National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. And the first question, Mick Antoniw.

Llywydd, the Trade Bill includes a proposed agreement on Government procurement, known as a plurilateral agreement within the World Trade Organization framework. The Bill provides Welsh Ministers with regulation-making powers when implementing such an agreement in devolved areas.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. You may recall we had quite a lot of discussion, pre referendum, on the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and external trade agreements, and the implications for Welsh procurement, the Welsh national health service, and so on. And it appears that, although the red rag was being proposed that, if we didn't leave the European Union, we'd be presented with an EU TTIP, it looks that the Trade Bill now has the implications of imposing a UK TTIP on Wales, with very little scrutiny, using the royal prerogative, with only a certain level of governmental scrutiny on it. Do you agree with me that the Bill, as it's drawn at the moment, is not something we can give legislative consent to, and do you also share some of the concerns I have about the way this Bill can abuse some of the policies that we are supporting within Wales?

Well, Llywydd, the fundamental objection to the Trade Bill, from a constitutional perspective, is the one that Mick Antoniw has just outlined, which is that it continues to allow Ministers of the Crown an ability to reach over into devolved areas and to impose solutions without seeking the consent of Welsh Ministers. And, in that sense, the things that are wrong with the Trade Bill are the things that are wrong with the withdrawal Bill, which is why it is so important that we manage to get the withdrawal Bill properly amended.

My reading of the Trade Bill itself is that it's main aim is to preserve the status quo into the short and medium term, bringing 40 plus free trade agreements that already exist with the EU into UK law. What will be absolutely unacceptable to the Welsh Government would be if future trade policy was conducted on the basis that protections that are currently available in the field of the environment, in the field of wages, in the field of other standards, that the Trade Bill was used to undermine those, in the way that the Member has suggested.

Minister, obviously, public procurement more generally is an important lever that you as a Government have of stimulating localised economies. The previous Welsh Government brought forward the national public procurement framework, which was to allow smaller businesses, obviously, to get a greater share of the public procurement pie. I've received many representations that businesses have found this procurement network very cumbersome, and I think Government Ministers have indicated that it hasn't been the success that, obviously, it was desired to be. What assessment have you made of that framework, and what improvements are you minded to make, to allow a greater share of the public procurement pot to arrive back to small and medium-sized businesses?

Llywydd, I have announced a review of the national procurement service, partly to make sure that some of the things that were aimed for when it was established can be better delivered, but also to make sure that our approach to procurement is aligned with some opportunities that there may be the other side of the European Union. This is one of the few areas where there may be some new opportunities for us, when we are able to write our own rule book to a certain extent, rather than being bound by EU procurement policies. We've asked for that review to be undertaken. A very important part of that will be to make sure that our procurement policies in the future are even better aligned than they have been in the past, with opportunities for Welsh businesses to be able to take advantage of Welsh public expenditure.

Can the Cabinet Secretary tell us at the moment, unless we see changes to the published Bill—that's the Trade Bill—whether the Welsh Government will refuse to give legislative consent through a legislative consent motion? Now, the Cabinet Secretary for trade in London said that they had introduced some changes to the Bill since the draft was published in October, having had discussions with the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Can he tell us what changes were made, and, as the WTO arrangement that he referred to sets out different sections at different levels of Government—for example, for devolved Governments—would the Welsh Government expect to have a veto in designating the content of the specific sections relating to Wales?  

What I can say, Llywydd, is that, under the withdrawal Bill, we have already stated that we can’t bring an LCM to the floor of the Assembly and ask Members to support that. What we can’t agree on in the withdrawal Bill is the same, in my view, as what we see in the Bill that currently in question.

I don't want to over-anticipate the Welsh Government's position on it, Llywydd, because that needs to be properly thought through, but it does seem to me unlikely that, without some of the changes that have been suggested that the UK Government is open to considering, we would be in a position to propose a legislative consent motion that we could support on this Bill for the same reasons as in the previous Bill. Does that amount to a veto in the way that Adam Price has suggested? Well, probably not quite.

I thank Suzy Davies for that question. Work continues on the short list of potential tax proposals for Wales, as set out on 3 October. It remains my—

Thank you for that answer. Oh, sorry, not concentrating. [Laughter.]

Simply to say that it remains my intention to test the new Wales Act 2014 powers during 2018.

Okay. Well, thank you for that answer as well, because it gives me a bit of a steer on timing there. Last month, following a debate on potential tourism tax in Bridgend council, the Labour cabinet member for regeneration there said,

'As the cabinet portfolio holder for tourism, I would say that this is the least likely of the Welsh Government options for a new tax to find favour across Wales.'

And then went on to say,

'I think most people would strongly support the alternative proposal of a tax on disposable plastics.' 

The Labour leader of Swansea council has today said he favours a social care tax. When Labour leaders in my region are already dismissing the tourism tax as an idea, would it not be a good idea to actually save some money by not developing that idea and concentrating on the other three options?

Llywydd, I'm very glad to see individuals around Wales taking an interest in this debate, and it's interesting to see that there are a variety of views out there, and that is exactly what we had hoped would happen by bringing forward the debate in the way that we have. It would have been very easy for the Welsh Government to have acted as the UK Government does in fiscal matters by keeping everything entirely to itself and attempting to spring a surprise on everyone else after a decision has been made. I have been very keen to go about our fiscal responsibilities in an entirely different way, to be far more open, to be far more engaged with people who have views. I listen very carefully to what people in all parties say about the four different ideas that we have brought forward. The leader of Swansea would be correct to say that, in terms of public reaction, there has been more support for a plastics tax than any of the other items that we put on our list, but that is not to say that there isn't interest in all of them or that the debate should not continue.

I welcome the fact that the Government has done exactly what the Cabinet Secretary has set out—has held an open debate on these new powers, and I welcome the fact that these powers are to be brought to us. Could the Cabinet Secretary confirm the timetable because in the past he’s told the Finance Committee and the Chamber that he will make a decision on the tax that will progress in the new year? Is he in a position to be more specific on what the new year means—are we talking about January, or does the new year extend to Easter, as it can from time to time within Government?

And secondly, to return to the fundamental point, may I echo Plaid Cymru's support for a plastics tax? We're not saying that there aren’t merits to some of the other ideas, but we do believe that this is a more comprehensive idea, which has been developed with public support and relates to a very clear pollution problem that is at the forefront of many people's mind. Of course, it doesn’t tax people for Government, but it taxes people in terms of behavioural change which, in my view, is an important principle for new taxation.   

Thank you to Simon Thomas. I can confirm that we are still working on the timetable. I want to move forward early in the new year, but I’m not willing to move forward without having undertaken the work. One of the things that has changed over the past few months is what the Chancellor said back in the budget in November, because the UK Government is now showing an interest in the area of plastics. So, we would like to have further information from the UK Government in order to see if there is something in the ideas that they’re considering that could have an impact on the possibilities that we are taking forward here in Wales.

It is, of course, as Simon Thomas says, a very important area and the one, as I said to Suzy Davies, that has had the greatest interest from members of the public, and Simon Thomas is quite right to point out that different taxes have different policy objectives behind them. A plastics Act is about influencing people's behaviour, other taxes are more interested in raising revenue. Not all taxes have the same motivation behind them and that's part of what we will need to weigh up when we come to make a final selection of the tax—that we will test out the machinery of the Wales Act by sending into that new machinery.  

Cabinet Secretary, I was very excited to hear in the draft budget that you were considering a vacant land tax. This is a real issue in my constituency, often with small pieces of land being hoarded for decades, usually the sites of former chapels or workingmen's halls, for example, and the cost to local authorities of trying to take action being prohibitive. As well as the economic loss of land not being brought into productive use, vacant land is often kept in an unsightly and anti-social condition, and this can have an impact on the well-being of communities that is often difficult to quantify. So, how will you take this into account when you look to develop the vacant land tax idea as a workable proposition? 

Well, I thank Vikki Howells for that really interesting and important question. That now means, Llywydd, we've mentioned all four taxes that were on the shortlist this afternoon. I was fortunate enough to have a very useful meeting in Dublin just over a week ago as a result of co-operation with the Government in the Republic, where they made available a series of very senior officials in their Government to talk about the way in which their vacant land tax has been developed. It was both a very instructive meeting and a very encouraging one as well. They made it clear to me the purpose of their vacant land levy is not to raise money; it is to support the planning system and to make sure that, where hard work has gone into identifying pieces of land, making them fit for development, giving them the necessary permissions and so on, that those pieces of land do not then sit idle doing nothing. And they feel it's been a very successful piece of legislation in doing exactly that and, therefore, doing exactly the sort of things that Vikki Howells has outlined this afternoon.

A vacant land tax set and structured fairly could, I believe, help spur development in the Valleys, and housing, of course, is one of the five priority areas in our 'Prosperity for All' publication. This area too, though, Llywydd, has been slightly complicated by the budget on 22 November, because in it the Chancellor announced that he had asked Sir Oliver Letwin to chair an urgent review of the gap between planning permissions and housing starts in England. In what he said, the Chancellor said that he too was willing to consider 'direct interventions' if those were needed in order to make planning permissions that were extant turn into actual activity on the ground. So, here again, we are working to make sure that we have understood the work that will go on in England to see if it has any alignments to the ideas that we have discussed here in Wales. And a vacant land tax, I think, fits very well into that set of policy possibilities that are being opened up not just in Wales, but, clearly, across our border as well.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, yesterday was Welsh budget day. Can I ask you, with regard to that budget, and the effect of it on—[Interruption.] I thought you'd like that, Simon Thomas. The effect of the budget on businesses and small businesses in Wales: can you tell us how you feel that the budget has been good for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales and, when you take into account the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses have estimated that, for every £1 spent by a participating local authority with local SMEs it generates an additional 63p to benefit its local economy, compared to just 40p generated by larger local firms, how are you ensuring that the Welsh Government's procurement processes are aligned to get the best bang for the Welsh buck and that we're going to make sure that we are procuring locally and procuring from smaller firms, not just larger firms?

I thank Nick Ramsay for that. Well, Llywydd, I believe that the budget we discussed yesterday is aligned with the needs of Welsh businesses in very many ways. It has in it the finance that will be necessary to instigate our new permanent small business rate relief scheme, which provides over £100 million every year directly to support businesses in Wales. Businesses in Wales benefit absolutely directly from all the investments that we make in infrastructure—that's how their customers travel to their businesses. They benefit from everything we do in terms of skills and education—that's how the people they employ get the skills that they need to make businesses successful. They benefit from everything we do in the national health service—that's how people who work in Welsh businesses are able to make sure that they are fit and well to carry out the duties for which they are employed. Our budget supports business in a whole range of ways.

Specifically in relation to the National Procurement Service, as I said in an earlier answer, back in September I announced that I wanted to have a review of the NPS and Value Wales to make sure that it is able to do the job that we want it to do, and key to that is the question that Nick Ramsay has raised. I am very committed to the programme that my predecessor began in this area of making sure that more of the spend that is made though the public purse in Wales ends up being spent with Welsh suppliers and that that money spent with Welsh suppliers then goes on to generate jobs and to safeguard jobs here in Wales. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I'm glad you mentioned the National Procurement Service. I did raise this with you yesterday in the budget debate. I know that Andrew R.T. Davies mentioned it earlier. It is of key importance in terms of improving procurement procedures in Wales. The Wales Audit Office report into the NPS showed that there were weaknesses in the development of the business case for the NPS, which had not fully complied with the Welsh Government's usual procedures. That same report also highlighted that public bodies are not using the service frameworks as much as anticipated, resulting in concerns over its funding. In answer to Andrew Davies, you did say earlier that you are reviewing this. Can you give some timescales for when you think this review will be complete and you can bring its findings to this Chamber?

Thank you, Llywydd. Yes, I have asked for that review. I expect it to report in 2018. It will use the report of the Auditor General for Wales as one of the core documents that it will apply in the work that it will do.

Nick Ramsay is quite right to say that NPS has not delivered everything that we had hoped for it. Part of that is because it is a member organisation and some of its members have not used its services to the extent that was originally anticipated. So, what I am keen to learn from the review is: is it a service that those members really want? The auditor general's report says that they say that it is. If they really want the service, then what are the barriers that are preventing them from using the service in the way that they have told us that they would wish to do? Because, if we can't provide a service that customers want to use, then it's always going to struggle to deliver the benefits that we believe were there to be harvested in the first place.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You've had a fair few questions now, today, on procurement. If I can use my final question to ask you about land transaction tax, but not in terms of the residential LTT, which you mentioned yesterday and the changes there, but in terms of commercial LTT, am I right in thinking that, from April, businesses greater than £1 million will be faced with rates of 6 per cent compared with, I believe, 5 per cent across the border—certainly, lower rates in other parts of the United Kingdom? And what assessment have you made of the effect that that will have on commercial business transactions within Wales, and are you confident that it won't be creating an uneven playing field, where businesses here will find it harder to compete than those across the border?

Well, I thank Nick Ramsay for that. He is right to say that the proposals we have brought forward in non-domestic LTT mean that businesses with premises below £1 million will have less to pay in Wales than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and that is paid for by businesses at the very top end of the market having to pay a little more. Ninety per cent of businesses in Wales will pay less in Wales than they have in the past or pay no more. I've always heard it said in this Chamber that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of the Welsh economy. That's where jobs are created, that's where the businesses of the future are created, and a reduction in costs for those businesses matters more to them, in the period in which they are establishing themselves and seeking to expand, I believe, than the marginal increase that there will be for transactions of very high value indeed. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't an impact, because costs go up and that is an impact. Do I think that the marginal additional sum in LTT will be the determining factor in business deals of many, many millions of pounds, with many, many far bigger issues at stake? No, I don't. The analysis that we've carried out, and Bangor's independent scrutiny of that analysis, bears that out. We think there will be more transactions in Wales as a result of the changes that we have introduced, and that that will be good for the Welsh economy.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Steffan Lewis.

Diolch, Llywydd. A great part of the omni-uncertainty that we're facing as a consequence of our separation from the European Union is our future relationship with the European Investment Bank. I understand, a few weeks ago, the British Government had a position of wanting to maintain some sort of relationship with the bank post separation, but are a bit light on detail, shall we say. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could update us on what he understands to be the British Government's aim in terms of the future relationship with the European Investment Bank, especially considering the fact that Wales has benefited, I understand it, to the tune of some £2 billion from investment from that bank.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government's position is clear, that we believe we should remain a subscribing partner of the European Investment Bank. The UK was one of the founding members of the bank, and supplies a significant part of the bank's capital. Wales has been an enormous beneficiary of the European Investment Bank and we want to find a way of that continuing. When I raised this directly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer during a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, he said that he too believed that it would be in the UK's interest to have an ongoing relationship with the EIB. He was open to exploring different ways in which that relationship could be brought about, and he said that, if it wasn't possible to continue to have a relationship with the EIB of the sort we have, it would be necessary to re-create an EIB in the domestic context. I've always struggled to understand why anybody would think that it would be more worth while to have to re-create a whole institution of our own when we have an institution that works, and works very well for Wales, and with which we should surely be looking to secure an ongoing relationship the other side of Brexit.

Well, I'm sure that the British Government will change its mind by this time next week on that point and many others, Cabinet Secretary. You talk about exploring the options available post separation. I wonder whether one of those options that you've explored as a Government includes a relationship for Wales and the Welsh Government directly with the EIB. It is unprecedented, of course, but we are in unprecedented times, and also there's the other option, of course, of the Council of Europe Development Bank, of which the UK has never been a member, but has aims and objectives that fit very closely with the needs and aspirations of this country. Has there been an undertaking by Welsh Government to look at and to explore the options of having a bilateral relationship between Welsh Government and such institutions post separation, and whether or not they would require sponsorship from the UK Government, and so on?

Llywydd, I've had very recent correspondence with the EIB on behalf of some important Welsh interests that we are looking to continue to take forward. We've always had a very close relationship with the EIB. Adam Price and I both met with Jonathan Taylor, senior vice-president of the EIB, when he was in Wales in the last 12 months. I think it's just fair to say, Llywydd, that, from the EIB's perspective, they remain focused on their relationship with the member state rather than with Wales as a separate constitutional entity. That doesn't mean to say that we don't pursue Welsh interests with them. I have to admit that I was not myself much aware of the Council of Europe Development Bank, but I'm very happy to say that we will take a look at it as a Government to see whether there are new possibilities there for us in the Brexit context.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. I note the answer he gave to a previous question about not wanting to create new institutions when existing institutions work well for us, and I agree with that. However, perhaps some contingency planning needs to take place, because the loss of access to the European Investment Bank would be bad news for Wales and for the Welsh economy. In which case, given the recent UK budget, where fiscal transactions capital has become ever more fashionable—Wales has received £650 million in financial transactions capital, Scotland £1.1 billion, Northern Ireland £375 million—given the nature of those consequentials, could they form the basis for devolved Governments to come together to create a kind of Celtic development fund of our own, with the intention, perhaps, for the future of looking to develop into a Celtic development bank that could try to mitigate the loss of access to the EIB? We could look, of course, to examples in Scandinavia, where the Nordic Investment Bank is a mixture of devolved and sovereign Governments coming together, pooling resources for shared fiscal and economic goals. I wonder if that's something the Welsh Government might be interested to look at, so that we are as best prepared as possible for the impending separation with the European Union.

Well, Llywydd, it is very interesting that Steffan Lewis raises that possibility. Back in 2016, at a meeting with finance Ministers from the UK Treasury, Scotland and, at that time, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland finance Minister specifically put forward a proposal for what he called, I think, a Celtic investment fund. He did so because he explained some of the real challenges that Northern Ireland was facing in using financial transaction capital. 

Now, our ambition has always been to make the very best use of anything that comes to Wales, but there are challenges in using financial transaction capital, and the idea was to put it all together in a single fund that could then be used more flexibly and maybe for some larger investment purposes. To be fair, the UK Government said that they were willing to consider that further and to be part of a discussion about it, because I think that they too have an interest in making sure that best possible use is made of the funds that are available here.

Very soon after that meeting the Northern Ireland Executive ceased to exist, and it's been more difficult to pick up those discussions since because they were pretty much led by some work that had gone on in Northern Ireland. But, when there is an opportunity to pick that up, I'm sure there will be a shared interest, certainly from Wales and Scotland. But, as I say, I think there was a genuine enough appetite in the Treasury to have a discussion about most effective use of the funds that are available. 

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that, for the foreseeable future, the resources available to the Welsh Government depend crucially upon the health of the UK economy and economic growth, and we need to increase the national UK growth rate. He said to me in a debate in this Chamber a few weeks ago that there's no evidence in general that lower taxes boost growth. But, since then, the US Senate has passed a tax Bill to reduce corporate taxes from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. President Macron in France has announced plans to cut the corporate tax rate from 33 per cent to 25 per cent. Italy is going to cut its corporate taxes from 27 per cent to 24 per cent, Spain from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. Hungary has introduced a corporate flat tax rate of 9 per cent, down from 19 per cent, and in Geneva, because it's cantonally based in Switzerland, they're bringing corporate taxes down to 10 per cent. 

John McDonnell has recently been talking about taking £36 billion out of companies' balance sheets by blocking certain unannounced tax breaks, and he even floated the idea of adding 2.5 per cent to the current corporation tax rate to pay for scrapping tuition fees. Does he not accept that the Labour Party is going in the opposite direction to the rest of the world and, if we are to compete with economies abroad, we have to have a competitive business tax regime?

Llywydd, what I hear the Member describe is a competitive race to the bottom in which everybody thinks that the only way to get a competitive advantage over somebody else is to take even less tax away from business in order to pay for public services. I'm grateful to him for setting out that dismal league table, because it demonstrates exactly why I don't think that that is a sensible way for us to go.

I'm sorry that the Cabinet Secretary doesn't seem to think that the reality of what's going on in the rest of the world is something that should be at the forefront of his mind when he's designing a tax system for the United Kingdom or for Wales, because the way to end up at the bottom is certainly to carry on thinking along those lines.

To revert to the experimental tax case that Suzy Davies mentioned earlier on in relation to a tourist tax, has he not seen that Ian Edwards, the chief executive of the Celtic Manor, has recently said,

'Along with everybody else in our industry, I was stunned by news of a proposed new tourism tax for Wales being considered'

by the Welsh Government? He said that

'A tourism tax would seriously jeopardise our ability to continue our rapid recent growth as a resort and carry on making this valuable contribution to the Welsh economy.'

In the same sentence that the Cabinet Secretary uttered to me, in that debate that I referred to a moment ago, that there was no evidence that lower tax boosts growth, he also said that badly designed taxes can hamper growth. The Cabinet Secretary has certainly announced a number of ideas for hampering growth in the Welsh economy. I hope he will reject these ideas.

Llywydd, there's little for me to add to what I said earlier on this whole matter. We're having a debate about different possibilities that exist for Wales. The views of anybody who has a view are welcome, whatever they may be, and we will take them into account when we come to make our decision. We will take the views of Celtic Manor into account. The Welsh Government is a very significant investor in Celtic Manor. It has received many millions of pounds in direct aid from the Welsh taxpayer. We will take its views into account, alongside anybody else's. That's the point of having a debate.

I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary has an open mind and he's not in a position today to announce any final decisions, because that's the whole point of the consultation process, and I appreciate that having put £22.5 million into Celtic Manor he should want to get a good return on that investment. Therefore, I hope that that's going to inform his decision taking in this respect as well, because Ian Edwards said further in the article that I'm quoting that

'Adding extra cost to staying in Wales would have just as damaging an effect on attracting business events as it would on attracting leisure visitors. Securing large conferences and association meetings is a very competitive sector and an additional tax on the thousands of delegates who attend these events would be a significant deterrent to those considering Wales as a venue.'

So, clearly, this is a vitally important issue for the whole of the hospitality sector in Wales, and the sooner we announce that we're not going to go ahead with a tourist tax, the easier it will be for them to relax and sleep easy in their beds.

Llywydd, I hear the case that the Member has made. He will be aware that others make a very different set of propositions. Other people would say that taking a very small amount of money from people who are clearly not short of money—they're coming to stay in the Celtic Manor—that a very small addition to their nightly stay would create a pool of money that could be further invested in enterprises like the Celtic Manor and other tourism possibilities that would attract more people into Wales in the future, and that investment of that sort, delivered by people who, after all, are enjoying the benefits of all the investment that the public purse has made in that sector—that that is not an unfair thing to ask of them, and actually creates a benign cycle in which small amounts of individual contributions are aggregated and allow significant new investments, that benefit the industry, to be made.

Now, I am not saying that the Welsh Government has come down on either side of this argument. All I'm saying is that in this area, as in all others, there are many competing analyses of what would work best, and the point of having a debate is to allow all those arguments to come out into the open, and then to be properly weighed up.

Thank you to Rhun ap Iorwerth for the question. Welsh Government officials are in contact with Anglesey council on this matter, and a meeting is planned with the council to establish the cost implications associated with the flood damage. We will continue to explore ways to support the council where possible.

I’m grateful for that response, and I’m pleased that those discussions are ongoing. I’m also grateful for the positive indications given by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport a week ago on the possibility of assistance on the A545 between Menai Bridge and Beaumaris. There will be financial implications beyond road maintenance, of course, and I would appreciate any support when that arrives. But in more general terms, austerity, of course, and the pressure that there has been on local government funding through the Welsh Government, makes it more difficult for councils to build the kinds of reserves that they would desire to have in order to respond to urgent issues such as floods or other occurrences. So, is there any intention within Welsh Government to look at the possibility of creating some sort of new contingency fund that would respond specifically to the difficulties faced by councils now in building the kind of reserves necessary?

Well, Llywydd, we do have a system in place already and, on the whole, I think that the system does work. When things like this happen. Councils can come to the Government and we do have a meeting within the diary for that to take place. We do keep money in these reserves in order to be able to assist when things like this do take place. As I said, as a Government we are eager to see if there are things that we can do to help in the context of Ynys Môn at present. We can do so under the current situation and arrangements that we have, and we’re eager to do so. 

Llywydd, Welsh Government research demonstrates that the changes to benefits and tax credits alone are removing over £900 million each year from the least well-off households in Wales. Residents of Merthyr and Rhymney are amongst those worst affected.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I'm sure you will recall that in 2011, the then Tory Chancellor said that his budget was

'about doing what we can to help families with the cost of living'.

He added:

'we have already asked the British people for what is needed, and today we do not need to ask for more'.

Well, six years later, many people in our communities are still paying the price of those austerity politics, and on many occasions, Cabinet Secretary, you've stressed your concerns at the impact of austerity. So, can you confirm that, unlike the policies of the Tory Government in Westminster, the policies and investments made by this Welsh Labour Government will continue to support people living in areas like my own constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney?

Well, Llywydd, the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I think, has made a very important contribution on the floor of the Assembly over many months now, when she has made the case for investment in what she has called the social fabric of our communities—ways in which we can try to help to keep the safety net on which those families that I described so much depend.

