National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

And the first item on this afternoon's agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch. Local planning authorities need to have a clear understanding of the factors influencing housing requirements in their area. Their latest local housing market assessment should form a key piece of their local development plans evidence base and cover the whole housing market by considering the requirement for both market and affordable housing.

We are facing a shortage of housing, but, simultaneously, there are parts of Wales, including my constituency, where a substantial number of homes are second homes or holiday homes. The figure is one in 10 of all homes on the whole of Anglesey, and over 40 per cent of the homes in Rhosneigr, for example, are vacant or are holiday homes. I can refer you to a recent development, which would have been described as affordable housing, where a local councillor tells me that five of the six homes have been sold as holiday homes; there’s only one that has a full-time resident. I was also shown a former council house that is now a holiday home. So, what hope is there in such circumstances for our young people?

In St Ives in Cornwall, a decision was taken some years ago to introduce a planning system to place restrictions on the sale of new homes to people who could prove that that would be their main residence, and 83 per cent of people in a referendum supported the change. Now, there are measures under the new local development plan for Gwynedd and Anglesey that emulate that partly, but, whilst the premium on the land transaction tax on second homes and the higher level of council tax represent efforts to respond to this pressure on the housing market, how far are you, as Minister, willing to go in order to see us try and create a planning system that truly protects the interests of our communities in order to meet the real housing needs on a local level?

That's not something I have considered in my discussions with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance around the LTT. I'm very aware of the Gwynedd and Anglesey LDP, which was obviously prepared in accordance with all the statutory procedures. It's something that I will certainly have a look at. You mentioned, I think, Cornwall, and I'd be very interested to have a look at what they've done. 

In 2015, despite the fact that 79 per cent of local authorities in Wales resisted amendments to TAN 1, your Government pursued a policy that fundamentally skews the way in which housing land supply and availability is calculated from past build rates to a residual method. This is having a profound effect across Wales. In Aberconwy, for instance, what was an 8.5-year supply has now diminished to 3.1 years. Yet, there is no corresponding population or demographic change to support this. As a result, our planning officers and, indeed, our elected members, find it extremely difficult to meet the obligations of these targets, therein allowing free reign for developers to submit applications on sites outside of the LDP and happy then to go on to appeal with your planning inspectorate. This policy will destroy our communities and makes an absolute mockery of the years and expense that local authorities have put into providing this Government with their copy LDP. Will you accept the implications of this guidance that you have implemented, and will you please reverse this policy at the first opportunity as part of your revision of planning policy going forward?

The Member will be aware that I'm out to consultation on 'Planning Policy Wales' at the moment. It finishes a week on Friday, on the eighteenth. Aside of that, I have said that I will look at TAN 1, and I do expect to be making an announcement in the very near future. I hear your criticisms, and I've heard many criticisms of the methodology we use around TAN 1, but I'm still convinced that issues associated with non-delivery do lie in the plan-making process. So, I don't want to say anything today, but I am expecting advice from my officials, certainly this month, and I will be making an announcement. 

I recently announced a range of measures to improve our air quality, including the development of a clean air plan for Wales, which will define actions to reduce air pollution in Wales, and a consultation on a clean air zone framework for Wales, and a new air quality in Wales website.

Thank you, Minister. As you are no doubt aware, Port Talbot, in my region, is the most polluted town or city in the whole of the UK, with levels much higher than the next most polluted cities—nearly twice that of London. Unfortunately, one of the major sources of pollution is also the area's biggest employer. Minister, what can your Government do to ensure that the heavy industry we rely on for economic well-being does not put our health and well-being at risk?

I thank the Member for her question. Yes, Port Talbot did make the headlines last week, after the World Health Organization produced their findings. But, since publishing these findings, the WHO have actually reviewed the air pollution figures and accepted that a mistake has been made in the data it used, and it has apologised to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council as well. And the WHO director of public health issued a statement apologising for the error, blaming an oversight, and immediate steps were taken by the WHO to rectify the figures on their website.

