offer pro rata support for part-time learners in higher education. For those who are in the further education field, we have maintained our commitment to the EMA, to the education maintenance allowance that allows children and young people from a poorer background to access financial support in the FE sector. Looked-after children, of course, will be eligible for the highest level of maintenance support that this Welsh Government will offer: in excess of £9,000 to allow them to study at a higher education level. The bigger challenge, I believe, for us, is to ensure more looked-after children have the opportunity to apply for that maintenance grant. That goes back to the action across the education department to support looked-after children in their education, because I want more of them to be able to access that maintenance grant. We also have a support system for disabled students, which has recently been independently reviewed, and that review has found it to be a very successful scheme that is really helping those people with a disability to go on into higher education. 

It is my intention that, as a result of these reforms, it should be easier for students to be able to switch courses, carry credits forward, have a blended nature to their study—part time, full time, depending on their circumstances. With regard to the coleg, as you know, I think the coleg Cymraeg has done a great job in broadening access to higher education courses through the medium of Welsh. I believe that the principle of extending that to FE and work-based learning, so that people have the opportunity to undertake their learning and their training in Welsh is particularly crucial in certain sectors where we have a dearth of professionals. Only recently, in the additional learning needs debate, we talked about a whole raft of professionals that need Welsh language skills that we don't currently have at the moment. It's absolutely crucial that we develop the role of the coleg in line with our PCET reforms and I believe that they are attuned.

But I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm very grateful for the way in which Darren Millar has engaged in this. Like me, he has high ambitions for this particular part of our education and training sector, and I look forward to continuing to work with Darren on the technical consultation, which will be released in the new year. I'm a Minister who is keen to get on with things, and we will try and make progress as quickly as possible, but recognising this is a significant set of reforms and we need to get them right.

May I also endorse the thanks given to the Cabinet Secretary for the statement? I look forward to seeing progress in this sector along the lines that have been outlined. It is certainly a journey that is travelling in the right direction. We may have to discuss this further when we deal with the minutiae, but we’re certainly supportive of the ambition. And I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement that she is committed to working closely with stakeholders and working across the Chamber as these reforms make progress?

The previous questioner asked particularly about the timescale of the technical consultation. I'm just interested in your confirmation, maybe, that you still intend for this legislation to have completed its journey through this Assembly by the end of this Assembly, and maybe you could map out some key milestones for us on that journey if that's possible, just so that we have that broad timetable a bit more clearly in our minds, because there are a number of hares running here, really. You mentioned a number of reviews: the technical consultation itself, of course; the Reid review, which will feed into this; the Weingarten review, as well. I'd be interested in hearing how you think all of these can actually come together and be aligned effectively to ensure that all of these are taken into full consideration. 

I've raised with you before the sixth-form question, and it was in the White Paper, and rightly so. You say that the majority of respondents were in favour of including sixth forms under the proposed system, although some made a pitch, if you like, to phase them in at a later date. I'm just wondering if you could tell us what more information or what further discussions you need to come to a decision around that and how that could potentially affect the timetable. Would that require legislation later on? Or would you incorporate that into your proposed legislation for something that will be brought in at a later point? Because, clearly, many of us are hoping that this will be a coherent and comprehensive reform of the sector. There's a danger that if we start hiving certain bits off that it becomes piecemeal. I understand the difficulties around that particular issue, but I'd just like to hear a bit more about your thinking in that respect.

You did mention adult community learning—or you namechecked it—at the beginning of your statement. There's not much more and, clearly, we've heard one or two things in your last response. Clearly, the decline in part-time adult provision is very worrying, and adult community learning, some people feel, is very much on its knees at the moment. So, the sector is telling me that it can't wait for these changes, although there was very little, actually, in the White Paper on adult community learning. There is a risk that we end up talking too much about sixth-form colleges, universities—we need to talk about them, of course, but I think we need to get the balance right. So, I'd just be interested in hearing a bit more about how we can really incorporate the sector's voice into the discussions from now on, and not fall into the trap of paying lip service—I think that is the second time that phrase has been used—and how that voice will be heard within the commission's role, because we come back to this parity-of-esteem principle that we're all pursuing, and it'd be good to have greater clarity, again, on that.

You touched on the extension of the role of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol. I would reiterate that we need to make sure that the role isn't eroded in any way, that it retains its existing responsibility, its enhanced responsibility and its distinct role within the new landscape. Maybe you could acknowledge—or will you acknowledge—that additional responsibilities have to mean additional resources as well, albeit we're in a very difficult time, I know, in that respect. But one, one would expect, would have to follow the other.

On that point, it probably is too early to start talking about budgets and all that kind of thing for the proposed new body, but I remember well, when discussions were being had around the establishment of Natural Resources Wales, that one of the reasons being put forward was that it would create an efficiency of savings. I'm not sure whether that is part of your consideration or to what extent that might be driving some of what is playing out now. I'd be interested to hear whether you envisage some sort of projected efficiency saving from the new arrangement—or is that not part of your consideration at all? It'd be interesting to know, actually, at what point you think that might become clearer.

We've touched on addressing the barriers to post-compulsory education and training, and the cuts that have had a disproportionate effect on a number of groups. I presume that the outcome agreements that you mention in the statement would maybe look to address some of those in terms of ensuring that maybe some people with care-giving responsibilities, or those requiring particular kinds of support, are offered that. You say that it's a driving principle for your student support reforms in terms of addressing some of these barriers, and I'm just looking for confirmation that that will be embedded into the commission's remit.

Can I thank Llyr again for the support in principle that he has for this reform agenda? The consensus that we seem to have in the Chamber today is reflective of the consensus that there is out there across Wales of the need to move forward in this regard, and is reflected in the consultation.

With regard to timescales, what I have learnt over the last 18 months is to be very circumspect in committing myself to be able to deliver to certain timescales, because what I have also learned is that these things take a lot longer than you initially anticipate in Government. But it is my intention to go out to technical consultation in the new year, and it is still my absolute intention to bring forward legislation and, with the co-operation of this Chamber and the legislative processes that we have, to complete that process before the end of this Assembly term. That's what I'm setting out to do. But, already, in beginning to scope the legislation that may arise out of this—and we're at a very early stage. It's already looking like it could be the largest single piece of legislation that the National Assembly's ever ever had to deal with, at a time when there's lots of legislation going through the Assembly. But it is my absolute intention and my sincere hope that we can get to the end of it before the Assembly term.

With regard to finances, costs will be fully considered as part of the policy development process and will eventually, of course, need to be set out, as is required by Standing Orders, in the regulatory impact assessment. Costs, of course, will be determined by the powers and functions of the body that we intend to set up, and because we're still in the process of determining that, I'm not at this stage able to give the Member very much detail. But what I can say to the Member is that I hope to publish a partial regulatory assessment, setting out the methodology for establishing the costs, alongside the technical consultation. So, that's what my intention is to do, to be able to give Members an opportunity to see how the Government will eventually arrive at budget considerations associated with this. I hope that that will be welcomed by Members of all sides and will assist Members in their scrutiny role that they have here.

Just to provide clarity, the Reid review, which is looking at research and innovation, will again be published very early in the new year, and that is integral to our thinking of how we develop that very important piece of what the commission will be in charge of. The Weingarten review is specifically to look at the issue of outcome agreements. As I said in my statement, there is not a consensus at the moment about whether a single—you know, how exactly the outcome agreements would work, given the complexity and the diverse nature of the sector. And so the Weingarten review, of course from an eminent person who has significant experience in this field in Canada and in systems around the world, will be crucial in helping us to provide greater detail and greater insight into how those outcome agreements will work in practice.

Sixth forms—well, Deputy Presiding Officer, I think the Member said that he's in favour of sixth forms being in. I note he didn't put that in writing in the consultation, but I think he was hinting at that as his preference. It certainly is the preference of the majority of people who responded to the consultation, but, of course, that is at odds with the recommendation of Ellen Hazelkorn, who actually did not recommend that way forward and demonstrated, in other international systems that she looked at, that sixth forms were not part of that system. And that's why we need to give, again, considerable thought to the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion.

What is true to say from the consultation is that people were very much of the opinion that, if we are to break down this artificial divide and this perceived difference in parity of esteem between vocational and academic, it's very important that sixth forms go in. But it could be the case, given that this commission is going to have such a big task, that we could legislate in a way that would allow for sixth forms to enter into the commission at a later date—not requiring additional primary legislation, but to create the circumstances in the original legislation that would allow that to happen later. But we need, again, to have really thoughtful discussions with stakeholders about the advantages and disadvantages of those particular proposals.

I think that's addressed most of the issues. With regard to adult and part-time, that's one of the reasons why we are welcoming new members onto the HEFCW board, because we can't just wait for the new commission to be set up; we need to be developing thinking in this area now. We need HEFCW and other stakeholders to be working towards this agenda now. That's why I'm very pleased to say that we have work-based-learning experts going onto HEFCW from 1 December, and we will also have experts in adult learning and part-time learning joining the HEFCW board later on this year as a vacancy arises.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement and your announcement of the abolition of HEFCW and the creation of a new commission. I would be interested to know how you foresee these commissioners will be appointed. Will it be put out to an open tender, advertising for applicants, or will it be, essentially, an in-departmental appointment of the commissioners? We've seen the results of appointed boards in the form of the failures in care at Betsi Cadwaladr in north Wales, so how are you going to ensure that the commission is properly accountable?

There's been engagement with stakeholders, and I note a range of educational establishments, organisations and learners took part in the consultation exercise, including the stakeholder events. Widening access for under-represented groups and the lack of opportunity for part-time study were issues for the respondents, as you said in your statement, but I'm sorry, Cabinet Secretary, I don't really see any signs of you tackling the problem so far. 

According to the responses to the consultation, the biggest barrier to entering post-compulsory education was considered to be fear of debt, and we've had conversations about this before. This is obviously going to be more of a barrier to older people looking to change career or resume their education later in life, but, I'm sorry, you've done nothing to remove this barrier. In fact, you're making it worse. The stakeholders who took part in the consultation do really have—they have so valid views about the system and are to be commended for their work in contributing to the consultation exercise. However, I'd suggest that, if you want to widen access to education, the people you really need to be speaking to are those who aren't currently involved in the education system. Those people already engaged in the education system obviously have a great deal of knowledge and experience that can contribute to your decisions about that sector, but it doesn't really inform you in massive detail, from a very personal point of view, why people are discouraged from resuming their education and upskilling or improving their skills in other ways once they've actually left compulsory education and that kind of window in people's heads for going into post-compulsory education has ended. So, I'd like to see you consult with those people who aren't currently engaged with the education system to investigate what might encourage them to become engaged in the education system.

I'm not surprised that advice and support provided to learners was a key concern, and, given the Cabinet Secretary's recent decision to saddle Welsh students with debt, it's vital that the Welsh Government gets this right. I appreciate that so much detail isn't going to be here right now, inevitably, because of the stage of the process you're at, so—. I see you've announced a detailed consultation on how the commission will actually work and I really do look forward to seeing that consultation and the responses there too. Thank you.

With regard to the establishment of the commission, as I said, we will go out to a technical consultation. It is my intention that the executive of that commission will be appointed in normal open competition procedures. As to the members of the commission, they will be subject to the public appointment process that we have here in Wales, a process that has just been undertaken to recruit new members to the HEFCW board, a board that has done tremendous work in supporting higher education in Wales, work that I'm very, very grateful for. I'm particularly pleased that we've been able to attract high-calibre candidates to take up new positions on the HEFCW board, people from within and without Wales who want to give of their time and want to be part of this exciting period of reform in Welsh education.

Deputy Presiding Officer, it seems to me there is little point in me explaining once again to the Member the principles of our Diamond reform. To be absolutely clear to the Member once again: we will be the only part of the United Kingdom that will provide support—including maintenance support that is non-repayable—for part-time students. It isn't going to happen in Scotland, it isn't going to happen in England, and it's not going to happen in Northern Ireland. In fact, those countries and those parts of the sector that work outside of Wales are looking on with envy at the way in which we are going to support the part-time sector, because we recognise, in this Government, that part-time study is crucial, not just to those individuals, but to the economic wealth of this country. One of this nation's problems is around productivity and you improve productivity not just by investing in kit and machinery—you improve productivity by investing in your workforce, and we will help provide the environment to allow people to study on a part-time basis, and my challenge to the business sector will be to engage with the many schemes that the Welsh Government has to help them support to train their workers in greater levels of skills so that we can raise the Welsh economy. But I have explained this time and time again to the Member. She seems determined not to recognise what we are doing. [Interruption.]

Carry on. Carry on, Cabinet Secretary, please.

I appreciate that the Member doesn't agree with it. What is more important to me is that NUS Cymru agrees with it, the higher education sector in Wales agrees with it and higher education experts across the United Kingdom consistently say, 'If you're interested in progressive HE and FE policy, then look to Wales.' Because it is us, and us alone, who are doing something interesting in the field. With all due respect, it's those voices that I think are the ones that we really need to listen to as a Government.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 on our agenda is the Stage 4 debate on the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I formally move the motion. I am pleased to introduce the fourth and final stage of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill before the Assembly today. I'd like to start by thanking Assembly Members for their robust scrutiny of the Bill and for their support, which has ensured its passage through to Stage 4. In particular, I'd like to thanks members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee for their thorough and considered scrutiny of the Bill through stages 1 and 2. I'd also like to acknowledge all stakeholders who provided evidence during the scrutiny process and thank them for their contribution to the legislative process. My thanks also to Assembly Commission staff and Welsh Government officials for their support throughout the Bill process. I'd also like to say how pleased Carl Sargeant would have been to see the Bill reach the final stage. He believed passionately in protecting our social housing stock for those who need it most, and he worked extremely hard to bring this legislation forward. I'm delighted to be able to steer it through its final stages and onto the Welsh statute book.

This Bill forms a key part of the Government's housing policy, and was a manifesto commitment in 2016. This Government is committed to ending the right to buy and to protecting our social housing for those in the greatest need. Ending the right to buy will give local authorities and housing associations the confidence to invest in new developments to help to meet the need for quality affordable housing in Wales. The right to buy has been a feature of social housing for many years in Wales, and this has resulted in the loss of a significant number of homes—more than 139,000 between 1981 and 2016. In recent years, although sales of social housing have slowed, social housing stock is still being lost at a time of considerable housing supply pressure. Measures taken by the previous Welsh Government to address the impact of homes lost through the right to buy, and the continued pressure on social housing, included introducing the Housing (Wales) Measure 2011. This enabled a local authority to apply to suspend the right to buy and the right to acquire in its area. While the right to buy has been suspended in some parts of Wales, significant housing pressure still continues across the country.

This Bill was introduced last March following a White Paper consultation in 2015 to address the continued housing pressure and ensure that social housing is protected throughout Wales on a permanent basis. The Bill abolishes all variations of the right to buy, including the preserved right to buy and the right to acquire. Provisions in the Bill also allow at least a year after Royal Assent before final abolition on existing properties, but, to encourage investment in new homes, the rights will end for homes that are new to the social housing stock, and, therefore, have no existing tenants, two months after Royal Assent. One year is a fair and reasonable amount of time for tenants to decide whether they wish to exercise their rights and to take appropriate financial and legal advice. The Bill contains provisions to ensure that all tenants are given information within two months of Royal Assent, and that this information is supplied in the most appropriate format to meet their needs. This provision ensures that all tenants will be fully aware of the impact of the legislation before it comes into force.

This Government remains committed to enabling home ownership for those who want to enter the property market. We are well on our way to delivering our manifesto commitment of an extra 20,000 homes during this Assembly term. Government schemes, such as Help to Buy, homebuy and rent to own, are designed to help people on modest incomes into home ownership, but not at the expense of reducing the social housing stock. Ending the right to buy ensures that we safeguard the investment made in social housing over many generations for Welsh families now and in the future, and I ask Members to support the motion.

The right-to-buy policy has been extremely successful across the UK, and especially in Wales, because it responded to the aspirations of those on lower incomes to purchase their own homes. As I have consistently argued, the problems with the housing market have arisen due to a lack of housing supply, and especially in Wales—not because of the 300 or 400 homes that are now annually sold under the right-to-buy schemes. Some 139,000 council and housing association homes in Wales have been sold since the right to buy was introduced in 1980 under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government—139,000 homes in Wales; a remarkably successful policy. How could you have a better test of a policy's relevance and success?