Let me give just two examples of what the Welsh Government is trying to do to assist people in the Merthyr and Rhymney areas. We have maintained our council tax reduction scheme here in Wales. That means that those families that are having their benefits frozen or cut and their tax credits reduced in Wales don't find themselves at the same time having to put their hands in their pockets to pay the council tax. That's costing £224 million across the whole of Wales, but it puts £5.7 million directly into the pockets of those families in Merthyr, and it puts £13.6 million directly into the household incomes of the poorest households in Caerphilly.

At the same time, 1,592 children in Merthyr and 2,925 children in Caerphilly have benefited from our Flying Start programmes last year. These are just two practical examples of the way in which the social fabric of our communities is being defended and advanced by the Welsh Government, even at a time when the assaults on their well-being and their incomes are so severe from the UK Government.

I thank the Member for the question. The emerging thinking about the UK Government's industrial strategy has been taken into account by those developing the Swansea bay city deal over recent months. Now that the industrial strategy itself has been published, I look forward to discussing it with city deal representatives over the coming weeks.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. The UK Government's industrial strategy places a renewed focus on growing a data-driven economy and expanding research and development into artificial intelligence. The Swansea bay city region board are also focusing on the digital economy, and should be ideally placed to leverage the additional investment in future technologies. The biggest barrier facing the region will be finding sufficient numbers of people with the required skills to develop these new technologies. What plans does your Government have to increase investment in developing the necessary skills base within my region? 

I thank Caroline Jones for that important set of points. She's quite right to say that there are a number of ways in which the priorities identified in the industrial strategy also emerge in the 11 projects approved as part of the Swansea city deal; the life sciences are another example where there is a good deal of overlap between the two sets of possibilities.

Integral to the Swansea city deal is a strand that cuts through all 11 projects, which is about providing the skills that are necessary for the jobs of the future in the Swansea bay city region. One of the things that those responsible for the deal will now want to do is to make sure that in developing that strand within the city deal we take advantage of the possibilities that the industrial strategy may also provide. I know that those who are responsible for the deal are very alert to the need to make sure that they are designing that skills strand in a way that maximises all of the possibilities that there are for the residents of this part of Wales.  

Llywydd, the five principles for Welsh tax policy were set out in June. They include the principle that taxation should contribute directly to the aim of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, creating a more equal Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary's response to Nick Ramsay's third question earlier, about making the rich pay more, seemed to go rather more to what he may be doing with income tax, when he has powers over that, than land transaction tax. Does he not recognise that large commercial properties are more often than not let to multiple smaller tenants, whether they are retail, industrial or commercial, and that those who are deciding whether to develop a big commercial development will decide whether they want to do that in Cardiff or, instead, in Birmingham, Reading or Bristol? Does he not recognise the risk he is putting to cutting off that development by charging this premium rate of 6 per cent?

Llywydd, all policies need to be assessed for risks that they may incur. My judgment is that the marginal additional sum of money that people in that position will pay through land transaction tax in Wales will not be the consideration that determines whether or not to make such an investment. There are many, many other reasons why bodies decide to come and establish themselves in Wales. I'm always trying to argue that the only thing that brings anybody to Wales is because we are cheap is not a way of attracting people to be part of our future economy.  

Finally, question 7—John Griffiths. 

I thank John Griffiths for that. Work continues to ensure that the Welsh Revenue Authority is well prepared for the responsibilities it will discharge from 1 April next year. Partial devolution of income tax from April 2019 will also require new services from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. 

Cabinet Secretary, the book The Spirit Level and much other evidence show that we all have much to gain from a more equal society in every way. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation this week stated that 400,000 more children and 300,000 more pensioners are living in poverty in the UK now than in 2012-13. The Social Mobility Commission have resigned en masse in protest, in part at least, at the gap between the rhetoric and the actual action and practice of the UK Government. While we wait for a UK Labour Government to create a more equal United Kingdom, are you able to tell us today what steps Welsh Government will take, when it has its new fiscal powers, to introduce a more progressive element to taxation in Wales and a more equal country?

Well, I thank John Griffiths for that. The Rowntree figures, Llywydd, are authentically shocking in showing that the burden of austerity in our country is being carried by those least able to bear it, including—and I think it is genuinely shocking—the number of children in Wales and the United Kingdom who will find themselves living in poverty in the future as a direct result of those policies. That conclusion is not just the conclusion of the Rowntree foundation, it's borne out by Resolution Foundation, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by others in the way that John Griffiths said. 

More equal societies bring with them a huge number of advantages. They enjoy better health, they have less crime, they have less fear of crime and maybe most importantly of all—and this is why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both, these days, publish documents calling for more equal societies—they do better economically as well. That's why the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has the creation of a more equal Wales at its heart. We took a very modest step on that road this year with the way in which we are using our land transaction tax possibilities. Both can make getting on the property ladder easier in Wales for people on modest incomes and to support businesses at the small and medium-sized end of the spectrum. It was a small but symbolically important step and I'm very glad that we were able to take it. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next questions are to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip. The first question is from Julie Morgan.

Health boards are expected to consider and monitor the health and well-being of specific vulnerable groups as part of the NHS delivery framework. 'Travelling to Better Health' provides guidance to assist health boards when planning and delivering services for Gypsy and Traveller communities.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I know that the Welsh Government has worked hard to produce these guidelines. However, when I visited Pembrokeshire last week with the cross-party group, a great deal of concern was expressed by the Gypsies and Travellers who attended the meeting about health provision and, in particular, getting access to general practitioners, and the loss, actually, of a dedicated health visitor who used to be employed by the Unity Project, to visit sites specifically. So, it was a general concern about health, so I wondered how far these guidelines were actually effective.

I was aware that the Unity into the Community project had been a fantastic resource for the community there, and it's very disappointing that it was not able to attract the funding it needed to continue. Nevertheless, we do expect Hywel Dda health board to be working with partners through the primary care clusters to understand the local health needs of all of those communities and to ensure equality of access and outcomes. 'Travelling to Better Health' makes it clear that restricting access to GPs or other health services is not acceptable and provides guidance about how to improve the GP registration for Gypsies and Travellers. The NHS Centre for Equality and Human Rights has developed a specific e-learning package relating to the health needs of Gypsies and Travellers, which will be rolled out for all healthcare practitioners by March 2018, and I will be working with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to consider any further action required to ensure the principles of equality of access and health outcomes included in 'Travelling to Better Health' are being progressed and will make sure that the Member is updated and, if she wants to be, involved in making sure that those outcomes are effective.

Mark Isherwood.

Diolch Llywydd. A pregnant pause; I was a little bit worried there, but thank you very much indeed. 

I've been contacted by the Travelling Ahead service, which is supporting the residents association of the Back Bangor Lane Gypsy and Traveller site in Conwy, expressing concern that residents are experiencing physical and psychological ill effects from the level of noise from the adjacent A55. I understand that, although technical reports have identified that resurfacing of the A55 would help relieve this, the Welsh Government has responded only that this section of road will be considered for maintenance as part of the annual prioritisation programme for work. Are you able through your responsibilities and your brief to have a look at this regarding the general desperation that the community is feeling and the impact that this is having on their health and, they believe, on their rights also?

Yes, indeed, I've had a number of communications from the community there and, indeed, from a number of other interested parties. I will be arranging to go up and visit the site as soon as I possibly can and to talk to the council about what they can do to alleviate the situation, which is clearly a difficult one all round. I'm happy to make the Member aware as soon as I've made those arrangements.

Question 2 [OAQ51432] was withdrawn. 

Question 3—Darren Millar.

Through the Superfast Cymru scheme, we've connected businesses across Wales to superfast broadband, and our ultrafast connectivity voucher scheme is providing up to £10,000 for businesses to acquire an ultrafast connection. The Airband project has also connected around 2,000 premises on industrial estates across Wales.

I'm very grateful for your response, Cabinet Secretary and leader of the house. I'm also grateful for the fact that you're going to be visiting my constituency to talk about the Superfast Cymru roll-out in rural Denbighshire in particular, where, as you will be aware, the current statistics suggest that it's lagging behind significantly in terms of progress when compared to the rest of Wales, with just 84 per cent of premises actually connected versus 92.5 per cent across the rest of the country. That does have an impact on rural businesses in particular, many of whom already face difficulties because of rurality in getting their goods and services out to the marketplace. I appreciate that we've got the ultrafast voucher scheme in place, but many suppliers of alternative services are simply not able to supply either in those localities, so what are you doing to work with the industry to come up with something that is more commercially viable in order to extend the opportunities that superfast and ultrafast broadband speeds can provide to businesses in these situations in my own constituency?

So, the issue with the industry is really complex, but basically the industry assures me—and I've asked for that assurance on a number of occasions—that business products are available everywhere in Wales. However, a large number of businesses can't afford to buy the ethernet connection that's being talked about there. We've put the ultrafast connectivity voucher in place in order to reduce the cost for businesses and, actually, it's more generous in Wales than anywhere else because of the proportions that we pay. There are issues, though, about market failure and the issue around the cost of some of the ethernet services. I've been on to Ofcom for some time about what they want to do about that. I'm happy to write again if the Member wants to give me specific businesses that are experiencing that issue and, of course, I will be in the constituency tomorrow to hear them for myself.

Obviously, the superfast roll-out is nearly complete at the end of this year. It isn't equal across Wales, as the Member will know—the contract is let on an all-Wales basis and it will be complete by the end of this year. We will then be putting in place the Superfast 2 project, and one of the things I'm very much looking forward to discussing in the Member's constituency tomorrow is what that community particularly wants to see in terms of the superfast project, and what we can do to make up for some of those shortfalls. It will be an interesting discussion, I'm sure. But if the Member wants me to write to Ofcom again about specific businesses or in general about his patch, I'm more than happy to do so.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, I have raised the question of car washes a number of times in this Chamber, but I make no apologies for raising it yet again. As long as people are being exploited in this way and the Welsh Government buries its head in the sand on this issue, I shall continue to press for action. So, will the leader of the house outline any actions the Government is taking to end this scourge in our society?

I assume the Member is referring to people being paid less than the minimum wage, and I share his concern that people should be paid the minimum wage in all business places. In my role as chair of the fair work board's phase 1, I've had a meeting with the enforcement authority, which is a UK-based enforcement authority, around the enforcement of the minimum wage, and we are looking at ways to ensure that the minimum wage enforcement provisions in Wales can be made better in order to—I completely agree—end the scourge of people being paid less than the minimum wage in any industry, anywhere in the country.

Well, I welcome that small amount of intervention, Minister, but I have to say, Dawn Frazer of the Car Wash Advisory Service said that everything bad you can think of for the British labour force is present in car washes—slavery, low wages, debt bondage, tax evasion and even sex exploitation of young women. So, just looking at that one aspect of low wages can hardly be said to be addressing this problem in the way that it should be addressed.

Well, if the Member has any specific details that he'd like to draw to my attention, I'd be most grateful to receive them, because that is quite a series of accusations. And I'd be very happy to look into any aspect of that that he's able to provide details of.

Quite frankly, it's out there in the media all the time. And I'm not quoting; I know you've called into question my statistics on this in the past, but it's out there with such things as the BBC, The Guardian, the Office for National Statistics, the New Statesman and The Independent. All of them have written about this and castigated the situation on a number of occasions, so the statistics and everything else are out there in the public domain.

Thank you for that. I will have another look at it. We have a number of preventative programmes around several of the issues that you've raised, including modern slavery, prevention of sexual harassment in the workforce and the minimum wage provisions, as I've suggested already. I'm more than happy to have another look at it, but if the Member has any specifics he'd like to actually direct my attention to, that would be most helpful.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Members of your Government have described the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 as legislation that breaks new ground. Now, do you think that that is a fair description of how that Act is being implemented?

I've only just got to grips with this part of my portfolio, the Member will be aware, and I've yet to have a series of meetings with the officials who work in this area. I've not yet got a full grasp of that, but I'd be very happy to discuss this issue with the Member. I do, myself, have some concerns about the speed of implementation, but I'm not yet in a position to be able to detail them, and I apologise for that.

We’ve seen a report by committee that has expressed great concern about the implementation of the Act—that it is sluggish, or some parts haven’t been implemented at all. This week, I received an update on the situation and these are the facts for you: there is no action plan over a year since the strategy was published; it appears that no guidance related to local strategies has been published as of yet; the expert group on healthy relationships hasn’t published its recommendations—and those were to be issued in the autumn; it appears that no work was done on the guidance for higher education institutions; no national indicators were published to show progress towards the objectives of the Act; the statutory commissioning guidance, which was to be published in July of this year, hasn’t been published; the national adviser has resigned, and no replacement has been appointed. Would you agree that the only thing that breaks new ground here is the incredible scale of lack of action in the two years since this institution passed this legislation?

Well, as I say, I'm not in a position to comment on the situation before I took control of this portfolio. Since I've been in post, which is only a month, I've had a number of meetings around, for example, the progress of the healthy relationships guidance, which I understand will be ready in the new year. We are in the process of appointing the new national advisor, and I've been involved in some parts of that—again, in the very early stages of my taking control of the portfolio. We launched the 'ask and act' guidance only last week, and I was able to do that at a meeting that had been prearranged with a number of people who'd been interested in that guidance, and we'd had a preliminary discussion about that. I absolutely see the Member's commitment and worry in this instance, and I can assure you that one of my priorities in taking this portfolio will be to ensure that the Act is indeed the groundbreaking Act that we would all like to see it being.

Thank you. And I truly hope that we will see this progress as a matter of urgency now. And I thank you for your commitment, and I hope we will be in a far better position in a few months’ time.

And any legislation needs to be backed up by funding, of course, in order to truly achieve its potential. But, once again, I do have some concerns here, and Women’s Aid Wales have warned that further cuts to services such as refuges will lead to detrimental impacts for survivors of abuse, which could lead to loss of life. Can you now ensure that there will be no cuts to services such as women’s refuges and places for children? Under the circumstances, that’s the least the Government could do.

Well, I've had a number of discussions already about how we do the commissioning guidance, and what we're doing in terms of the national advisors going out. I've also had one preliminary discussion with my colleague here on my right about the financial arrangements for this. I'm not yet in a position to be able to make any pledges about where we are with that until I've got a better grip. But, I can tell you that I'm completely committed to making sure that this Act works, and that we do fund it, so that the people who need those refuges so badly do get them.

The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Modern slavery, clearly, affects or impacts across Wales, but there's a particular west-east issue in north Wales, where human trafficking through Holyhead port is a huge issue. North Wales lost its anti-slavery co-ordinator after three years of funding expired, when a charity was established—Haven of Light—to liaise with statutory partners, the voluntary sector, North Wales Police, local authorities, their lead officer in Anglesey on human trafficking, and so on. They've identified that the situation is getting worse. There's no safe house, reception centre facilities in north Wales, and the lack of an anti-slavery co-ordinator on a regional basis has created a gap, clearly, which they're filling. How will you engage, not only nationally, but directly with the north Wales network of bodies now working actively in this area, to tackle what is, worryingly, a growing problem?

The Member raises a very important point. We've established the Wales anti-slavery leadership group to provide strategic leadership and guidance on how to tackle slavery in Wales, and also to provide the best possible support for survivors. The membership of that group includes the National Crime Agency, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Cymru Wales Safeguarding, and other UK Government departments, academia, BAWSO, and a number of other third sector organisations. We're sharing the learning from across Wales with other partners, including the UK Government departments, and the UK Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, and we're starting to gain quite a lot of recognition for that work. But the Member will appreciate that slavery is a very complex crime to investigate and prosecute, and it's very complex to get the range of measures in force and properly resourced.

The Member raised a very specific issue, which I'm afraid I'm not across at the moment, since I'm new in the portfolio. I'd be more than happy to look at the specifics of that, if he wants to write to me about it.

Thank you very much. One of the other concerns they raised with me was that the manifests used on the ferries are inaccurate, with names being made up by traffickers, and, of course, there's issues around access to ports in the context of Brexit, and so on. But, nonetheless, this is leading to people being able to exploit the system.

North Wales Police have produced a report and a systematic assessment of the risk and issues concerning modern-day slavery and human trafficking in north Wales, identifying particular organised crime groups working from outside north Wales, trafficking victims through Holyhead, and employing potential victims in nail bars and pop-up brothels. And there are also groups based in north Wales, linked by familial bonds, who are targeting vulnerable males for manual labour and canvassing. So, again, you refer to the all-Wales engagement you're having, and the UK engagement, but given that this is also a west-east issue in north Wales, with particular sensitivities, and the Holyhead port issue at the core, will you engage directly with them also?

Absolutely. I'm very much looking forward to going around the various organisations in Wales to talk about both how the national strategy works locally, and also to pick up the local issues which are around co-ordination, as the Member rightly identifies, and where the overlap of powers between devolved and UK Government responsibilities lies, so that we can make the most of those powers in tackling some of the really very terrible practices that he's highlighted. So, I'm more than happy to do that, and if the Member wants to invite me to see anything very specific, I'm very happy to take him up on that as well. 

Thank you. And, finally, on this theme, in fact, the Haven of Light organised a conference in St Asaph cathedral, which I took part in on 28 October, with police representation, local authorities, voluntary sector and others presenting. The Salvation Army told us that seventh out of the 94 nationalities they worked with were British victims, people who originated within the United Kingdom and its constituent nations, who

'had been tricked and then trapped'.

So, both on an all-Wales basis, and in this case, a regional basis, what consideration are you giving not only to those people being trafficked from outside Wales and the UK, but those within the UK and Wales who are being tricked and trapped into exploitation and slavery?

Yes, and that's a very important point, and we have a large range of Government initiatives that are designed to make sure that people have the right information to ensure that they don't enter into arrangements that they find themselves slowly sucked into, into situations where really they can't get back out. The Member has highlighted a number of issues. I'm aware of some that have arisen in my own constituency as well.

We will be working very hard to put a range of things in, first of all, to ensure that enforcement agencies understand what they're looking for and how to make sure that the people who are involved in those awful arrangements have the right information to extract themselves and the right advice; secondly, to put some programmes in place to make sure that people understand what they're being sucked into, and can put a stop to it early on; and, thirdly, to put the right support around the agencies that are involved to make sure that they recognise the signs of that starting to happen and can take appropriate preventative action. But, again, I make the same offer: if the Member has very specific things he'd like to me to look at, I'd be more than happy to do that. 

Yes. There is a strong sense of respect and tolerance in Mid and West Wales, with low levels of hate crime, and a very good community response to the Syrian resettlement programme. Where tensions do exist, we are working closely with partners, including the police, local authorities and communities, to reduce them as much as possible.

I'm grateful to the leader of the house for that reply, and as this is the first opportunity I've had to do so, I congratulate her on her promotion, which I think, for what it's worth, was well deserved. 

Thank you very much.

I thought her zeal and her courtesy in her previous incarnation was much appreciated, and I wish her well in her new position.

She may remember that I raised recently with the First Minister the case of Amazon in Jersey Marine advertising for workers through the Central European Recruitment and Contract Services Ltd. The company had contacted one of my constituents to say that they wanted to rent rooms so that these workers could occupy those rooms on an eight-hour shift basis, so three workers in one day. Would the leader of the house agree with me that this does nothing for promoting social cohesion because it creates resentment, certainly amongst low-paid people, because these are not well-paid jobs that are being advertised? The Swansea travel-to-work area, of course, extends well into Carmarthenshire. And as Amazon, which is, I'm sure, a perfectly good employer, received grants from the Welsh Government to persuade them to come to Jersey Marine five or six years ago, the Welsh Government ought to discourage Amazon from using companies of this kind, because that does breed resentment amongst ordinary people, and we all want to discourage that kind of resentment and promote community cohesion. 

If the Member would like to provide me with any specific evidence he has, I would be more than happy to receive it. I have a large number of my own constituents who work at Amazon and I've had a number of correspondence occasions with them over the past about some of their employment practices. I'd be more than happy to write to them with my new hat on if the Member can provide me with the evidence on which I could base such a letter. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, one way to develop community cohesion is to tackle loneliness in rural communities. You'll no doubt be aware of the Campaign to End Loneliness, which sadly shows that nine in 10 people in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire believe loneliness in older age is now more likely than ever. In light of this very serious statistic, what specific funding has the Welsh Government made available to communities to specifically combat loneliness and develop community cohesion? Will you commit to publishing a breakdown of where that funding has been allocated? 

Well, we've a whole series of regional community cohesion co-ordinators, who have a range of duties amongst them, and one of their main duties is actually to make sure that all of the other agencies collaborate properly and come together with this agenda.

So, one of the things that I'll be doing is looking to see how those co-ordinators have worked in the past, to make sure that all of the funding that's available for a number of issues around community cohesion—loneliness is certainly one of them, isolation of older women, for example, in communities is a huge issue—to make sure that we make the very best of the combined set of programmes that we have across a range of portfolios in the Government, to make sure that we tackle some of those.

In terms of some of my own responsibilities, some of the issues that the Member has raised with me over the years have been around broadband and so on. Actually there is a big role to play in getting older people to be included digitally to make sure that they have things such as the ability to Skype grandchildren and so on, which although not any substitute for personal interaction, nevertheless, can assist greatly in terms of isolation from family. Inclusion in day-to-day activity can make a real difference to the way that somebody interacts with their family even if they're further away. So, we have taken that into account very much in designing some of those programmes. But I will be working with the co-ordinators to make sure that they are across all of those areas of cohesion.

In terms of the budget, I am not in a position to make any promises around the budget at this point, because I've yet to review all of the aspects of my portfolio that impacts on that, but I'm more than happy to report back once I've done so. 

Workers from overseas contribute hugely to Wales's economy and society. Our paper, 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People', outlines a framework for future migration that meets Wales's needs and supports vigorous enforcement of non-devolved employment legislation. This approach is underpinned by our anti-exploitation code of practice for ethical employment in the supply chain. 

Can I thank the leader of the house for that answer? Irrespective of our views on the merits of Brexit, there are thousands of migrant workers in Wales, including in my own constituency, who do important work and deserve total clarity as we negotiate our future arrangements with the EU. Would the leader of the house agree that while the UK Government has published a technical document for those EU citizens applying for settled status, which is suggesting a grace period of two years following Brexit, there remains a lack of clarity, particularly in relation to families, which is a worry for those people from Wales who work in the EU, as well as EU citizens working in the UK? Would you further agree that this is an unnecessary economic risk to the well-being of our country? 

Indeed. I think the ongoing uncertainty is completely unnecessary. Welsh Government has been calling for confirmation of EU citizens' rights ever since the referendum. We're very aware that Brexit arrangements are causing many migrant communities anxiety across Wales and we're attempting to contact as many of the migrant community groups, social organisations and other support mechanisms in order to make sure that we can actively engage with communities to make sure they feel as settled as possible. Of course, we continue to engage with the UK Government to ensure the process for applying for settled status for EU citizens in the UK, as well as citizens from Wales who work in the EU, will be fair and proportionate. It's having a disproportionate effect in some other areas of real importance to the economic stability of Wales as well, including very important and world-class research, which I'm very concerned is being impacted by the lack of settled status for EU migrants.

Can the leader of the house inform me whether discussions have taken place between the Welsh Government and the UK Government with regard to seasonal working permits following Brexit, and, of course, in looking at future arrangements?   

Yes, that's one of the things that we've been discussing in our Brexit preparedness arrangements, and our papers, I'm sure the Member knows, all reference the issue around seasonal migrant workers and other, very important elements of our society. We don't agree with quota arrangements, but if such an arrangement were put in place, then we would, of course, be pressing to have the very best quota arrangements for Wales to ensure that all of the communities that rely on very important migrant workers are actually able to continue to provide the valuable services across the Welsh economy that we know they provide.

Yes. The Welsh Government is working closely with the stakeholders, including local government, health services and the Welsh Refugee Coalition, as well as refugees and asylum seekers themselves, to develop a new delivery plan. This is being done with close reference to the committee's report 'I used to be someone'.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. There is considerable interest in the committee's report in Newport, which, obviously, is one of the more ethnically diverse cities and areas in Wales, but also there are other areas in Wales that are similarly so. So, there is considerable interest out there and it's good to know that Welsh Government is working with refugees and asylum seekers.

I wonder if you could say any more about how the issues identified in the committee's report are being addressed, and likely to be addressed, and, in terms of that asylum seekers and refugees delivery plan, when the revised plan is likely to be published.

Yes. A draft of the plan will be brought to the refugee and asylum seeker operations board on 16 January and subsequently presented at the refugee and asylum seeker taskforce meeting in mid March, in terms of the timing.

In the meantime, we've been working very hard to ensure that we take the committee's full, and very good report if I might say, into account in our completely new approach to how we look at some of these services. The Member shares with me a constituency that has a very large amount of asylum-seeker and refugee families in it, and I share his concern.