However, the Member does make very good points. We know that Port Talbot is an area—there's a combination of, or a mixture, of the industrial element and also nitrogen dioxide emissions from the M4. That's why, two weeks ago, we announced the measures we're bringing in to extend the 50 mph zone between junctions 41 and 42. But, you raised a really important point that it is a key employer not just to Port Talbot, but to the region as well. So, I announced in the statement two weeks ago that I will be updating the action plan for Port Talbot, for the steelworks, working with Tata, the council and National Resources Wales, to make sure that we take the steps necessary to tackle where those emissions are taking place, and make sure that we are in the best place to tackle them.

Minister, in response to that, I very much appreciate that you corrected the WHO's recommendation and the fact they got it wrong. But it still indicates that Port Talbot is still one of the worst in the UK. We still have problems with air pollution and air quality; we've had it for many years and it's going to be ongoing. And Caroline Jones is quite right to point out that heavy industry has an impact upon it. But, clearly, Welsh Government has actions it can take. It can work with industry to look at how we can reduce the levels of emissions, but also you have NRW being able to undertake some tasks to ensure that it therefore meets its requirements. How are you going to ensure NRW actually does its job properly, to ensure that it does measure the levels and it does take action against anyone who is actually breaching those levels?

Can I thank the Member for his question? Absolutely right that Natural Resources Wales regulates the Port Talbot steelworks, in accordance with the permit issued under the environmental permitting regime. You'll be aware that that permit imposes conditions on the operator. But actually, in terms of looking, when we update the action plan, at how we can make sure we best monitor and enforce these requirements, I think one of the things going forward, in terms of recognising the role that it has in job creation, the economic value of the steelworks as well, is looking at actually how our economic action plan and the economic contract can actually work with employers in terms of reducing emissions and tackling that in a way that doesn't undermine the economic value of the contribution but actually helps the health and well-being of people living near to the steelworks.

Well, you partly anticipated my question there, Cabinet Secretary, because one of the key projects of the Swansea bay city deal, of course, is the new steel science innovation centre, which is linked to Port Talbot and Tata. There's no need for me to repeat how much of an importance steel has, certainly in our local economy, but it's production, as you say, does remain connected, if you like, in the minds of people with the poor air quality there. So, have you had any early conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, or even actually with people within the city deal board, about what part they might be able to play in helping improve air quality, whilst of course maintaining and hopefully improving upon those thousands of jobs as we go into the journey into the next generation of steel production?

The Member makes a really important point there, in terms of actually how this—and I've raised this before, in talking about how we tackle air quality—is a priority across Government, which is why I am working with the economy Secretary—sorry I can't get my words out—to look at actually how we use those levers at our disposal, to not only support the economic future, the sustainability of our steel sector, which we know is so important, not just in terms of Port Talbot, but the other sites across Wales as well, and in terms of the supply chain, but to make sure that it's not to the detriment of the health and well-being of people who work there and live in the vicinity as well. I think, actually, that's why we need to look at, like I said before, the whole suite of issues there in terms of transport emissions and the supply chain to the steelworks too, to make sure that, working with NRW, with the council and other stakeholders, we monitor and see where exceedance is taking place and what is the best possible way to intervene at an early stage to make sure that that doesn't happen.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Following the Cabinet Secretary's forward-looking statement yesterday about life after Brexit and an agricultural policy tailor-made for Wales, I'd like to ask her whether she will continue to be open minded on the question of introducing a ban on the live export of animals. I know she's said this in the past, but, if there were to be such a ban, it would not extend to Northern Ireland, because we can't have agricultural policy making trade more difficult with other parts of the United Kingdom.

In this context, I don't know whether she's seen the latest edition of Y Tir, the publication of the Farmers Union of Wales, which is headlined 'Live exports ban would be short-sighted in the context of other uncertainties around Brexit'. Only 140 tonnes by weight of animals were exported live from Wales, as I understand, last year. So, it's a small problem and therefore not likely to cause any great difficulty for farmers. But the fact that the trade is small is not in itself an argument against introducing such a ban if it proves to be justifiable in the context of all the other considerations that would have to be borne in mind, and therefore, it wouldn't, on that ground, be ruled out by the Welsh Government.