The Welsh Conservatives, Deputy Llywydd, have tried to offer sensible ideas of reform for this popular policy so that abolition could be avoided. The Welsh Government has not been prepared to listen, and we regret this. We then attempted to make this right to buy abolition Bill fairer. We tried to provide a fairer outcome for those tenants in the currently suspended areas so that they, too, could get one last chance to purchase their property—denied to them.

We also offered an amendment with the intention of limiting the Act's operation to 10 years, following which the Welsh Ministers may lay regulations proposing that the abolition is made permanent. We did this because the Welsh Government made it clear in committee that it was not against the right to buy in principle. So, I tested this point—but alas, again, denied. No response.

Another amendment that would've ensured that the abolition of the right to buy and associated rights may not have come into effect until at least two years after the Bill receives Royal Assent was also denied, despite the fact that this was what happened in Scotland to allow a calm period of transition. These amendments were laid in response to the views of tenants throughout Wales who want more house building and would prefer alternative solutions to permanent abolition. Instead, this Bill intends to take their aspiration of home ownership away from them forever.

Deputy Presiding Officer, should we get the opportunity, the Welsh Conservatives will aim to reintroduce the right-to-buy policy with a reformed structure for the modern housing climate. These reforms would include ring-fencing the right-to-buy receipts so that they are reinvested into new social housing stock and removing the right to buy's applicability to new housing stock until it has been rented to a social tenant for a certain number of years.

In conclusion, this Bill does not serve the people of Wales well. It serves rather a narrow, left-wing ideology, oblivious to all the evidence and decades of success in its application as a policy. We will go on reflecting the aspirations of many tenants. Even at this stage, I urge Members to reject this Bill.

Just a very brief word as the Bill reaches the end of its journey through this Assembly. Plaid Cymru has supported the Bill fully throughout the process, and has assisted in improving it through the scrutiny process. Abolishing the right to buy has been a policy of our party over a period of decades. We were convinced that the right to buy would militate against those who can’t afford to buy their own homes, and militate against those who are reliant on renting in the social sector in order to get a roof above their heads, and unfortunately, that is what has happened. The number of social homes has almost halved in Wales, which has led to lengthy waiting lists, has led to too many people living under the same roof, has led to people living in inappropriate homes, and has led to an increase in homelessness. With the passing of this Bill, it is now time for this Government to focus clearly on the need to build more social housing, and to provide just as clear a focus on the efforts to eradicate poverty and inequality—a focus that is lacking at the moment.

I won't be supporting this legislation. I asked in this Chamber what is wrong with selling a council house as long as all the money is used to build new ones, and I still haven't had a satisfactory answer. I'm not prepared to vote to take away an option for working class people to own their own home without any new ways for them to buy a house being introduced. The legislation is part of an unhealthy trend of keeping people dependent on the state and reinforcing inequality. 

So, here are some suggestions on where the Government would be better off putting its efforts. Between 2012 and 2016, Cardiff council run by Labour didn't build a single council house—not one. That was their choice. Other councils manage it. This legislation does nothing to address that. We should ensure that local people are the absolute priority for housing lists, and social housing stock in Wales should be used to cater for local demands. I hope that's a principle we can all get behind.

We need to build a lot more affordable housing, and that means really affordable. Better planning laws could force building companies to build a higher proportion of genuinely affordable housing, but we're in a situation now where just a few developers dominate the housing sector, leading to bad development plans where green fields are destroyed and local culture ignored. An industry where smaller local house builders build housing based on local need and local characteristics is surely a good thing, but the high cost of land and the complexity of Labour's planning laws prevent this. 

If we really want to do something about the battle against the housing crisis, let's do something about the 23,000 long-term empty properties in Wales. They're sat empty and they're a blot on our communities. If those houses were used with an average of two people then we'd quickly get 50,000 people housed very quickly.  

Now, credit where credit's due, because Torfaen council managed to bring a third of long-term empty properties back into use last year, but Cardiff council managed just 0.8 per cent, but will let rich developers build unaffordable housing all over green fields instead. So, why doesn't the Government get focused on every council in Wales, getting families into these empty houses?

Home ownership is part of the Welsh dream. Some here will say that ownership is just a UK obsession. I see nothing wrong with that. It's part of our culture, and I want to encourage it. That's why I cannot support this Bill. 

Thank you. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to reply to the debate—Rebecca Evans. 

Thank you. I've welcomed the opportunity to debate the Bill and I thank Members for their contributions. I always look to find common ground where there is some, and I think there is some in terms of the wider ambitions for housing. For example, there's no argument from Welsh Government on the importance of building homes, supporting people to buy a home, increasing affordable housing and turning empty houses into homes as well, but there is a fundamental disagreement between ourselves and the Conservatives and others about whether or not losing 139,000 houses from the social housing stock is actually a cause to celebrate, because on these benches it's certainly not.  

What is a cause to celebrate is the fact that we are taking this important action to protect social housing stock for the future for the people who need it most, and I'd like to thank Siân Gwenllian for explaining why it is important that we're taking this forward, and take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Plaid Cymru for the constructive way in which you have engaged with us throughout the passing of this Bill. And so, I'd like to ask Members to support the motion to pass the Bill. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions, and so I defer voting on this motion until voting time.

We now move on to item 5, which is the debate on the draft budget. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford. 

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the Welsh Government's draft budget before the National Assembly. As Members will be aware, this budget represents a significant milestone in Wales's devolution journey. It is the first time where we have been able to set out our plans for devolved taxes and our borrowing proposals. It is also the first budget to be brought forward under the new fiscal framework and with the operation of the new Welsh reserve. 

Recognising the devolution of our new fiscal responsibilities, agreement was reached by the Assembly on a new budget process. For the first time, we have published our budget proposals in two stages. We set out the major building blocks of the budget on 3 October, reflecting those new fiscal responsibilities, and showing where the money comes from and how it was proposed that it should be allocated across portfolios. To help inform understanding, a suite of documents was published alongside the budget, including the chief economist's report, the Welsh tax policy report, and the independent report by Bangor University. I'm grateful to the Finance Committee for all its work in relation to this budget, and was glad to see in their report on it an indication that they are content with the level of detail provided alongside the outline budget. I look forward to engaging positively with the further recommendations set out in the Finance Committee's report. 

On 24 October, Dirprwy Lywydd, we provided a greater degree of detail at budget expenditure line level than has ever previously been provided. This is a step that colleagues in the Chamber called for last year, and I hope that it has proved helpful in supporting meaningful scrutiny at the portfolio level. I have followed with interest the scrutiny sessions by individual subject committees, and I'd like to record my thanks to all Members who have played their part in our evolving budget process. My own reflection at this stage is that the two-stage process has worked in line with the intentions that led to its creation, but I look forward, of course, to hearing the experiences of others in this regard during the afternoon.

What is more challenging, Llywydd, is the unavoidable awkwardness of a UK budget that takes place late in our own draft budget process. That awkwardness is clearly apparent in the debate today, as we discuss a draft budget prepared before we had received the further allocations made available on 22 November. I intend to use most of the time available to me this afternoon to set out how I plan to align the resources made available in the UK budget with our own budget processes. Before doing so, however, let me deal briefly with the macroeconomic context that the UK budget reveals. Downward revisions to the economic forecasts, published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, confirmed weaker economic growth, lower tax revenues, and yet further pressures on living standards. That context has a direct bearing on our budget here in Wales because the new forecasts from the OBR help shape the resources that will be available to Wales through the working of a fiscal framework. 

The Welsh Government's draft budget for 2018-19 was prepared using economic information from the UK spring budget, including OBR forecasts. Our own tax revenue forecasts, which use a number of the OBR economic determinants, will be revised now to reflect the new information made available alongside the November budget. As part of their work, Bangor University will scrutinise and assure these revised forecasts, and I'm happy to confirm this afternoon, Llywydd, that I will publish a summary report of the Bangor scrutiny work alongside our final budget on 19 December. I'd like to thank the team from Bangor for their excellent work to date. I'm pleased to let Members know that they have agreed to extend their current contract to undertake the independent scrutiny and assurance role for next year's budget, building on the expertise they have developed this year. This arrangement will continue as we put in place permanent arrangements for the independent production of independent tax revenue forecasts for Wales. Discussions with the UK Government and the OBR continue on that point, and I will update Members as we make further progress. 

Llywydd, let me return to the way in which decisions about our budget are to be made against the background of UK Government decisions. As far as revenue is concerned, over the next week, I will continue to carry out discussions with Cabinet colleagues, concerning the £215 million-worth of consequentials from the UK budget available to Wales over a four-year period. The First Minister has agreed to a paper being presented to the next full Cabinet meeting, on 12 December, when I will bring a set of proposals for discussion. At the same time, in line with our previous agreement, I will discuss matters of mutual interest with Plaid Cymru, and I'm grateful to Steffan Lewis for having made time already to begin those discussions.

Llywydd, my intention is that the outcome of these discussions on the revenue consequences of the 22 November budget will be reflected in the final budget, which I have to lay before this Assembly on 19 December. I plan to do that because I think it is particularly important to give as much certainty as possible to our public service partners on the resources that will be available to them to run the services that they provide over the next two years.

I then intend to turn to discuss further the capital consequentials of the UK budget, including financial transaction capital. I hope to carry out those discussions over the holiday period. I'll give an undertaking this afternoon, Llywydd, that any early decisions on immediate capital priorities which it is possible to agree, before we debate the final budget on 16 January, will be set out to Members in advance of that debate on 16 January so that Members will be informed about them before we take that final vote. Those capital allocations will not be reflected in the final budget; I can't do it in time for that. But I will try to make sure that Members have the maximum amount of information that I am able to make available to them, and that information will include any additional capital consequentials that I'm able to agree on with Plaid Cymru, as part of our discussions with them.

Llywydd, there is a third element that we have to deal with as a result of the UK budget. The Chancellor announced a decision to introduce a new first-time buyer relief in stamp duty land tax as part of his budget. He did so, as Members here will know, despite the very clear advice of the Office for Budget Responsibility that such a relief was more likely to benefit sellers, through raised prices, rather than buyers, and that the relief will be significantly vulnerable to abuse. The change introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that, in England, 80 per cent of first-time buyers will pay no stamp duty at all. The proposals I set out on 3 October, to set the starting point of land transaction tax at £150,000 for Wales from 1 April next year, already means that 70 per cent of all first-time buyers in Wales will be exempt from that tax.

The Chancellor's decision, however, does result in some additional funding for Wales through a reduced block grant adjustment. That money is therefore in addition to the £215 million revenue consequentials, which I set out earlier. I continue to consider how that additional funding might best be deployed in Wales, and I intend to make an announcement on my decisions in that area before the end of this term.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Of course.

Just on that point, just for clarification around this adjustment, is that specifically an adjustment under the fiscal framework to take into account the impact of introducing this tax on an England-and-Wales basis, before you have a chance to adjust as regards the new devolved powers next April?

Llywydd, it is exactly that. It is a one-off consequence of the timetables that will clash this year but won't clash in the future. It does mean that the block grant adjustment moves marginally in our favour. I am looking to see what might be done with that resource. And, as I say, Llywydd, I will make sure that Members are aware of the outcome of that consideration before the end of term.

Llywydd, I do appreciate the less-than-satisfactory nature of providing Members with information in this unavoidably disjointed way. It is a consequence of the interaction between our budget timetable and that of the UK Government. I hope Members will agree that the plan I've set out this afternoon is designed to provide the National Assembly with as much information as possible before a final vote is taken on our budget proposals. The alternative, as I've said at Finance Committee, is to adopt the model agreed by the Scottish Parliament, where MSPs will only see the draft budget for the very first time on 14 December, where no opportunity to discuss or scrutinise will be available until after our final budget has been considered here. In its report, our Finance Committee acknowledges the detrimental impact the UK Government's move to a budget with an unspecified date in the autumn has on the Welsh Government's ability to plan fiscal spending and tax policy. The other side of the coin, however, is the considerable benefit for the NHS, local government and other delivery partners in publishing our business plans in October. On balance, members of the committee concluded they preferred the arrangement we have in place here in Wales, and I'm sure that they will agree that while we continue to do things in that way, we should continue to keep in view the processes we have as our fiscal responsibilities develop. 

Llywydd, to conclude, we agreed that the new budget process we have started on this year would be a new chapter and that there would be lessons to learn for future years. The report of the Finance Committee is particularly helpful in identifying areas where further progress needs to be made and, as I said at committee, I am always open to looking at the ways in which we can improve the information we provide and to go about discharging our responsibilities in the most effective way. 

I thank the committee again for their recommendations, look forward to working with them on them and to hearing the views of Members this afternoon. 

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas. 

Thank you, Llywydd, and as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has just outlined, this is the first time for us to look at the budget in this way—a new approach for the Government and a new approach to budget scrutiny as well—because the Wales Act 2014 introduced fiscal devolution to Wales, meaning that the role of the Assembly now is to hold the Government to account, not only for its spending plans, but also its plans to raise revenue through borrowing and taxation on property and landfill waste, and of course income tax in due course as well. As such, we agreed to change the budget scrutiny process to ensure that the Finance Committee was afforded the opportunity to consider the high-level proposals of the Government in terms of its priority spending and revenue, and of course that every other committee could look at their individual budgets for Government departments. That’s what you have in the Finance Committee report and the reports by the other committees today.

One of our main considerations in the Finance Committee was the new powers around taxation, and how these new fiscal powers will be used. We’re grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for providing details of his proposed tax rates alongside the draft budget documentation. The information provided alongside the publication of the outline budget proposals included the chief economist’s report, the Welsh tax policy report, and the report from Bangor University. As the Cabinet Secretary has acknowledged, on the whole we came to the conclusion we found the information provided to be comprehensive, and this aided our scrutiny of the budget. And we’re also grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for confirming minutes ago that Bangor University will continue their work, and update the work following the budget of the UK Government, which has just been published. It was of great help to committee when scrutinising these high-level issues.

Some concerns were expressed over the transparency of the overall local government funding prior to the publication of the settlement. In future years we would like to see the strategic integrated impact assessment explain more in terms of how decisions had been prioritised and reached. Additionally, one issue that is a continuing theme from our scrutiny last year is the information available within the draft budget in terms of how the Government’s commitments are prioritised and fed into the budget allocations. We concluded that we’d also like to see clearer links between the draft budget, the programme for government and the 'Prosperity for All' strategy—and this, of course, all rests within the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

It wasn’t ideal that the UK Government budget was published in the middle of our scrutiny of the draft budget. We’ve just had an outline of the problems faced by the Government from the Cabinet Secretary, but as a committee we still think it’s helpful to have details around the Welsh Government’s intentions at an early stage. We also felt it would be helpful to have indicative figures for future years, although we accept that this may be difficult depending on comprehensive spending reviews; it is helpful to have detail provided where possible, and of course it’s happened in the past.

In light of the changes to the stamp duty rates announced by the UK Government, the Cabinet Secretary said that he would consider changes to the proposed rates in Wales. I was half thinking that we might have an announcement from him today, but not quite. We'll hear in due course, it seems. What is important is that we give appropriate scrutiny to the final recommendations by the Government. We also said in our report that these changes at the UK level could lead to pressure to rush through transactions in Wales to completion, which could lead to compensation for the Government. We’ve just heard confirmation from the Government that that compensation from the fiscal framework will happen. And, as he said, that will be a one-off, and we don’t expect to see it in years to come.

In considering the Government’s plans for taxation over the next 12 months, we considered the forecasts used to predict tax returns in Wales. Evidence has shown that there is limited Wales-specific data, and there was mixed evidence as to how vital this is to producing accurate forecasts. As a committee, we recognise that there is a case for ensuring that Wales-specific data is available, and that it is appropriate and gives additional value.

Additional funding was allocated to Wales as part of the UK budget, but a great deal of this was actually in the form of financial transactions capital—and this is the first time those words have been used in Welsh; cyfalaf trafodion ariannol, that is, apparently. Financial transactions capital is something that the committee will look into over the year to come to see how effective it is and to see how much use can be made of it, given that the Cabinet Secretary has suggested that this kind of funding can be restricted in terms of its use in Wales.

Two themes that emerged during our scrutiny last year have also been raised again this year.  First of all, health funding continues to be prioritised, although this doesn’t seem to be resulting in service improvement or better financial planning, and often it is at the expense of other areas, notably local government. I was interested to note that the reports from the health committee and the local government committee have both raised similar issues.

The other theme relates to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Last year, we found that limited progress had been made in demonstrating how the Act is embedded in the draft budget, and we heard from the Cabinet Secretary how the Government had tried to align the draft budget and the Act during this year’s process. We appreciate that it will take time to fully embed this approach. However, we were disappointed that there was no further evidence of the improvements that we’d hoped to see. Nevertheless, we can see that efforts are being made, particularly by working with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales in the area of procurement, decarbonisation and participatory budgeting, and we would hope to see more improvements going forward.