A number of good projects are under way. In my own constituency—and I'm going to do a shameless plug here, Llywydd, so I would like to alert people to it—a number of books, produced by the refugee community poetry association in Swansea, one of which is entitled My Heart Loves in My Language and which I defy anybody to read without being in floods of tears by page 3, which explains some of the isolation and desperation that people feel when they cannot express themselves anymore in the language of their birth. I am absolutely determined that we are going to make sure that those people's lives are happier, healthier and much better now that they've found their way safely to Wales than they were before.

Leader of the house, many asylum seekers and refugees may have skills that would prove valuable to the Welsh economy, but they are hindered by their inability, or limited ability, to speak English. The Welsh Government, in its response to the committee's report, acknowledged the importance of English for speakers of other languages courses . So, can I ask what progress has been made in updating the ESOL policy for Wales by March 2018 to ensure that the provision of these courses is sufficient to meet the demand in Wales, and especially south-east Wales?

English for speakers of other languages, as the Member rightly identifies, is a fundamental part of being able to settle properly in a new country and actually for that new country to take proper account of your skills and your ability to contribute. As such, we have, as part of the Welsh Government's skills provision, protected ESOL funding for several years through various budgets. We also work very hard with the UK Syrian resettlement programme, for example, to make sure that English for speakers of other languages is properly distributed. But there are problems with that, and the differing levels of support for differing classes of refugees is not really helping.

We are making a lot of recommendations and are lobbying to the UK Government to make them understand the real problems that the resettlement programme sometimes has for people being disrupted in terms of their language learning. There's a whole issue as well with people who arrive in Wales who are speakers of minority languages in their own country. So, for example, if Britain were to have the misfortune of being a war zone and we were all escaping, then those of us who speak Welsh as a first language would struggle even more to acquire the language of the country that we arrived in than those of us who speak English. Those things are really important to take into account, when we design these programmes.

We also have a huge problem where we don't have a tapering provision, and so those people who have a basic grasp of English are often in the same class as people who don't have any grasp of English, and those people who might be heading towards employment are also in that class, and also no provision for people coming in at the bottom either, as there's nowhere for people to to proceed to. So, a large amount of work needs to be done here. A large amount of funding also needs to be attracted by that, and we will be lobbying heavily the UK Government to step up to the mark in terms of funding some of those resettlement programmes.

Yes. Earlier this year the Welsh Government approved the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments undertaken by Welsh local authorities, which identified a need for 237 residential and 33 transit pitches across Wales. A total of £26.4 million has been allocated between 2017 and 2021 to address this need, and I expect local authorities to deliver against the need.

Cabinet Secretary, we still have a problem with occupation of illegal sites, which causes great distress to neighbours around those sites, because they're not provided with the necessary facilities and infrastructure. There is still, obviously, a fairly slow identification of official sites that are appropriate to attract Gypsies and Travellers in places that they would want to settle for a while. So, can you give us any further information on how you're assessing these responses that you're having from local authorities on how they're going to implement this Act?

Yes. We have an annual review of how the local authorities are progressing. All 22 local authorities have responded to the request, and the findings of the first review show that good progress is being made in almost every area across Wales. A formal review of the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment guidance will be undertaken in 2018, which will inform thinking about the next round of assessments after that. I'm aware of a number of issues that have been highlighted in various local authorities around Wales. I'm currently aware of 10 areas that have highlighted specific issue. I will be doing a tour of all of those areas to make sure I thoroughly understand the issues identified and that we can work with the councils in question to make sure that people's needs are met. When people are camping on unsatisfactory and not specific sites, then clearly that's not in the best interests of the people in the camps, and nor is it in the best interest of any of the people providing services or living around them.

Yes, 48,266 premises within Rhondda Cynon Taf can now access fast fibre broadband with an average download speed of over 64 Mbps, thanks to Superfast Cymru. That equates to around 95 per cent of eligible premises, and just over £13,144,000 of public funding has been invested in the project in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Thank you for that answer, and also thank you for the fact that we've achieved 94 per cent coverage in Pontypridd. However, that 6 per cent non-coverage is really significant for a number of small businesses, and attempts to resolve it have been incredibly stubborn and difficult to resolve. I wondered what sort of steps are being taken and what priority can be given to ensure that the remaining 6 per cent actually becomes resolved.

That will be very much part of how we construct the successor project to Superfast Cymru, and I believe the Member has a number of specific issues in industrial estates, and he will have heard the answer I gave to Darren Millar earlier about some of the things we're doing for business in industrial estates. One of the industrial estates in the Member's area in Treforest has a number of servers. I had a meeting with BT only this morning, which is why I'm able to give the Member such a significant amount of detail suddenly. We understand that there's a bit of a problem about how the three overlap, so, with his permission, I will be asking BT to contact him direct to look at some of those issues. In terms of the 6 per cent generally in Wales, the whole point of the £80 million successor programme, superfast 2, will be to look at how we can address those people left out of the first programme and what's the best way of ensuring that we get the maximum coverage for our money.

I listened carefully to your answer, leader of the house, and congratulations on your appointment. Across the whole of the South Wales Central area, of which obviously Pontypridd is one of the key towns, there are these pockets of difficulty, shall we say, identified in Pontypridd at 6 per cent, but that could be anywhere across the South Wales Central region. I hear you've had an update meeting with BT, but it is increasingly really frustrating, as you can appreciate and I've heard you say time and time again, for the businesses and individuals that are in those pockets. What sort of timescale is the Welsh Government working on, along with BT, to try and have some of these solutions that you've alluded to in place so that that 6 per cent can be squeezed as tightly as possible down to a smaller percentage of the population that are unable to make those contacts? And, ultimately, what we'd all like to see is 100 per cent connectivity.

Yes, absolutely. So, we're designing the second stage now. We're going to go to procurement as early in the new year as we can manage it so that we have a back-to-back roll-out arrangement with BT as they ramp down from the first one. I'm not saying for one minute that BT will win the second phase, but clearly we want to have a programme that's as smooth as possible. One of the ways that we're looking to do that is to design very specific local solutions in local areas. So, solutions in urban south-east Wales will be very different from solutions in very rural or semi-rural areas in mid and north Wales, for example.

There are some complications in south-east Wales around where the intervention area is for superfast. The Member will appreciate that this is a state-aid intervention, so it's a market intervention, and, for every intervention, we have to prove that the market has failed. So, if it wasn't included in the open market review that we did in the summer for superfast 2, then we will experience some difficulty in including it.

If the Member's aware of anywhere that's experiencing  difficulty that's currently labelled as commercial, I'd be very grateful to hear about it so that we can incorporate that as soon as possible.

There will be a trade-off between getting as much speed to as many people as possible and getting true ultrafast speeds to some businesses that we can also discuss as part of the design of phase 2. In particular, the Member will have heard what I said to Darren Millar, his colleague, earlier around business connectivity. We've also employed a number of business exploitation experts for Superfast Cymru, and they're able to explain to businesses what their best commercial advantage might be. We have several examples across Wales of businesses that have waited patiently for superfast to get to them, and they've received superfast only to discover that it's nothing like adequate for what they need and they could have just upgraded with an ultrafast connectivity voucher years before if only they'd realised. So, we have a number of business experts who tour the country talking to businesses to make sure that that business understands what the connection they might actually want is, and assists them to get the best deal.

I've done a number of roadshows in various constituencies, and I'm more than happy to do one if the Member would like me to in his area. We can get the exploitation programme to do that as well. You can hear that I'm very anxious for businesses to understand what their best advantage is and not to wait for the programme only to discover that they could have upgraded, because we're very anxious that businesses in Wales get the full benefit of the internet, and all of the services and expansion and so on that that can bring, as early as possible. So, the business exploitation advisers are very good at making sure that businesses understand a business plan to get the right connectivity, and what they might get for their money in terms of money that they might contribute to it. So, I'd be very anxious to understand exactly what the detail of it is and to engage with the Member as much as possible.

The Welsh Government is committed to improving the diversity of decision makers in Wales. The diversity and democracy programme closed in March and we'll undertake a full evaluation of it with a view to learning from it and taking the diversity agenda further forward in the light of the evaluation.

Thank you. Less than a third of all candidates in the 2017 local government elections were women, and only 27 per cent of those who were elected were women. The Government has consulted recently on electoral reform in the area of local government in Wales, but they were very disappointed to see that there was no mention at all in the consultation paper about the Government’s attempts to ensure fair representation for women in elected roles upon councils in Wales. Of course, political parties have a responsibility to ensure that there is fair representation of women and minority groups on councils within our internal processes of selecting candidates, but do you agree that the Government has missed an opportunity to lead here by not including this as part of the consultation process that was recently held?

Well, no, I think it's up to all of us to encourage the skilled women we all know to stand for election, and actually to make sure that our own political parties step up to the mark in encouraging as many women as possible to be involved at grass-roots level in terms of activism, and then leading them on through leadership programmes or whatever into proper democratically elected or democratic roles in that process.

You will know that my party has long had a very good record of having all-women shortlists, for example. I myself was elected off an all-woman shortlist. Positive action of that sort is necessary if we're to make any real inroads into what's been very slow progress on women accessing serious leadership roles.

As a result of the diversity in democracy programme, we did have 51 individuals from underrepresented groups participating. Sixteen of them stood as candidates in the local government elections, and four—all of whom were women—were successfully elected. So, there was a very positive outcome from that. Also, the number of female leaders in local authorities in Wales doubled following the local election in May, with four councils now being led by women. I'd certainly like to see that grow in the future. I'm very delighted that the leader of the WLGA is female—an excellent role model in this regard. We will be looking at an evaluation of the programme, though, because we want to be able to understand what we could have done to have got more people to come forward, and what we can do to improve political life—public life, actually—for women.

Far too often, the roles of women cross against the roles in public life. So, for example, provision for elder care, child care, support for family care and so on is absolutely essential to enable a woman, who is very often the carer—let's face it, it hasn't moved very much in my lifetime, that's for sure—is very often the primary carer, to make sure that they can be supported both in their caring roles and in their public role, whatever that might be—elected public role or voluntary public role or whatever. I'm very committed to making sure that that happens so that we can address the inequality that's lasted for so many centuries.

Neil McEvoy is not in attendance to ask question 10 [OAQ51407]. Question 11—Steffan Lewis.

Yes. We are determined to do all we can with our partners to tackle slavery in Wales. We continue to raise awareness, provide multi-agency training, support victims, and assist in bringing perpetrators to justice of this heinous crime. 

I thank the leader of the house for that answer. She'll be aware, of course, of some heartbreaking and high-profile cases across the country in recent years, including in the Gwent Police force area. I ask, given the complex nature of modern slavery and the fact that a number of agencies are involved in tackling it and preventing it—some devolved, others non-devolved—what sort of co-ordination role is the Welsh Government able to provide to public bodies in order to ensure that we're all going in the same direction and this heinous crime can be eradicated from our country?

Yes, indeed. The Member's quite right to describe it so. We're the first country in the UK to appoint an anti-slavery co-ordinator. We've established the Wales anti-slavery leadership group, as I was saying earlier in response to questions, to provide strategic leadership and guidance on how to tackle slavery in Wales, and also to provide the best possible support for survivors, which I think is a very important point as well. The leadership group does include a very large number of agencies, many of which are UK Government agencies, but also includes academia, a number of third sector organisations that are active in this area, and so on. The idea is to share the learning from Wales with other partners, including a range of UK Government departments, and we're starting to get some recognition for our work there, but it's a very complex crime to investigate and prosecute.

We need to do a lot more work with partners to develop joint training provision for senior investigating officers and Crown prosecutors, because a large part of this is (a) finding the people who are trapped in these things, and then getting a case together to actually prosecute—and then publicising the prosecution, because we do need to make sure that people who are engaged in this actually know that they will be caught and prosecuted. It's a very large part of that piece of deterrence. 

We've delivered a consistent standard of anti-slavery training—that's actually quite hard to say, anti-slavery training—to 5,500 people across Wales, and there's an estimated 5,000 people benefiting again this year on that. And, of course, we've got the ethical employment in supply chains code of practice, which very much talks about all of our partners in public procurement, making sure that they ensure that their supply chains are free from these crimes. That will go a long way as well to driving some good practice into the supply chains to make sure that people are aware of how many of these things can actually be happening without them really realising. So, it will be very important for us to develop all of that learning in years to come, and I'll certainly be ensuring that we do so.

Cabinet Secretary, amongst the vulnerable people who are entrapped in these despicable practices are often people with learning difficulties. I think it's very important that people that have services like your roof being fixed, your drive being done, your car being washed, keep an eye on those people that do not seem to be flourishing in that practice, seem to be very marginalised, shy and reluctant to engage, because they could well be people trapped in this way. 

Yes, absolutely. David Melding will have heard me talking about some of the work we've been doing as part of the Fair Work Board to look at enforcement procedures that could be brought to Wales and used by local authorities. At the moment, there's a UK enforcement authority, which is in the north of England, that covers the whole of the UK. I'm very keen to ensure that we work with that UK Government department to get a few pilot authorities here in Wales to see what we can do with local enforcement to actually—because I personally believe that there's a lot to be said for having some visible trials and punishments of people who are engaged in that, as a very serious deterrent to those who think that they can get away with it. Also, you heard me talking about the extensive training that we're undergoing. I agree with him that a public awareness campaign of that sort would also be very beneficial.

And finally, question 12, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I'll be consulting on a new—. Sorry, it would helpful if I found the right question, wouldn't it, really.

We're doing quite a lot in 5G technology in Wales. We've been looking quite a lot through the city deals at developing some good test-bed pilots for 5G technology and also in the new park, the automotive park, that we've talked about. We're also using it as an adjunct to fibre broadband to see what we can do with combination technologies, and a very large part of this will be what the UK Government does with the spectrum sales. So, we'll be making a lot of representations to the UK that they shouldn't regard 5G as a cash cow, but should actually think about what part of infrastructure it might play in public roll-out of some of the new artificial intelligence technologies, particularly autonomous vehicles and so on. So, there's a lot of work to be done in ensuring that we get the right exploitative benefit, and that the UK Government actually steps up to the mark and perceives 5G, as I say, not as a cash cow, but as a very serious public infrastructure resource.

Absolutely, and I wouldn't disagree there. Others have congratulated you on your appointment to Cabinet today. We've already been working together in my role as business manager and you as leader of the house. I congratulate you on bringing digital connectivity from the ministerial benches to the frontbench. I have a kind offer to make to you to mark your new role in the Cabinet, and that is to use the Isle of Anglesey as a test bed for the development of 5G technology. People who know far more than me about digital connectivity tell me that, actually, in terms of geography, in terms of military presence—[Interruption.]—well, the fact that it's relatively flat, plus with the mountains nearby, actually, Anglesey would be a very good place to develop 5G technology. There's some good work going on at Bangor University as well in this field. I would be more than happy to facilitate in any way I can to make presentations to Government on how this could happen, but I would welcome, at this stage at least, a nod from Government that they are keen to look at test-bed areas in Wales that could include, and should, indeed, include, the Isle of Anglesey. 

We're very keen to support the development of 5G test beds right across Wales, and certainly I'm very happy to come and look, with the Member, at the possibilities on Anglesey. We are currently looking at a couple of test beds already. We've appointed Innovation Point to advise, stimulate and co-ordinate activity on 5G in Wales, including opportunities to secure funding from the test bed and trials fund. So, we'll be looking into that very shortly.

I mentioned Ebbw Vale and the automotive technology park already; also the digital infrastructure proposal in Swansea bay city region also focuses on investment in 5G technology and how applications through the city deal could support projects within the area. The Cardiff city deal is also looking at it. I would emphasise that it is important that the UK Government actually develops the proposal in the right way. We're not expecting to roll out 5G networks anywhere in the world until around 2020, so we have some time to make sure that happens. It is imperative, however, that the Government doesn't do anything that's counterindicitive to it being a really good public infrastructure resource. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

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

That brings us to the topical questions, and the first topical question is from Adam Price.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Ministers have consistently called on commercial banks to maintain a strong branch network presence in Wales. The issue considered by the Public Policy Institute for Wales was the establishment of a public bank that prioritised economic development. The Development Bank of Wales will now take that report forward.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary will, of course, be aware of the announcements that a number of banks have made about branch closures throughout Wales, including in my constituency. With these latest announcements, the number of branches that will have closed since 2011 in Wales now extends to 186 branches, and five of the 10 areas that have faced the greatest number of branch closures are in Wales, including Carmarthenshire. So, it is a crisis. I have read the report, which was commissioned by the Government, of course. It was published by the Cabinet Secretary for the economy as a result of a short debate held by Plaid Cymru on banking. That report—it's not entirely correct to say that it only refers to economic development, because it also mentions models such as the Hampshire community bank, which relates to community banking. Therefore, may I ask, please, Cabinet Secretary, what you are going to do in terms of this crisis regarding community banking for the citizens of Wales, who are now in a situation where, in many parts of Wales, there is no financial service available for them at all?

Llywydd, I am aware of the figures and the pattern that have emerged here in Wales.

It is true to say that the report looked at a range of different models, but the weight of its consideration was quite clearly on how a public bank for Wales might be used to plug gaps in the wider economy, rather than looking at examples of how alternatives to high-street banking for customers coming in off the street might be developed. It does make a reference to the Hampshire model, although the last time that I asked for some information on the practical implementation of the Hampshire model, it wasn't looking as though it had made the progress that was hoped for by its originators.

The Public Policy Institute for Wales report says that the introduction of any model would be 'very challenging and complex' here in Wales. So, I think that the answer to the developments that the Member rightly points to may not be in the public bank debate that is very healthily going on in Wales, but in other things that we might be able to do: making sure that the Post Office is well placed to take on a wider range of banking activities, using the support that the Welsh Government provides to the post office network in Wales, making sure that credit union membership is available right across Wales, using the nearly £0.5 million of additional investment that we're providing for credit unions this year—I've this week discussed with some credit union interests whether financial transaction capital might be useful to them in facing some of the challenges that they have to get over—and, by that community-level activity, to do what we can to make sure that the services on the high street that people have used hitherto in banking, but are, we have to recognise, using less and less—that we still have high-street access for people who need it.

Cabinet Secretary, the figures I have are that 152 banks have closed between 2011 and 2016, with 20 more to close in 2018—there are yet another two in my constituency, in Treforest and Talbot Green. The most worrying aspect to this is the total lack of any social or community responsibility from the banks, even in terms of the most basic consultation with those particular communities. I've met consistently with banks every time a closure has been announced. These are corporate decisions that are taken—there is no engagement, no consultation. When you ask about other banks, because one bank will say, 'Well, we're closing Pontyclun because you can now use Talbot Green', the next one is that Talbot Green closes, and they say, 'Ah, well, you can now use Treforest', and then they close Treforest. So, every time we discuss these matters with the banks, not only have they broken all of the promises they made—they did at one stage have an agreement that there would be no bank that would be the last bank, they agreed it with the trade unions, and that's been broken. It seems to me that there is a total contempt, almost, for the concept of customer service in favour of product sales from centralised and online banking.

What I'd ask for—. I welcome what you say about the Post Office and credit unions, because it seems to me that those are things that we have to look at, but it does seem to me that we do have to press—I understand that this is undoubtedly a UK Government matter—for a statutory basis to consultation with banking services. Banks are all too happy to take public money when they get into a mess and they require support from public funds. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable, as the Labour opposition in Westminster has asked for, for there to be a statutory obligation on banks to provide a public service and at least to have a meaningful statutory consultation process. 

I thank the Member for that very useful contribution. I'm sure every single one of us here, at constituency level, are dealing with the consequences of bank closures in urban and in rural Wales. I recognise what the Member says about the nature of consultation, which often does seem to be carried out simply to confirm a commercial decision that the bank has already taken. A statutory basis for consultation would strengthen the rights of individuals and their representatives to make sure that proper arguments about access and equity—and the needs of different populations and groups within populations—could be properly put to banks, at least with some confidence that those views were being properly articulated and heard.

Can I agree with the contribution from Mick Antoniw? I would say there's not one Member in this Chamber who's successfully been able to change a bank's mind once they've taken their decision. I have previously raised in this Chamber the idea of the Government facilitating discussions between the bank and the Financial Conduct Authority and other partners to explore a community banking model that would see banks share services. Now, I've heard what you've said about post offices and credit unions, but when I've raised this proposal before with your colleagues in Government, in the Chamber here, I've always had a positive response. The First Minister gave me a positive response earlier this year, saying that he would consider that proposal. But, can I ask what developments there have been? I don't really want to hear one word saying it's a good idea; what I want to hear is an update. Have you met with the banks? Have your colleagues met with the banks? Have you had discussions with the Financial Conduct Authority? Can we make progress on Government facilitating discussions with the banks to take this forward?

Llywydd, as the Member will know, this is primarily the responsibility of my colleague Ken Skates in taking forward the suggestions that he has made. The note that I have is that, as a result of a previous question that he raised, Welsh Government officials have had discussions with regional leads in the banking industry to look at ways in which bank premises in rural locations, for example, could be repurposed to help deliver wider community services, and that those discussions have also touched on the community facilities programme that we have as a Welsh Government to see whether existing facilities that are being adapted with community facilities and activities programme funding could include a banking purpose in the way that services from those premises are provided in future. I'll make sure that my colleague knows of the question you've raised this afternoon. I think you can be assured that it has been more than just words, that actual meetings have taken place and a potential agenda for action is being developed as a result of those meetings. 

To give a flavour of the scale and pace of change in this industry, about 16 years ago as a Member of Parliament, I remember opening the first cashpoint in Llandysul—I get all the glamourous jobs. Sixteen years ago, I opened the first cashpoint in Llandysul. I took out the first £10 from the first cashpoint in Llandysul. At that stage, there were four high-street banks in Llandysul, 16 years ago. Now there are none whatsoever. The last one is going. It's a market town left with no banking whatsoever. You've got to go 10 miles down to Newcastle Emlyn, at the very least, to get to a bank. That shows the pace of change that's happened in the industry. Technology has taken over. Yes, people are doing online banking, but my particular concern today is that small and medium-sized businesses cannot often access that, and we still have a real need, in rural areas, for cash banking for our businesses and that's not being provided.

Yes, there's an opportunity to strengthen the post office network, and I would very much urge that we use that while that network is still there to a certain extent and put some spine into that. But is it also not the time to start to consider, with your colleagues in Westminster, that banking needs some kind of statutory obligation around it? It is no longer possible to be a member of modern society without access to modern banking accounts—and it's certainly not possible to be a business in that way—and yet, we're in danger of ripping out economic development from parts of our rural areas precisely because of this reason. We don't let it happen for broadband—we ensure that there are statutory reasons why you must provide broadband to parts of rural areas. We must be looking at a statutory obligation for banking, and access to banking, for our businesses, our customers and our citizens in rural areas.

I thank Simon Thomas for those points. My party had exactly that policy in our manifesto at elections this year, and, I think, in 2015. It's based on the 1976 community banking Act that's been there in the United States of America ever since that time. Where a bank retreats from a high street, it has a legal obligation to ensure that there are replacement facilities for those, where a need can be demonstrated, and to provide the funding that creates those facilities.

Where there are rural communities, as in Llandysul, where no banking facilities exist—or, even, in urban communities. I could've replicated his account for the high street in Llandaff in my constituency. Now, you could say, 'Well, Llandaff is in an urban area and you could find another bank not that far away.' But actually, for certain groups in the population who are not used to online banking, and for whom mobility can be a difficulty, the need for a face-to-face place where you can go and transact business is very real.

It's just those sorts of identified needs that the 1976 banking Act in the United States was designed to address, and I think it lends strength to the argument the Member has made about a statutory framework to ensure that individuals and areas are not abandoned from essential services in this area in the future.

I think we're all singing from pretty much the same hymn sheet in relation to this question, Cabinet Secretary. The last couple of weeks have seen NatWest announce another swathe of closures across Wales—one in Chepstow in my constituency. The last swathe of banking closures was bad enough out in rural areas, but those cutbacks now seem to be extending to larger towns as well, which I think is deeply worrying for our constituents. I think if I would have one criticism of this question, it's trying to do a bit too much, I think, which isn't really a criticism at all, because, obviously, you've conflated two concerns: on the one hand retail banking, but then also the development bank and the role that that has to play.

I think, Cabinet Secretary, you were quite right in saying that, yes, the Welsh Government should be—and, we believe, certainly reforming Finance Wales—setting up a development bank of some type. But that is no substitute for private retail banking out there that's public facing. So, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of, on the one hand, the development bank, will you give an assurance that, when that is finalised, it will, very much as our 'Invest Wales' policy had a few years ago, propose a public-facing high street presence as much as possible so it's accessible to business out there when they need it? And secondly, on the issue of retail banking, yes, it probably does need to have a far stronger statutory footing. I found myself agreeing, maybe worryingly, with Mick Antoniw on this matter. I think he made some excellent points.