Thank you for the question. Certainly, I would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as practical to their point of production, and I consider a trade in meat and meat products to be preferable to long-distance transport to slaughter. It's something that I'm looking at, along with DEFRA, and I have seen the article. We'll have to get that balance, but, obviously, animal health and welfare is very important to us too.

Of course, the interests of producers have to be given due weight in this argument, but short of introducing an outright ban, there are things that we could do to improve the current legislative regime once we're no longer confined within the carapace of EU regulation. We could make alterations to the length of time permitted to be in transit for animals, we could make alterations to the frequency of rest stops, and we could also reduce the number of animals in transit. So, these are all options that might be a halfway house but which would certainly improve the current situation, and illustrate that a greater flexibility in agricultural policy is one of the benefits that Brexit brings.

Well, as you know, the UK Government did a call for evidence and we'll have a look at what the responses are. I would do nothing without consultation. So, we'd then go out to consultation. I think it's really important that, along with DEFRA, we're very fully engaged in all the next steps so that we can determine our position. I absolutely agree with you about flexibility; it is one of the big opportunities of Brexit to be able to have that very Welsh-specific policy.

Thirdly, I'd like to ask whether the Cabinet Secretary will consider improving public awareness of the meat that members of the public consume by improving accurate labelling of products, clearly stating country of origin, rearing conditions and, most importantly, methods of slaughter, because although we must respect different religious views on ritual slaughter, the public at large often have no idea that they're eating halal meat, for example, and they may not wish to if they had a free choice. In fast-food chains, and so on, this is not currently pointed out, and whilst I believe there should be a freedom on the part of people of different religious persuasions to eat according to their religious tenets, nevertheless, public awareness could reduce public concern if it were to be increased in this way.

I think the labelling of food is becoming increasingly important because I think people are becoming much more interested in the subjects that you referred to, and, again, it's a conversation and a discussion that we're having not just at official level, but also at ministerial level in our quadrilaterals, and, again, it's another opportunity with Brexit to make sure that we get that right. I'm very keen to have the Welsh dragon and brand Wales on any food that originates from Wales, so I think, again, there's a lot more that we can do. I think the public are becoming more aware, and certainly when you go to the agricultural shows, or to any food missions and fairs, people certainly want to be aware of what they are purchasing.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. May I ask the Minister—? I was part of the visit of the Climate Change, Energy and Rural Affairs Committee to Westminster last week, and had the opportunity to ask Michael Gove directly about the new environmental body that the UK Government has promised to establish to maintain EU and other environmental standards if we leave the EU. So, what discussions have you had with Michael Gove about this proposed body and what guarantees can you give the Assembly that it will uphold our high environmental standards here, including, of course, those passed recently in our own environment Act?

The Member makes a very important point in terms of upholding our strong environmental principles in Wales. This has been the subject of a number of deep dives and quadrilaterals amongst Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary and officials. We have repeatedly made the case for new institutional arrangements and agreed frameworks to ensure that the UK can function effectively after our exit from the EU.

I think the point that you make that's really important in terms of the framework is that we already have a number of legislative tools in place with our environment Act and also the well-being of future generations Act, which other administrations may not have at this point. So, we are working with Whitehall and the Scottish Government to identify where common agreed UK approaches will be useful and to explore how such frameworks would operate, and we will be considering the analysis carefully as part of this.

I thank the Minister for what she's explained so far, but the difficulty is, of course, that the Welsh Government has signed away its rights to protect the Welsh environment in the inter-governmental deal. You talk of UK frameworks—[Interruption.] It's not this Assembly, it's not the Welsh Government, it's Michael Gove who will be deciding what EU regulations will be transferred or not in the UK framework, and the UK Parliament can change EU standards here in Wales whether we like it or not, whether we consent or not. 

You really don't understand it, do you?