We also considered the financial preparations under way with regard to Brexit, and we are concerned that the uncertainty in terms of Brexit is impacting on the decisions being made by businesses in terms of investment. We are keen to see more efforts on the financial preparedness for Brexit in Wales and we will be looking to hold an inquiry into this area going forward. It’s also an area, of course, where the Government has just outlined some of the funding that has come in the budget that can be a priority, possibly, for preparing the economy and communities in Wales for Brexit.

Finally, we looked briefly at proposals for new taxes and we believe that this is an exciting new stage of fiscal devolution in Wales. We look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary over the next year in bringing forward a new devolved tax, and we agree that the UK Government’s role in the consideration of new taxes should be limited to issues of competence and the impact on UK revenues. As a committee, we are interested in how the new process will work and I’ve written to the Business Committee asking that we be consulted on the new procedures for bringing forward new taxes in Wales.

This is the first year where our scrutiny of the draft Budget has focused on the strategic details, whilst the policy committees were able to report in their own right to the Assembly. Prior to the final budget debate we will be considering those reports, and I also hope to discuss the new process with other Members in order to consider whether improvements can be made for next year, and I would welcome any comments from Members on the way in which we have scrutinised the budget this year and the way of improving that for the future.

Finally, of course, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this year’s scrutiny. As a committee, we are very grateful to all of the people who contribute to the work of the committee and who have assisted us in terms of drawing up our findings, which will be the basis of your discussion this afternoon. 

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. I think the primary question, Cabinet Secretary, that I'd like to pose at the start of my contribution this afternoon is: what is this budget seeking to achieve? Is it simply trying to allocate funding to different budgets—in the past once perfectly acceptable? Or is it trying to do more than that, to address longer term challenges and to seek a real fundamental transformational economic change to the Welsh economy? I assume, given the changes to revenue to this place and the advent of tax powers to this Assembly, that the latter would be the preferred option.

Can I firstly concur with a number of the issues raised by the Chair of the Finance Committee? I've spent many hours alongside him on that committee considering many of these complex issues—well, from complex to some impossible issues, I think. It's been a very interesting time, and I think we've done our best—all the members of the committee across all parties—to scrutinise the budget as best we can.

Recommendation 1 of the Finance Committee's report calls for greater attention to be given to the way commitments are prioritised, and I would certainly agree with that. It's key that the priorities of the Welsh Government reflect the priorities and the needs of the people of Wales, and, as I said before, those needs over the medium term. 

A number of spending allocations may be welcomed in this budget, but it remains less than clear how many of the current spending allocations reflect the priorities of the programme for government or indeed the extent to which the programme for government, or for that matter the future generations legislation, was referred to at all. It does seem that a number of these strategies are great in principle and at the time that they're being strategised, but they are conveniently discarded or at least put to one side when budget setting and the process gets under way. 

We know that some budget lines are disappearing as part of a wider merger and simplification of budget lines in this budget. This has been a consistent concern throughout evidence heard by Assembly committees, and, as we heard, it was all committees that were involved in this budget process this time, not just the Finance Committee.

From 2019-20, there will be a single grant for a number of projects, including Flying Start and Supporting People: the early intervention prevention and support grant. Cymorth Cymru were particularly strong in their evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that the disappearance of a distinct budget line meant that the Welsh Government can no longer be fully held to account on how much they spend on Supporting People. It was also highlighted that it's unclear which services will be cut within the merged budget due to the £30 million savings from the decision.

In health, budget lines have also been changed, so there's also less ability there to scrutinise year-on-year spending. What we do know from the Cabinet Secretary's comments is that it looks like there's been another deal with Plaid Cymru this year—well, before the final dissolution of the compact. I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary will say that the deal

'secures the whole of our Budget and demonstrates our commitment to working with other parties to deliver shared priorities in the interests of the people of Wales.' 

Your words, I believe, Cabinet Secretary, not mine. But questions do have to be asked, I think, about the suitability of these types of short-term deals for putting Wales on a sounder and a more sustainable economic footing, and that isn't just a criticism of this potential deal or Plaid Cymru's actions here. I think that applies to other party's deals as well. You'll know that I was very vocal about the deal that was made between the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh Labour Government in the last Assembly, which led—[Interruption.]—which led us down the road to nowhere on one bit of the Eastern Bay link, still with no signs of the second bit being built. Go for it, Mike.

I was going to ask: does that also go for the deal between the Conservatives and the DUP?

You're just trying to distract me, aren't you, from my budget debate. [Laughter.] I'll speak to you in the tearoom.

The answer is that it's this Welsh Government that is responsible for running public services in Wales. I don't defend everything that the UK Government do—I never have. I'm sure you don't defend everything that the UK Labour Party—. I know you don't defend everything the UK Labour Party did. [Laughter.] So, we're probably quits on that score. But this is about the budget for Wales and there are certain tools and levers we don't have at our disposal, but we do have levers at our disposal here to improve the economic situation in Wales, not just in the short term, but in the medium and long term, as well.

If I can just move on, we've spoken a lot about process, I'm aware of that, and I understand that that's because we are at a change in the way that the Assembly is dealing with its powers, but it is important to turn to some of the funding allocations in more detail, and, firstly, the health service, which Simon Thomas mentioned.

Of course, we'd all welcome any additional funding for our NHS. Welsh Conservatives have called for that year after year, particularly during the last Assembly, during the real-terms cuts that the Welsh Government made at that time, before they saw the error of their ways. You have to ask: how much of this money—as Simon Thomas did—is simply going into plugging health board deficits? You didn't put it in quite those terms, Simon, but I think I got the drift of what you were saying. You have to look at where that money is going. Is it making up for a lack of sustainable medium-term financial planning, and, if that is the case, then those gaps have to be plugged; we have to make sure that the financial processes that health boards are undertaking are sustainable in the longer term, because, as Mike Hedges often says in committee, you can't simply pile more and more money into the NHS—or into anything in Wales—without making sure that the checks and balances are in place to make sure that that money is being made the most use of.

Prevention hasn't been mentioned yet, at least I don't think it has. The Welsh Government places great emphasis on prevention, understandably, although there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast definition of what is actually meant by 'prevention'. We tried to fathom it out on the committee; we didn't have much luck either. But I would say that has led to sport being grouped with the health portfolio earlier in this Assembly, but, at the same time, cuts to sport and community assets, as a result of cuts to local government budgets, will inevitably harm that goal. So, it does seem that, on the one hand, we're saying very good things about prevention, but, on the other hand, the actions of Welsh Government in this regard aren't entirely going to be bearing fruit. In fact, in the words of the leader of Bridgend council, in Bridgend, the budget we commit to leisure centres and swimming pools is half what it was six years ago, and that's not just Bridgend; that's a common theme across local government. Indeed, the cuts to local government—I believe a cash reduction of around 0.5 per cent in 2018-19—were mentioned by the Chair of the Finance Committee.

Education is, of course, crucial to developing skills—. I'll give way.

I'm very grateful to you for making those particular points about the cuts and so on referred to by Bridgend. Do you agree with me, therefore, that there's a desperate need for an end to the UK Government's austerity programme?

Well, it's a shame that the overspending of the previous Labour Government took place at the time it did, and perhaps—[Interruption.]—perhaps—. Go on then; I'm feeling generous.

Well, I just wanted to give you further information, because, you see, the UK national debt at the time that the Tories took over was 50 per cent of GDP. It's now 88 per cent, so, clearly, austerity can't be working.

But, of course, it would've been a lot higher had the Conservative policies not been implemented, because you can't turn a supertanker around—[Interruption.] I'm not going to let you have any more interventions; I've been very generous. You can't turn a supertanker around overnight, and the deficit has come down, maybe not as much as we would've liked, I admit that, but there we are, nothing's perfect, but, once you're heading in the right direction, you're heading there, aren't you?

Education is, of course, crucial to developing skills and we do support programmes like the twenty-first century schools programme, delivered across Wales in collaboration with local authorities. That's to be welcomed, but, at the same time, if you look at the fall in part-time students, if you look at cuts to further education budgets, then that cannot be welcomed, and the Wales Audit Office have highlighted that grant funding has been reduced by 13 per cent, in real terms, between 2011 and 2016-17, to further education, so that's not good.

Can I just say, before I close, Presiding—yes, Presiding Officer—we haven't mentioned—? [Interruption.] I just wanted to make sure. We haven't mentioned procurement. The Wales Audit Office has released two reports that are critical of the Welsh Government's approaches to procurement, including the fact that it's had to fund the National Procurement Service, which is underused by the public sector. I think, in the past, procurement hasn't been alluded to enough and I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that, if we want to develop the Welsh economy, then actually procuring on a Welsh basis as much as we can is very important to do, and getting the most out of every Welsh pound that is spent. So, I would like to see a greater focus on that, moving forward.

I knew that the Cabinet Secretary would cite the funding situation from the UK Government. You didn't dwell on it, to be fair, Cabinet Secretary. As I said, I believe that, whilst we're in a difficult situation at a UK level, which does feed in to the squeeze on your budget here—I think we all appreciate that—at the same time, we do need to address what we can do here to make the situation better.

You mentioned last week the—I think I've got this right—financial capital transaction. You know the term better than me. I've looked at some of the details of this, and I think that you were concerned that the £1.2 billion coming from the UK Government was not exactly as it seemed, because that capital could not be used across the board, but I think there are certain projects in Wales that have utilised that. I think Help to Buy is one of those and, as Lesley Griffiths the Minister said, and rightly said, in 2015, that's a huge boost to the Welsh construction industry. So, while the economic situation is tight, and we do not have as much money here as we would like to have, I do think that the Government has to recognise that the money coming from the UK Government is to be welcomed.

In conclusion, finally, Presiding Officer, I think that there are aspects to this budget that we would welcome, but, overall, I don't think it pays enough attention to the medium and long term. I don't think it does, long-term, set the Welsh economy on that basis—secure, sustainable and competitive—that we would like to see, and that is why we will not be supporting this budget.

I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today, and also to thank him for the way that he’s undertaken this process of negotiating the budget between our two parties. I’d also like to thank my colleague Adam Price for leading the negotiations on behalf of my party. It’s true to say that there are a number of things that Plaid Cymru and the Government couldn’t agree on, but I am confident that the Cabinet Secretary will be aware that we will continue to scrutinise Government on many of those points of disagreement. But we will also be scrutinising the implementation in those areas where there was agreement between us.

Throughout this Assembly, Plaid Cymru has used our role as an opposition party in a mature and constructive manner for the benefit of the people of Wales. As part of the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, we have managed to secure over £210 million of additional expenditure, which means that we have secured almost £0.5 billion from the beginning of this Assembly. This will deliver real improvements to the lives of the people of Wales and will set the foundation for a more prosperous future for our nation.

This agreement includes £40 million for improvements to mental health services, such as perinatal mental health support, new investment in medical education in north Wales, additional nurses, and investment in linking our nation by making improvements between north and south. And very importantly too, there is a pledge to take steps as a result of Brexit, particularly a portal that will support businesses as they try and cope with the mess that is to come and the mess that’s already been created.

The Cabinet Secretary has confirmed today in his contribution that we are in further negotiations with the Government to discuss the additional funding that was announced by the UK Government, and as Nick Ramsay has already mentioned, I would want to know about the financial transactional capital. This isn’t a new element, but the scale of the additional funding emerging from this is relatively new, and I would appreciate further detail from the Cabinet Secretary on the nature of that funding.

The truth, of course, in terms of the broader fiscal position, is that the Welsh Government has seen an annual cut—a year-on-year cut—in its budget since 2010, and it’s likely that further cuts are in the pipeline from London. Last week, we had an opportunity to debate the content of the UK Government’s budget, which was announced on 22 November. I don’t want to use all of my time today rehearsing the content of that budget, but it’s important to understand the economic and fiscal context, and the broader sense in which that budget was announced, and its impact on the Welsh Government budget for the future.

The UK economy is currently growing more slowly than all its economic competitors in the club of advanced economies. By comparing OBR forecasts with International Monetary Fund forecasts for the other G7 economies, the productivity slowdown has limited growth, weighed on living standards, and put the UK behind most of its peers in the G7 group of leading industrial economies. Britain's economy will also trail the eurozone for each of the coming three years at least, as its growth falls to the bottom of the European Union's 28 member states. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's forecast for 2018 and 2019 is even below the downgraded estimate issued previously by the OBR, and also highlights how the organisation believes Brexit will weigh heavily on the state's future—[Interruption.] No, I will not give way—economic performance.

It is also important to put on the record that we should all consider the OBR's economic forecasts as the very best-case scenario. They incorporate the impact of any tax and spending measures announced in the budget statement by the UK Chancellor and the effect on economic growth for subsequent years. However, they are forecast based on the status quo in terms of the trading relationship the UK currently enjoys with various markets around the world. The current trading relationship we enjoy with the European Union we know will change. We, of course, cannot be sure today what the nature of that change will be, but I think experience of the last 48 hours suggests that the trading relationship we currently enjoy will not be that of the future. Any changes in that relationship through additional tariffs and non-tariff barriers imposed on UK export will mean those forecasts will inevitably be downgraded further due to the negative effect it would have on the UK's balance of trade.

But crucially, Llywydd, taking away the Brexit dimension, what has become abundantly clear, and what was confirmed in the United Kingdom budget, is that extreme fiscal contraction—austerity—is self-defeating. The last Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Osborne, told us that a budget balance or surplus would be achieved after five years of deep fiscal contraction. The OBR tells us that budget surpluses are now not to be expected until well into the next decade. Citizens everywhere, therefore, will rightly ask what on earth all this pain was for. Why have our communities been asset-stripped? Why have essential services been cut to the bone? Why have those with the least paid the price for the mistakes of the few at the top? It is also worth repeating, too, that part of the reason for the UK's failure to produce sustainable long-term economic growth that rebalances the economy and that is spread outside the London city state is because of the refusal of the UK Government to restructure the UK economy in favour of re-industrialisation and prosperity to all parts. The UK is not just constitutionally flawed; again, as we've seen in the last 24 hours, it is fundamentally flawed as an economic construct too.

Before I conclude, I would like to turn to one of the points raised by the Chair of the Finance Committee in his contribution. The actions of the Government don’t always accord with its rhetoric of wanting to run the health service in a strategic and sustainable manner. We are spending a large proportion of the national budget on health services for a very good reason, and very often it’s at the expense of local government. The Wales Governance Centre has estimated that the proportion of Welsh Government revenue funding received by the health service could go up to 56 per cent of the budget if Ministers find the funding required to deal with the increase in demand. We must therefore tackle the structural problems that exist within the health service, such as lack of workforce planning.

But to conclude, Llywydd, my perception is that we must work in earnest to find new ways of raising our own funds within Wales. This nation has recommenced the journey of being a fiscal entity, but there is some distance to travel yet. We must now safeguard our citizens, but also achieve the potential of our nation.

I welcome the Labour-Plaid Cymru budget, and Steffan Lewis gave a list of the changes that he says are due to the influence of Plaid Cymru. The DUP in Northern Ireland has got an extra £1 billion for Northern Ireland out of their support for the Government at Westminster, and Plaid Cymru has managed to redirect £500 million out of the £15 billion that the Labour Government here has to spend. I've got no objection to any of the changes that have been made, because that's what coalition-type arrangements are about, and nobody, therefore, can complain about the way in which the DUP has used its position at Westminster, because it's happening here in Cardiff in the same way. What would be quite interesting to know, of course, is what the Government would have spent the £500 million on if they hadn't been in hock to Plaid Cymru. Then we would be able to have a proper debate on priorities, which is what the Finance Committee recommended.

We need to know much more about the Government's priorities and how they conform to the spending plans that they've announced. In this context, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee—who speaks for me in this respect if in no other—for the exemplary way in which he's chaired the committee, and indeed the unfailing courtesy of the finance Secretary in his appearances before us towards all Members.

There is a certain air of unreality about these budget debates, as I pointed out in my speech on the draft budget, in as much as the finance Secretary is constrained by the expenditure that is inevitable. The scale of discretionary spending is actually quite small, although that should increase in years to come, when we start exercising our power over devolved taxes and also have a relatively limited but nevertheless important power to borrow for spending on capital projects. But what has happened in this budget, by and large, is that the health budget has been increased at the expense of everything else. That, I suppose, in a way, is inevitable as well because, as we know, health inflation is greater than the rate of inflation generally. We have an ageing population and, with advances in medical science, more conditions become treatable, people live longer, so there is inevitably going to be a huge increase in the health budget at UK level and in the Welsh budget.