Is it possible to have—I appreciate this is not totally within the remit of the Welsh Government—but is it possible to have some sort of forum? We obviously all agree here on the need to retain that retail banking out in our towns and rural areas. Is it possible to have some sort of forum where the banks know full well how we feel about these closures, that they are made to have a far more effective consultation, and that when they say that this is the last round of closures for so long, that when we, as AMs, listen to that, and they convey that to our constituents, that then they have to stick with that, and we don't see a situation, as we have at the moment, where more closures are happening? And all of us—our postbags are full of concerns from people who really do feel that, without internet banking, they're not going to have any access to banking at all.

Llywydd, Nick Ramsay makes a number of important points. I don't think the banks are in any doubt about the strength of feeling that their actions engender in local communities and on behalf of people who represent those communities. Their answer to you would be that they are commercial organisations and they are acting commercially. Our answer, in return, has to be that even commercial organisations have certain obligations to the communities that they serve, because their ability to be successful commercial organisations depends, very often, on the public infrastructure that surrounds them and allows them to do business.

So, I agree with him about the need to make sure that there is no ambiguity in the messages that we give to the retail banking sector about those obligations. I agree with other contributors this afternoon that more could be done to place a statutory framework around that in terms of consultation and in terms of replacement services. The Welsh Government plays its part in that, albeit always having to recognise that most of these responsibilities are ones that do not lie in our hands.

In relation to the first point that Nick Ramsay made about an accessible service from the Development Bank of Wales, that is exactly what our ambition would be. The best way to achieve that is something that we will want to continue to work on, but the principle of making sure that the Development Bank of Wales will be readily accessible to those who will want to use it is one with which we would have no disagreement.

And finally, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, I agree with most of the sentiment that has been expressed in this Chamber; you can't dispute that. One of the points that has been made about the assurances Members have received from the banks about neighbouring banks taking up the slack, as it were, is one of the most frustrating arguments that has been put time and time again. In Llantwit Major, when NatWest shut their branch there, Cowbridge was pointed to as the neighbouring branch that would take up the slack. You queue out the door some days in NatWest in Cowbridge to use the facilities there and yet on 4 June that bank, next year, is due to close. So, it's the inconsistencies with the information that banks are providing.

I hear what you say about the commercial nature—and I agree; banking is a commercial business. But what assessment has the Welsh Government made in relation to the gaps that will now appear in the ability for small businesses in particular to use banks in the traditional way of seeking advice about loans and financial facilities, but also to do their business banking? I had a meeting earlier in the year with the investment bank for Wales, and the chairman made this point: that there is evidence there that shows that commercial banks are withdrawing from certain parts of Wales and withdrawing their lending facilities, which will have a detrimental impact on businesses. So, has the Welsh Government made any assessment of the wider context that these closures have, not just for the individuals who have got accounts with the banks, but also businesses who depend on a source of finance and also to do their day-to-day banking?

Well, let me begin by agreeing with what Andrew R.T. Davies has said about the inconsistencies in some of the arguments that we hear from the banking industry and how some of the undertakings that it has previously given, as Mick Antoniw said, never to be the final bank to close—that's a promise that they have failed to live up to, we know, in many instances. From the public's point of view, it is often quite difficult to understand the link between their own experience of a bank that is always busy when they visit it, which seems to be working flat out, when the bank says to them that it is closing because its services are no longer needed.

What I will do is make sure that the points that have been made this afternoon, particularly in relation to access to banking services by businesses in those parts of Wales where the banking coverage is now skeletal or non-existent—I'll make sure that Ken Skates has heard those points clearly and that he is able to take them up in the plans that he will be developing to make sure that businesses in Wales are not frustrated in their ability to conduct their own affairs or to grow because there aren't services for them that they are able to access.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary. The next question—Suzy Davies.

Diolch Suzy. I'm replying on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary. Pinewood remains committed to operating the studio in Wentloog and continuing to promote Wales internationally as a destination for high-end tv and film production.

That's an encouraging response, Minister. I just want to make it plain that this question is not raised as an attack on the growing film industry in Wales, despite comments from Welsh Government to that effect. I'm raising it in an attempt to break through the lack of transparency surrounding how some decisions were made and whether representations made by Welsh Government about the positive outcomes we should expect from Pinewood in particular are proving justified.

So, first of all, last month, Welsh Government's decision log confirmed that Welsh Government had signed off a new management agreement for the Pinewood Studio facility in Wentloog. Considering that the Government spent £5 million to buy that facility in 2014, but, due to rent structure, it didn't see any rent return on that for the first two years, you can understand, perhaps, why I would like to know why that agreement needs restructuring. How much rent, and other income, are you expecting to be paid, and by when, from that restructured arrangement?

Secondly, the productions of the studios—Journey's End, for example, has recouped just £80,000 of the £850,000 received from Welsh Government. And Take Down, or Billionaire Ransom, as it's rather ironically known in the US, has recovered less than a third of its £3.1 million investment. Now, I understand that the income-generation end of film production is at the end of its cycle, and I know that supply chains have benefited from these investments. But if Welsh Government is going to take risks—and we do approve of that—then the processes for managing those risks need to be open to scrutiny, partly so that we can find out when you're expecting returns, and how much, by a particular date, and also on potential conflicts of interest. Because the gatekeeper of the media investment budget is another branch of Pinewood—one of these films is a Pinewood production—and it, of course, has been filmed at Pinewood Studios. In keeping Pinewood committed to Wales, can you also commit that your department will answer my questions, which go to the heart of this lack of transparency, including the one that I've asked today?

And then, finally, you announced very recently that Pinewood will no longer be the gatekeeper of the media investment board, which suggests that maybe their bonds with Wales aren't quite as strong as we might have hoped. Can you tell me whether that was at Welsh Government's request, or their request, and whether the decision was influenced in any way by questions raised in the House of Keys, in the Isle of Man, where there's a similar arrangement?

You can see where my concerns are coming from. We've got three issues there, which kind of raise questions about Pinewood's commitment, and I'm really looking forward to some meat on the bone to the reassurance that you gave me a little earlier. Thank you.

Well, I don't know about meat on the bone, because I'm not a very good butcher. However, I would like to emphasise that the commitment to Pinewood remains, and that that commitment will mean the operation of the studio under a new agreement. Aspects of that agreement remain commercial in confidence, but I am very happy to offer you a meeting, where I would be able to discuss in greater detail how these arrangements have been arrived at. I can say that, whereas this does indicate that Pinewood is no longer concentrating on film investment, and the assessment of film investment, in the previous way of agreement, I can tell her that the work that Pinewood has helped to undertake to elevate Wales as a premier production location has given us already global advantages. The situation in the Isle of Man, I have to tell her, is also changing, as far as how Pinewood is operating.

I will apologise to her for any delay in replying to the questions that she has asked. I welcome her detailed scrutiny. She did ask questions going back to 2011, but I can assure her that the amount of time that has been used to respond to those questions has been to ensure the quality of the information.

I can also say to her that there is a very important element of supply chain in that studio, including essential supply chain companies, such as Andy Dixon Facilities, Real SFX, and Lubas Medical, and you must be aware of that. And that is an indication of the way in which the creative industry sector has shown significant growth in the last few years.

Would the Minister accept that part of the broader context to some of the questions that Suzy Davies has been asking, over a period of some years now, and part of the challenge for the Government, is to be clear as to the policy intention in terms of the investment in the film industry? Is it to attract international companies to produce more here in Wales, or is it, from an economic development perspective, to invest in Welsh companies, or is there a cultural objective, that is to have content—stories from Wales, if you wish—on the silver screen? I think, from his background in the days of Sgrîn, perhaps he would be aware of that tension that can exist. And can we have, from the new Minister, a little more clarity on the policy intentions of Government, so that we then, in scrutinising this, can assess to what extent the Government is reaching its aims and objectives?

Thank you very much for that series of questions. I would expect no less from the Member. But my answer, very clearly, is that the three objectives that he has set out are interlinked and all relevant to the film industry, of any kind. And what has happened here, of course, is that commercial changes have taken place in the ownership of Pinewood and that that has led to new priorities for the company in the way that it works, and the Welsh Government has been working very closely with Pinewood on that situation.

In addition to the international investments and the attempt to attract international companies to produce in Wales, and bring jobs to Wales, we as a Government have also, through the arts council, invested in Ffilm Cymru Wales—and I look forward to working with them—which has a greater cultural emphasis, in the usual meaning of the word there, although I personally consider all film production, certainly, as part of our culture—it has more of an artistic value in that regard, and that work will continue. And as I have extended an invitation to Suzy, I’ll also extend it to you to have an intelligent conversation as to the Government’s aims to this end. 

Thank you, Minister. The next question, David Melding. 

My objective is to provide a smooth transition for the development industry and communities. The relevant UK Government department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, initially agreed to delay commencement. However, at the insistence of the Wales Office, the planning provisions will now be commenced prematurely, placing Wales at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the UK.

I'm not sure I understand that answer. These powers relate to fracking and the electricity generation stations with 350 MW or less, and they're now being delayed until October 2018 and April 2019—as far as I can work out because the Welsh Government does not consider that it has the capacity to take on those new powers at the moment. And I think that's what you've got to answer, given that we've known these powers are coming; it's been a long process. And if there is a problem with present capacity, how can we be sure that Welsh Government will be capable of exercising these powers in October 2018 and April 2019, or will we have a further postponement?

I think I perhaps need to put some facts out here. I think there's a bit of mischief making by the Wales Office. I don't want people to think we've been sitting around doing nothing. You made reference to capacity. So, we've been working with the industry, we've been working with developers, we've been working with planning consultants, we've been working with Natural Resource Wales, to ensure that we can scope what's required. There was an agreement between BEIS and Welsh Government that those powers could be delayed. The Wales Office then got involved and that is now no longer the case. And, as I said, we've now been placed, I think, at a disadvantage. I know people have asked me why Scotland are able to do things quicker than us, for instance, and I should say that the case in Wales is very different to Scotland. Scotland was transferred directly to a fit-for-purpose consenting process that did not require transitional arrangements. We were not in that position, and because we'd been placed into inferior regimes, for instance, we needed to have a transitional arrangement, and that was agreed between ourselves and with BEIS.

I'm still uncertain as to what's happened here. Can you, Cabinet Secretary, just confirm that you did ask for these powers to be postponed, and for the implementation to be postponed? The only thing we've heard as an Assembly, officially to date, has been that all these powers come into force on 1 April next year. And last week, or it might have been the week before—apologies—I asked both the First Minister and the Counsel General about the implementation of fracking powers, which are the petroleum powers that we're talking about, and neither of them told me there was any delay to these powers coming in. Both of them accepted my question on the premise of these powers being available in April 2018.

So, is it now the case that they're not coming in, as I understand it, until October 2018, and the further powers on electricity generating stations, so the 350 MW powers—I take it those are not until April 2019. Can you just confirm that's the position, and also confirm that this is at your request, and also then confirm what you're going to do as a Government to provide the security and assurance that we need that you're capable of exercising these powers?

I can confirm those two dates: the October 2018 and the 2019. And, yes, we have requested that, because Welsh Government and BEIS officials, and it was back in 2017—during the passage of the Wales Bill, agreement was gained that the new executive powers would not commence in April of next year. So, as I say, that was the agreement reached between Welsh Government and with BEIS until the Wales Office intervened.  

As a result of this delay in the transfer of powers, is it the case that the UK Government could impose fracking on Wales, even though this could be against the wishes of the population? 

No, it's not. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is the 90-second statements—Jane Hutt. 

Llywydd, last Thursday, I attended a ceremony in Alexandra Gardens in Cathays Park to re-dedicate the Gift of Life stone in memory of all organ and tissue donors. This memorial stone was places in the park 10 years ago with the support of Kidney Wales and families whose loved ones had donated their organs and tissues. Two families were from Barry: Colin and Bet Burgess and Gaynor Taylor. Louise Burgess and Richard Taylor carried donor cards when they tragically lost their young lives. Colin Burgess wrote the epitaph on the Gift of Life stone: 'They cared for those they helped, and those they helped, remember'. Both families support the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 to give deemed consent for organ and tissue donation and they welcome the lead Wales has taken in the UK. 

Two years on since the Act, there's been continued and increased public support for the new organ donation system in Wales and it's good to see the Welsh public embracing the changes that are designed to save lives. Colin, Bet and Gaynor continue to speak up for organ donation as a precious gift so others might live and I thank them for their courage and inspiration. 

Vikki Howells.

Llywydd, Friday, 1 December marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Beveridge report on 'Social Insurance and Allied Services'. This had been commissioned during the second world war by a committee responsible to Arthur Greenwood, then Minister with responsibility for post-conflict reconstruction. It's task was twofold: first, it aimed to carry out a survey of existing social insurance schemes; second, it was to make recommendations for the future, and it is in this regard that the report, when published in 1942, had its most far-reaching consequences.

Drafted by liberal economist, William Beveridge, the final document proposed a range of reforms to the existing system. At its heart were proposals to slay what Beveridge termed the five 'giant evils' in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Instead, government should take steps to provide citizens with adequate income, healthcare, education, housing and employment. It was largely left to the 1945 Clement Attlee Government, having won the general election on a platform that committed Labour to addressing the 'giant evils', and, of course, to the role of Aneurin Bevan, to enact politics outlining the welfare state that we still recognise in this present day. 

There have been changes in the intervening years. Nicholas Timmins, biographer of the welfare state, notes some of these would be approved by Beveridge, others would be totally unrecognisable. But it is in its basic commitment to a shared set of values and services that we can best commemorate the report today. 

On Monday, 11 December we will be commemorating Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, or Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf, Llywelyn the Last. Llywelyn was the first, of course, to be acknowledged Prince of Wales, and through the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267 the King of England, Henry III, had to accept terms and acknowledge that he was the leader of Wales and that Wales was an independent country, to all intents and purposes. Llywelyn introduced a civil service and a taxation system to administer Wales under his leadership. But this order was not acceptable to Edward I, of course, and he forced Llywelyn to surrender land and return to his stronghold in Gwynedd, having lost ground.

In March 1282 a rebellion began as Welshmen attacked Hawarden castle in Flintshire in order to regain lost lands. But the rebellion came to an end six months later, with Llywelyn having been separated from his 7,000-strong army, and killed in Cilmeri by Stephen de Frankton, one of Edward I’s soldiers. His head was sent to the king in London and was paraded through the streets of London to be shown to the people of the city, before being left upon an iron post outside the Tower of London.

Within months, Gwynedd lost all its royal insignia and Wales lost its status for the time. I will be wearing ivy on Monday and I would suggest that you should all do so in memory and commemoration of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, and to demonstrate that the independent spirit of Llywelyn the Last Prince of Wales is still alive.

The next item is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal, and I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Llywydd, we've lost all sense of excitement about democracy. It has become the insipid background to our daily life rather than the force that actually makes our lifestyles possible. One should not become maudlin; open, democratic societies are capable of remarkable renewal, as we have seen in the last 25 years on questions of, for example, sexuality. Yet in the political and economic fields, things look far more jaded and this can only undermine democratic culture generally.

Greater citizen participation is needed because the work of democracy cannot be merely sub-contracted to Assemblies and Parliaments. The digital age creates both a strong demand for greater participation and the technological means to achieve it, but we have been slow to respond to this demand for citizen participation. One consequence is that political elites have been viewed more as a gentry class than the appointed officers of the people. We need a new partnership that closes the stark divide we often see between politicians and citizens.

A rough definition of a participative democracy would be one where citizens take on greater responsibility for decision making. This would not reduce the need for representative institutions, far less central Government—we are not heading back to Athens—but it would mean that public participation amounts to a lot more than periodic elections. When observing the public mood on polling day, most are struck by the solemn tone; it is not a time of carnival. It is this reservoir of purpose that we need to tap: active participation and active citizenship renewing our democratic institutions.

In Wales, we might go further and constitute a citizens' chamber of this Assembly. This would not require 60 members of the public to serve full-time for five years—that would be a burden and not an act of citizen service. [Laughter.] Citizen service should be a general obligation that is occasionally called upon, as jury service is now. The citizens' chamber could be a pool of 600 or even 6,000 citizens, called on occasionally. Each citizen would be allocated specific tasks that interest them and concentrate on a particular part of governmental activity and then, when that area's discussed, they would meet as part of the Assembly.

The citizens’ chamber could also lead the way in developing a digital democracy. Through online surveys and other mechanisms, a wider range of public participation would be possible, perhaps providing material for the citizens’ chamber to deliberate and develop in more detail. Such work would need to be transparent and the main outcomes evidence based and properly recorded. Draft laws, or ideas for laws, could then be fed into the National Assembly, which would become, in a very modern guise, a bicameral institution. Forget the House of Lords; we could do something really marvellous with citizens as our members. There are, of course, other models for citizens’ assemblies, but what is clear is the need for this wide engagement, if we are to forge a new democratic bond between citizen and politician.

Democracy also needs to go deep and draw on the strength that we have in the roots of communities. Again, the digital revolution offers opportunities for local networks of participation, discussion and decision making. Town and community councils are well placed to develop their role as the voice of the community. Larger town councils might consider establishing the office of an elected mayor. The councils themselves could be made up of directly elected councillors and randomly selected citizens, serving a term as part of their public service obligation. Invigorating the most local level of democracy would also help to refresh municipal government in general. Other public agencies, like NHS trusts, could also use this source of public participation.

Deputy Presiding Officer, representational democracy thrived on the excitement of electing society’s leaders; it was an incredible transformation away from aristocratic Government in the nineteenth century, but it also made the people sovereign only for a day and limited the opportunities for deeper participation. A desire to take back control could indicate that citizens are ready to carry greater responsibility for decision making.

This does not mean that most people want to become part-time politicians, but it does mean that we can explore the concept of citizen service on the basis that jury service underpins our legal system. We should not exaggerate the time commitment involved in service. It would range from full-time for a short time—a citizens’ jury on the development of a local amenity, for instance—to part-time for a longer time—a day a month for two years or so in the citizens’ assembly, perhaps.

We will only live in a participatory democracy when citizen engagement focuses on decision making as much as the gathering of public opinion through traditional consultation processes. In Wales, we have an opportunity to lead the way. We enjoy the benefits of both a new and a small democracy. If we are able to innovate, then the power of the parliamentary tradition that we have inherited could be magnified by the force of active citizenship. Alongside the Welsh Government’s legislative programme, we could see published a gwerin’s programme to be discussed in the citizens’ chamber of the National Assembly.

Deputy Presiding Officer, democracy is not sick and feeble, but it does need rejuvenating. Today, the greatest act of political leadership would be to enhance the energy of citizenship. This is the purpose of my Bill.

Thank you very much for introducing these ideas. I think there's a lot of merit to them. Would you agree that the health service, above all, does need to have much better citizen participation? Just because the health service is free at the point of need doesn't mean that we should be getting people going to the doctor because they've got a sore throat. We really do need to get people to choose well, like the Government campaign says. We need people to take some responsibility for their own health. So, I think prudent healthcare summarises that and I think, without prudent healthcare, we will find, increasingly, that the health service cannot meet the more complex needs of citizens who have serious illnesses. So, I think this is something that it would be useful to pursue.

But I also wanted to just ask you whether you think that we also need to do something to reverse the suppression of voter participation that's gone on over the last few years. The way in which it's been made more difficult for people to register to vote means that there are many thousands—indeed, across the country in the UK, many millions of people—who are not registered to vote. Either because of literacy issues or other reasons, they are unable to grasp this simple process. Would you therefore consider including in your Bill making it an obligation on public services that, when they are transacting business with the citizen, whether it's on council tax, housing benefit, child benefit, DVLA, or changing a licence, automatically that public service would be able to register them to vote? This isn't an obligation to vote, but this is enabling them to register to vote. So, I would be interested to know whether you think that would be part of your Bill.

I'd just like to record my support for these legislative proposals. The concept of a national citizens' service has long been Welsh Conservative policy, but, of course, it's one that transcends all party divides and there are, as David said, different models to consider here. But I particularly welcome this, as any contribution to ideas for a participatory democracy that offer an alternative to referenda are certainly something to be welcomed.

I support this because, essentially, at the heart of this, we're talking about an acknowledgement and even a celebration of both the individual and the collective, and if I could speak to my socialist colleagues here, that sense of community, a call on untapped social capital to contribute to social cohesion, enhance public services in the way that David has mentioned, and absolutely to build that confident, proactive and politically engaged citizenry.

I remember one of my early disappointments when I became an Assembly Member was in a question to the First Minister, when I put to him the question whether he'd be prepared to consider some sort of national citizen service at that point, and he said that Wales didn't need one, because it was already promoting volunteering to younger people. I think he was talking, at that time, about GwirVol, which no longer exists, unfortunately, and which did reach some young people, and was, I've no doubt, valuable in terms of them and their development as individuals, but it didn't really offer much at a strategic level with a clear, population-level societal purpose. 

With colleagues, I visited Israel a few months ago, and there, of course, military national service is compulsory for non-Arab citizens and some other exempt categories, lasting somewhere between two and three years. Clearly, I'm not advocating any kind of replication of that, but I was very struck by some of the lasting effects of that experience on virtually every Jewish Israeli person that we spoke to, regardless of how long ago they had had that experience. The first was the sense of unity and responsibility for each other, regardless of socioeconomic background. Of course, I will accept that the ever-present security threat there is bound to concentrate minds to a certain extent, but even so, it was clear that we were meeting people who had learnt to be confident about making decisions, acting upon those decisions, and trusting each other to do the same—and not just for themselves, but in a sense of common cause. Mistakes were considered inevitable, as was the dusting down and starting again when people did make mistakes.

The second thing that struck me was how this translated into their attitude towards the economy and its growth: people of all ages and backgrounds being bold, very can-do, taking calculated risks, not always succeeding but being very comfortable in co-operating with each other, even in a competitive environment. And some told us that it was their experience of service alongside others that had given them this approach to progress—a progress that they saw as providing benefits extending beyond themselves. [Interruption.]

Oh, is it? It's only three minutes I've got, is it? Oh, I'm really sorry about that.

Effectively, all I wanted to say is that if we're serious about co-production and, particularly, the imperative embodied in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, then we really have to do something now to encourage the population at large to be confident enough to be participants in that co-productive Wales.

Thanks to David Melding for today's Member's legislative proposal. I'm intrigued by these ideas of increasing citizen participation. Of course, the aim is laudable, but I'm not sure how easily it will be achieved in practical terms. In short, I'm not certain that this scheme, innovative though it is, is actually a workable one.

The difference between us in this Chamber and the general public is that we are, believe it or not, professional politicians. I know that seems far-fetched at times, when we're all shouting across the Chamber at one another, but we are actually the professionals. That is, we are paid to be here most weeks. We sit on committees, we listen to evidence, we have paid staff to help us to research things. Now, that isn't to say that we have any innate ability to do politics any better than the general public, but we do this job week in, week out, within a structure that does allow us a certain amount of expertise—I stress, 'a certain amount'. 

The problem with engaging the general public with the democratic process is that many people are not that interested in politics. Others are interested in politics up to a point, but only in relatively small doses. The idea of actually participating in organised debates, in committee scrutiny and so on, may not be that attractive, even to the semi-engaged section of the electorate who actually follow politics a little bit. Of course, we can give it a go, these are interesting ideas, but I do bridle a bit at the element of compulsion, at the idea of people being called up for citizen service, and I wonder if that prospect might turn many, even of the semi-engaged people, completely against politics.

Perhaps we need to consult some available statistics to note the enthusiasm of the Welsh public for the Assembly. Turnout in Assembly elections: about 45 per cent. That is a statistic that is widely known and readily accessible. There are other figures we could examine. For instance, what are the average viewing figures for BBC Wales's coverage of FMQs? What are the relevant figures for Senedd.tv in its broadcasts of Chamber business and Assembly committees? I think these broadcasts are a valuable public service, but I fear the take-up among the public of Wales is probably fairly low. When I look up at the gallery here and in the committee rooms, most of the time they're almost empty.

Some people do get engaged from time to time, usually when their local areas are perceived to be under some kind of threat. At these moments, campaigns begin and petitions get under way, and this is all good stuff; we are all for local campaigns in UKIP. Indeed, for some time our policy has been to allow legally binding local referenda on major planning issues affecting a particular area. This is where political engagement may effectively be nurtured, in demonstrating that legislators will take account of the wishes of the local residents. But the idea of the citizenry forming a separate Chamber in an enlarged Assembly—I must confess, I find the notion a little far-fetched and I fear that, far from enthusing more people, it may actually backfire and turn more people against politics.

So, although I think these are very interesting ideas, I think we have to be very careful in how we go forward in trying to apply them in a practical way. So, I think we need to tread carefully here.