You don't understand it and you used to be an environment Minister, and you haven't a clue what's being done to Wales. Haven't a clue. So, let me ask the current Minister, rather than the previous one who made such a success of Natural Resources Wales, whether she is comfortable that Michael Gove has this power. What written assurances does she have that the UK Government will not use the EU withdrawal Bill to rewrite Welsh legislation on the environment?

I'm glad you've finished having an argument with the former Minister and have turned your question to me now. It will not surprise you to hear me say that I fundamentally disagree with the assertions you just made there. However, we do have a quadrilateral coming up on Monday, which the Cabinet Secretary and myself will be attending, and this is something that will be high on the agenda at that meeting.

What written assurances have you had?

I didn't hear any mention of a written assurance. Today is Europe Day. We're still in the European Union and we still have this access to environmental justice while we remain in the European Union. I understand that the Minister and the Welsh Government don't agree with Plaid Cymru or other people's analysis—because it's not just Plaid Cymru saying this—I understand that. But I asked you what written assurances you had that this would not take place. That's what I'm asking for here. Because when we tried to change the continuity Bill with amendments to write in the European legislation into our own legislation, your leader of the house told us that both the future generations Act and the environment Act are

'part of the important overarching framework for environmental protection in Wales.'

So, now, the Institute for Government has recommended that any new environmental watchdog would be more robust if it was given a four-nation remit designed and owned jointly by the four nations, and, in turn, co-funded by the four legislatures rather than just the UK Parliament. So, I ask again: what assurances have you had from Michael Gove that the work of the new environmental body will not trespass on Welsh environmental legislation, and, in particular, that it will not interfere with the work of the future generations commissioner? And are you, indeed, seeking to co-own and co-fund this new environmental body? 

Can I thank the Member for his final question? We have an inter-governmental agreement in place on this, and this is something that we will be further pressing the case on, in terms of protecting the legislation that we have in place and that we are proud to have led the way on and have in place in Wales, in our quadrilateral on Monday.

Conservative spokesperson, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, last October, the Welsh Government announced its refreshed bovine tuberculosis eradication programme. Given that it's been seven months since that launch, can you provide an update on the progress made in making Wales a TB-free country and on the effectiveness of the Welsh Government's policy? Can you also tell us how many infected badgers have been removed since the start of the programme?

You'll remember, Paul Davies, that when I came to the Chamber regarding the refreshed TB eradication programme I said I would give an annual statement on progress, and I will be doing that at the appropriate time later this year. I can't give you the number of infected badgers that have been removed, but I can write to you on that matter.FootnoteLink

When you first made that announcement back in October, one of the Welsh Government's longer term goals, according to the Wales TB eradication programme delivery plan, was the development of an informed purchasing scheme. At the time, you made it absolutely clear that this was something the Welsh Government was very keen to press ahead with. Therefore, can you confirm if this is still on the Welsh Government's agenda? If so, could you tell us exactly what work your officials have undertaken to develop a compulsory scheme and when that scheme is likely to be introduced?

Yes, it is certainly something that we are bringing forward and that officials are working on. You'll be aware that I gave funding to ensure that we could bring in a voluntary scheme whilst we were working to have a compulsory scheme, and again, I will be able to inform Members on this when I do the annual statement.

Now, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, the UK's departure from the European Union could present significant challenges for Wales's agricultural industry, and it's crucial that the Welsh Government is tackling bovine TB in Welsh cattle, given the implications that this could have on trading with other countries post Brexit. Therefore, can you tell us what discussions the Welsh Government has already had with its European counterparts regarding post-Brexit trade and can you provide cast-iron guarantees to cattle farmers today that their businesses will not be adversely affected, post Brexit, by the Welsh Government's approach to actually tackling bovine TB?

I can certainly give that assurance. Over the last few years, we've made real progress towards eradicating TB in Wales. You know the number of new incidents has fallen by over 40 per cent since it was at its peak back in 2009, and we now have 95 per cent of herds in Wales TB free. So, I don't want people to think this is something that's got worse; it really hasn't. We've made huge progress in eradicating TB.