So, I have enormous sympathy with the finance Secretary in his difficult task of having to reconcile all the claims upon him. But it is interesting that some budgets have been cut by much more than others. The environment budget has taken a particularly big hit of something like 15 per cent in real terms, whilst the health budget has gone up only by a small amount in percentage terms, but nevertheless, as it's part of a very large budget, by a significant sum—an extra £166 million.

All that is very welcome, but what is troubling about the health service in Wales is not so much the amount of money that we're spending on it, but the laxity of some of the health boards in what they do with the money that they're given. We know the problems of the deficits that are in existence at the minute, particularly in Hywel Dda and Betsi Cadwaladr. Betsi Cadwaladr bumps along; two years ago it had a significant deficit, that came down, and this year it looks as though it's going up again. So, we don't seem to be making a great deal of progress in that respect, and until we get the problems of the heath boards that are in special measures or targeted intervention properly under control, this is going to be an intractable problem for the finance Secretary.

There are other issues that I think we should turn our attention to. I've been particularly interested to look at the amount of money that is spent on enterprise zones. I think enterprise zones are a very good idea, and they do have a capacity to kick-start the economy in areas that have got otherwise very long-term problems. But when you look at how many jobs have actually been created or safeguarded relative to the amount of money that has been spent on them, we have to ask ourselves whether this is value for money. That's not to say I want to cut off these sums, but what I would like to see is that we get more bang for our buck, as it were.

To take the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, for example, ignoring the vast costs of the Heads of the Valleys road development, which would be included in the expenditure in that area, if you look back to the pre-2016 position, we had about 400 jobs in total that were created or safeguarded in Ebbw Vale at a cost of nearly £20 million. Now, I don't think that's terribly good value for money. If you go through the rest of the enterprise zones as well, some are doing a lot better than others, and job-creation costs are much better in some than others. So, I think we really need to look in greater detail at whether we are getting value for money out of these projects, because although the idea behind them is certainly laudable, we need to ask ourselves whether they are actually performing for us.

One other element of the budget, which Nick Ramsay referred to a moment ago, actually, was about prevention, and of course there is tremendous pressure to spend upon current needs, but if we are to cut costs or to improve performance in the longer term, we have to take the longer-term view. We discussed this with the future generations commissioner in the Finance Committee, and I know it's difficult for the finance Secretary—I'm not unaware of the conundrum that he has to solve—but we do need to spend more upon looking ahead to future problems and anticipating them, hence reducing the future costs that are going to press in upon us.

We've had the usual complaints about so-called austerity, of course, and I've many times responded to this in the Chamber. With the national debt now approaching £2 trillion compared with the £1 trillion that it was only five years ago, nobody can credibly say that the Westminster Government has been doing anything other than spraying money at the economy. The problem is that, very often, it's been spent on the wrong things. Again, I've gone through that in the past and I don't intend to repeat myself today.

But, the borrowing requirement this year is nearly £50 billion compared with £83 billion last year. The national debt is 85.6 per cent of GDP this year—that's 3 per cent higher than it was in 2015-16. The national debt is still rising, and it is rising as a proportion of GDP, and that means, looking ahead to future generations, that this is a millstone around the neck of children and grandchildren and beyond. Of course, borrowing goes up and down over the cycle, but we're now in the tenth year after the financial crisis of 2008 and we should really have made much more progress in cutting borrowing than we have done, because you can't just borrow forever.

Venezuela is now discovering this, as Zimbabwe and many other countries around the world have, and indeed Britain discovered in the 1970s. Indeed, after every Labour Government, there is usually to be found a significant economic problem that has to be solved. I don't absolve the Conservative Government from some of the blame here, but the truth of the matter is, as Nick Ramsay pointed out in response to Mick Antoniw earlier on, that after 13 years of Labour Government to 2010, they'd squandered the legacy that was left by Kenneth Clarke; after the first Blair administration, they took off the brakes on spending, and the result was, instead of mending the roof when the sun was shining, we found we had great gaping holes in it at a time when the rain was coming down in torrents after—[Interruption.] I will, certainly.

That point is just factually incorrect. The actual percentage of borrowing compared with GDP at the time of the financial crisis was 37.2 per cent—about 0.2 per cent higher than it was when Labour came into Government in the first place. The only difference was the increase to 50 per cent, which was effectively the steps taken by Gordon Brown to actually save the UK economy from collapsing. What you've had now, as a result of austerity measures under this Tory Government and the cut-back in capital investment, is the fact that the percentage is now 88 per cent.

I think, if the Member examines the record, he will find that, under the first Blair Government, they reduced the proportion of debt in GDP up to 2001, and from 2001 to 2010 it rose steadily every year until the explosion after 2008. I haven't got the figures with me today, but I'm happy to send them. He'll find them in the House of Commons library research paper, which gives them. So, that's the reality of the background to the budget.

We can't just magic away the macro-economic problems that the UK faces. If we attempt to do so, then we will make things even worse for us in the future. What we need to do is to grow the economy. In the United States now, there are plans for substantial reductions in corporation tax. This is being mirrored in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Switzerland, and this is what we need for Britain. I'm very much in favour of devolving corporation tax to Wales so that we can take our own course in this respect as well, but I appreciate that that's a debate for another day. So, whilst I welcome the budget, I recognise the limitations that the finance Secretary is bound by, and I think there are things that we can do to tweak things at the margins, but his scope for action is very little more than that. 

Whilst supporting the Welsh Government budget, I acknowledge the budget is inadequate for the needs of Wales. This is not a criticism of either the finance Secretary or the Welsh Government; this is due to the inadequate block grant from the Tories in Westminster. As the year progresses—and we've heard some of it already—I expect Tory calls for, 'More money for health', 'More money for education' and then to oppose any cut backs that are being forced upon local authorities by the reduction in their block grants whilst facing increasing need for social care and children services.

Austerity is failing as an economic policy. That should surprise nobody because it's always failed; it's been tried many times and it's failed every single time. But for the Conservatives at Westminster, it's not an economic policy, it's an ideology: shrink the state; reduce public expenditure; reduce public services; make people who can financially afford it use the private sector.

The failure to distinguish between capital and revenue expenditure is another major problem. To put in terms that the Conservatives will understand: revenue is the equivalent of borrowing for food and energy, and would be a problem for any family. Capital is borrowing to buy a car and a house: as long as it's affordable, it's something many of us have done and currently do. Releasing money for capital is wonderful in terms of your economy: it reflates the economy; it gets people back into full-time work. Everyone benefits, and it's just releasing borrowing for things like building houses and other revenue-raising construction projects. Building things and getting the money in from building them: it works, it's always worked. Unfortunately, instead of building things for use, we've been building war machines in the past in order to reflate our economy at the end of a recession. Fortunately, we're not in that sort of world now so let's learn from the past and reflate the economy. 

On the detail of the Welsh budget: additional money for the health service, reductions for everyone else. Health continues to increase its share of the Welsh budget. When giving evidence to the Finance Committee, Michael Trickey of the Public Policy Institute for Wales identified when it would get to 60 per cent of the total expenditure in Wales. He was not prepared—despite me asking him—to extrapolate as to when it would reach 100 per cent of the Welsh budget.

Of course, 'For health, see hospitals', seems to be common belief, and that more people treated in hospital is a sign of success. I disagree with that belief. We need to reduce hospital demand—that's something that was said by the future generations commissioner—by promoting positive lifestyle choices: no smoking; increased exercise; reduce obesity levels and drug taking. Also, improved housing quality, improved diet and increased social care. People are ending up in hospital just because their social needs have not been met, and as such, they become ill. What we want to do is ensure that we have fewer people going into hospital. 

Finally, I would like to highlight some key issues identified by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. In order to demonstrate how the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 informs the budget process, the Welsh Government should incorporate in its impact assessment process an assessment against its well-being objectives. The Welsh Government must, in discussion with Natural Resources Wales, keep under review the capacity of NRW to fulfil its duties. I think this is one of the things—you can't keep on taking money out of organisations like NRW and keep on expecting them to do the same and more. If they're going to have less money, then they have to have less things to do. Expecting them to do more with less is only going to end up with lots of things not being done very well and things being missed out.

Scrutiny of the Welsh Government draft budget responsibilities and statutory functions is something that has been carried out by the climate change committee, and the Welsh Government should work with national parks to explore how they can raise revenue. This should include support to develop plans to realise their potential for income generation. Far too often, parts of the public sector seem to think that income generation is something that shouldn't happen, that everything should be met by Government grants. We're not in that sort of world any more. People need to look at how they can raise money from what they do. What can they do to raise more money? What can they charge for? What charges can they increase? Increased charges are never popular, but I think if you want to keep a service going, then if the amount of money coming in from grant is going down, the only thing you can do is increase charges. When times are hard, difficult decisions need to be made.

As I've only got 28 seconds left, can I make a plea? Many children in Wales get free breakfasts and free school meals during school term time. Unfortunately, when it comes to the summer holidays, they get six weeks of no free breakfasts and no free lunches. This causes huge strain upon many families in my constituency, and I'm sure in many others. I would like to see an attempt made to extend these free meals for pupils outside term time, especially during the long summer holidays, which cause so much upset to so many parents. 

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the involvement of the standing committees in the way that the scrutiny of the Welsh Government budget is conducted, although it has to be said that following the money has proven, as ever, a challenge, as moneys have been moving around budget allocations, and have, in some instances, made direct year-on-year comparisons extremely difficult.

I do want to make it clear that I understand the budget is finite, and I also note the funding allocated to the NHS has increased in real terms by 0.5 per cent on the previous year. However, at the current run rate and scale of practice, this is merely enough to keep the operation going. My concerns revolve around how the money within the health service MEG is deployed, and whether that deployment enables positive outcomes in line with the Welsh Government's programme for government.

I have three specific areas I wish to raise with you. My first concern lies with general practice. You'll be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for health is putting an enormous emphasis on dealing with ill health at a community level—it reflects what Mike Hedges has just been saying—in order to prevent referrals to secondary care, where the costs tend to rise exponentially. This also ties in to the findings highlighted in the interim report from the parliamentary review of health and social care, which are a good indication of the likely recommendations they're going to make.

The benefits of using doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chronic condition nurses and mental health specialists in a community setting are not merely financial. We know that it is beneficial for the patient to be seen locally, treated locally and followed up locally, yet by any measure the Welsh Government budget is not putting enough resources into supporting primary care. The lowest percentage share of the NHS budget in any home nation is borne by Welsh GPs. In 2015-16, general practice received only 7.24 per cent of NHS spend, but they are expected to do the bulk of the heavy lifting in terms of the prevention of ill health and the management of co-morbidity.

The Welsh Government must also recognise that many GP surgeries have inadequate facilities and find it very difficult to offer a plethora of clinics and services in conditions that are either archaic or simply too small for the demand that they face. In my own constituency, I have surgeries saying that they cannot offer some of the vital preventative care clinics that are required because they simply do not have the room and the staff. The Welsh health estate needs financial support to bring it into line with modern-day requirements, and this is a point that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee picked up on in our scrutiny of the budget. So, Cabinet Secretary, could you please tell us how GPs are going to be able to offer such transformational services with such a small share of NHS resource?

That brings me to my second area of concern. We've all made a political commitment to enable the parliamentary review to take a long hard look at what needs to be done to transform our NHS into one that's capable of facing the challenges of the future, but I don't see how the costs of this are allowed for in the budget going forward. In fact, reviewing evidence from both the Cabinet Secretary for health and you, it was very clear that the 0.5 per cent increase provides barely enough to keep the wheels turning, so how can you expect health boards and GP practices to transform the way that they work without clear funding streams to enable and support that transformational programme? Recommendations 1 and 2 of the health committee report are very clear on this.

The third area I would like to briefly raise with you is the mental health ring fence, which will increase by some £20 million in 2018-19. However, despite being ring-fenced since 2008, the ways in which health boards have interpreted the ring fence are a cause for concern, with precious funding being absorbed by carrying out routine treatments. For example, if somebody with a mental health issue needs a new hip operation, it comes out of the mental health budget, and I cannot see the logic or fairness in that. So, Cabinet Secretary, I wonder whether you have any plans to review all of the ring-fenced areas of the Welsh Government budget to see if they are still absolutely applicable and doing what they were intended to do in the first place. 

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, a general point in regard to health board deficits. All of the foregoing is impossible if these health board deficits continue. In answers to written questions you've said there's no bailout for health boards, and yet the reality is that we need to look at how those health boards are funded because I'm not, and I want to make this crystal clear, I'm not asking for any more money for the NHS out of that Welsh Government budget, but what I am questioning is the deployment of the current funds, including the 0.5 per cent increase, and whether or not we have to make, or you have to make and your colleagues have to make, some tough decisions about where we have to move money from temporarily in order to effect that transformational change. Otherwise, we will not have a health service that can keep those wheels on and keep going for the people of Wales in the future. 

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate on the draft budget for 2018-19. It does mark a new era for this Assembly in terms of our powers and responsibilities with the new fiscal framework, and it's good to see this include the outcome of the reform of the Barnett formula as it applies to Wales at long last, resulting in an additional £69 million over this draft budget period. And the Cabinet Secretary has embraced these new fiscal responsibilities with characteristic skill, but I'm chiefly supportive because of the robust approach he's taken to ensure that Welsh Labour commitments are prioritised in this budget. This approach is underpinned by his commitment to promote social justice, tackle inequality and support our public services against a backdrop of austerity and cuts.

He's been vocal and consistent in his opposition to austerity, but in this respect he's not alone. Last year, economists from the International Monetary Fund warned that austerity policies can do more harm than good and warned that increased inequality hurts the level and sustainability of growth—and how right they were, with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast downgrading growth over the coming years. 

The negative fiscal impact of austerity is clear. Our Welsh Government budget has been cut by 7 per cent over the past decade. Despite this, our Cabinet Secretary has crafted a budget that secures the Welsh Labour manifesto commitments on health, housing, social care and education, and negotiated a two-year budget agreement with Plaid Cymru, with economic and social benefits for Wales. 

The scrutiny of this draft budget has been subject to an enhanced budgetary process, resulting in a report from the Finance Committee, of which I'm glad now to be a member, which is both fair and firm, and it's good to see many shared priorities emerging that accord with the Welsh Government's draft budget. In this context, I want to focus on two areas of shared priorities, social care and housing. 

I was surprised there was no reference to social care in the UK budget, although it featured as a key issue in their March statement when the UK Government actually passed the buck to local government in England to up council tax to meet the deepening gaps in social care. In contrast, the Welsh Labour Government has been consistent in its support for social care over the past eight years of austerity and reducing budgets. Recent figures published by the UK Government show spending on health and social services in Wales is 8 per cent higher than in England and growing faster than in any other part of the UK in 2016-17. And, in the draft budget we're debating, social care will receive an extra £42 million in 2018-19, rising to £73 million in 2019-20. That's welcome, but I'm aware of two areas of policy development that are relevant: firstly, the opportunity to integrate health and social care and follow through the findings of the parliamentary review on health and social care due to be published in the new year. The Health and Social Care Committee makes this a key recommendation in the draft budget report, calling for fully costed plans to take forward transformational change in health and social care.    

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. You mentioned earlier the March statement in which the UK Government, of course, committed £2 billion towards social care and, of course, this place will have had the Barnett consequential from that. Would you like to see that used primarily in the integration agenda or some other aspect of social care? 

I was going on to say that a very important vehicle for integrating health and social care is, of course, our integrated care fund. And, in fact, going back to parties working together, that was devised by three parties in the Assembly in the fourth session—Labour with Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats—when we were negotiating a budget agreement. It did result in a bespoke fund to integrate health, social care and housing, and that's been sustained over the past four years, delivering outcomes throughout Wales, standing at £50 million in this budget. I think it's also important that we look at who pays for social care, and I look forward to engaging the Finance Committee's inquiry into the cost of social care for an ageing population.

I want to finally say that also Mark Drakeford has focused on housing. Last week, we had a robust debate, and again this afternoon, in terms of our commitment to the abolition of the right to buy. But across this Chamber there was recognition that addressing housing need must be a priority. Let's contrast the two budgets that affect us today. Philip Hammond's budget did nothing for social housing, but Mark Drakeford has released capital as part of a £1.4 billion investment towards building 20,000 homes and, crucially, he's committed an extra £10 million to tackle homelessness in each year. I welcome that, as did Shelter when they came to my constituency and discussed local housing needs. So, we must recognise that this draft budget is going to support our public services, secure the money from the UK Government to lift the pay gap, protect our most vulnerable people in Wales and boost the economy by investing in our infrastructure, especially in social housing. 

Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. With just over 49 per cent of the whole Assembly budget falling in the health sector—some £7.3 billion of a budget of £15 billion—then, naturally, members of the health committee scrutinised the budget very enthusiastically in terms of all the funds spent in this sector under the new system that we’ve already discussed. May I thank my fellow Members for their work and the clerks and researchers for their support?

There was a substantial evidence-gathering process from June onwards—in-year financial scrutiny with the Cabinet Secretary, and then, through September and October, written and oral evidence from all health boards in Wales. In October, we took evidence from the WLGA and the ADSS, who appeared in committee, and, in November, we took additional evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services and the Minister for Children and Social Care—they all appeared before the committee.

A number of themes emerged: transformative change is the main theme. Transformation of the service is central to the long-term success of a financially viable NHS, alongside funding to lever this change. If this does not happen, we will remain in a position where additional sums of Welsh Government funding are being used to maintain current delivery models, without any transformative change. The Cabinet Secretary told us about the additional investment of a further £450 million in the Welsh NHS over the next two years. These allocations to the NHS must be used to lever long-term change.

The committee’s recommendation is that the Welsh Government should ensure, following the publication of the parliamentary review of health and social care in January of next year, that it fully costs plans to take forward transformational change in terms of health and social care. Additional funding for the NHS must be premised on delivering change. The Welsh Government should identify ways in which transformation and transition funding is prioritised and made available for NHS organisations from within existing budgets.

Turning now to health board finances, we know that the largest proportion of the Welsh Government’s funding for the NHS in Wales goes directly to the health boards, and the committee sought to examine the current financial position in detail. This year, we have focused specifically on health boards. We note that the ambitions of the National Health Service Finance (Wales) Act 2014 have not been fully realised by all NHS bodies. It’s very disappointing that four of the seven local health boards have noted a deficit in at least one of the past three years, and it’s a cause of concern specifically that the Betsi Cadwaladr health board and the Hywel Dda health board have reported a deficit each year from 2014 onwards.

The Welsh Government should therefore review the current methodology of setting health board budgets and publish its findings. We know that the Health Foundation has said that the health service in Wales is facing the most financially challenging period in its history and, therefore, seeking savings of some £700 million, as has already been mentioned. The Welsh Government should develop an all-Wales efficiency programme in order to ensure that local best practice is rolled out across all services throughout Wales.

Funding for social care is crucially important and we should ensure that sustainable, quality social care should be provided. We mentioned in our recommendation that we need a whole-systems approach in terms of health and social care. That must be planned year on year so that additional funding is available for social care and so it is sufficient to reflect increasing demands. Losing social care will mean damage to the health service as a whole.

Turning to sport, the committee was surprised to see the most recent change to the Welsh Government portfolios. I have no time to go into the detail, but just to note that it moved from one portfolio to another. As has already been mentioned, we should prioritise capital investment for primary care in the community and ensure that we enhance capacity in terms of buildings in the community in order for multidisciplinary work to take place and new models of care. The Welsh Government should also undertake a further review of the mental health ring-fenced funds to assess whether it has led to effective and appropriate expenditure on mental health and ensured improved outcomes for patients. The Welsh Government should also look at the way the UK Government funds prisoner health, because we don't receive half enough funds for that.

To conclude, we need to take into account the substantial amount of money spent by NHS Wales on agency staff, and the Welsh Government should commission a review of all the anomalies and perverse incentives across agency and bank arrangements.

Therefore, I'd like to think that the most detailed scrutiny ever on the health budget is going to bring about the necessary changes in expenditure of that budget to improve health and social care services for the people of Wales. Thank you very much.

As the January 2009 Institute for Fiscal Studies publication, 'The public finances under Labour' stated,

'Labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world and a bigger debt than most OECD countries, having done less to reduce debt and—in particular—borrowing than most since 1997.'

In terms of Keynesianism therefore, they broke the economic cycle. In 2010, the Conservative-led coalition inherited the highest budget deficit in peacetime UK history. But, as every debtor knows, you can't reduce debt until expenditure falls below income. Those high-deficit countries that rejected austerity got it in full measure. Thanks to the hard work of people across the UK, however, the deficit here is down by over two thirds, falling to a level last seen before the financial crisis. But we still need to get our debt down—not for some ideological reason but because excessive debt undermines our economic security, leaving us vulnerable to shocks.

As a senior Bank of England official warned last week,

'Britain cannot afford to borrow more without jeopardising the country's financial stability'.

Now, although £1.2 billion more is coming to the Welsh Government from the UK Treasury, significant Welsh Government funding into communities that are lagging behind has not borne fruit. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report released yesterday states:

'Across the four countries of the UK, Wales has consistently had the highest poverty'.

After the Red Cross highlighted the need to ensure financial provision for preventative services, referred to earlier by my colleague Nick Ramsay, I asked the Finance Secretary in October what consideration he'd given to financial provision in the context that community-driven development at local authority level mobilising individuals, associations and institutions to come together and build on their social, cultural and material assets, putting them at the heart of decisions, will prevent care needs from becoming more serious and therefore save money for public authorities. In reply, the Cabinet Secretary agreed with me about the need for all public services 

'to make sure that, when people are involved with public services, they are not regarded as problems to be solved, but as joint participants in the business of bringing about improvement.'

That was the Secretary's quote. He added:

'local authorities that seek to engage their citizens in that positive way are likely to be able to make greater impacts with the budgets they have, particularly at the preventative end.'

However, widespread concerns have been raised that this budget takes us in the opposite direction. In your draft budget deal with Plaid Cymru, you agreed to ring-fence Supporting People funding and increase it by £10 million annually for two years. But a subsequent letter to local authority chief executives revealed that local authorities would be given spending flexibility across Supporting People and four other non-housing related grants, meaning that the Supporting People funding is not guaranteed to be protected. If the Welsh Government now removes the funding ring fence and merges the Supporting People grant with other non-housing grants, we would no longer be able to understand how much is being spent on housing-related support services in Wales, or to hold Welsh Government Ministers to account over this.

Representing housing associations and third sector providers, Hafan Cymru has therefore called for the reinstatement of the ring fence and protection of Supporting People funding. Welsh Women's Aid state that plans in this budget to effectively remove the ring fencing of Supporting People and violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence grants will very likely result in the dismantling of our national network of third sector specialist services that provide life-saving and life-changing support.

In the interests of access and inclusion, the Community Transport Association has called for an end to short-term funding cycles, which prevent charitable operators planning for the future, a review of the concessionary fares formula to prevent their financial loss, and budget support for cross-departmental working, which recognises that they are increasingly providing health and social care services, not just transport.

In this debate last year, I warned against a £5.5 million Welsh Government cut to the charity Family Fund and the impact that this would have on the most vulnerable families with disabled children. When the Family Fund presented at the last meeting of the cross-party group on disability, they told us that the number of grants awarded to families had fallen from £5,429 in 2015-16 to just £875 this year, and that the majority of families without grant support said that there was no other support available to them. Well, this is both morally and financially irresponsible, and I urge the Welsh Government to reconsider.

I listened earlier to Nick Ramsay's question, which was: what is this budget setting out to achieve? And I think that's been answered, certainly from these benches, and the benches on this side of the Chamber, in delivering the Welsh Government's programme. But also, I would say what it is setting out to achieve as well is limiting the damaging effects of his Government in Westminster. That is part of what it is setting out to achieve.

I speak having been a councillor for 10 years and having sat through many budgets in the last 10 years. Through consultation with members of the public, you are able to get an idea of where to cut, but nonetheless, it is incredibly hard to sit through a list of cuts over which you have no control. But, one of the things you are able to tell yourself, as a councillor in Wales, is that it is much worse to be a councillor in England. I think that is one of the credits that this Welsh Government has had over the past 10 years.

The UK Government has had a golden opportunity. I live in a different political world to Neil Hamilton; I just don't understand where he was coming from. And Mark Isherwood seemed to engage in a brilliant piece of doublethink whereby on the one hand he waxes lyrical about austerity, and on the other he calls for more targeted spending. But the UK Government—

Will you give way?

Yes, of course.

Were you not listening? Did you not hear me say that what I was proposing would save further money for the Welsh Government and local services—money that should be helping the people who actually need it?

There's no point getting angry about it. I heard what he said, and I think some of what he said should be directed towards the UK Government, actually. I think that some of the things that Nick Ramsay said reflected that, too. We can only do what we can do, and what we want to do, if we have the resources given to us by the UK Government. I'd say to Mark Isherwood: come and take a walk around Caerphilly; come and see the direct impacts of UK Government cuts and see those things that the Welsh Government has done to limit the impacts of those cuts.

I've received correspondence from constituents, particularly Sheila Jones, who has pleaded for AMs not to pass a budget that makes any further cuts to public spending. But you have to act responsibly. I understand my constituents' frustration with ongoing austerity, but the blame for that cannot lie—cannot lie—at the door of this Government. I think the Cabinet Secretary has done superbly well to deal with the resources at his disposal.

On the other things—and I again return to Mark Isherwood—perhaps the way things are done can be better within a limited budget. Universal credit, for example, is a policy that is non-devolved, but the botched introduction by the Tory UK Government is having a very worrying effect on our communities. The UK Government needs to take mitigating steps to speed up universal credit payments to avoid unfair sanctions over Christmas, but, unlike some who want to devolve for the sake of devolution, I don't believe it's for the Welsh Government to use its budget to clean up the mess that's been created by the UK Government. If the Welsh Government were to take on administrative responsibility for benefits and welfare policy without the necessary additional funding from Whitehall, it would potentially worsen the situation by imposing new financial burdens—[Interruption.]—on an already stretched Welsh Government and create unrealistic expectations of more generous payments in Wales.

Thanks for giving way. I'm just getting my head around what you said a few moments ago. You seem to have been saying to your constituent that you think it's right that the Welsh Government should not spend money it doesn't have and, therefore, act responsibly, but you're quite happy for the UK Government to borrow as much as it wants, so long as the money comes down the line to you. That doesn't seem to be a responsible argument to me.

Well, that's not a responsible representation of what I said, and what I said is: we are operating within a UK Government budget context in which it has cut back mercilessly, and those merciless cuts have fed back to the Welsh Government. I think that Nick Ramsay knows very well that's exactly what I just said.

I will be supporting this budget this afternoon, because I have every confidence in the Cabinet Secretary. The budget that he has put together under these circumstances is true to Welsh Labour values and reflects the programme for government and does all it can to reduce the impacts of the UK Government strategy. This budget agreement with Plaid Cymru ensures financial stability for Wales over the next two years, something that is much needed, given the ongoing austerity, and it's for these reasons I'll be voting in favour of the budget today.

If I could initially respond to Steffan Lewis, who chose not to take an intervention from me earlier. When I was listening to him, he was speaking with great confidence about what will happen in 2020, or what will inevitably happen in 2021. I just think he needs to consider he was referring to forecasts, and however august those bodies are, whether they're the Treasury or the OECD or the OBR, they are just forecasts. The OBR itself admits that it's only 90 per cent sure that growth at that time will be somewhere between -1 per cent and 4 per cent, and the OECD and the Treasury that he quotes, of course, told us there was going to be a severe recession immediately were we to vote to leave the European Union. That has not come to pass.

I would, though, congratulate him and Plaid on the extent to which they've been able to influence the Welsh Government by using their numbers here. It's only a shame that they haven't used their numbers in Westminster to give support to the UK Government there in return for extra money for Wales, which I'm sure would have been welcomed across this Chamber.

I also note that when he talks about the implications of potentially leaving the single market for the budget, his view and mine would be very different, but what I hadn't taken account of is that the First Minister's view was very different just in the session earlier. Again, on this subject, he contradicted himself in answer to questions. When responding to Leanne Wood, he stuck to his usual formulation—and he was responding in English—that he wanted 'full, unfettered access' to the single market, the very carefully crafted phrase he has developed. I've never heard him say in English that he wants to stay in the single market. He's been very careful not to. Yet, when he answered Rhun ap Iorwerth in Welsh, the translation I heard in my headphones at the time, and as I've confirmed with translation since, was very clear. He said:

'What is the answer? Well, it’s quite clear: the United Kingdom should remain within the single market'.

He then went on to say he wanted to leave the EU in a way

'which keeps us in the single market'.

Why is it that the First Minister says one thing in Welsh and another in English? Is it because he wants to disguise the extent to which he is not respecting the result of the referendum? Just as we consider the budget today, the first Minister says, 'We respect the result of the referendum, but—.' Today he has let the cat out of the bag and revealed that Labour's true position is to want to stay within the single market, notwithstanding the result of that referendum. 

Cabinet Secretary, this is the first budget in which you have tax-raising and tax-altering powers, and I want to focus the rest of my remarks on the taxation arrangements for Wales as you announced them today. You've emphasised the progressive principles you hold and how you are applying these through the land transaction tax—both through the residential thresholds and rates but also, I'd emphasise, through placing a greater burden on commercial property purchases at the higher rate than is done either in England or in Scotland. With the extent that the economic strategy of the Welsh Government relies on city deals and enterprise zones, which necessitate a certain level of private investment, often from outside Wales, I'm concerned that the Cabinet Secretary's principles run counter to the Government's wider economic strategy. Setting the rate on higher-band commercial properties 1 per cent higher than England and 1.5 per cent higher than Scotland is not going to help us secure private sector investment. It may tip the decision to invest in Wales compared to other parts of the UK. Does this Cabinet Secretary want to strangle the growth in Cardiff commercial property that his colleague Ken Skates is trying to support with an enterprise zone? It seems there is a lack of joined-up thinking between the two departments, whose strategies may be running in direct opposition to each other.

Now, today I detected a difference, at least in the tone from the Cabinet Secretary, to his previous responses to me on the issue of stamp duty and first-time buyers. Before, I had the impression that he was considering how and to what degree he might respond to the UK announcement around first-time buyers and, in particular, whether he would allow a similar concession, potentially—perhaps not so large but nonetheless a concession—within Wales. And as I've said, again, this is a particular issue for first-time buyers in Monmouthshire, close to the border. Could he clarify his position on that, or has he, essentially, decided that he's going to stick with the LTT rates he had before?

He rightly observes that the amount of the block grant will be influenced and corrected for any potential surge in first-time buyer purchases encouraged in Wales through this, and I wonder what he will do with the additional money that he may get for future years, and I ask that he at least considers again that rise to 6 per cent in that commercial stamp duty rate, just because of what that could do to disincentivise internal investment in Wales. The bigger danger, perhaps, though, is if Wales were to take a similar approach to income tax in future, I fear that the Cabinet Secretary's exposition of his progressive principles are such that he will allow, to keep his hands on the tiller, the consequent increases in taxation, which would undermine Welsh competitiveness and keep us on the economic slow lane.

I will do my best to avoid repeating any points that have already been commented on. Can I, first of all, thank the Cabinet Secretary for his report and the sober introduction to it, which recognises the severe impact of UK cuts on our budget? In paragraph 1.5, you say that despite ongoing and severe cuts to the Welsh budget as a result of the UK Government's damaging austerity agenda, the Welsh Government has continued to protect public services from the worst effects of austerity.

You did, in your outline, also refer to some of the circumstances that were particularly affecting the Welsh economy as part of the UK economy: wages are falling and are lower now than in 2010, wage growth is the lowest in Europe bar Greece, economic growth and productivity is the worst for a century, UK investment is lower than every other major economy apart from Greece and Portugal, and the Brexit shambles is causing uncertainty for business and people. And we've recently discussed the absolute shambles over the DUP affair.

Can I contrast your report with that of Her Majesty's Treasury, which, in the economic context, does actually confirm most of those points about the ongoing, long-term economic downcast reporting that's taken place? But then, contrast it with the less-than-sober introduction to the report, which says,

'The United Kingdom has a bright future. The fundamental strengths of the UK economy will support growth in the long term'

and

'the Budget will ensure that every generation can look forward to a better standard of living than the one before'.

It makes you wonder whether that report was written in two parts—the first part by the Chancellor and the second part by people who actually knew something about what was happening in the economy.