Can I now call the leader of the house, Julie James?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Welsh Government is strongly in favour of increasing citizen participation in policy making in Wales, and we certainly share the aspiration as set out by David Melding in his really quite exciting proposal to close the gap between politicians and the public, both to engage the people of Wales in decisions that affect them and to keep us rooted in the communities that we serve. I'm not sure I quite share the pessimism he expressed about some of the aspects of that, but nevertheless I understand the sentiment.

The proposal that David Melding has made for citizen service, including a second Chamber for this Assembly, would certainly be an interesting approach to this, and I'm sure he's aware that there are a number of models of citizen service, including models of engagement for all young people, both as a learning and as a work experience tool in performing a wide range of socially useful tasks. I believe the Institute of Welsh Affairs set out one such model a few years back, which I was certainly very interested in pursuing in my previous role.

Also, there are a number of examples of citizens' assemblies, mainly set up by parliaments around the world: for instance, in the Republic of Ireland, Canada, the Netherlands and Poland. They've all deliberated on very specific issues rather than acting as second chambers of legislatures in general. A citizen's assembly or second chamber of this legislature is of course a matter for the Assembly Commission and not the Welsh Government. But David Melding has certainly set out a lot of food for thought, especially for me, on the digital possibilities of some of those aspects of it.

But I think that I would like to suggest that, if there was interest amongst Members in establishing such a body, there would be a number of issues to consider. Some of those issues were mentioned already, but such as would we need to ensure that participants would be representative of the wider public. If people are voluntarily coming forward, that's unlikely to be the case; they'd be self-selecting. Would we be looking for experts in particular fields? Conversely, would it be acceptable to make participation at some level compulsory? How would we enforce that? Indeed, how would we pay for it, as a very large number of people, particularly self-employed people or people running small businesses, already have severe disadvantages if they're called for jury service? Indeed, David Melding, I know, is aware of some of the difficulties of getting juries together for long, complex fraud trials, and so on, and how that's had to adapt over time.

And what issues would they be invited to consider? Who would decide what issues they were invited to consider, including whether to focus on a few topics or, indeed, to look in a bicameral way at decisions, for example on legislation, that the house is making, in the way that the House of Lords does, for example? Would people require training for their role? Would they require ongoing support for their deliberations? How would the deliberations feed back into the Assembly's own deliberations? Would their work relate to the work of the Welsh youth parliament, for example? And a number of other issues—all of which, of course, are completely surmountable but would need to be thought through and costed and so on.

In terms of policy, the Welsh Government is committed to continuing to develop its own methods for engaging people in the decisions that affect them. Again, as David Melding and Suzy Davies and a number of other people pointed out, there are a huge number of ways to involve people in decisions. No one size fits all, and new approaches are always being constantly developed. I, for example, have been privileged to be a part of the Valleys taskforce action and delivery plan group, based on the extensive feedback from people living and working in the south Wales Valleys, and the 2018-19 budget includes a participatory budget pilot for that group. It's been extremely interesting to see what the engagement has been across those communities—what has worked, what hasn't worked, what has fired people up and what has perhaps not fired them up. It has to be said that it hasn't always been the things that we anticipated would do so. Some of the responses back have been very uplifting, and some have been deeply not uplifting, but all have been unique and interesting in a way that I hadn't entirely anticipated personally.

We're very conscious of the need to develop better ways of involving people in our representative democracy—absolutely. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 requires us to take account of the involvement of citizens in the development and delivery of our objectives as part of the sustainable development principle, and provides a comprehensive framework covering public bodies across Wales, providing for regular reporting and audit. I wonder whether such a system might be put in place if we were to look at participation in democracy. 

We are very keen on increasing citizen participation in the policy-making part of what we do here in this legislature. We welcome ideas on how best to promote increased participation and constructive scrutiny of the progress we make in doing so. I think the Assembly Commission will have a lot of food for thought in the Member's legislative proposal. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call David Melding to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank everyone for taking part and raising such thoughtful questions and really getting involved in this debate? Can I start with Jenny? You actually talked about the NHS requiring prudent healthcare and patients also being responsible enough to look after themselves as far as possible. And, do you know, I think that's a general model for what we need to do with democracy. Democracy cannot flourish if there isn't active citizen participation. I suppose what I'm saying is there's not enough at the moment for it fully to flourish in the twenty-first century. It's not on its knees, but we need, really, to have the sort of ambition that our ancestors had when they were making these extraordinary changes in the nineteenth century.

The difficulty on voter registration does concern me deeply. I think we need to have the highest standards of scrutiny of any system for registration, and, if there are problems with the current arrangements, I think they need to be investigated fully. We need a system that is secure, but, as soon as we can establish that a person is a citizen and has a right to vote, there should be the minimum fuss then about registering them, and there should be many methods to do that. And voting over the weekend and at local supermarkets—all these things may be possible.

Suzy said that much of what I talked about would be an alternative to referendums. I don't ban referendums altogether from this model, but I do agree that what we want is to get people to deliberate. What are the challenges? How do you trade them and prioritise? This is very important. I think, in terms of citizen service, we are probably going to see the need for a radical reform, perhaps even something along the lines of universal income, with more work-sharing also in the future. One thing we could do in that model is to emphasise the obligation we all have for citizen service. That might be a way of opening up some of these issues.

Gareth talked about the workability. Well, you know, it is used in the legal system. It's absolutely at the heart. Clearly, people would have to be supported. Our own staff would be involved in that, the research facilities, for instance, the clerking teams—it would be part of the model. Would people be interested? Well, I think, if you look around the world where it's succeeded, and the Minister made reference to this, in Iceland, in Ireland, it's been transformative in getting to discuss some of the most basic questions. And look at the new democracies that have used this in a whole host of methods, including truth commissions—they've really got to the heart of some of these things by using a citizen-based approach.

So, I'm very optimistic. The Minister said she's open to these ideas and I think that was reflected in her contribution. We need to close the gap between citizens and politicians. There are still essential things that institutions need to do and full-time politicians need to do, but we can enhance the digital possibilities and see a real chance for a new form of democracy, participative democracy, that is conducted on a much fuller and equal basis. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The question is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, that motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. Thank you.

We now move on to item 7, which is a debate on the 'Port Talbot Community against the Super Prison' petition, and I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. Can I say that I'm extremely pleased to open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee? This the second debate that has been held since the Petitions Committee agreed to consider referring any petition that gathers more than 5,000 signatures for a debate in the Plenary. The petitioners, led by Victoria Griffiths, are seeking to oppose the development of a new, so-called superprison on land owned by the Welsh Government in Baglan, Port Talbot.

I would like to begin by thanking the petitioners for bringing this petition forward and to congratulate them on running a passionate and eye-catching campaign. I remember it was certainly a vibrant occasion when the petitioners came to the Senedd to hand the petition over to the committee back in October. I know that the petitioners have also worked closely with their local Assembly Members on this issue, and I'm sure that a number of Members will be seeking to contribute during the debate this afternoon.

The petition in front of us collected 8,791 signatures using a combination of the Assembly's website and a local paper petition. This and the turnout at the Senedd indicate that there is a significant degree of local opposition to the possibility of a prison in Port Talbot, and I'm sure that this is not news to anyone here today. The petitioners have told the committee that they have a number of concerns with the Ministry of Justice's proposal to build a prison on the site, and, before I outline these, it is perhaps worth covering a bit of background about the proposals and their current status.

In March 2017, the UK Government announced that four potential sites for new prisons in England and Wales had been identified by the Ministry of Justice. We understand that, prior to this, the Welsh Government had provided a list of 20 possible sites in Wales to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice has stated that it undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the 20 sites, and that Port Talbot was selected as the best potential site for a new category C prison build in Wales. As a result, Port Talbot was the only site in Wales chosen to proceed to a planning application. In the same announcement in March 2017, the then Secretary of State for Justice indicated that considerations over value for money and affordability would be part of the Ministry of Justice's final decision over whether to proceed with a new prison on the site. 

In answers given at Westminster on this subject in September, the prisons Minister indicated that Port Talbot was chosen for a number of reasons. These include the capacity of local infrastructure to support the prison and the potential for benefits to the local community. It is clear from the petition that large parts of the community dispute both of these statements. Media reports have stated that the proposed category C prison would have a capacity of 1,600 prisoners when it is fully operational, though I understand that this has not been confirmed by the Ministry of Justice. The UK Government has also stated that there are currently insufficient prison places available and, specifically, that there are not enough category C prison places in south Wales. 

In their response to the committee's initial correspondence about the petition, the Welsh Government confirmed that they received an approach from the Ministry of Justice and provided a list of 20 possible sites in response. The Government also reiterated that the decision over whether to proceed is a matter for the Ministry of Justice and that any planning applications would be considered locally by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. However, as I previously stated, the petition calls on the Welsh Government—which owns the land involved—not to sell to the Ministry of Justice for the purposes of development. During a previous discussion on this subject in Plenary in September, the then Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children stated that no agreement has been made with the UK Government regarding the sale of the land, and no discussions over its value have taken place.

Given that justice is not a devolved subject area, and that a decision whether or not to proceed with the development of a prison will be taken by the UK Government, it is the issue of the sale of the land that the Petitions Committee will primarily be considering going forward. However, we have written to the prisons Minister to make him aware of this petition and the debate today. I am sure that local Members will wish to outline the views of the local community in more detail during their contributions, so I will limit my further comments to the concerns raised directly with the Petitions Committee.

The petitioners have outlined a number of concerns, most of which relate to the capacity of Port Talbot and the surrounding areas to accommodate a prison. These include the availability of health services and the capacity of local roads both during the construction of the prison and once it is operational. The petitioners have also questioned the impact it could have on local employment levels and the prospects for local people looking for jobs. This is due to the potential for the prison to operate as a rehabilitation centre, with inmates potentially allowed limited day release for training placements for work experience, which the petitioners fear will take opportunities away from local people. They have also raised concerns over local housing availability, which could be put under increased pressure if inmates choose to stay in the area following their release. Finally, the petitioners have highlighted that the land identified is an enterprise zone and is, apparently, subject to a covenant on its use. Schedules to this covenant have been quoted that state that the land should be used for the purpose of an industrial park and not for other purposes.

Due to a recognition that it was important to proceed with this debate in a timely manner, the committee has not had time to investigate any of these concerns or claims in detail at this stage. We will return to consider the petition again at a future committee meeting. In doing so, I hope we will be able to also consider the reaction of the petitioners to the points raised today and the answers provided. As a result, the committee is presenting this petition to the Assembly without drawing conclusions or making recommendations in any particular direction at this stage. However, we feel that this is an important debate to have, and we hope that it will provide everyone who signed the petition with further information and answers to the concerns that they hold.

Before I move on to the substance of this discussion, I just wanted to express huge praise for the campaign group from my constituency, which is totally community led, for the work they have done to date to bring this petition to the Chamber. I know their dedication will continue beyond today to make sure that Port Talbot has a good way forward, and some of the members are in the gallery this afternoon.

The petition being discussed this afternoon calls on the Welsh Government to reject the Ministry of Justice's proposals to release the land for the development of the superprison. David Rowlands, as Chair of the Petitions Committee, highlighted that as the main focus, but can I also highlight that the public services that are being impacted upon are also devolved to the Welsh Government, so there's actually a second issue that you may want to consider?

Many of the arguments that will be raised this afternoon were raised during the Plaid Cymru debate on 20 September, and I'm not going to apologise for repeating any of those, as they are core to the reasons for rejecting this proposal. However, since that date, further evidence has been uncovered that supports our calls in this petition. There are two aspects that need to be addressed in this debate: (1) the appropriateness of the site for a superprison, and (2) the penal policy of the UK Government and the role the Welsh Government plays in its delivery.

With regard to the first point, there are numerous reasons as to why this site is inappropriate. First, it's on a C1 flood zone, as has already been mentioned, which was a C2 flood zone when the site was identified by the Welsh Government and given to the MOJ as one on the list, even though the criteria from the MOJ actually said, for suitable sites, 'Good ground conditions which do not have a high possibility of flooding'. Now, Cabinet Secretary, I did ask about this before, and I asked why it was included in the criteria. I was given the answer, 'It's not for the Welsh Government to determine that—it's for the developers'. I'm sorry, but that's simply abdicating the responsibility of the Welsh Government. The site should never have been included in any list the Welsh Government gave, and even now should be withdrawn on that basis, particularly as the conditions on the site haven't changed.

Secondly, the site is in the enterprise zone—Port Talbot Waterfront enterprise zone—as has already been mentioned. That should be used for economic growth of existing businesses and attraction of inward investment that would bring further economic benefits to the community. I know the claims of the MOJ are that a prison will deliver economic benefits, but research has shown that claims that the development of a superprison will win economic benefits—including the creation of jobs—fail to take account of the broader social costs of incarcerating a large number of inmates, and that simple job numbers are not an accurate measure of economic growth.

Also, the identified employment it would create does not necessarily benefit the local community immediately around the area—undeniably true in this case, because it's known that Swansea and Cardiff are up for closing. If they close, the direct employment of those will be transferred to this new site and all the supply-chain employment that feeds in. That is reality; those are the views of the UK Government about Victorian prisons. Additionally, the research shows that there can be economic downturns on investment for communities that become known as prison towns. We are experiencing that, with one business preparing to leave the town if it is given the go-ahead. So, the claim that the prison will be a vehicle for economic growth in Port Talbot is totally false.

Thirdly, there's the issue of the covenant on the land, and another criteria specified by the MOJ when they asked for the sites was that it should not have a covenant. Others may have more time to explore this matter, but I'm sure you're aware that we've already explored it with the Counsel General and the First Minister and I can assure you that will not go away. 

I wish to spend a little bit more time now on the second consideration, because we must give it to any new superprison proposal—the ability of the penal policy to reduce reoffending, improve rehabilitation, and the impact upon the services delivered by the Welsh Government to support that ambition. Again, numerous reports and research show that the creation of a superprison fails to deliver on that ambition. In fact, they do the opposite. Cabinet Secretary, building crime-free lives is about a more equal society. It's about poverty, healthcare, housing and education. It's about prisons that seek to build long-lasting change and not a prison industrial complex, which assumes that profound change will come through stuffing a building to capacity with humans, like they are bottles of wine that will mature over time when they're shut away in the cold and the dark. Let's not support an agenda that is financially driven by the MOJ. Let's rather deliver one that will address the needs of society.

Cabinet Secretary, considering the role the Welsh Government has in delivering services to prisoners, is it now time for penal policy to be devolved to Wales? Perhaps you should be pushing that agenda forward. I agree with the comments that were made in the Plaid Cymru debate—I've turned around, I've come around to your way of thinking—that perhaps penal policy should now be devolved. But if it was, would the Welsh Government consider superprisons a good model, let alone build one in the heart of a community on such flimsy evidence? I very much hope not.

Llywydd, I'll conclude with the following because I see my time is up—I've got a lot more to say but I see my time is up. This afternoon, we'll be asked to vote to note the petition, but I actually want more than that. I want the Welsh Government to listen to the people who signed the petition and act on their behalf. I said in September that there is clearly no justice coming to Port Talbot from the Ministry of Justice, and I called on Welsh Government to deliver that by setting our economy as the priority and not the MOJ's decision to save money. Cabinet Secretary, it's quite simple: when the MOJ comes asking for that land to be developed on, just say 'no'. Listen to the petitioners: Port Talbot can do better and deserves much more. 

As you know, the proposed site at Baglan, Cabinet Secretary, is in my region. I'm very interested to see the steps that both Governments will take on this next. As I said in my contribution to the debate a few weeks ago that I have fewer reservations about the concept of these large-site prisons for the reason I gave then, which boil down essentially to their better rehabilitation rates and better facilities for prisoners and their visitors and staff as compared to the older prisons. I won't have time to dispute at length with you on that, but I think that's a contestable statement you made earlier.

I've already visited Swansea and Parc but since the last debate have taken the opportunity to visit HMP Berwyn in Wrexham to help me develop my views on this a little bit—whether the type of modern prison is what I thought it was and whether the Baglan site would be appropriate. While I fully appreciate that this will be highly unlikely to change their views, I'm very pleased that three objectors to the plans have agreed to come with me, as soon as I can agree a date, to visit HMP Berwyn to find out a little bit more for themselves about the type of prisons we're talking about here.

When you make visits like this as an Assembly Member, you expect to see the best or worst gloss on what you're seeing, depending on why you're there. I think this is something we perhaps all recognise. And, if you're wise, then you factor that into your impressions. But even so, I would like to thank my hosts for some very frank and open discussion when I was there, even though the south Wales plans are nothing to do with HMP Berwyn, and I hope that the openness that they displayed then would be extended to anyone with an interest in this.

Questions about potential burdens on local services and partnership working were met with credible answers that were in accord with answers given by Welsh Government here in the Chamber previously—

Will the Member take an intervention? 

I haven't got much time. Make it quite quick.

Just a quick one. I appreciate your efforts to look to what's going on in Berwyn, but it's also fair to say that Berwyn is not at capacity. Therefore, it hasn't experienced some of the real pressures that will come, particularly when we have a situation across the UK on the prison estate where there are huge problems in prisons, particularly when they're at capacity. As such, I think that Berwyn is not quite yet at a situation to give us good details.

It's not at full capacity, I completely agree with you, but many of the staff there have had experience of working in this type of prison before and were informing their answers to me not just on their experience in Berwyn but where they'd been previously.

As I say, I did ask those questions about the burdens on local services, and they did fit with what we'd heard in the debate coming from Welsh Government. I appreciate that that's contestable as well. But I got to see the prisoner accommodation and a whole range of facilities. I won't go into the whole range of them. They were impressive, as you might expect. I saw the health centre, which was particularly impressive, which was staffed and supported by the prison service themselves, not by the NHS, which fed into those questions about how public services might be affected by this. But I've got to say that the most impressive thing about this visit was the interaction between the prisoners and the staff, which include many women staff, incidentally. It's a completely different culture, based on dignity and respect—on relationships between human beings and not that negative captive and captor sort of set-up that perhaps we associate with prisons. And I really don't want us to overlook this in the very specific question of Baglan and whether that's a suitable location.

One of the most important relationships we discussed was that with the local residents, because there were strong objections to the site in Wrexham at the time, and you can see why. The area's not the same as Baglan, but there are similarities in that it's on the edge of an industrial estate, it's next door to small businesses and adjacent to a housing estate. In terms of visual impact, there's no getting away from this: it's a functional prison; it's not the Taj Mahal. But there has been some success in working with the residents in the housing estate independently of local councillors in helping them understand how the prison works and allaying fears about public services, what happens post release and that sort of thing. I think that might be what the petitioners are talking about when they talk about 'associated problems'. I think it's referred to in the petition. The management there realises that it will take some time to persuade everyone of their commitment to be good neighbours and contributors to the community.

I did receive some evidence that there'd been some small business development on the back of the prison, but I didn't have time to explore that, so I'm not going to introduce that as a material point today. I don't expect the impressive number of signatories to this petition will change their views. You're right, David, it's a really impressive campaign. But in sharing their views directly with the MOJ, it's just sensible to be prepared for other views that the MOJ will have to take into account.

I'm a bit disappointed that these roadshows that we were expecting have been delayed until the new year—I've just had that confirmed—but it does give time for all the interested parties to marshal and test any new evidence. I think the First Minister yesterday could have told us who the beneficiaries of the covenant on the land are. Knowing that will help interested parties so that they can take a view on the likelihood of enforcement of any breach, and I'm pleased that the MOJ has now responded to that Welsh Government letter referred to yesterday, although, of course, I haven't seen it.

Just finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, the critical arguments against development will be in the domain of planning, and I ask: is it really likely that this land will change hands for that purpose before there is certainty on planning permission? As we know, no application has been made and, as we know, the petitioners have material arguments on this side—David Rees has mentioned some of those—and they will not be considered lightly by the local authority. They dare not consider them lightly, should it get that far. Thank you.

The strength of feeling regarding the proposed prison is clear, and it's great to see that some of the campaigners are here today. The fact that we're having another debate on this issue so soon after the Plaid Cymru debate is testament to that success. It's also testament to the willpower and the determination that exists in the community and beyond. I too would like to start by paying tribute to the work of the local Stop NPT Prison campaign. It's been fantastic to see so many people who have never been involved in politics or some community campaigns before getting involved in the betterment of their community.

There are lots of placards across Port Talbot, thousands of leaflets have been delivered and volunteers have been knocking doors and doing street stalls. Some people would think there was an election on the cards, because of the level of activity. It's clear, too, that those volunteers are more than prepared to step up that activity if this proposal goes to statutory consultation, as am I. They don't want this prison and many, many people, as you've seen from this petition, do not want this prison to go ahead in Port Talbot, and we do not need it here in Wales either, for reasons that we've given previously.

Despite the strength of feeling, there has been a noticeable flip-flopping of positions by the Welsh Government over this issue—our Government, which is tasked with making the lives of the people of this country better. This petition is clearly worded to call on the Welsh Government to change course. First, the Welsh Government, when this proposal was first announced, said they had worked closely with the UK Government to select sites and that they would continue to work with the MOJ. There seemed to be a positive welcome of the modernity of the new prison and unproven arguments about rehabilitation. Then, things changed to the decision being purely one of the MOJ and that the Welsh Government had very little at all to do with this proposal, despite evidence that Welsh Government officials were engaging with local businesses in the vicinity of the site, possibly before the formal announcement in March.

The latest position, after being presented with evidence related to the land covenant agreement on the proposed site, is that it is within their power to block or at least delay the proposed site from going ahead. The Welsh Government are now in a position of saying that they're waiting for more information and vague guarantees regarding the site before any decision is made. That no decision has been made to sell the land owned by the Welsh Government is where we're at at the moment.

There is an inconsistency and a refusal by the Welsh Government, in my view, to take responsibility, which has become the hallmark of what we've seen with regard to this particular issue. So, let me make it clear: the ability to block the prison is within the power of this Welsh Government. They do have ministerial power to block or delay the sale of this land to the MOJ. Not only is there a covenant, but there's also the fact that, very recently, this site, as has already been said by David Rees, was a high flood-risk area. I don't think Government answers on that issue have been enough for local people so far.

Legal advice that has been provided to me shows that the Welsh Government can legally refuse to sell the land and force the MOJ to compulsory purchase it. I and others have pointed this out to Ministers time and again, but to no avail. The fact that they will not recognise the power they hold suggests to me that they want this superprison to go ahead. But beyond the legalities, where is the Welsh Government in doing their duty and being an advocate for Wales? I understand that some here, particularly the Conservatives and UKIP, are generally in favour of more prisons. But the progressive position should be to oppose an ever-increasing prison population. There should be an opposition to doing incarceration and rehabilitation on the cheap. There is plenty of evidence from elsewhere in the world that large-scale prisons are not conducive environments for proper rehabilitation. And do you know what? Not even talking about looking at research—. Talking to prisoners now and talking to ex-prisoners who tell me that it's like a factory system, who tell me that they're not rehabilitated when they get out of that system, that they go back into crime and that crime happens in prison—crime that they weren't even involved in before they got into prison; they got involved in it when they were incarcerated. So, I think we need to get a reality check on that too.

Rehabilitation in prison works best on a smaller scale. It's the same in schools—it's not a new concept. If you have a smaller class size, you have more attention from the teacher. If you have a smaller class in prison to be able to be rehabilitated by that person, you will generally be more successful. Why are we looking at these expansive-sized prisons here in Wales when we simply do not need to have that scale of prisons? The Wales Governance Centre has said that we will be overcapacity if we create this prison in Port Talbot when we have a new prison in north Wales to house those very Welsh prisoners who are in prison in England, because they could not be housed in Wales before now. Why are we not repatriating those prisoners to Wales, where they should be, as opposed to keeping them in prisons elsewhere in the UK?

I'm already over time. I have much more to say and, sadly, won't have the time to say it. But I think it's a testament to this campaign and the local area that we want jobs that are viable in Port Talbot. We don't want to have jobs that are—that, somehow, we should accept anything for the sake of having a job. I think it's quite unambitious of the UK Government and the Welsh Government to think that we should just accept what we are given. Talk to the people of Port Talbot, talk to them about what jobs they want, as opposed to it being thrust upon us without us having a decision on something so important as a prison. We do not want to have a new prison in that area, and I hope that the campaigners are successful and will join those politicians who are on their side as part of this campaign. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'd like to thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate today on an important issue facing my region. I live in Port Talbot, and I must say at the outset that I am not, in principle, opposed to the establishment of a new prison in Port Talbot—in principle. Despite the protestations of many opposed to the new prison, Wales definitely needs a new prison, but the location has to be correct, and if there is any aspect that renders it incorrect in Baglan, unsuitable, such as the flooding aspect that Nigel who is a Plaid Cymru councillor spoke to me about not so very long ago, then, obviously, that site is unsuitable.

Just two weeks ago, mental health charity Hafal warned that overcrowding at HMP Swansea was affecting the safety and mental health of prisoners. When the Victorian prison—Victorian prison—was built, it was designed to hold around 240 prisoners; it currently holds twice that number. Swansea is the third most overcrowded prison in the UK. With the exception of the new prison in north Wales, all of our prisons are overcrowded. Cardiff is operating at 150 per cent capacity, as is Usk. Parc is operating just over capacity.

Having worked for many years at HMP Parc, I can tell you that overcrowding is hard, both on prisoners and staff alike. Prisoners in modern prisons are not simply shut away in the dark and forgotten about; they are rehabilitated. If anyone wants to speak to me about my eight years of experience, I would only be too happy to tell them. 

In recent years, as a result of overcrowding, self-harm amongst prisoners has sky-rocketed, as has sickness and absence amongst most prison officers. There has also been a rise in assaults on prison staff. In the last 10 years, the number of self-harm incidents have nearly doubled to around 38,000 a year. Over the same period, assaults on staff have increased by over 32 per cent. Last year, there were around 6,500 assaults on staff, 761 of which resulted in the prison officer being hospitalised.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention, and I listened to what she was saying and I accept fully that when prisons are overcrowded we need to ensure that that's the case. But do you agree with me, therefore, that the £1.3 billion that the Ministry of Justice is putting aside for four new superprisons would actually be better spent on improving the justice system to ensure that the people who need to be in prison are in prison, not all those who are but don't need to be there, and therefore get the system right, because the system's failing? The system's in chaos.

So, are you trivialising crime and not thinking of the victim, then, David? Because what you're saying is: crime is trivial, or some crimes are trivial. They're not when there's a victim involved—

I didn't say that, and you know it.

Well, you have just said it.

We have to tackle overcrowding, and, unfortunately, this means building more prisons. Wales currently has five prisons, yet a large number of Welsh prisoners are housed in prisons in England. Some opponents of the prison claim that Wales is becoming the new Botany Bay, becoming a dumping ground for English prisoners. This is rubbish. There are nearly 2,000 Welsh prisoners held in English jails, yet 700 English prisoners are held in Welsh prisons.

We have no women’s prison in Wales and not a single category A prison. There is a clear need for a new prison. Wales has 4,747 prisoners, yet the five prisons in Wales have an operational capacity for 3,700 prisoners.

We have to build a prison but we have to ensure it is in the right location. I believe my region will benefit from the new prison. Neath Port Talbot recently topped the chart for having the worst social mobility in Wales, and one of the worst in the UK for poverty. The local community desperately needs inward investment, and the prison will bring much-needed employment opportunities. I resent the fact that these employment opportunities are being trivialised and called 'non-jobs' effectively, not just in the construction phase, but also during it's operation, and despite this some politicians have been mobilising opposition to the plans and playing on people's fears.

The argument based on community safety just doesn't stack up. The prison will be a low-category prison, not housing dangerous, hardened criminals and murderers; it will house category C prisoners. In contrast, we have prisons in the city centres, in Swansea and Cardiff, that house higher category B prisoners, and there have been no public safety incidents at either of these prisons, and nor have there been any at HMP Parc, on the outskirts of Bridgend. HMP Parc, Swansea and Cardiff have also not been a drain on local resources.

And on the petitioner's claim that over 8,000 signatures show the majority of the town are against the prison, Port Talbot is home to over 37,000 people. If every one of these signatures were from that town, that would be less than a quarter of the population, and these signatures are not all from that town, are they? If the majority of residents were opposed to this prison, and I couldn't convince them of the benefits it could bring, then, as their representative, I would oppose the prison being built in Port Talbot, but as it stands, the majority of people have not shared their views, and I therefore believe that this should be decided by the planning department, and as we are in the early stages of this proposal and process, I cannot support the petitioners at this time.

I don't think we need a new superprison, like we've got at Berwyn—certainly not before we've seen how Berwyn performs in terms of its ability to reduce recidivism. At the moment, it looks horrendous: over 2,000 people in three blocks, and units of 88 men together. This is not the sort of— . It's barracks accommodation and I can't see how that is going to do anything—

I just wanted to check whether you've seen that, because I have, and I wouldn't describe it as barracks accommodation myself.

I absolutely concede that I haven't been to Berwyn, but it's far too soon for us to know how it's going to perform, as it only opened at the beginning of this year. I certainly don't think we should be jumping into another superprison. We have an appalling record in terms of recidivism and at the moment we lock people up to make them into more successful criminals, particularly those on short sentence, despite the best efforts of individual prison offers and other agencies who endeavour to change that. But this isn't about attacking people in the system, nor is it about denying that victims need justice and that people have to serve their time. But we cannot be moving towards the US system, where they spend more money on locking people up than they spend on education, so this is not the solution, it seems to me. And I don't understand, therefore, why Wales should be part of the broken, ineffective criminal justice system that we have at the moment. The particulars of this site is that I understand it's due to go over a piece of land that Mark Barry has designated as part of the Swansea regional metro, and that seems absolutely crazy, if that is a strategic part of that.

The fact is that half of the adults released from prison reoffend, and 65 per cent of those—two thirds—reoffend if they've had a sentence of less than one year. So, it's completely pointless sending people to prison for sentences of less than a year, because we need to have other ways of ensuring that they serve their time. The recidivism is much less for people who've been given cautions. I just find the way in which criminal justice is completely dominated by the prejudices peddled by the Daily Mail, which for decades have been putting out their vitriol for anybody who tries to describe a different system—. Their vitriol doesn't just extend to offenders—it extends to children. I fully recall the deeply disagreeable campaign to stop a children's Christmas party at Holloway prison, all because it had been released that the prison officers had organised this for these children, who obviously are the most disadvantaged people, who lose their parents when they go to prison.

I just think that the cost per bed of £40,000 a year could be better spent. We need to look at better systems within Europe. For example, in Norway, the penal system—yes, people go to prison, but they are given trust and responsibility as soon as they are able to demonstrate that they are determined to live a crime-free life on release. They get weekly conjugal visits, which is a very important thing, because it enables families to stay together, which is a key part of preventing people going back to being criminals. If you treat people like animals, they're likely to behave like animals. Instead, in Norway, they live in pods—bungalows of four to six adults. They get to buy their own food for breakfast and supper; they only have one meal prepared for them. And they work in order to earn their keep.

I agree that Swansea and Cardiff are reaching the end of their life, but realising this asset would give us the resources to build a different sort of prison that retains the links to the local community. I can tell you that the people whose loved ones are currently in Cardiff prison don't have the money to go to Port Talbot. We need somewhere to hold people close to Cardiff—somewhere within metro distance of Cardiff. I hope that we don’t have this new superprison in south Wales. I don't feel the need for it, and I think we should do something completely different in Wales.

Can I welcome this petition, 'Port Talbot Community Against the Super Prison', and it's 8,791 signatories? It is a happy coincidence of the timetabling in this place that the debate before this was about citizen participation, elegantly espoused by my old friend David Melding there, and we all nodded sagely and everybody was in total agreement, what a happy and healthy place it would be if all citizens partook in the democratic process and were valued for their contribution. So here we are, stage 1: let's see if we value the contribution of the citizens of Port Talbot, then, shall we? Because we've rehearsed the arguments against building a superprison in Baglan here in the Assembly several times this year in questions already, and we had a Plaid Cymru debate, as we've already alluded to, in September. The vote was lost. The Plaid Cymru motion was asking us to vote to stop the superprison. Only nine Assembly Members here voted to stop the superprison.

Now, many people have said to me, 'Don't have a prison'. Nobody has said to me, 'A superprison in Baglan? What a great idea.' Nobody has said that to me. There is public clamour locally for the tidal lagoon. There is still public clamour for electrification of the main railway to Swansea. But a superprison in Baglan—public clamour came there none. I hope we're not being offered this prison instead of a tidal lagoon, or instead of electrification, but let's not hold our breath.

Welsh Government owns the land in the Port Talbot enterprise zone, as has already been alluded to by David Rees, Bethan and others. That's the land that's been earmarked for this superprison. Why does Welsh Government not simply refuse to sell the land to the Ministry of Justice? Job done.

We know prisons, courts, justice and probation are not devolved to us in Wales. That’s why London can come along and say, 'We'll have a superprison in Baglan', because we had no inkling that was happening. It's not devolved to us; why should it involve us? Because justice is not devolved.

However, the money, as Vaughan Gething, the Cabinet Secretary, told us in budget scrutiny in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee a couple of weeks ago, the money that comes with prisons does not compensate for the expense of local health service provision, social services, mental health provision, local government provision and all the rest. It is inadequately funded by the Home Office, the current prison provision, in terms of the devolved services that have to be there to back up the situation as regards prisoners re-offending, as David Rees mentioned earlier. Those extra services are not funded adequately, and that comes from the Cabinet Secretary for health's own mouth. 

So, we've had an elegant disposition on the power of citizen participation—[Interruption.] Oh, the very embodiment of the same.

This, of course, is about a very particular issue, whether there should be a prison in a specific place. What I think a citizen's assembly could do—and at the moment it would have to be and England and Wales one, but at some point we may have penal policy devolved here—I would ask them, 'Should we have an imprisonment pattern that's nearer the European model or our current one where we imprison between two and three times the number of people needed for public protection or protection from serious theft?' That's the sort of question. Because if that's answered in a particular way, you wouldn't need a superprison in the first place.

Exactly right, and surprising coming from the benches that you sit on, but I applaud that viewpoint, David, and also applaud your elegant disposition, as I said before, as regards the vital importance of citizen participation. This is what this is about. There is a petition there, there are petitioners here, and this is about the importance of citizen participation in democracy. If that means anything, if a petition means anything, surely Labour have a chance to stand up for their oft-used slogan of 'Standing up for the people of Wales'. Well, here's your chance: refuse to sell the land. Stop any prison development in Port Talbot. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I've listened carefully to the debate that's taken place this afternoon, and I'm very grateful to Members for the time that they've taken to participate in the debate, and grateful also for the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, who have taken the time to bring this matter to the attention of the National Assembly. 

The motion in front of us today asks us to take note of this petition. We will do so, we will take note of the petition, but in doing so we will also take note of the debate that it has engendered, and take note of the arguments that have been put forward. We will take note of the debate that we've had today, and the ongoing debate around not only this particular prison, but also the policy that seeks to underpin it.

And in doing so, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would also like to give my own personal thanks to David Rees, who has taken the time to brief me and to talk to me and to meet me to outline the issues that are behind this issue. I'm very grateful to David for the way in which he's approached this matter and the way in which he's informed the Government of the views of the people of Port Talbot.

Can I first of all, Deputy Presiding Officer, in replying to the debate this afternoon, do two things? First of all, to outline the process that has led us to where we are today, but then also to outline the approach that I would like to take in the future.

The Welsh Government was approached by the Ministry of Justice as part of an exercise across England and Wales to identify sites that could be developed for a prison. We regularly engage with businesses and developers in this way, and in this case we supplied a list of 20 sites. We were clearly not a part of the decision process that selected Baglan in Port Talbot as a preferred site, as this was a UK Government-led process—

Will the Minister give way?

Of course.

I thank the Minister, but, as I said in my contribution, when there are criteria set by a developer, surely it's incumbent upon the Welsh Government to meet the criteria that the developer wants. And in this case, it didn't. I just think that needs to be addressed.

I understand the point the Member's made, and he has made that point to me in our private meetings. I'm grateful to him for repeating it this afternoon. Clearly, the measures that have been taken and the debates and discussions that have taken place do not presume a successful planning application, nor do they presume the sale of the land. No actions that have been taken by the Welsh Government to date make any presumption on the conclusion of this process.

The Ministry of Justice wrote to me late yesterday afternoon regarding the Baglan proposal and the wider prison estate in Wales. They have confirmed that the proposed facility would hold category C prisoners. The Ministry of Justice have described Cardiff and Swansea prisons as reception prisons and that they, the Ministry of Justice, anticipate that there'll be little functional overlap with the Baglan proposal.

I will be considering the Ministry of Justice's response further, but believe that we do have a responsibility to undertake an open and wide dialogue with UK Ministers regarding the wider offender management agenda and, in particular, the current proposal for Baglan. And I undertake, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I will take forward that dialogue.

So, let me turn to the approach that I would wish to take as the Cabinet Secretary in this area. David Rees, in his contribution in this debate, suggested that penal policy be devolved to Wales. I would agree with him. I would agree with him that we do need a justice policy in Wales that is a holistic policy, but isn't simply a policy for the incarceration of people in the way that Jenny Rathbone outlined. I hope that we would see justice policy as part of our overall policy for safe communities, to ensure that people who have offended are rehabilitated and able to live lives as a part of our communities across the whole of Wales.

I would like to see a prison estate that is modern, that is functional, that is able to deliver safety and security for prisoners and for the wider community; a prison policy that isn't based on simply a punitive desire for revenge, but a policy that is based on safe communities; and a holistic approach to bringing together services such as education, skills and healthcare, which are already devolved.

At the moment, the current devolution settlement does not serve Wales well. It means that our administration of justice policy is poor in comparison with England and Scotland. It does not deliver the policy that meets Wales's needs. I hope that the justice commission that the First Minister has established will begin the job of creating a structured approach to justice policy that will meet Wales's needs for the future. I hope that we will be able to continue to bring together all of the community services that already lie within our devolved responsibilities, with a justice policy that will enable us to move forward and move away from the rather sterile debates of the past.

I met with an Under-Secretary of State within the Ministry of Justice last week to begin this conversation. I will say to Members that it was a positive conversation and it was a conversation that I hope we will be able to progress. We discussed a wide-ranging agenda, including youth and female offending. I hope that we will be able, with the Ministry of Justice, to conclude an agreed way forward in the short term that will ensure that both devolved and non-devolved services are able to work together in a way that, perhaps, we have not done in the past. For the future, I hope that we will be able to have a single justice policy for Wales that will be a holistic policy, and one that will focus on the people and the individuals and the communities. 

So, let me say this in closing: the Welsh Government is committed to providing business and economic support for the people of Port Talbot and elsewhere—[Interruption.] I won't take an intervention at the moment. The points that were made by Dai Rees were well made: the United Kingdom Government has all too often turned its back on the people of that area. Electrification and the tidal lagoon are good examples of how the UK Conservative Government has turned its back on that part of our country.

In the last two years, we have offered near £1.5 million to nine companies in the area and £30 million to Tata, which will directly benefit the Port Talbot works. Communities, too, have benefited from £20 million of Welsh Government support, including an additional £11 million of Vibrant and Viable Places funds. So, we, the Welsh Government, and the people of Port Talbot need to understand what the Ministry of Justice wish to propose in the future, but we undertake, and I undertake as Cabinet Secretary, Deputy Presiding Officer, to keep Members informed of all of the discussions we have with the Ministry of Justice, on this and other matters. I give an undertaking that I will return to the Chamber to make a further statement in due course.

Thank you very much. Can I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate? 

Yes. First of all, can I thank the Members for their contributions to the debate and the petitioners for bringing this petition forward? David Rees pointed out the appropriateness—or non-appropriateness—of the site with the flood zone and that it was designated as an enterprise zone, and job numbers are not really a measurement of what it would bring in the way of prosperity to the area. 

Suzy Davies pointed out that there were objections, agreed, to the prison, but there were also objections when the prison was due to be built in Berwyn. She pointed out that many of the concerns of the people in the Wrexham area seemed to have, at least in part, been negated over the last few months.

Bethan Jenkins spoke of the strength of the campaign, and pointed out the changes of mind of the Welsh Government and the Welsh Government's power to block the sale of the land, and reiterated David Rees's comments on the lack of rehabilitation in large prisons. I think it must be noted here the passion that both these speakers brought to this debate, and their commitment to the people of Port Talbot.

Caroline Jones took a different view, in many ways, to some of the contributors here, in that she's not, in principle, against the prison, but noted some of the physical barriers to the actual construction of the prison. She also gave a detailed description of overcrowding, particularly in Swansea, and a clear need for a new prison, and she emphasised that—

Are you taking an intervention?

—there were employment opportunities with this prison coming to Baglan.

Are you taking an intervention from Bethan Jenkins?

She also noted that it is a low-category prison, and that the ultimate decision on that is that it will, in fact, be decided by local planners.

Dai Rees pointed out that nine Members in this Chamber only voted to stop the prison in an earlier debate. He also pointed out the other matters, with regard to the Swansea bay barrage and electrification of railways, which would have been much more suitable places to build, and, of course, Bethan, I did—did I mention you, Bethan, in passing? I'm sure I did.

I just wanted to make an intervention.

Would you like an intervention? Oh, absolutely. Sorry, I didn't notice.

Well, the Minister didn't take—the Cabinet Secretary, sorry—didn't take an intervention from me, but what I wanted to try to ask him was on the fact that we're still none the wiser here today as to what the Welsh Government's view is. If you decided not to sell that land, there would be no need for a planning application. So, will the Petitions Committee consider this as part of your deliberations? Thank you very much.

Of course—we will, indeed. We will be taking all of the points made in this debate when we next consider this matter in the committee.

I would go on to say that Alun Davies, in answering some of the questions, said in particular that no action by the Government to date has committed the Government to the prison at Baglan bay, but emphasised that the Government would be continuing to engage in the process with the Ministry of Justice. He mentioned again the fact that the UK Government had not committed to Swansea bay or to electrification as far as Swansea, and he condemned them on that basis, and we could all understand why that is the case.

We will, as a committee, return to consider the petition again at a future meeting. In doing so, I hope we will be able also to consider the reaction of the petitioners to the points raised today and the answers provided. As a result, the committee is presenting this petition to the Assembly without drawing conclusions or making recommendations in any particular direction at this stage. However, we feel that this is an important debate to have, and we hope that it will provide everyone who signed the petition with further information and answers to the concerns they have held. Thank you. 

Thank you. The proposal is to note the petition. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move on to our next debate, which is a Plaid Cymru debate on Catalonia. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's an honour for me to lead this debate in the name of Plaid Cymru, which will give us a first opportunity, as a National Assembly, to express an opinion about the situation in Catalonia. I do that with passion as a Welshman, as a European and as a democrat. I will give most of my comments this afternoon in the international language of first choice of the majority of Catalonians, which is English, in order to facilitate our message of cohesion and to contribute to the international debate at present.

I was in Barcelona on 1 October when the independence referendum was held. It was a horrific and inspiring experience by equal measure. I never thought I would see in a western democracy a position where—. I was in a polling station, and people, ordinary citizens, were forming human chains in order to prevent the Policia Nacional and the Guardia Civil from breaking into that polling station and breaking up the democratic process.

At the same time, it was incredibly, incredibly impressive to see the quiet dignity of the Catalan people, waiting for hours from the early hours of the morning, actually, to vote. Many of them—the first voters in almost every polling station were the elderly, some of them in wheelchairs, and voting was delayed for hours because of the repressive measures of the Spanish state. The tears in their eyes, and in the eyes of their families and the eyes of the citizens around them, and many of them saying they'd been waiting there in the cold for hours and, 'We have waited—we have waited our entire lives for this moment'—nobody could, I think, fail to be inspired by that commitment, a commitment born out of a commitment to democracy but carried out in a spirit of non-violence as well.

That's why this message of solidarity is so important from this institution. We do it because, as a small nation, we should never allow the illegal usurpation of power by a central state against the duly elected Parliament of a small nation. We cannot stand idly by when citizens are brutally repressed in the way that happened in that referendum and we cannot see a position where the elected members of a democratic government are actually imprisoned simply because the constitutional policy that they represent is at odds with that of the central state.

Of course, this tradition of solidarity between this nation and the Catalan nation has deep roots. There were Welsh members of the International Brigade that lost their lives at the Battle of Gandesa. Of course, that struggle, the struggle during the period of the Spanish civil war, saw the close interconnection between the universal fight for democracy and for civil and political rights and the desire for decentralisation and the desire for self-determination by the Catalan people.

There are dark and clear continuities in Catalan and Spanish history. The declaration of independence, of course, happened on 27 October—effectively, Catalonia was independent for four days until that was quashed by the Spanish constitutional court. On 6 October in 1934, an earlier President of the Generalitat declared a Catalan state that lasted for 10 hours, of course. He was subsequently forced into exile—an exact replica of what happened to Puigdemont. In fact, Lluís Companys, of course—eventually, the Generalitat was resurrected later during the course of the Spanish civil war—he ultimately was exiled again, brought back to Spain and was executed. He remains the only incumbent democratically elected head of a government in Europe that has been executed. Puigdemont is the only duly elected, democratically elected, leader of a national government that has faced a European arrest warrant. Since the recreation of the Generalitat in 1932, no less than seven—seven out of nine—of the Presidents of the Generalitat have either been imprisoned or exiled by the Spanish state. That is the sad fact of the continuity that the Catalan people have had to face throughout the course of their history to demand, actually, what is a modest and universal demand, which is the dignity that can only come with the right to exercise your own self-determination as a people and as a nation, which, of course, is written into the UN Charter.

It is incumbent upon us, I think, to send this message of solidarity to the Catalan people, as members of a small nation representing a Parliament in a small nation, but also as Europeans and as European citizens. I think I can only echo and pay tribute to the words of Companys himself, who said this:

'We will suffer again, we will fight again, and we will win again.'

I felt it on the streets there, moving from polling station to polling station—the indomitable spirit of the Catalan people, who for generations have been struggling for this basic human demand, which is the right of nations everywhere to self-determination, and I hope that this National Assembly, in sending its message of solidarity, will support that universal right for all peoples and all nations.

This isn't a matter of concern just for nationalists. This is a matter of concern for democrats, and I think there should be a strong message from our Welsh Parliament to the Spanish and the Catalan Parliaments that the principle of consent must be central to any democratic country.

I was appalled at the events over the summer and recently—the way the Spanish Government dealt in a completely disproportionate and undemocratic way with the perfectly legitimate demands of the Catalan people for a right to express their self-determination in a referendum. For several years, the Spanish Government have denied that simple right that we take for granted in these islands—the principle of consent.

I recognise that, across Europe, secession is not treated in the same way as we in this country have come to treat secession. It's to the credit of the UK Government that, when Scotland made demands for an independence referendum, even though they disagreed with those demands, the UK Government allowed that referendum to be held and made it clear that they would abide by the result of that referendum. And that principle should apply throughout Europe.

I was disgusted, really, that the European Union, which many in this Chamber believed to be a force for peace, democracy and stability over the last 70 years, stood silent while the rights of a constituent part were trampled over. It might have had some explanation within an article over the weekend by the Spanish Prime Minister, thanking Theresa May for standing by the Spanish Government over recent months, and that it wouldn't be forgotten when it came to the Brexit negotiations. That might provide some insight into the internal politics that were going on within European member Governments to explain their silence in this regard.

I don't support Catalan independence. I spent some time in Catalonia over the summer and spoke to a number of people living there who were uneasy with the demands for Catalan independence. This is one of the richest parts of Spain, and its loss from the country would be a clear blow to social justice across the whole country. So, I completely understand the anxieties of the majority of people from the polls in Catalonia. But surely it is right that they were given the chance to express themselves legitimately in a proper referendum, and the continued refusal of the Spanish Government to do that brings shame on them. The way that peaceful protesters were trampled on and their leaders imprisoned is a stain on the whole of Europe, and I think it's right that our Parliament sends a loud and clear signal that we think that this is unacceptable. Diolch.

Can I say that we will oppose this motion, though I do recognise the strength of feeling and the passion that, in particular, is on the Plaid Cymru benches? But I do think that this whole subject requires deep discernment rather than brief debate, and we always need to be modest when we are passing judgment on another state altogether.

Whilst the first two points of this motion are not contentious, the third and fourth certainly are. I share some of the frustrations that Lee Waters has just expressed, that some of the decision making by the Spanish state has not been exemplary, to put it very modestly. But I'm afraid the Catalan Government cannot be excused some of the errors it has made as well, especially in not creating an environment in which those Catalans who do not support independence can freely express their views and take them onto the streets and the polling stations.

Will the Member give way?

I have two people now. I think I did see Mick just fractionally first.

Would you accept that this problem has arisen because of the continued refusal of the Spanish Government to actually allow a properly organised referendum?

I think, in Britain, we would say that you should have a referendum that both sides agree with and then proceed. But, of course, Britain is the only state in the world that currently believes that that's how secession should be dealt with. I agree that's how it should be dealt with, but Spain is not in a minority in holding a different view. And, truly, secession is a decision that must be made by citizens and not Parliament, so I think your point 4 is profoundly flawed in what it states.