One of the points I really wanted to talk about, though, was the impact on the public sector and the public sector pay cap. It particularly affects my constituency of Pontypridd because we have in the region of 15,000 public sector workers in my constituency, the overwhelming majority of whom have not had a wage increase of any consequence whatsoever for the last decade or so. The net effect is that, by 2022, as a result of the UK Government's austerity programme, nurses and firefighters will be £3,400 per annum worse off in real terms, librarians £2,100, paramedics and dieticians £3,800, the police £450 a year worse off, and prison officers £980 a year worse off. One of my constituents, Shirley Nicholls, a Welsh NHS nurse for 30 years, says this:

'I feel we are being squeezed year after year by austerity. Many cannot make ends meet. Many are leaving. Morale is low. It seems it is only the poorest who are being made to pay for austerity. I fear that if Westminster does not end the pay cap and bring austerity to an end, our NHS and public services will not survive.'

I'd ask you to consider, Cabinet Secretary, whether there is more we can do to put pressure on the UK Government to make statutory pay body awards binding, because that seems to me to be the fundamental flaw—that we set a body to determine pay, but the UK Government then refuses to actually pay that.

Can I then refer to a number of matters within the Welsh budget that I'd like to give some consideration to? The first one is the community facilities programme. I very much welcome the additional £6 million and further increases in subsequent years to this programme. It's a programme that has had a significant impact in my constituency, with the Ely Valley Miners sports project and the New Life Church, which provides a whole range of community support programmes. All of these, which have leveraged in other money, seem to be a very effective use of the tackling poverty priorities of the Welsh Government, and I really wonder if there is additional funding that further consideration might be given to, on how that could actually take place.

The second point I'd ask you to consider is really on the section you have in the report on the metro, and what the impact might be in respect of access to European funding, but also access to borrowing in respect of the European Investment Bank, and the impact this might have on some of the projects we want within the metro, such as the proposed new line to Llantrisant in my constituency.

Can I make one further final point, and that is on twenty-first century schools, welcoming the £1.4 billion investment? But it's really to congratulate Rhondda Cynon Taf council, who've already invested under this programme £200 million, and have plans for a further £300 million, with a massive structural transformation of education facilities as a result of this. It'll mean that, over a decade in Rhondda Cynon Taf, the council will have invested in educational facilities almost £0.5 billion. That is an amazing success, I think, and should be recognised.

One final point, then, on new taxes, Cabinet Secretary. I wonder whether in your consideration of items for new taxes there might be an opportunity now to give consideration to resurrecting the asbestos Bill.

I won't be voting for this draft budget. I won't be abstaining. I'll be voting against. This budget is bad.

Wales still has tuition fees to the tune of £9,000. Are we supposed to be grateful for that? It's really not good enough. There are still people in Wales being evicted from their home because of the bedroom tax; the most disadvantaged in our society being thrown out of their homes for the crime of having an extra bedroom. There are not even properties for people to move into. Those parents whose children live with them part of the week, or part of the time, have to give up the extra bedroom, and as a result, in some circumstances, they lose contact with their children because of that tax. There's nothing in this budget to address that.

I'll tell you what, though, there's always money for Labour's friends in the Bay, who seem to earn their living from other people's misfortune. 

Will you take an intervention?

No. The amount of money also being wasted is staggering—staggering. Tens of millions of pounds on questionable land deals, questionable business supports—that's where the money goes. And, I'm tired of the dependency culture in Wales. I want to see a budget that demands we stand on our own two feet. I want to see a budget that leads to people being empowered to live their own lives. With a sovereign Parliament, we could do much more, but this Government doesn't want extra powers to change things really.

Wales is a great country and we deserve a great Government, but that's not what we've got. We have a First Minister who's being investigated and his future is in doubt, and there's hardly any new legislation being introduced. Plaid Cymru has been involved in the budget and has made improvements, but only a small fraction of it; 99 per cent of this budget is all Labour, and that really shows.

I'll also be voting against the Conservative motion because, with respect, they've not got a leg to stand on. They've bunged £1 billion to the north of Ireland, whilst projects like rail electrification in Wales get cancelled. And even after sending them all that money, they let a party of religious extremists dictate our future with the European Union.

Wales is full of talent, but there's nothing serious in this budget to stop people having to leave our country to make their future elsewhere. It's been clear for years, but this budget only shows it more clearly: the only way to move Wales forward is by moving Labour out of the way.

Presiding Officer, Wales faces a skills shortage. Too many of our young people are not in education, employment or training. It is a sad fact that people in Wales are more likely to lack qualifications than people in Scotland or England. A lower proportion of people in Wales have a degree than any English region, bar the north-east. Educational attainment at the age of 16 in Wales has long been poorer than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and indeed internationally. Wales has a higher level of functional illiteracy than England, and around half of adults in Wales lack functional numeracy skills.

We need to improve education and training in Wales for our young people, and also extend the opportunities offered to adults, our ethnic minorities, and the disabled. People from ethnic minority background are more likely to fail to achieve functional literacy and numeracy compared to the indigenous community around them. There is a higher proportion of people with no qualifications among those who are disabled. People with learning disabilities are much more likely to lack basic literacy and numeracy than the rest of the population of the United Kingdom.

The Welsh Government has declared that it aims to instill in everyone a passion to learn throughout their lives, and to inspire them with the ambition to be the best they possibly can, and yet the adult community learning budget will be reduced by £400,000 in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The budget for further education provision will also be reduced over the same period.

Presiding Officer, nearly a quarter of all the jobs open in 2015 were left vacant because employers could not find the people with the right skills and the right abilities to fill them. That is a sad scenario we face because of this Government's policies in the education and skills sector in Wales. We should be doing more now, especially in this Brexit scenario. We need more than 2 million managers—business managers—in the United Kingdom in the next seven years. So, we should be preparing ourselves: our apprenticeships, our skills and our training sector should have fully occupied and senior advisors and officials to teach and learn leadership and managerial skills in Wales to fulfill the vacancies in the United Kingdom, especially in certain areas like transport, education and the agricultural sector, which are devolved, and there's a huge shortage of skills.

We must set targets to achieve our aims. Minister, I think—I've got no doubt in your ability, but I think there is some lack of ambition and some sort of encouragement—. I can't understand. I heard my previous speaker on many areas which he was creating himself in such a way that Labour is not helping this country at all. I do not agree with what he said altogether, but the fact is Labour must invest in education and the training of our young children and young people, able, disabled, and ethnic minorities, which we need to make sure they are the ones who create the economy and money in the future, which we're all saying. And I heard everybody saying that austerity measures and this, that and the other. In true facts, the budget has been reduced by 1p in £1. If you can't survive on £1, 99p doesn't make a difference, but you must learn in life. You must accommodate. Brexit came out of the blue, and the fact is we are not prepared here. In my understanding, we need to invest in our education, our skills and our training sector in Wales and our next generation should be prosperous with only that attitude; otherwise, this budget is not going to fulfill our ambition. Thank you.

There's been some very interesting contributions here this afternoon, and I've listened to most of them, some, I have to say, with interest, and others with disbelief, and I'm not going to make any further comments on which are which. But one thing I will say is that this is a joint budget, it has been agreed between Labour and Plaid, and Plaid have come to the table and put forward things that we could agree with so that we could produce a budget today, whereas others have just simply sniped from the sidelines.

I think that what we really need to do when we're looking at a budget for the foreseeable future is actually marry-up those things or join together policies that will make a difference. I have to congratulate the Tory Government that they have produced a growth industry in two areas: one is food banks and the other is homelessness, because their policies have produced, for the first time in my living memory, a massive increase in food banks. I'm sure that some of you will know that I've been on this planet for quite some time, and I have never seen anything quite like the appeals that are everywhere you turn, whether it's in a supermarket or the local press, on Facebook or Twitter, for donations to help feed people, not people who are out of work, but people who are in work. That's the cost of austerity, and I think it's absolutely disgraceful.

And let's be clear about what austerity really is: it's a political choice to reduce funding in the public sector. When they talk about ideology—they very often do talk about ideology—then we also have to talk about the ideological choice that has been made by a Tory Government in Westminster to cut the expenditure in the public sphere. So what does that mean and how should we link that together? Well, it's fairly obvious that if you reduce public spending in areas like Pembrokeshire, where 25 per cent of the population are actually employed in the public sector, you're also going to reduce the capacity to regenerate that area through local spend. It is a fact that, if people aren't working, or if their wages are suppressed because there's been a pay cap, that area will grow and grow in being poor, yet it is the case that the Conservative representatives will come here time and time again asking us to spend more money that we haven't got in those areas.

The other thing that is fairly clear is that, if you bring in universal credit in such a way that people end up owing huge amounts in rent arrears, it will also impact on the ability of those housing providers when they want to borrow money—they become a higher risk. I don't know whether, Cabinet Secretary, you have anything to say on that, but it is the case that the higher the risk that you become to a lender, the higher the cost of borrowing against it. So, when we hear the Conservatives actually saying to us, 'You must build more houses' or 'You must ensure that the housing stock is increased'—if universal credit, which they seem to support, because I haven't heard many of them talk against it, produces a negative impact on those policy areas that they consistently ask us to do something about, then they need to start joining things up. Because the budget doesn't stand in isolation, and Wales is impacted by the austerity that is coming thick and fast from the Westminster Government. When we talk about protecting things, Cabinet Secretary, I'd also ask you, as other people have mentioned here today—when we look at the Supporting People fund, and the fact that I understand that you have quite clearly said that you're going to put all of the money down to local government to make local determinations to save money on red tape, I also ask that you will monitor the spend around Supporting People, particularly in the area of ending violence against women and girls, so that those in most need don't end up not being provided for. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to reply to the debate—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank almost all of those who have taken part in this debate, and apologise in advance for the fact that I will not be able to respond to some serious points that have been made?

May I start by thanking Simon Thomas for what he said? I recognise the point that he made about what we want to do for the next year—better transparency, being clear about our priorities and the relationship between those and the programme for government, the lack of data and so forth. There are a number of things that we want to work on, and I recognise that at the outset of my response.

Could I say also that I’m looking forward to the work programme of that committee? There are many things that the committee Chair outlined this afternoon where the Government will welcome that work and take an interest in it—the work that the committee’s going to do on financial transaction capital, the impact of Brexit on our funding, and new devolved taxation. I’m sure that the committee Chair will have heard what Mick Antoniw said about asbestos in that context.

Also, on the new scrutiny process that we have, I know that the committee is going to pursue that and help us to rethink things so that we can do things better in future.

Nick Ramsay, Llywydd—I should have said in my introductory speech that, of course, we are entering the festive season, and, in line with the Conservative Party's interest in tradition, Mr Ramsay has once again dusted down the amendment that the Conservative Party has laid to this debate over many years now. I accused him last year of simply recycling the identical amendment, and he denied that. Indeed, this year, his amendment does come with the additional insult of a split infinitive, which he managed to avoid last year. [Laughter.] But sadly—

Can I just advise you, if you object greatly to split infinitives, please never read Shakespeare or the King James Bible. [Assembly Members: 'Oh'.] 

It's always seemed to me, Llywydd, that readers of Conrad would have a greater grasp of English stylistics than that. However, let me say that there are two big themes that I think have run through the debate this afternoon. I want to say something briefly on both of them. 

The fundamental debate across the Assembly lies in macroeconomic policy. On the one side of the argument, we have heard from a series of persuasive speakers—Hefin David, Mick Antoniw, Joyce Watson, Mike Hedges, Jane Hutt—all of them lined up between the proposition that Steffan Lewis set out earlier in the debate about the self-defeating nature of austerity. On the other side of the debate, we have a rather more nuanced approach. We have the approach of Nick Ramsay, which is to regret the necessity for austerity. So, he regards it as a necessity, but he regrets it and then goes on to give me a series of advice about places where I could spend money we haven't got as a result of the UK Government. The true voice of austerity is to be found much more in what Mr Hamilton had to say and his echo on the other side of the Chamber, Mark Reckless. His impersonation of Marley's ghost as he came clanking across the Chamber this afternoon I thought was remarkable. 

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way? 

Yes, of course. 

I wonder if he can confirm whether the Welsh Government's position is that the United Kingdom should remain within the single market, as the First Minister said in Welsh earlier? 

The exegetical zeal of the Brexit fanatic wanting to pick over individual words in English and Welsh—at least he's bringing that variety to his feast. The First Minister repeated the position that the Welsh Government has adopted since the very beginning, that full, unfettered participation in the single market and continued participation in a customs union would be immensely to the benefit of the Welsh economy, and a sensible UK Government that was interested in putting the needs of our economy first would extend those benefits to Wales, as yesterday it appeared willing to extend them to the island of Ireland. 

What Mr Reckless went on to object to was the fact we intend to raise a small number of thousands of pounds on transactions worth large numbers of millions of pounds in order to make sure that 90 per cent of commercial transactions in Wales either pay no tax at all, or don't pay any more tax than they do today. That's because he shares Neil Hamilton's basic view of economics that the only way to make rich people work harder is to make them even richer, and the only way to make poor people work harder is to make sure that they don't have enough to manage on so that they don't relax onto the benefits of the dole. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Have you ever discovered where the cross-over point is? 

I haven't, Mike; I look forward to it appearing one day in a report of the Finance Committee where I will be able to pursue it in that way. 

The second big debate on the floor of the Assembly this afternoon has been on health policy, and again there are a variety of views here. I make no absolutely no apology for the fact that this Labour Government goes on investing in our health service every year, that we fill the Nuffield gap, that we make sure that our health service has the resources it needs. Let me break a habit and agree with something that Mr Hamilton said here, because he was right when he said that there are new costs in the health service every year that are simply inescapable. No matter how much we want the health service to move in the direction of prevention, no matter how much we want to be determined that the health service should bear down on costs wherever it can, the fact that we have an ageing population, the fact that there are more things every year that the health service is able to do, means that there are in-built additional costs in the health service, and we face those here in Wales and this Government faces them by trying to make sure that we provide the resources that the health service needs to meet those costs. 

There was a great deal in what Angela Burns said that I agreed with; her contribution was characteristically thoughtful. Of course my colleague Vaughan Gething wants to make sure that we move the dial of the health service in favour of general practice: it's why we have a new £40 million investment fund in the primary care estate. But she will know—she will know from her own direct experience—how difficult it is in the health service, how difficult it is with the public to persuade them to invest in primary care rather than in a hospital service. You mention the word 'Withybush' in Pembrokeshire, and people will come out on the streets because they think there's something to defend. You mention the term 'primary care', which is where 90 per cent of their contacts come, and it's much, much more difficult to persuade people to have the same sense—[Interruption.] Yes. Yes, of course.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I absolutely accept the premise that you've just outlined but this is why we have to look at some way of getting some pump-priming. Because if we can actually get those local community services to work and work well—places like Argyle Street; I'm sure it's replicated across Wales—then the public will have much more confidence that they do not need to scurry off to a hospital every time they have a problem.

Well, I don't disagree with that, Llywydd, where we're able to do that. I didn't disagree with what Mark Isherwood said about the need to make sure we position the citizen as a partner in that process, making sure that we work with citizens in the process of change. It is more difficult to do, we know, in practice than it is to say. 

So, on those two big points, Llywydd, you can see that there is a difference of views across the Chamber. In the agreement that we have with Plaid Cymru, let me be clear: I don't regard this as a short-term deal in the way that Nick Ramsay said. I regard it as a significant agreement going on over two years in which we don't agree about everything—of course we don't—but there is a common set of purposes. 

When I'm talking about the longer term, I am thinking about longer than two years and I know that in your heart of hearts as well, Cabinet Secretary, you would ideally like to think longer than two years as well but your hands have been tied by this deal you've had to make. And I'm sorry you don't like my amendment, but I always was a Star Trek fan so I like to split the odd infinitive.

Well, you have boldly gone, once again, in laying your amendment, I know. Llywydd, my hands are tied, not by doing a two-year deal with Plaid Cymru but by the fact that we do not have a comprehensive spending review from his Government, so I don't have a budget for the Welsh Government for more than two years ahead. That is what's making me unable to do anything beyond that.

There was a series, Llywydd, of very specific things raised in the debate. Mike Hedges, I know, is an enthusiast for the SHEP programme and what we're able to do with the £0.5 million we've set aside in each year of the budget to help families during the school holidays. I hope we can do more. I hope we can do more in Swansea.

Can I just clear up one point that's been raised by a number of Members and then I will finish, Chair, and that's Supporting People? Because I know there have been concerns about it. Let me just read out to you two sentences from a letter sent by my colleague, Rebecca Evans, to Bethan Jenkins in clearing up this matter. First of all, the Minister makes it clear that no decisions have been taken as yet as to whether an early intervention and prevention grant will be created in 2019-20. The Minister awaits the evidence from the work that is already going on before coming to that conclusion. When she does come to make determinations there, she says in the letter, regardless of that work, 'I would like to reiterate that, as a result of a budget agreement reached with Plaid Cymru, there will be no cuts available in funding for the Supporting People grant in either 2018-19 or 2019-20', and I hope that those Members who have had anxieties this afternoon will take comfort from that very clear statement. 

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

We now move on to the debate on air quality and I call on the Minister for the Environment to move the motion—Hannah Blythyn. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Improving air quality is a key priority in the Welsh Government's national strategy, 'Prosperity for All', and it is likewise a key portfolio priority for me. Taking steps to improve our air quality contributes significantly to the majority of the well-being goals in our future generations legislation and I'm firmly committed to taking forward action in this area. The need for urgent action is not just about compliance with the law, it's essential and the right thing to do for the health and well-being of our people and communities. There is not one single solution to the challenge, but there is a collective responsibility on all of us and a role for Government across the piece—local, UK and here in Wales. I hope to use today's debate to take forward the discussion on the cross-Government actions needed to improve the quality of our air in Wales.

Today, we do have cleaner air in Wales than in decades past, but as always, we know there is more for us to do. My aim is for us to be a leader in delivering innovative and effective solutions to tackle air pollution, achieving clean air for all. I'm therefore taking immediate action, through a comprehensive cross-Government programme of work, to improve air quality in Wales. This will include the development and publication of a clean air plan for Wales in 2018. The plan will include improvements to local authority reporting on air quality problems and their plans to deal with them, a clean air zone framework for Wales to ensure consistent and effective establishment of clean air zones by local authorities wherever they are needed, the establishment of a national air quality assessment and monitoring centre for Wales, and the delivery of ongoing cross-Government communications and interventions to raise public awareness of poor air quality.

The clean air zone framework will set out our principles for the operation of clean air zones in Wales and our expectations in terms of how they should be established and what they should deliver, with a clear focus on health outcomes. A clean air zone is an area where targeted action is taken to improve air quality. They aim to reduce all types of air pollution, including nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. The zones are area-specific, so what works in one city or place may not necessarily have the same impact or effectiveness elsewhere. As well as ensuring consistent and effective implementation, the framework will help to make sure that businesses and members of the public have a clear expectation of what a zone is and how they may be affected by one.

In addition, our development of improvements to local authority air quality reporting arrangements will free up their time to focus on the actions needed to deal with the problems they identify. My officials are currently engaging with key stakeholders to design and establish a national air quality assessment and monitoring centre. The centre will be a major step to securing the live information and evidence needed for timely, coherent and effective decision making on air quality matters at both the local and the national Government levels. This centre will provide a continuous focus on achieving compliance with legal limits and specific hotspots, whilst reducing exposure to pollution more widely, and will help target actions to achieve the greatest benefits in terms of public health and well-being.

My officials will also be working closely with colleagues from across the rest of Welsh Government to co-design and deliver sustained and well co-ordinated action to raise public awareness of air pollution and its effects on health. The aim will be to help citizens minimise their emissions and their own exposure to pollution. As part of this work, I can today announce the relaunch of our Air Quality in Wales website later this month. The reinvigorated site will contain improved air quality forecasting capability, new sections for schools and health advice. A new pollution route planner will shortly be added to the site to guide healthier travel across urban centres.

In July this year, in order to tackle air pollution, the UK Government committed to ending the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. This is a necessary and positive step to achieving our ambitions, but 2040 remains a long way off, so I'd ask everyone in this place to join together in supporting and calling on the UK Government to develop, with our support and collaboration, clear timescales for a progressive transition to zero-emission road transport.

Today, I'd also like to draw attention to other work being done to achieve what we all want to see to take us forward to the ambitions of a clean air plan for cleaner air in Wales. Regulations have been laid in the Assembly requiring public service boards to take local authorities' air quality progress reports into account when putting together assessments of local well-being. This now paves the way for more collaborative work on air quality between public bodies. Work is under way with environmental health officers and local authorities to strengthen the air quality and soundscape provisions in 'Planning Policy Wales', and my department is making funding available for the single revenue grant for local authorities to support local action on air quality. In addition, our new national noise action plan, due next year, will further integrate noise and air quality policy in Wales.

We can be clear that it is not enough to develop a plan for air quality in a single silo. I want to see air quality embedded in policies on planning, infrastructure, transport, active travel and public health. We must tackle poor air quality from each and every angle, from national and local plans and transport measures to urban design and the well-planned planting of trees and hedgerows. We can, of course, look to strengthen legislative and regulatory measures, and I'm fully prepared to examine strong cases for doing so. A large part of the challenge we face with our air quality can be attributed to transport emissions, but certain types of energy generation and industrial processes, farming and other business practices, and some of the ways in which people heat their homes, are all contributing factors. These are all areas that need to be addressed by concerted and collective effort across Government and using all the tools at our disposal.

Air pollution very often originates in the same activities that are contributing to climate change. So, our efforts to tackle both must be fully integrated, and decarbonisation in respect of power generation and large-scale industries will therefore play a pivotal part in contributing to cleaner air in Wales. The onus is on all of us in Wales to take action and help to make real and lasting improvements to the quality of the air that we all breathe. With a real will and commitment to work together, we can realise these improvements and the opportunities they provide for a healthier, more prosperous and more equal Wales. I look forward to hearing Members' views this afternoon on where we are, where we should be going, and what more they would like to see on air quality during the remainder of this term. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have selected the six amendments to the motion, and I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Simon.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Plaid Cymru, in moving these amendments, isn’t opposing the original motion or most of what the Minister for Environment said in what I think is her first speech in the Chamber, given her new duties. But what we are trying to do is to put a focus on where we believe action is needed urgently in order to tackle the public health problem that is air pollution.

Our amendments focus on the need to move away from a plan to a far more statutory approach, where there are statutory duties on public bodies to monitor and take action on air pollution. I make no apologies, as we are sharing Christmas presents from last year, that these proposals are based on the amendments that we as Plaid Cymru sought to make to the public health Bill six months ago. We are rehearsing those issues again because we think it’s relevant and needs action.

And though I agree with most of what the Minister said in her opening remarks, she didn’t mention the fact that the Welsh Government, as well as the UK Government, is facing a court case as we speak by ClientEarth for failings in providing clean air in Wales. Although there is some attempt in what the Minister said to cast blame on Westminster, this is an entirely devolved area, and the capacity to tackle air pollution is in the hands of the Welsh Government.

So, I think, in really taking this seriously, we need to move from a world of plans and a world of ambitions to one of actual statutory delivery and one where we can hold the Government to account. There's no doubt that air pollution is all the environmental problems that have been described, but it's also a real public health problem. It's the second cause of premature death in Wales. It's second only to smoking, which you could say is an air pollution problem of its own, so it's linked. But it's really problematic for children and elderly people with pre-existing chronic illnesses.

It's a social justice issue, and this is something that I think we should take very seriously here. The impact is greatest in the most deprived areas. The richest people in Wales don't live in the areas with air quality problems. They live near open areas with trees and parks and some natural scrubbing, as it were, going on. The 10 per cent most deprived areas, for example, have five times higher levels of carcinogenic air pollution. It's a very clear public health and social justice issue. If we look at those towns and cities, and, famously, Hafod-yr-Ynys Road in Crumlin in Caerphilly, which is one of the UK's most polluted roads, let alone Wales, we see very clearly the association of air quality problems with deprived communities and with communities that are struggling economically as well. So, people are not able to move out of those communities and make their own choices.

I think, in dealing with this, we don't only want to hear what the Minister set out; we want to hear more about what actual targets will be set and what statutory monitoring will be done. I was glad that the Minister mentioned trees and shrubs, but I think we need to hear a little bit more about a specific plan to plant trees—the right kind of trees, because it does actually depend which kind of trees you plant in which areas, as I understand it—to ensure that we have a natural way of trying to clean up our air. But we also need to have a greater emphasis, yes, on the problems created by the transport infrastructure we have, but on the opportunities, as well, to decarbonise that in the most simple way possible, which is to make it easier to walk and cycle—just to make it easier to get around.

Sustrans—[Interruption.] I heard a 'Hear, hear' from a previous Sustrans person there, I think. Sustrans, only in the last couple of weeks, did an examination of the walking and cycling plans for England and Scotland—I couldn't find the one for Wales; I don't know if they did it for Wales or not, but they certainly did it for England and Scotland—that said just if the plans were implemented, not asking for more than the two Governments have said they're going to do anyway, it would reduce deaths from air pollution by more than 13,000 in those two countries over the next 10 years and would save nearly £10 billion. So, we really need to integrate air pollution measures—and clean air measures, to be more positive—into the way we structure our transport system, into the way we build our schools, and where we build our schools. We need, as a temporary measure, certainly, to have a statutory responsibility to monitor air quality outside our schools, because children exposed to severe air pollution are five times more likely to have poor lung development and increased susceptibility to infection.

So, all this, to me, means that air pollution has not had the attention that it deserves from Government to date, and from ourselves as Assembly Members. That's changed over the last year or so. We've started to talk about it more; we've started to take it more seriously. I welcome the fact that the Government is moving towards an action plan, but I don't think we'll address this fully until we put it on our statute book and have a real statutory approach to clean air in Wales.

Thank you. I call David Melding to move amendment 5, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

I move the amendment, Deputy Presiding Officer. According to Public Health Wales, ambient air quality in the UK has, on the whole, improved steadily over recent decades, mainly as a result of a reduction in industrial emissions and better regulation and technological advances in clean vehicle fuels and more efficient engines. But it's a great tragedy, really, that against that generally improving air quality, we still have real problems, and much of the gains are offset by the increasing number of road vehicles, and they're often concentrated in particularly deprived areas, as Simon has just outlined. So, I do think we need to return to this and have a targeted approach, a very local approach, and to realise how integrated it is to some of the wider factors like deprivation—and also the heath issues, which I think are very prominent, and I won't repeat them, as Simon covered that. But just to say, as well as the appalling individual costs, the societal costs estimated by DEFRA are very considerable, amounting annually to something like £27.5 billion. Particulates alone are estimated at £16 billion a year, so we clearly need to take action here very forcefully.

Can I just say that the Conservative amendment, I think, is necessary? Just because point 3 of this motion, I think, is a little grudging and unco-operative in its aim. So, I'm trying to put that right, because we do need a co-ordinated effort across parties and across Government, which, in fairness to the Minister, the tone of her speech did reflect. We would very much welcome the substantive measures such as phasing out new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. We should be encouraging a greater partnership with that, ensuring it's effectively enforced, and, possibly, as public opinion perhaps becomes more forceful as well and demanding, then we may even do a bit better than those targets. So, in general, I think that we need to be reflecting the work that has been done in a very pioneering way by the UK Government. I think it's the first to announce these targets, and I do think that that's the type of vision that we should be replicating over the areas under our control.

I welcome, in general, Plaid's amendments, apart from the final amendment, which we'll abstain on because of its self-congratulatory tone, which we don't want to be particularly—[Interruption.] I thought the other amendments were quite constructive; amendment 1 just reiterating those points around the public health aspects. I particularly thought amendment 4 was helpful, in terms of air quality management around schools. If you look at the exposure of children to severe air pollution and the effects that has, it really is quite concerning. I know that a recent freedom of information request submitted by the British Lung Foundation to local authorities found that 57 per cent of them were not monitoring air pollution within 10m of schools. Now, that's a UK-wide issue—I do accept that it's not just Wales. But I think that's a very clear indicator of what we should be doing, really, to ensure that we're driving up standards and particularly protecting the most vulnerable.

Before I conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, could I quickly speak about the role of towns and cities in these efforts? Wales's urban areas are at the front line of the fight to reduce emissions and to improve air quality. I have recognised this for a long time and called for more significant measures to address this. I am pleased that this is now much higher on the agenda. There was a Conservative minority debate on this very early in this Assembly, in the summer of 2016, because it had not been mentioned in the programme for government—air quality—and we were very concerned about that. So, we did raise the issue then. In fairness to the Welsh Government, they have devoted increasing attention to it, but I think some very pertinent points have already been made by Simon about the need to drive through targets now.

Five towns and cities in Wales—Port Talbot, Chepstow, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea—reported illegal and damaging levels of air pollution in 2016, and it's not difficult to see why and the sort of action that we do need to reduce that in terms of reduced car use and more active travel plans. The problem we have from vehicle emissions is an overriding issue, and these are responsible for about 70 per cent of airborne pollutants. I'm pleased to see a couple of statements of opinion on this, and I have put one down calling for the Welsh Government to pilot a clean air zone in Cardiff. I think that would really be useful. To date, the leading role for local authorities has been front and centre of air quality policy, but we must also recognise the need for national leadership. We've seen that from the UK Government. I think we need to see more now from Welsh Government, but they will have our co-operation when they do the right thing.

Whilst we've amended the motion, I'm sure that we will support whatever the Assembly adopts this afternoon in this important debate. Thank you.

Air quality is certainly a major issue for public health, and also for the environment. I think we've already heard some very important themes that need to be fully addressed if we are to make the sort of progress I'm sure we would all like to see.

Yes, it is a major challenge in urban areas in Wales, in our cities and towns, as well as elsewhere. As far as the towns and cities are concerned, Newport is one of the cities with considerable challenges, and I do think that the sort of issues that have already been raised today are at the heart of making the necessary progress I would like to see in Newport and indeed see across Wales.

I do believe that our Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 is a major opportunity to make necessary progress. We have local authorities bringing forward their integrated route maps at the moment, and we do need to engage with that legislation, the Act itself, and indeed the action plans, with commitment and enthusiasm. If we do that effectively, Dirprwy Lywydd, we will be making major inroads into vehicle usage, which is at the heart of many of these problems of poor air quality.

We know that, in years to come, we may well see important developments that will help us on this agenda—for example, electric vehicles. But that's not all of the story, because a lot of the problems with particulate matter 2.5, which is smaller than the width of a human hair, come from the brakes and tyres of vehicles. They could be addressed through technological change, but that is outwith the debate around electric vehicles.

So, we need to get vehicle use down, and a major opportunity to do that is through the active travel legislation. So, you know, we really do need to see sustained and re-energised commitment and enthusiasm from Welsh Government, local authorities, and everyone in Wales on that agenda. 

I also believe that, again, as has already been mentioned, we could do a lot more in terms of greening urban environments. I agree with Simon Thomas that it is also about the right type of trees, because we have seen examples where trees have been planted in urban areas and have then created issues that weren't foreseen, or if they were foreseen weren't acted upon, and then years later those trees have been removed. We need to do this in a sustainable manner and we need to do our homework beforehand. 

Taxi fleets—I think I've mentioned this before, and I know others have as well—is a very practical example of something that could be done. They are a major contributor to the road transport vehicle issues in our urban environments. If, for example, taxi fleets were converted to LPG, with costs that could be recouped on average within two years, that, in the short term, before we get electric vehicles and other helpful developments, could help deal with these issues of urban pollution from vehicles. We could take a practical initiative there that would pay important dividends. 

And more widely of course, we need to move faster and more effectively on the integrated transport front. For me, in south Wales, a lot of that is about the metro system, and there are important choices to be made there in terms of the investment that could make that a success more quickly and more extensively versus other uses of available capital moneys.

So, I do agree with many of the themes that Members have already highlighted in this statement today, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think the parameters of this debate and the action that could take place are quite well known and there is probably quite a strong consensus behind what many of us think should happen in Wales. The challenge is obviously to get on and do it, to take these practical steps. And when you consider the issues for public health and our environment, it does have real urgency behind it, and I think we do need to see those practical measures taking place as quickly and as effectively as possible.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important topic. As I highlighted in questions last week, poor air quality is one of the biggest public health challenges facing Wales. This is particularly true in the region I represent, South Wales West, which has some of the dirtiest air in the UK, where PM10s are often well above the safe daily limit, and at schools in my region we have had many days in the last few months where they were double the safe daily limit.

Air pollutants are to blame for the deaths of at least five people per day in Wales, and the biggest contributor to air pollution is transport. Since the UK Labour Government incentivised the switch to diesel, the amount of particulates and nitrogen dioxide in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. In all fairness, the current UK Government has tried to reverse this policy and has introduced a new vehicle tax system to penalise the most polluting vehicles. They have also introduced a new scrappage scheme, designed to get old polluting vehicles off the road, and have made a commitment to move to an all-electric-vehicle future by phasing out all fossil-fuelled engines by 2040. I welcome these moves and will be supporting the amendment put forward by the Welsh Conservatives.