Perhaps the core conundrum here is whether the norm should be that nations and states are coterminous, or whether national autonomy can flourish in multinational states. I hold the latter view, though there are times when it can't flourish and multinational states have sometimes had a history of repression. There is, I think, a great question of importance here in terms of what happens—what are the ramifications if you believe that states and nations should be coterminous? How many nations are there in the world? The current estimates, as far as I can establish, range from 600 to 6,000. Well, if you had 6,000 states in the world, international order may be very difficult to maintain. Certainly international institutions, as they're currently governed, would be exceptionally difficult to operate.

Maybe he's going to come to this, but could he tell us what is his view and the view of the Conservative Party on the fact that it must be unprecedented that we have democratically elected members of a Government imprisoned on a charge of sedition in a western European democracy?

I think that was foolish action on the part of the Spanish state, but this is for the Spanish people and the Catalan people to resolve, as they are, I think, at the moment—. There certainly are consequences from the action that the constitutional court in Spain has taken—[Interruption.] Well, you know, I think we need a fair and open debate here, Adam, so perhaps you need to listen to the alternative point that is now being expressed.

And who gets to say that a particular population—it could be a city, it could be a region—is now, in fact, a nation? These are highly contested matters, and the right to self-determination in itself is not an easy thing to express. What entity expresses is? Woodrow Wilson's 14 points tried to grapple with this, but he refused to talk to the Irish nationalists, because he did not believe that they had a right to statehood, because they were embedded in what he thought was a democratic multinational state. Now, few would agree with him, probably, in retrospect, but that's what he had. And why should the entity be the nation? Cities are by far the oldest political unit in the world, and indeed, many are now generating a sense of identity that could, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as holding national characteristics.

Can I just finish, Llywydd, by saying how highly problematic the concept of secession is in international law and also how it's treated with the greatest caution by political philosophers? Not many political philosophers accept the principle of secession and those who do highly qualify it—[Interruption.] I think it's fairly typical that the proposers of the motion are not even now listening—[Interruption.] Well, I don't know. Generally, those who have held secession—[Interruption.]

Okay, okay. Allow the Member to continue now.

Those who have held that secession is legitimate do so in a highly qualified way when, basically, there's extensive repression over a long period, and that's been reacted to by a population that expresses an overwhelming and freely expressed will that is very, very obvious to discern. I don't think those characteristics are present in Catalonia, but that's for those people to determine.

The whole question does refer to: should you invest in improving, through democratic procedures, your own state or the state you find yourself in and look for more autonomous expression, or should you drive for your own state? If that happens, we will live in a world that contains many microstates, and many states that, perhaps, are not as coherent as they first appear, and then face all sorts of pressures, because, when a nation becomes a state, all sorts of forces then apply that do not apply when you're a nation within a larger body or multinational state. So, I do think that we need to be very, very careful, and those that believe that secession is legitimate need to reflect on when it is, and to read the literature on this that, recently, has been quite extensive, because, at the moment, I think some people do not realise what they wish for.

I'm delighted to rise to support the eloquent and moving plea of Adam Price, who opened this debate. I would like to think that David Melding's speech was purely for the purposes of testing the hypotheses of those who have spoken so far, and he's acting, therefore, as the devil's advocate, an honoured position in Catholic theology. But, sadly, I think he believed the sophistical arguments that he adduced. I will go straight to the question that he asked: what is a nation? Well, it's a matter of fact: a nation is a nation when it feels itself to be a nation. Yes, it may well be that we could have thousands of nation states in the world, should the peoples of the world determine their futures in that way. We do have city states, do we not, like Singapore, actually one of the richest countries in the world, as I never tire of pointing out to the finance Secretary in debates on taxation.

This debate is about one very simple principle, that of the right of self-determination, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter. For the life of me, I can't see why points 3 and 4 in this motion should be controversial to any democrat. So, I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning behind the objection to it. I certainly oppose the heavy-handed response by the Spanish Government and the detention of elected Catalan representatives in prison. It is true that, under the semi-Francoist constitution of Spain, they acted against the law of the land, and I'm afraid the behaviour of the Spanish state shows that the ghost of General Franco still hovers over the political system in Spain today, sadly.

What needs to change in Spain is the Spanish constitution, and there is no doubt that a very substantial proportion of the population in Catalonia wants to have independence. Whether it's a majority or not, I can't say. I take no view on the merits of it. I believe in the unitary state of the United Kingdom, and I want Wales to remain part of it, but I accept absolutely the right of the Welsh people to determine their future for themselves in constitutional terms. Should the people of Wales decide by referendum and a majority that they want to be politically independent of the rest of United Kingdom, I would say, 'Good luck to them', even though I would be on the other side of the argument. It must, at the end of the day, be for the people themselves to decide their own future, and no-one, I believe, has the right to deprive people of that fundamental right.

I read a very interesting article, which I wholly applaud, and recommend everybody read, by Mick Antoniw in WalesOnline this week, where he made a very prescient point. He said that

'The arrest and imprisonment of democratically elected government ministers for Catalonia has exposed a gaping wound in the European Union’s constitutional commitment to uphold human rights and the rule of law.'

'There is no doubt'—

he went on to say—

'that the declaration was in breach of the constitution; but there can also be little doubt that failure of the central government on numerous occasions to support amendments to the constitution to allow the possibility of independence through a free and fair referendum was a breach of Article One of the UN Convention.'

I would go further than that, and I would say it's also in breach of article 11 of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the right of freedom of expression and information:

'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'

So, Spain, in my view, is in flagrant breach of that obligation, which is enshrined upon it, which they all voted for as Governments in the European Union and which the Welsh Government has recently paid lip service to, as part of the argument about Brexit. I've no objection to many parts of that charter, although I do object to the way in which it has been interpreted, in some ways, by the European Court. But article 11, it seems to me, is totally unobjectionable to anybody who believes in fundamental freedoms.

And so, I believe that it is essential that this Parliament of Wales—another small people, as has already been pointed out—should express its solidarity with the people of Catalonia, and any small nation that is being oppressed by its centralised Government. The Spanish Government, I think, should hang its head in shame for the way in which they've behaved towards these elected politicians in Catalonia. Spain, obviously, must sort out its own constitutional arrangements for itself, but the way to do that is not by thuggish behaviour and the repression of people on the streets, but by the force of argument in democratic institutions and free and fair votes.

I had, last month, the great pleasure to represent the First Minister at the annual gathering to commemorate those Welsh volunteers who joined the international brigades in Spain. There was a political irony there that, at that very time when we were making that commemoration, there were the scenes in Spain of crowds making fascist salutes, singing Franco-era fascist songs. The growth of Franco-era falangism, which seems to be behind the growth of Spanish, Madrid-based nationalism, is one of the real concerns.

I'm very grateful, also, to the comments made my Neil Hamilton. I'm glad to see he's undergone a Pauline conversion over the years from his previous apologism for the South African apartheid state and his tendency to be sympathetic towards the Pinochet fascist Government in the 1970s. There's no doubt: this is partly a struggle against those oppressive actions, but for me, it's fundamental. This isn't about Catalonian independence; it is about the rule of law and the proper interpretation of the rule of law as being something that actually represents the will of the people, and that's what a constitution is. A constitution that loses the will of the people, that divides the people, is no longer a workable constitution. It is no longer a compact between people.

So, for me, the biggest and the saddest thing to see in this was the UK Government automatically and blindly falling in with a hypocritical position that contradicted everything we said. Whether it be from 1968 with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, whether it be about the Falkland islands, whether it be about Gibraltar—ultimately, it's the people's right to actually choose, and that's what this is actually about. It's equally distressing to see the sterility of, really, the argument within the European Union, that they have failed to actually grasp that one of the fundamentals of the European Union and the visions behind it was actually the grasp of the rule of law, and fundamental principles, and the rights of people, and that once you move away from that to defending purely the concept of the centralised state, then you begin to sow the seeds of your own destruction. 

So, I think it is absolutely right in this Assembly that we actually make our own voice heard, that we actually stand up, through this resolution, for what is ultimately support for democratic rights, support for the rule of law, and support for the fundamental principle, enshrined in the United Nations charter, that people have the right to determine their future.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I begin by thanking Members for bringing this very important debate forward today, and for sharing their contributions, and also for giving me this opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Welsh Government? It's really clear, from today's debate and the passionate and principled contributions of Members this afternoon, the depth and strength of feeling that exists in the Chamber on this issue. I think it's only fair to begin by making the very obvious and important point that it would not be for the Governments of Spain or Catalonia to try and influence the political structures we choose to develop for ourselves here in Wales. And in that vein, I do not believe it is for myself or the Welsh Government to express a view on whether Catalonia should or should not be an independent nation. That is not a matter for us to decide. But it is legitimate, I believe, for this Assembly to remind ourselves and others of the principles that underpin democratic institutions like ours, which has really been properly pointed out by a number of contributors to today's debate. 

Twenty years or so ago, Wales voted to establish a National Assembly for Wales. It was a passionate and impassioned referendum campaign, two sides putting forward very different visions of the Wales they wanted to see in the future. I very much took part in that debate, and was one of the very impassioned campaigners, and I took a very clear side. But what actually united all sides in the campaign was a fundamental acceptance that it would be for the people of Wales to take the decision about their future and that result would be both respected and implemented, and of course it was. 

The constitutional and democratic will of the people of Wales expressed in that referendum was to set up a National Assembly and to take greater responsibility for the decisions and policies that affect us and our communities. So, too, did those principles underpin the referendum vote on Scottish independence in 2014, and, again, it was a sometimes rough, sometimes tough, very impassioned campaign, but also founded on the core democratic principle that it was for the people of Scotland to decide their own future, and that the result of the referendum would be honoured. As it was, Scotland remained a member of the United Kingdom, but I do not doubt for one second that, had Scotland decided to vote for independence, the UK Government would have carried that through.

Whilst both of these examples in their own ways are very different to the Catalan one we're discussing, there are many similarities as well. Popular sovereignty is the foundation stone upon which democratic politics is based. The principle of self-determination is one clearly set out in the UN charter. So, too, is democratic politics based on respect, non-violence and intolerance of intimidation.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you for taking the intervention. 

Reference has been made a number of times today to the UK allowing a vote in Scotland on secession. It is important to remember, of course, that the democratically elected Scottish Government did put forward plans for a second referendum that were halted by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It was not up to the people of Scotland at that point to choose to have a vote or not.

Well, that's a very fair point, and it's part of an ongoing political discussion here in the United Kingdom about how such things should be dealt with. Actually, one of the points that David Melding made very ably was about the specific position of the UK state in this issue, which is an important point, and one not to be forgotten.

However, I think there's much to suggest that there's much in modern Spain that we can also admire. Many people have talked about the relationship between Wales and Spain over the years. Many of us have had ancestors, quite close ancestors, who fought in Spain and were very proud of having done so, or communities in which people fought in Spain against fascism—absolutely—and are very proud to have done so. 

To transition from repressive dictatorship to a democratic nation and a member of the EU in such a short space of time and without the return to bitter and bloody civil war seen in its recent past is in many ways a lesson to others, and something for which Spain needs to be admired. But it's clear for all to see that what has happened in Catalonia over the last few weeks and months has been a model to absolutely no-one. The scenes we've witnessed and the images we've all observed have been shocking, and the hope now is that the future can be more positive than the past, and that in a democratic and constitutional process the people of Catalonia can decide their own fate, whatever that fate turns out to be, and that their voice and their decisions will be respected by the Spanish Government.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Do you think the Spanish state was wrong to stop the Catalans having their say?

I certainly think the way they went about it was wrong, absolutely. It's part of an ongoing conversation in Spain as it is, and, indeed, as Rhun ap Iorwerth pointed out, an ongoing conversation in the UK. It's a conversation that they're not having in any way that I would certainly recognise as a democratic process. 

But self-determination means that they have their say, surely?

I completely agree. I absolutely and completely agree. But at a time when democratic ideals are being tested all over the world, we do think that the people of Catalonia should have their rights and wishes respected, and that, whatever the result of that, we can continue to hold up Europe as a home to democratic ideals and values for others to follow.

Llywydd, in this debate the Government of Wales will be abstaining. We will be giving our backbenchers a free vote because we think it's extremely important that that goes. The abstention is not because we don't sympathise with the people of Catalonia, but because we do not think there's any role for the Welsh Government in deciding the fate of another nation.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, can I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary has just said on behalf of the Government. I understand why the Government might do that, but I want to see the freely expressed views of her backbenchers on this issue, because this is not a motion in favour of Catalan independence, or even in support of the Catalan Government. It's a motion designed around parliamentary democracy and the expression of free will by the peoples of states, whether they're nation states or not. In that regard, I'm very pleased to have the support of a wide range of political voices, it has to be said—from Neil Hamilton to Lee Waters, Mick Antoniw, and others who have contributed to this debate and focused on the democratic rights of people to have their say. It is something that we've learnt over a long period in the United Kingdom to deal with, running up to the ability to give a referendum to the Scottish people, agreed between two Governments of equals. Perhaps we learnt it at the time that we lost the 13 colonies, if you want to go back that far. 

I invite David Melding to return to William and Mary college, where I know he goes every year, and give that speech to those naughty American communists who dared to declare independence and dared to secede from a state that wasn't providing for them. Because that's what's at the heart of this debate, and I very much regret David Melding's approach to this. I expected something stronger in terms of democratic principles—that he gave us earlier, if you like—but I think he was constrained by the fact that Rajoy and May have been dancing down Downing Street this week, and was forced to give a party-political line. [Interruption.] I'm sorry, I really don't have time.

I think we want, in this place, to unite as parliamentarians, and as people who agree with the right of a Parliament to express the will of and negotiate on behalf of its people.

There is a personal element to this as well. There are four individuals still in prison in Catalunya due to the actions of the Spanish state, which everyone I think agrees has overreacted so far. We have to remember the names of Oriol Junqueras and Joaquim Forn, the two former Ministers still in prison—Oriol not able to see his children—and the two Jordis, of course, who are civil campaigners, not politicians but civil campaigners, who have also been imprisoned. We must remember them, particularly at this time of year, perhaps. But also, please unite as a Parliament to give an expression of solidarity, not taking sides but solidarity, with other Parliaments who express the will of their people.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting, therefore, under this item until voting time.

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on universal credit, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd, and it’s a pleasure to open the Plaid Cymru debate today on universal credit. This is the second debate in six weeks that we have tabled on this particular issue, because we are extremely concerned about the impact that this destructive policy will have on our citizens here in Wales. Like many of you in the Chamber today, we are concerned, but in addition to that, and in addition to pointing a finger at the Conservatives, we in Plaid Cymru are also offering a solution today, a solution that would start to put the power in our own hands here in Wales so that, ultimately, we can come up with a far fairer system.

Yesterday, we heard that 300 tenants were in debt in Torfaen, where universal credit has been implemented since July of this year. A report on the implications in Torfaen states this:

Early feedback indicates extremely disabling circumstances for many households.

Plaid Cymru’s stance on this issue is clear: in order to protect our citizens from the actions of the Conservatives at their worst, we must start to devolve the administration of welfare to Wales. We can then put an end to the culture of delay and sanction, and also ensure that individuals rather than homes receive payments, in order to ensure that this new system won’t have a disproportionate impact on women.

We are suggesting starting by devolving the administration that would allow us in Wales to be more flexible in terms of payments, and to vary the payment method for housing benefit. This is already happening in Scotland. There, the SNP Government have changed the regularity of the payments from monthly to fortnightly. And in Scotland the housing elements are paid directly to landlords according to the wishes of the tenant.

Let’s turn to the issue of cost. Scotland has negotiated a financial framework with Westminster, which means that the funding for the administration of some elements of universal credit is transferred to Scotland as part of the block grant. In my view, the Welsh Government is using the cost as an excuse not to take action in this area. I will explain it in another way, just to make it entirely clear so that everyone understands this: the administration of welfare doesn't cost anything to the Scottish Government because the block grant was adapted so that there was an additional sum available to Scotland for those administrative costs, including any start-up costs too. The Welsh Government is in a position to come to an agreement on a similar framework to that negotiated for Scotland, and I cannot understand why the Government wouldn’t wish to start those negotiations. The UK Labour Party has been calling on the Government to make changes to the universal credit policy. Labour Assembly Members often stand in this Chamber and condemn the policy.

So, I am proposing a pragmatic approach in dealing with this problem, and I extend the proposal to you as Government to do something to change some of the worst aspects of universal credit. That would be greatly appreciated by the people who are affected by it. And it would also show the value of devolution, and show the value of our own national Parliament in introducing alternative ideas and a fairer way of doing things for the benefit of our citizens and our communities.  

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

Diolch. Universal credit is designed to help people into work and support people who need help or cannot work. It replaces a system that discouraged people from working more than 16 hours a week, and saw nearly 1.5 million people trapped on out-of-work benefits for nearly a decade. Unlike the disastrous roll-out of tax credits, which saw millions of people facing clawbacks after overpayments of £7.3 billion, universal credit is being introduced gradually. People are moving into work faster and staying in work longer. There are only six weeks, as we heard, since the last Plaid Cymru debate on universal credit where I noted that I'd written to the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding universal credit helpline charges before his announcement they were being scrapped, and that backbench Conservative MPs were doing their democratic job by calling for a reduction in the six-week waiting time for universal credit payments. 

When I recently visited the new Jobcentre Plus district manager for north and mid Wales and staff at their Mold office, they told me that they can now focus on the claimant's needs, and instead of spending their days helping people filling out long forms as they come off and then back on jobseeker's allowance, and dealing with queries about delays in payments, they can now concentrate on coaching people about how to find extra work and become financially independent. They also told me about the personal budgeting support they provide and about the advance payments available, although these had rarely been taken up so far, they told me. 

I urge all Members to visit a Jobcentre Plus office in their own area. The House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee stated in 2012:

'The principles behind Universal Credit have widespread support, which we share.'

Labour's shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, three years ago, said:

'Labour supports the principle of universal credit'.

Most of the respondents to the UK Government twenty-first century welfare consultation paper agreed with the need for fundamental reform and the principles underpinning universal credit. I therefore move amendment 1, noting that the principle behind universal credit is widely supported.

Rather than scrapping it, Labour's 2017 UK manifesto said, quote:

'Labour will reform and redesign UC, ending six-week delays in payment'.

And, in this context, amendment 1 also welcomes the wide-ranging package announced at the UK Government's budget to address concerns around the transition to universal credit. This £1.5 billion package, which reduces a claimant's wait for their first payment to five weeks, is actually significantly more generous than reducing the payment to one month, which I'll develop. 

Outside of the fact that I doubt any of us, potentially, in this room have ever gone five weeks without any income whatsoever, would you acknowledge that in nearly every single pilot that there's been, especially in Wales, there are significant arrears as a result of this?

Where proper engagement between the different agencies involved has not worked—particularly local authorities and the local Jobcentre Plus offices—that has arisen—and also housing associations—but where it's worked well, it has worked well.

And it's about more than just money: it's about helping people get into work, stay in work and live independently. From next month, claimants will be offered an advance of up to 100 per cent. In practice, this means that new claimants in December can already receive an advance of up to 50 per cent, and may now receive a second advance of up to 100 per cent in the new year. Payments of advances will now be recoverable over 12 months rather than six; claimants who had previously received housing benefit will receive an extra two weeks of support, worth on average £233, which will be unrecoverable, automatic and received early in the first assessment period.

Will you take an intervention?

The UK Government has also allocated—. Time's a bit short now, I'm afraid, Mick. I'm a bit worried that I'll run out, but if there's time at the end, I will. The UK Government has also allocated £8 million over four years to develop evidence over what works to help people progress in work. 

Department for Work and Pensions officials have been working with the devolved administrations since March 2012 on plans for universal credit roll-out, and the UK Government issued the universal credit local support services framework in February 2013, developed between the DWP and partners including the Welsh Local Government Association, to help claimants not yet ready to budget for themselves and those who need alternative payment arrangements, including victims of domestic abuse.

When we hear, for example, that in Wales the average value of rent arrears under universal credit is £450, more than three times the UK average, we have to ask the Welsh Government what has gone wrong here. Community Housing Cymru believe that some of the issues surrounding universal credit could be targeted by improving communication between the DWP, tenants and landlords. We also need to consider solutions such as the social change Ark Passport scheme, allowing tenants to separate and prioritise rent and other payments, and giving landlords greater security. And we need to engage with the UK Government's 10-year strategy to transform disability employment and help 1 million more disabled people into work. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Over the weekend, I did a shift collecting food at Tesco in Merthyr with the Merthyr Cynon Foodbank. It was just a couple of hours of my time to assist the food bank volunteers—volunteers who give many hours of their time, week-in, week-out, to provide invaluable support to people at their time of greatest need. Can I say that while I'm willing to do what I can to assist the work of the food bank, I don't find this an uplifting experience, as Mr Rees-Mogg MP described the work of food banks? In fact, I find it a very sad indictment of our times. It's sad that so many people—4,191 in my area alone—needed the help of a food bank in the last 12 months. As we approach Christmas, that should give everyone cause to reflect.

From the evidence of those constituents who come to me for advice—I know I'm not alone in this—it's clear that a number of people needing support from food banks are those who have faced difficulties with the DWP. My constituency office is authorised to issue food bank vouchers. In the conversations with constituents, it's all too often a crisis caused by a benefit claim or a delay in payment that leads directly to their need for emergency help.

People in my constituency are facing those difficulties now, and that is before the roll-out of universal credit arrives in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I have real fears for some of the most vulnerable people in my community when these changes eventually take place—fears that are borne out from the evidence from those areas where universal credit has already been implemented, like the example from Torfaen that we've already heard about.

I can't help but contrast the impact of universal credit, which, remember, is not just a key part of Tory welfare reform, but part of a bigger picture of failed Tory austerity policies—contrast that with the progress that was made in the fight against child, family and pensioner poverty under previous Labour Governments. Statistics show that from the late 1990s until the arrival of the UK coalition Government in 2010, Labour had used the levers of Government to help lift 500,000 children and 900,000 pensioners out of relative poverty. As we've talked about many times, the plague of in-work poverty in our communities continues to grow as the abolition of tax credits has pretty much wiped out the potential benefit from the introduction in 2015 of George Osborne's phony national living wage.

As many of us might well highlight, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has just reported that child, family and pensioner poverty is now pretty much back at pre-1997 levels. So, as a direct result of UK Government-imposed austerity, we've gone backwards over recent years in dealing with poverty, and the roll-out of universal credit will set us back even further. I often wonder to what extent a UK Government Cabinet full of Tory millionaires can ever truly understand these issues. Do they ever get out and see first hand the impact of their policies on the least resilient members of our communities? If they do, and they persist with these changes, then they have no heart, no scruples and no compassion.

So, I'm pleased that Plaid Cymru have brought forward this motion as we clearly do share concerns over the flaws in universal credit, and I fear that without a fundamental change in UK Government policy on this, we will return to the debate many more times in the coming year.

Thanks to Plaid for bringing today's debate. As Siân Gwenllian stated in her opening remarks, Plaid did bring a debate on this subject six weeks ago and I gave UKIP's position at that time. Our stance hasn't really changed since then so I will be fairly brief, particularly bearing in mind that this is only a half-hour debate.

We in UKIP share the concerns of other parties here over universal credit. As a party, we haven't supported a lot of the Conservatives' welfare reforms. We were against the bedroom tax, for instance. So, in these particular matters, we definitely aren't to the right of the Conservatives, as many people like to characterise us; we are actually closer to the left-of-centre parties. Strange but true.

We share concerns over the length of time—[Interruption.]—yes, I'm sure they're delighted—the length of time taken to make the payments, the fact that joint payments can leave people destitute, and the fact that the direct payment of universal credit to tenants rather than landlords will undoubtedly increase rent arrears. We are also worried over the fairly random application of sanctions that will likely occur, and by the fact that sanctions could be taken against people who are already in work and who may already have two or even three jobs. This kind of thing renders the whole scheme of universal credit rather an abject nonsense, whatever good intentions may have initially lain behind it. 

I don't normally spend much time in here knocking the Conservatives, because there's enough of that going on from the Labour and Plaid Cymru benches, so it does get a bit repetitive. I don't want to fall out with the Conservative Members here, who are perfectly amenable people—[Interruption.]—no, I'm not going anywhere; thanks for the suggestion—and, of course, they also now number some of our old friends, like Mark Reckless, although currently absent. [Interruption.] He's not there.

I'm not sure he would agree with you.

He's not here either, Mike.

To be serious, I'm not sure giving responsibility for the welfare system to Iain Duncan Smith in 2010 was ever really going to be a good idea. This is the chap who turned up in Merthyr not long after his appointment and said, seemingly on the spur of the moment, that it might be a good idea if some of the locals thought about popping down to Cardiff to look for work, when, of course, the reality was that thousands of people from Merthyr and other Valleys towns were already doing that and had been doing that for some years. So, the universal credit scheme overseen by such a naïve blunderer as IDS was never really likely to be a success.

However, I would repeat that we don't support Plaid's objective in getting the welfare system devolved to Wales. We recognise what the Welsh Government has stated on this count: that this would only place a huge, additional spending burden on the Welsh public. So, while we do share Plaid's concerns over universal credit, we do not share their proposed solution.

Thank you. I call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans.

I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. I'd like to be clear that we agree with much of the Plaid Cymru motion, differing only, as our amendment makes clear, over the practicability and the desirability of taking over the administrative responsibility for social security. As Members would expect, we reject the complacent amendment from the Conservatives, which glosses over the real suffering being caused by their party's botched and heartless efforts at welfare reform.

We've repeatedly called on the UK Government to end their flawed and unnecessary austerity policy; a policy reinforced by their autumn budget. We remain concerned about the impact of previously announced welfare cuts, especially given that we know these will hit low-income households hard, and particularly those households with children. 

Recent Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis projects that absolute child poverty in Wales will increase by nearly 7 percentage points between 2013-15 and 2019-21. This is driven by the UK Government's welfare benefit changes, including the limiting of tax credit and universal credit to two children and the freeze to most working-age benefits. The planned UK Government's tax and benefit reforms account for nearly four of those 7 percentage points in the increase in absolute child poverty over this period, and the remainder of the 7 per cent is due to projected earnings growth and other changes in the economy.

Will you take an intervention? I have great sympathy for some of the arguments that you're outlining, but how can you say that when you don't want to have the powers to be able to do something about it yourself?

I think history has taught us what happens when the UK Government devolves benefits to us, for example with the council tax benefit, when they top-sliced the budget. So, we're certainly once bitten, twice shy there. And, frankly, the responsibility for this does lie with the UK Government, and the UK Government needs to sort this out.

We might as well all go home then.

Analysis—. Well, we've got our own responsibilities here that are devolved to us in the Welsh Government. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies also shows that households in Wales will lose 1.6 per cent of their net income on average, or around £460 a year, from the UK Government's tax and benefit reforms introduced between 2015-16 and 2019-20. This is equivalent to around £600 million a year to Wales as a whole.

We know that lower income households and particularly those with children will lose considerably more on average—around 12 per cent of net income. Large families are particularly hard hit, losing around £7,750 a year or 20 per cent of their net income on average. So, I'm deeply concerned about the devastating impact that universal credit is having on our most vulnerable people.

The analysis by the IFS shows that, whilst one-earner couples with children may gain, working lone parents and two-earner couples are likely to lose. So, the UK Government claim that universal credit will encourage people into work and make work pay just doesn't stack up, because it weakens the incentive for both parents to work and it weakens the incentive for single parents to be in work. Unfortunately, though, the UK Government seems determined to ignore these facts and maintains the line that universal credit ensures that work always pays.

Immediately after coming to post, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, setting out our concerns and the views of this National Assembly for Wales, which were expressed during the previous debate that we had on this subject. I called on him to reverse the UK Government's damaging cuts to welfare, to halt the roll-out of universal credit and to address the fundamental concerns being raised with regard to it. As part of his response to me last week, the Secretary of State said that around 80 per cent of new universal credit claimants are being paid in full and on time, but, even if that's the case, I have to ask: what about the other 20 per cent? Failure on this scale is leading to claimants seeking urgent help from food banks, with many struggling to cope with the complexities of this new benefit.

What's extremely worrying to me is that, of those new universal credit claimants who are seeking vital support with their housing costs, many will not be able to pay their first rent to their landlord until their first payment is received. And local authorities, where universal credit full service is already in operation, are telling us that they're seeing increases in rent arrears for many tenants. This is causing or exacerbating debt problems for those who are most in need of support, and it has serious consequences for people who may face eviction as a result of not having the money to pay their rent.

I spoke to the Minister of State for Employment on the day of the autumn statement. He told me that the DWP has put in place advance payments for new universal credit claimants waiting for their first payment. The DWP says this payment will be made within five working days of application and on the same day to anyone in urgent need. I say, as I've said to the Minister, that they need to go much further in addressing the issues. I do not consider that the DWP's solution of offering a loan is sustainable as a permanent solution for claimants who will often already be in debt. No-one is claiming that benefit rates are generous, so tell me: how is a claimant expected to live on eleven twelfths of that benefit for a whole year while the original advance is being paid off?

I wrote to the Minister for Employment last week, seeking his assurances that universal credit claimants would be able to receive payments over the Christmas period. DWP officials have indicated to my officials that there are robust procedures in place to ensure that all payments to claimants due by 21 and 22 December will be paid, and I sincerely hope that these reassurances will be borne out in practice, but I have to say that our experience to date of the UK Government's delivery of universal credit and other welfare benefits doesn't fill me with confidence. 

The national advice network for Wales is working closely with us and with other key partners to ensure that the advice services can help claimants through the complexities of universal credit. The DWP must recognise that many claimants want and need to choose the frequency of their payments. I'll be impressing on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that the choice should be universally available to all claimants of universal credit through the DWP's alternative payment arrangements. I do not believe that we would need the same administrative arrangements as in Scotland to achieve this.

Evidence recently presented to the work and pensions committee indicates that there are real disadvantages to the flexibilities offered to claimants in Scotland, with payments being deferred as a result. The flexible arrangements in Scotland only start after the first universal credit payment is received. So, some Scottish claimants have been waiting six weeks or more for their first payment. 

Are you winding up, please?

I'm winding up. I do not support the devolution of welfare or the administration of welfare to Wales. The devolution of welfare benefits to the Scottish Government has transferred the associated financial risk, with the demand for welfare benefits growing faster per head in Scotland than in England from the point of devolution. For Wales, this would pose a significant and unacceptable financial risk, and the costs associated with administering the welfare system would take resources away from the front-line delivery of services.

So, to conclude, as I've already said, we will be opposing the Conservative amendment, and, I have to say, the Conservative contribution fails to acknowledge the scale of the problems that have already been identified. And, as set out in our amendment, we believe that were we to take on administrative responsibility for social security without substantial additional funding from the UK, it would simply transfer additional financial burdens to the Welsh Government and create an unfulfillable expectation that the Welsh Government would be able to make more generous provisions for claimants.

Thank you. Can I call on Steffan Lewis to reply to the debate? Steffan Lewis.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Members for their contributions this afternoon. Dawn Bowden raised the important point that, of course, welfare reform is part of a wider social agenda of this UK Conservative Government, and it's a central theme of austerity.

In Gareth Bennett's contribution—I listened to it carefully—I wasn't sure whether, by the end, he was going to defect to the Conservative Party or the communist party [Laughter.] But I thank him for his contribution this afternoon.

I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed with the Minister's response to the debate today. It is a fact that the Scottish Government have negotiated, through their fiscal framework, with the UK Government, for an uplift to the block grant in order to cover the costs of the administration of welfare. I think it's interesting to point out as well that, earlier on in the debate in this Chamber, the Cabinet Secretary for local government reiterated the Welsh Government's proposals for the devolution of justice to this place. Nobody has suggested that there would be an enormous administrative cost that would mean that public services would have to be cut to cover it. In fact, the First Minister himself has repeatedly said that he is confident that the Welsh Government can come to an arrangement with the UK Government in order to have a Barnett consequential, and other consequentials as well, so that Wales can cover the costs of further powers. There is no reason why that cannot be negotiated between the Welsh Government and the UK Government for the administration of welfare, and universal credit in particular.

Let's also not kid ourselves: to suggest that devolved services and devolved Government and local government is not already paying a hefty price for the damaging welfare reforms that are being pushed through I think is to be in complete denial about the reality. Part of the point of devolution of the administration of welfare would be that we would run a more efficient and effective and humane system in this country that would end up saving money for public services. Why are there programmes that the Welsh Government is administering at the moment, such as Supporting People? These are very good programmes indeed, but part of the reason for the increased demand upon those services is because welfare is being administered by the Conservatives at Westminster today. And I have to say, I find it absolutely incredible that a Labour Minister would rather a Conservative in London administer welfare and social protection for the citizens of Wales than take responsibility themselves.

Let's also bear in mind the fact that the administration of welfare, of course, was always devolved and localised. The interwar period was that period where centralisation occurred—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I'll take an intervention.

Thank you. Would you acknowledge that the reason why universal credit has been piloted across the UK is because of the scale of the issues that are attached to it? Would you also acknowledge it would be a double whammy for those claimants in Wales if we didn't get the amount of money that would be needed to fund this properly? That is the concern; it is the claimants that are at the heart of this.

Well, I'm sure that the Member will have as much faith as I do in the Cabinet Secretary for Finance for him to go up to London and negotiate a deal for Wales for the administration of welfare that would bring us the consequentials that we need. I have every confidence that we'd do a much better job of administering welfare in this country ourselves than that lot up in London. Absolutely.

I was making the point, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the administration of welfare and its centralisation are a relatively new thing in these islands. The reason why we have the Merthyr Tydfil judgment of 1900 is because of a stand taken by the poor law guardians of Merthyr Tydfil to try and support striking miners, and, of course, we have circular 703 issued by the Ministry of Health back in the pre-war days in order to try and curtail local support for people living in poverty. The interwar period saw the emergence of a hypercentralised state and, originally, after the second world war, that benefited many people, but the political reality today is that for as long as everything is in the hands of Ministers in London, then it's the citizens of Wales that will pay the heavy price, and the most vulnerable citizens of Wales that will pay the heaviest price.

In closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, I mentioned that period of hypercentralisation during the interwar period, and Professor Norman Ginsburg, someone who's a social policy expert, described the centralisation of that period as serving to contain the revolutionary potential of the working class. Why don't we decentralise it, and perhaps the Welsh Government can find its own revolutionary potential to protect the people of this country?

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I am going to proceed to voting time. Fine, thank you.

So, we'll move to the first vote of this afternoon, which is on the Plaid Cymru debate on Catalonia. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 28, 14 abstentions, 12 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

We now move to a vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on universal credit, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, six abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now move to vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 is deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 12, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 31, one abstention, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 32, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

We now move on to our next item on the agenda. If people are leaving the Chamber, please do so quickly and quietly.

We now move to the short debate, and I call Janet Finch-Saunders to speak on the topic she has chosen.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. This, basically, is a call for GPs to undertake routine screening for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. Lynne Neagle AM has kindly offered to give a minute, and my colleague, Mark Reckless.

I would like to speak today on the importance of screening particularly in children and young people, especially when they do present with the very four telling signs of severe illness. The potentially devastating effects of type 1 diabetes have been highlighted to me through evidence given to me, as a member of the Petitions Committee, by the family of the late 13-year-old Peter Baldwin, who tragically lost his life in early 2015 as a result of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA. Peter's family may be with us this evening and were certainly doing their best to be here. I know that his mother and father, along with Diabetes UK, have worked very hard to try and ensure that no other family have to go through what they've had to endure.

In her words—this is the mother's words:

'Peter loved life at school and his friends. He was a fit and healthy teenager who had the world at his feet. He'd just been to Germany with the school and had come back with a winter cold. On New Year's Eve, he was very unwell, so we visited our GP. He diagnosed a chest infection, giving us antibiotics. No type 1 test was offered or considered. I explained that Peter was sleeping lots and drinking lots, which we now know are two of the major signs of the four Ts.

'Twenty four hours later, at 4.30 p.m. on New Year's Day, we called the out-of-hours service and explained that we were very concerned about Peter, who was fast deteriorating, with laboured breathing and delirium. Insisting that this was very urgent, we were transferred to 999, which was engaged for quite a short time. I asked for an ambulance, which I had to be very direct about; the operator kept asking if this was deemed necessary. Thank goodness I insisted and I stuck to my guns—many at this point would've given up. The rapid response paramedic arrived shortly and the first thing he did after giving Peter oxygen was to prick his finger. He diagnosed Peter on the spot with type 1 diabetes and it took less than 30 seconds. The paramedic called an ambulance and within 15 minutes, we were in the resus department at the Heath hospital. Peter was given the right care. He fought for six days, but his poor little body couldn't cope and he never recovered.'

Diabetic ketoacidosis can be fatal. Peter had presented at his GP surgery days before. A two-second finger-prick test by his GP at that time could and would have diagnosed type 1 diabetes and given Peter and his family a vital 24-hour head start to fight the DKA. It is a testament to the dedication and commitment of Peter's family to campaigning in his memory that I'm stood here tonight raising this. They want—and I want—to make sure that no-one else ever has to go through the same horrific experience that they have and that nobody loses their child unnecessarily.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition, where the body is attacked and destroys insulin-producing cells, meaning that no insulin is produced. This causes glucose to quickly rise in the blood and everyone with type 1 diabetes must therefore take insulin to control their blood sugar or blood glucose levels. The condition is not preventable and there is no known cure. We do know that around 1,500 children and young people have type 1 diabetes in Wales. The peak age for diagnosis is around nine to 14 years of age, and Diabetes UK tell us that, of these, 24 per cent—that's around 360—will have been diagnosed very late in the life-threatening stage of DKA or diabetic ketoacidosis. In the under-five age group, this number increases to 29 per cent. At this stage of late diagnosis, type 1 diabetes is a rapid onset condition, resulting in a child becoming critically ill and very fast. If left without immediate testing, referral and treatment, this can be fatal. 

We also know that type 1 diabetes in children is relatively rare. The Royal College of General Practitioners estimates the rate amongst children under 15 to be 187 in every 100,000 children, meaning that a GP might go their entire career without experiencing such a case. 

Further, a range of common childhood illnesses such as flu, water infections or chest infections can be misleading and can sometimes lead to misdiagnosis, which is why it is so very important that we raise critical awareness of the potential meaning of these symptoms.

I want to make it clear that this campaign, this debate, is not calling for population-wide screening. The Cabinet Secretary has made it clear that this would create concern about a significant number of unnecessary referrals and investigations. Therefore, this call is for screening to take place in every instance that a child or young person presents with the four symptoms that we know are key indicators of type 1 diabetes, the four Ts: tired, thirsty, toilet and having lost weight, being thinner—feeling more tired than usual, being thirsty and not being able to quench that thirst, going to the toilet a lot, bed-wetting by a previously dry child, or heavier nappies in babies, losing weight and looking thin and gaunt, more so than usual.

If a GP believes a child to have type 1 diabetes, then they must refer them immediately and on the same day to their local specialist paediatric team to get immediate treatment and to prevent potentially fatal DKA. We know that testing for diabetes when these symptoms present is very easy, and it is very cost-effective when one considers that we are talking about a child's life. It takes two seconds. A finger-prick test undertaken by a GP every time a child presents with these symptoms allows for the detection of type 1 to take place as early as possible in primary care settings and thereby offers a real potential and a real chance to reduce the instances of undiagnosed type 1 diabetes.

This has been supported in evidence received by the Petitions Committee from Diabetes UK, the children and young people's Wales diabetes network, through representation from Dr Christopher Bidder, whose letter is supported by a number of health boards, as well as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The Royal College of Nursing has noted that the four Ts should be asked routinely as part of a history-taking exercise. In principle, there would be no reason why blood glucose testing of children and young people shouldn't be carried out more routinely in primary care settings. Devices are portable, they're inexpensive, and this provides flexibility about where the tests can be carried out. But staff do have to be adequately trained and the resources available to carry out the test—and, obviously, the required follow-ups.

Additionally, Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board has noted that education for primary care health professionals should include raising the awareness of the classic symptoms for type 1 diabetes and prompt on-the-spot finger-prick blood glucose testing for any individual. Clearly, there is much support for this proposal. So, why is it not being taken forward effectively, and why is this concern not being taken seriously?

Despite almost worldwide support for a finger-prick test when children present with these symptoms, and the presence of finger-prick equipment in all GP surgeries, the Royal College of Nursing has noted that currently there are no agreed national standards for primary care education relating to diabetes. In taking evidence in committee, we soon became aware that there do still remain some disparities across health boards in terms of type 1 diabetes pathways for children and young people. In their written submissions, only the Cardiff and Vale, Cwm Taf and the Betsi board specifically mention the pathway by name. Abertawe did not specifically mention a pathway, but noted that GPs were expected to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Aneurin Bevan stated that they do not have a formal pathway, but noted their expectations for referral to a children's unit for same-day assessment were in line with NICE guidance. Powys noted a limited variation in their diagnosis and referral pathway due to the various NHS providers used in different areas of the health board, and stated that it does not have a policy for point-of-care blood glucose testing in primary care. Hywel Dda did not specifically detail a pathway or even refer to the NICE guidance.

There is some progress: Cardiff and Vale noted that an all-Wales pathway for diagnosis of diabetes in children and young people is in the final stages of preparation. The pathway emphasises point-of-care blood glucose testing in all children where diabetes might be suspected, in accordance with NICE guidelines, yet no mention of the four Ts is made here and this is the critical point here. We still await the outcome of the all-Wales pathway.

Now, I trust that following this debate and, more so, following the massive campaign that this family, Diabetes UK and other organisations, medical—you know, people in the medical sector. They've really emphasised the need that, when children present with the four Ts, a simple glucose blood prick testing would really made the difference. I suppose, really, the reason I'm raising this here today is the frustration that the Cabinet Secretary will not push forward with a drive to ensure that this simple testing can take place in all GP surgeries when children with the four Ts present.

I'd like to finish by quoting Beth Baldwin once more on our aims here, which are immediate, short and long term:

'Sharing Peter’s story and introducing type 1 testing as part of protocol, refreshing GP and primary care awareness, annual e-learning for the dangers of undetected type 1 diabetes, working in partnership with organisations to create awareness campaigns.'

Cabinet Secretary, I urge you to consider this as a matter of vital priority. The cost for such a campaign for routine screening is low and, again, does not compare when we're talking of the life of just one child. It is crucial that we work to prevent the risk of potentially fatal DKA for the 24 per cent of children and young people who are diagnosed late and at a critical, life-threatening stage, with type 1 diabetes. Clearly, here, vigilance and testing can save lives. You have the power and you have the ability to get that message across. Please do it, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you.

Can I thank Janet for letting me have a minute of her time? I've also been grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for health for his recent engagement on the Know Type 1 campaign and for meeting with myself, colleagues Julie Morgan and Jayne Bryant, and Diabetes UK Cymru and Beth Baldwin, who has campaigned so courageously following the tragic death of her son, Peter, two years ago. As the Cabinet Secretary knows from those meetings, I strongly support the calls for an awareness-raising campaign about type 1 diabetes, particularly amongst GPs, school staff and parents.

Janet has very clearly articulated how easy it is to save a life with a simple finger-prick test. I am keen to see, Cabinet Secretary, further direction from you and Welsh Government to raise awareness on this. Diabetes UK Cymru would like to see type 1 information presented to parents as regularly as it is on other childhood conditions like meningitis, for example. This could be done through health visitors and use of the red book—very simple but also very effective. They're also preparing information packs for schools and GP surgeries, which will be ready next year, and a video resource that can be used for GPs. I think there is a key role here for Welsh Government to facilitate the distribution and promotion of these materials so that their use is encouraged.

I'm conscious I've only got a minute so, just finally, can I ask if there is any update, Cabinet Secretary, on the discussions you've had with the children and young people's diabetes network on increasing the availability of glucose meters and electronic prompts for GPs? 

My exposure to type 1 diabetes mainly came through attending summer camps with the BDA, the forerunner of Diabetes UK, with my father, a doctor, and my mother, a nurse, who helped run those camps for young diabetes. Janet mentioned only, I think, 0.2 per cent of children have type 1 diabetes and some would feel very isolated and wouldn't feel normal or understood because of having to inject themselves regularly. So, I think that was so useful for them and raising awareness in the way Janet suggests I think will also help on that front.

I think also what she says about the four Ts and having the GP respond to those by doing the finger-prick test is a better way of dealing with what was suggested they're doing in Aneurin Bevan, and also, I think, maybe the NICE guidance, of referring to a separate centre, because that test is so easy for a GP to do. It can also rule out ones who would not otherwise need to be tested, if they don't have type 1 diabetes, and I trust it will be met with much more enthusiasm by GPs than what they had to do, I think, several decades ago, which was taste the patient's urine to see if it was sweet. A little blood test, I think, is more realistic, and is the way forward.

Thank you very much. Can I call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate? Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have listened carefully to the comments that were made in the debate today, and I recognise the Member for raising what is an important issue. All of us in this room are aware that diabetes can cause significant long-term health problems and, in rare circumstances, it can be fatal. Members here want to at the outset recognise the commitment, and, as Lynne Neagle said, the courage, of the Baldwin family in using their tragic experience to want to campaign to raise money for the cause but also awareness to try and improve outcomes for other families. I know it's been an incredibly difficult time for them as they've gone through the loss of a child to want to make sure that, as far as possible, other parents don't have to go through that.

I'm pleased that Janet Finch-Saunders clarified during her contribution that she is not calling for the regular routine testing of children. From the subject of the debate, it appeared to me that that would be the call that would be made, so I'm grateful that she clarified that during the course of her contribution. We know that there are researchers who are looking to develop a blood test that can identify the antibodies that attack cells in the pancreas years before the ultimate symptoms, though those tests aren't sufficiently accurate for use in population screening. In fact, in the Diabetes UK written evidence to the Petitions Committee, they recognised that population screening was not something that they would support; there isn't evidence to suggest that it would be the right thing to do and it would, in any event, be difficult.

Now, the challenge is how we get to the testing based on clinical judgment and recognising that it isn't practical to test all unwell children for type 1 diabetes. So, the challenge is how we prompt the diagnosis once an individual shows signs of type 1 diabetes in a more effective approach, as is recommended by NICE. This goes back to the evidence in the Petitions Committee. They support the current approach to test children and young people for type 1 diabetes when they present to a clinician with symptoms. The challenge there again is how do we get that being more consistent. That's why we've recognised in our updated diabetes delivery plan the need to support the awareness of symptoms to prompt people to seek early help from health services, and the plan committed to develop an awareness campaign led by Diabetes UK Cymru—and, of course, they've had significant support and impetus from the Baldwin family in doing so.

And, again, as Janet Finch-Saunders recognised, I don't think it hurts to remind ourselves of the four common symptoms: the need to go to the toilet a lot more and the onset of bed-wetting in a previously dry child; being really thirsty and not able to quench that thirst; feeling more tired than usual; and losing weight or being thinner than usual. In those circumstances, the encouragement is for parents to seek advice from their GP. But, given the number of health measures that are directed at the public and the small number of children who do develop type 1 diabetes, there are of course limitations that we should recognise in relying only on general public awareness raising. That's why our national plan highlights the need for health boards to ensure that staff are sufficiently knowledgeable to appropriately identify and refer on for suspected type 1 diabetes, because we do believe that the focus should be on the implementation of the evidence-based guidelines from NICE on testing and referral.

As Janet Finch-Saunders set out, NICE recommend same-day referral to a specialist diabetes service for suspected type 1 diabetes and immediate blood glucose testing for children presenting with nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, hyperventilation, dehydration or reduced consciousness. We do want to ensure, as Janet's outlined and as, indeed, the petition as it's changed from its initial call to where it is now—. We want to ensure there is consistency among health services, and that is why the children and young people's diabetes network is developing a type 1 referral pathway. That should re-emphasise how people with suspected type 1 diabetes should be identified and referred for testing. On this point specifically, I'll come back to Lynne Neagle's specific ask about the availability of blood glucose meters, as I set out in my letter to the Petitions Committee of 6 October this year and indeed as has come from our previous conversations, so I will come back specifically on that point.

If the pilot that we're running is successful, and it shows an improvement in both identification and referral on, then the commitment that I've given is that we will roll that out across Wales, to have a consistent process and understanding to support clinicians. The network is already working with our NHS informatics provider to develop electronic prompts for clinicians to support adherence to the referral pathway if it is introduced. And, again, that's been part of the call from both Diabetes UK and the Baldwin family, and we specifically discussed that in the meeting with Lynne Neagle, colleagues and the Baldwin family. So, we're exploring a number of additional options which can support better diagnosis, such as the use of Datix reporting, which is a formal process of reporting adverse healthcare incidents, or where inappropriate tests are carried out. There is also the potential to use learning from these reports across the wider system to re-emphasise best and expected practice, and consideration is being given to making available an e-learning module for GPs. And, again, I'll come back to confirm how that is being taken forward. 

The sad truth is there's no easy answer to this problem. Only a small number of children will develop the disease, and based on the evidence we have, the onset is too sudden for a screening programme to be effective. So, the challenge is how we have the consistency in approach from our clinicians. So, we need to support them to embed good practice and work with health boards on the consistency of service delivery. And, of course, follow-up services, such as diabetic retinopathy, are important to monitor the health of individuals who are diagnosed as having diabetes. But our focus will remain on the prompt identification of symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, and I do expect to update Members in this place or in other committees on the work that we are doing, and the work that I've committed to do, on having a pilot and then considering a roll-out to improve the position for every family, so that other parents are spared the unfortunate and the tragic circumstances that Peter Baldwin's family have had to go through. 

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