This action by the UK Government needs to be backed up by action by the Welsh Government. As we learnt this morning, the Welsh Government is being taken to court for its lack of action on tackling air pollution. It’s time that they fulfilled their duties to the Welsh public. They can start by taking action to reduce traffic congestion, which amplifies the effect of traffic pollution. I would like to see the Welsh Government ensuring the planning system takes account of the effects new developments will have on traffic congestion.

UKIP will be supporting the majority of Plaid Cymru’s amendments. We have said all along that air pollution is a public health issue and that the Welsh Government must develop a strategy to tackle poor air quality at a national level. I look forward to working with any party—all parties—so that we can help bring about a strategy to help air pollution.

We do agree that there needs to be a reporting system to alert residents to poor air quality, but that this should be done at a national level and not left to local health boards. New developments such as the British-made Sentinel Five P satellite, which monitors air pollutants, could be utilised at a national level to improve forecasting of high levels of air pollution and should be used to warn the public about such events, in much the same way that weather reports feature pollen counts. Welsh and UK Governments need to act upon this urgently. High pollution levels kill. We will, therefore, be abstaining on amendment 3 but will be supporting all of Plaid’s other amendments.

The investment in electric charging is welcome, but we have to consider the huge infrastructure challenges brought by the electrification of transport. How can we deliver charging points to those people not fortunate to have a driveway or a garage? I would urge the Governments, both in Wales and at Westminster, to invest in the development of wireless vehicle charging. Both Governments also need to ensure the roll-out of electric vehicle charging is not impeded by the planning system. We have to tackle this major public health challenge head on. We have to clean up our act. I look forward to seeing the Welsh Government's clean air plans and hope that we can all work together to ensure no-one dies as a result of poor air quality in the future. Thank you.

There's a danger that this apparent consensus gives the impression that this is going to be easy, but I'd like to remind you that the car lobby is really powerful, and if we are going to do anything about this, we are going to have to face down the car lobby. I very much welcome the vigour—and, I hope, rigour—with which the new environment Minister is pursuing this important issue, and we now need action, not words. 

If we look at how all other modes of transport have been strangled by the dominance of the car: in the early 1950s, 42 per cent of journeys were taken by bus, and that's down to five per cent today, even though this is, obviously, the only mode of transport for most of our poorest citizens. Cycling: 11 per cent in 1952; 1 per cent today. And the car: 27 per cent in the early 1950s, and now over 80 per cent of journeys are taken by car. So, we have a huge problem that is fuelled by the fiscal and transport policies that have been going on for generations. The cost of a car becomes cheaper and cheaper, whilst rail and bus fares continue to rise and rise. In the last five years alone, rail fares have gone up 15 per cent, bus and taxi fares up 14 per cent, and the cost of running a car has decreased by 5 per cent. Little chance of change from the UK Government, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet again frozen the climate change fuel levy, and today we learned that train fares next year will see the largest hike in five years. And all this while wages are stagnant, so it can't be any surprise, really, that four in five commuters into Cardiff—over 60,000 people every day—travel to work by car.

Building more roads just leads to more people shifting to commuting by car. So, the investment we have to make is in better public transport, in increasing our rail capacity, delivering on the metro, and delivering better and more buses in the meantime, which must go hand in hand with tough measures to address this problem well before 2040. Because we have to acknowledge that the reason that this is such a huge public health issue is because one fifth of all cases of low birth weight babies is due to traffic-related air pollution, with the greatest harm occurring in early pregnancy, before women realise they're even pregnant. We think that maternal exposure to benzo[a]pyrene, which is generated by diesel engines, is linked to mental health problems in children and neurocognitive delay. The level of nitrogen dioxide in Cardiff and Vale residential areas, being the highest in Wales—we know that that is linked to an increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Above all, we need to get across to parents doing what is colloquially called 'the school run' that we need to listen to Professor Sir David King, the former Government chief scientific adviser, who says:

'Children sitting in the backseat of vehicles are likely to be exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution...If more drivers knew the damage they could be doing to their children, I think they'd think twice about getting in the car.'

People are not hearing this message at the moment, and we can see the evidence cluttered around practically all of our primary schools, where people are obviously living within easy walking distance of the school because, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to go that school.

We know the benefit of exercise in improving people's concentration at school, yet we still have the situation we have. It isn't children who need persuading, it's adults. In Cardiff and Vale, a quarter of all adults are inactive, according to the director of public health; that is, they take less than half and hour's physical exercise a week—they just move from the sofa to the car to the desk and back again.

So, we need a massive public education drive to persuade people to do short journeys of less than 2 km—just over a mile—by walking or cycling. We need to get tough with local authorities that fail to implement the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. We don't need more legislation—we just need to implement the legislation we've got.

We know that imposing congestion zones—for example, in London—has led to an 80 per cent increase in people using bicycles. So, I think that there's a really clear indicator of what we need to do. We just need to get on and do it.

I'm very pleased that we're debating air quality in the National Assembly today, and I'd like to take us from the general to the particular, and a journey down Sandy Road in Llanelli. This is the road, for those of you not familiar with the area, leading out of Llanelli towards Burry Port and Kidwelly. Along that road are two schools—Coleg Sir Gâr and Ysgol y Strade—and along it is another school just up Denham Avenue, Ysgol Gymraeg Ffwrnes. It is the main thoroughfare out of Llanelli, in Burry Port there are now continued housing developments and smack along the middle of the road is the massive new Parc y Strade housing development on the site of the old Scarlets rugby ground.

This is an area that already has harmful levels of nitrogen dioxide, and the situation is getting worse. It is an air quality management area, and the residents are getting increasingly desperate about the build-up of traffic in this area. It is an unpleasant place to walk, it is an unpleasant place to live and, through repeated actions, we are compounding the problem rather than alleviating it.

To me, Sandy Road is a classic case study in the policy dilemma that we face, the disjointed approach that we're taking to this project, the prioritisation of short-term needs and the lack of long-term thinking—precisely what we designed the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to tackle. This is an example of where such future thinking is desperately needed, because had it been applied in the past, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

I feel desperately sorry for the people on Sandy Road, and I understand their frustration—I understand as well that they're trying to come up with solutions. Sadly, I think many of the solutions will just add to the problem that we've been discussing here this afternoon.

Ray Jones, who lives along Sandy Road, is a doughty campaigner on these issues, and he's pointed out the impact just of creating the new Ysgol Gymraeg Ffwrnes without proper measures to encourage people not to take their cars to drop their children off. He's cited an incident recently where a car knocked into a pram, because, as we know from all schools in our constituencies, there is gridlock outside schools in the morning. His solution, and the solution of nearly 2,000 people who've signed a petition, is to create a bypass along Sandy Road. Again, for those of you who don't know it, the suggested route would be over the Sandy Water Park housing development, which is only some 300m away from the main road, and which is one of the most tranquil areas in the area with lovely nature and close to where two National Eisteddfods were held, where it was rightly complimented as a beautiful place to hold the festival in Llanelli.

So, whilst I understand the desire to alleviate the bottleneck that we have created on Sandy Road, creating an expensive road—we know that roads on average cost £20 million per mile—over an area of tranquility where there is an existing housing development will, I think, not solve the problem; it would simply shift it. I know from speaking to air quality experts at Swansea University—they think, given the location of this likely new road so close to houses and where wind would blow the particulates likely back towards Sandy Road, this would not solve the air quality problem either. 

But these are the sort of desperate measures that people are forced to think about, because we're offering them no alternative. And this is the problem I face when I speak to Ray Jones and other residents in the areas. I understand the problem. I don't think this short-term fix would solve this, but what else are we offering people in this situation? They don't believe, frankly, promises of better public transport in the longer term; they think it won't be delivered. And just as we've heard the case made for a bypass in Llandeilo recently on air quality grounds, people want something tangible that is going to solve the problem in the short term.

This is the political leadership dilemma we face in this National Assembly. It is easier for the quick fix than it is the long-term solution. The evidence is plentiful of what we need to do to change this, and Jenny Rathbone before me has touched upon much of that. We need to have behaviour change and we need to invest in alternatives to car use, and stop building houses in areas where there is poor public transport, and put in improvements as part of that. Carmarthenshire County Council have come up with an air quality management area plan that simply talks about possibilities; they don't talk about actions. We're kicking the can down the road constantly, leaving it to future generations. So, I'd ask the Minister to tell us, while we're asking these authorities to set out these plans, what the consequences are for breaching levels of harmful pollution.

It is time that we tackled the causes, not the consequences. We need a whole-scale review into what has worked elsewhere in the UK and abroad to improve air quality, and we must simply, simply stop monitoring failure and start modelling success. Diolch. 

'There is no one to-day who would doubt that air pollution is a social evil and, being a social evil, should be dealt with immediately and drastically.' 

Those are the words of Gordon Macdonald, Flintshire-born former miner, MP and Governor of Newfoundland. Macdonald was speaking in the House of Lords, but he was doing so in 1955. As his words show, recognition of the dangers of air pollution are not new. Foremost among these dangers is air pollution’s impact on our physical health, and I am glad the Welsh Government recognises this by linking the two issues in its national strategy.

Members may have seen the briefing from British Lung Foundation Wales containing the stark reality of the matter. Air pollution is linked to lung cancer, and poorer lung function for people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Links have been made between air pollution and cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline and type 2 diabetes. Children in particular are at risk, with air pollution affecting development and resistance to infection.

Nearly 1,300 early deaths per year in Wales can be attributed to air pollution. Public Health Wales has described this as a public health crisis, second only to smoking and more concerning than obesity or alcohol. We have good public awareness of the dangers of these, backed up by first-rate public health campaigns. Air pollution must be a similar priority, and I welcome point 2(d) of the motion, which commits the Government to addressing this. I also welcome Plaid Cymru’s amendment 3, as health boards have a key role to play in this locally.

There's also an important social justice dimension to this issue, with poorer communities suffering most from air pollution. Indeed, the 10 per cent most disadvantaged parts of Wales are affected by five times the carcinogenic emissions of the 10 per cent least disadvantaged. A 2016 Journal of Public Health study cited by the BLF concludes that deprivation, health inequalities and air pollution are linked, with air pollution compounding deprivation-health associations.

Again, this is nothing new. If we go back to Gordon Macdonald’s speech, he referred to a journey to the south Wales Valleys. He described a narrow valley, containing two parallel roads and a railway line. In a 2 acre area, he noted

'seven tall chimneys belching forth thick smoke. On the railway there were three railway engines in keen competition, trying to belch more smoke than the seven chimneys; and the hundreds of miners' houses were beating both in belching smoke into this narrow valley.'

This will be a familiar image to anyone who grew up in the industrialised parts of Wales. In Cynon Valley, a particular culprit was the phurnacite plant in Abercwmboi. At its peak, this produced 1 million briquettes of smokeless coal annually. Welsh steam coal was crushed and combined with tar that was then preheated to remove most of the smoke.

Whilst those more affluent communities elsewhere in the UK that could afford it benefited from the phurnacite, it had a ferocious impact on the local community. It was they who suffered from the dust, smoke and fumes belched out into the atmosphere. Many of my constituents who worked there continue to feel the effects of ill health associated with that.

The heavy industry that was once most closely associated with this air pollution has now largely gone. Its absence has led to environmental improvements; the lush greenness throughout much of the Valleys testifies to this. Simultaneously, we have also placed greater importance on protecting our environment. This has been aided by the development of more mature and empathetic legislation from all levels of government. But there are still harmful factors that we must address.

I tabled a statement of opinion on this a few weeks ago. In it, I urged Welsh Government to introduce a network of clean air zones across the most polluted areas of Wales. I am glad that part 2(a) of the motion commits the Welsh Government to this. I look forward to the consultation on the framework that will underpin the clean air plan when it becomes available next year. We must also recognise that this is an issue where our concerns and intervention cannot stop at our borders. Many of the tools needed to really improve our air are held elsewhere. My statement of opinion also called on the Welsh Government to support calls for the UK Government to develop a diesel scrappage scheme. It is good that point 3 of the motion addresses this, and in fact goes beyond it in calling for a system of milestones so that we can monitor progress.

We cannot forget that we do still have progress to make. Air pollution costs the UK £20 billion a year, and hundreds of lives in Wales alone. Groundbreaking legislation like the environment Act and well-being of future generations Act offer a strong, positive framework. But as we withdraw from Europe and the significant role it has held in this field over past decades, our resolve cannot waver and we must strive for continued improvements.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Environment to reply to the debate? Hannah Blythyn. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. You can tell I'm still a novice as I wasn't ready for that then.

I'd like to thank all the Members for their contributions today and I welcome the consensus on this issue and I think that consensus recognises how important an issue it is for us all to tackle, and it's one that should be approached collaboratively and collectively. Simon Thomas was right because this is my first speech—was my first speech as a Minister in this Chamber but I'm not quite convinced by his idea of what a Christmas present is at this point. [Interruption.] Thanks for that. You did note that I cast blame on Westminster, but I was trying to really go for that, actually, the onus is on all of us—all levels of government and across society to take action on this. The Member was right to say that improving our air quality is a matter of social justice, as I think the Member for Cynon Valley recognised—it's a matter of social justice.

You talked about the need to plant trees and you're absolutely right that it has to be the right trees in the right places. I understand there's potential for local authorities in the future to use what is known as the i-Tree software to help them be able to do that and I'm sure this is something we'll debate further, particularly next week in the Chamber, looking at our tree-planting policy in general.

In terms of a statutory approach, we have issued statutory guidance already, but as I said in my opening speech, I am prepared to consider further legislative measures where they seem to be necessary.

I'd like to thank David Melding for his warm words and his contribution to this debate. You're absolutely right that the tone should be across Government and across all different levels of Government as well, because it is right that there's not one single solution and not one single actor in this has the answers to the problems that we face. You mentioned specifically about towns and the role of towns and cities. Cardiff: in terms of the clean air zone framework, the clean air zone framework will be able to guide and facilitate the establishment of clean air zones where they're deemed to be needed, and officials are already working with officials in Cardiff as it has identified the city where a clean air zone could accelerate compliance with EU limit values.

My colleague Jenny Rathbone, thank you for your contribution to this debate. I know that this is an issue that you feel passionate about and I know you're very passionate about how we achieve a modal shift in terms of the transport that we use and how we encourage that behavioural change a well. The issues you raised about the need to look at the development of the metro and buses are things that I've already considered taking forward. I plan to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to discuss those very issues and how we work together on those, and when considering infrastructure and transport investment that these things are taken into account when we do that.

My colleague Lee Waters, thank you for your contribution. The dilemmas you raised just show the scale of the challenge that we face and you're right that we need to bring all strands together and take a much more longer term view of things in terms of achieving behavioural change. I expect the upcoming initiatives in terms of behavioural change that we're looking to as part of the air quality plans to tie into our active travel strategy as well, so that we make sure that we actually do bring these things together across Government, across communities. Like I said, we can't just do this from one approach and one aspect alone.

Vikki Howells, you're right to say that public awareness is a major public health issue of our time, and that's one of the things that we should look at again, across Government, to work with the Cabinet Secretary for health and social care to make sure that all these factors are taken into account and the network of—. I did note your motion and the introduction of a network of clean air zones. The consultation, I hope that you will be encouraging people to contribute to the consultation on this framework and putting forward your ideas and the ideas of the people that you've worked with there. You're absolutely right: we still have progress. Progress has been made. We have cleaner air than we've had in the past, people have more awareness of the risks, but we do still have a long way to go, but I can assure you that I'm absolutely committed in this role to continuing to put that work forward and actually not just come up with a plan, but to actually see action.

This plan and this action, going forward, can be whatever we make it and it's by no means limited to the initiatives that I've announced earlier and I'd welcome all Members' contributions on what else should be considered, and I will consider all options going forward. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? No. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

The proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will vote on this item at voting time. We will defer all voting until voting time.

I propose to go to voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung. Three Members wish for the bell to be rung. Okay. We'll ring the bell, then. Thank you.

We have waited the five minutes as required for the ringing of the bell, and therefore we now move to voting time. 

The first vote this afternoon is on the debate on Stage 4 of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. So, we'll call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 35, no abstentions, 19 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

We now move to a vote on the draft budget, and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 18, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the amendment is not passed.

So, I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 27, eight abstentions, 19 against. Therefore, the motion is carried. 

We now move to a vote on the debate on air quality. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 27, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. And the amendment is not passed. 

Amendment 3. I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 49, five abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 3 is carried.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 27, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, my casting vote is to vote against the amendment, and the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 5. I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 18, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 41, 13 abstentions. Therefore, the amendment is carried.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 54, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, the amended motion is carried. 

That concludes today's business. Thank you.