Thank you. I am currently consulting on a revised version of 'Planning Policy Wales'. Consultation on this important national land-use policy document continues until 18 May. The revised version of 'Planning Policy Wales' continues to state that agricultural land of grades 1, 2 and 3a are the best and most versatile and should be conserved as a finite resources for the future.

Thank you very much. That's an interesting answer. You said in your statement yesterday that you want to see land managers kept on the land and that food production remains vital to the Welsh economy, but when I wrote to you asking for you to rule out adopting a Welsh version of Labour's proposed English sovereign land trust, which proposed granting powers to Government to compulsorily purchase agricultural land for housing at potentially reduced prices, you refused to rule that out. So, do you stand by your statement in that response that this land-grab proposal is a tool for the redistribution of land value, as you wrote in March, or will you now rule out those plans, bearing in mind your ambitions that you expressed in yesterday's statement?

Well, I know I sent the Member a detailed response on this issue, and I don't have anything further to add to that. One of the things I have done—I launched it at the winter fair back in November—is our new agricultural maps, because I think it's very important that, when plans go before local authorities, they're aware of where the best agricultural land is. So I'm very pleased that those maps are now available—we're the only country in the UK that has them—to assist local authorities in that way.

Thank you. Our green growth and local energy services have supported the public sector and community enterprises to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy schemes in the Swansea bay city region. I support this work and the valuable contribution it will provide to the aims of the city region deal.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her response? Last week I attended an event run by the Institute of Welsh Affairs regarding the harnessing of renewable energy in the Swansea bay city region. I want to stress again the importance of the tidal lagoon to the region, and ask what support the Welsh Government is giving to improving battery storage, because that really is the answer when we're generating electricity at times when there's not the need for it, and then we haven't got it available when there is the need for it. If we are going to get renewables to work, we need to ensure that both energy generated by the tidal lagoon, and, more specifically, energy generated by solar and by wind turbines, can be stored in such a way that it becomes available perhaps several months later when it's needed. But that needs improved battery technology. So, the question, again, is: what is the Welsh Government doing to support improved battery technology?

Thank you for that question. Obviously, as I have responsibility for planning and marine licensing, I can't comment on the specific project, but storage is a matter for the developer of any commercial energy project to consider. We know that we're going to need storage of all types to manage more distributed and decarbonised energy systems. Time shifting electricity to match generation with demand is also very important. We also know that battery technology is quite expensive, so we do expect to see a reduction in price in future, but obviously, looking at the cost of installing enough storage to provide a continuous electricity supply could add significantly to the capital cost of a project. I am aware of the event that you attended last week, and I'm looking forward very much to seeing the results of the other work packages that were discussed there, and the delivery plan.

Obviously, the delivery of the tidal lagoon is clearly an important element in this whole jigsaw, and we still want to see that. I suppose we won't even mind if the thing is called 'Prince of Wales tidal lagoon', as long as we get a tidal lagoon. By the way, equally important—[Interruption.] Equally important are the smaller energy projects, so in terms of ownership with the smaller energy projects, to what extent are you investigating the potential for Welsh Government and local authority ownership models for future projects? And do you agree that residents within the region should gain financially from the huge natural resource that exists in south-west Wales?

Thank you. Dai Lloyd will know that the Welsh Government is very supportive, in principle, of the economic benefits of tidal lagoons, and the opportunities that I think we have for a growing, vibrant, marine industry. We are still awaiting a response from the UK Government. I think the last person to write from the Welsh Government was the First Minister, and we're still awaiting a response. I met with Claire Perry, the Minister of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a couple of months ago, and pressed her also on the need to have a response as soon as possible.

I think you raise a really important point about smaller energy projects. Last week, I was in Pennal, and I visited a farm where there was a hydro scheme, and I think I mentioned it yesterday in my statement. It was one of the best projects I've seen, and I think it's really important that we do work with communities. We do have community energy projects, and you'll be aware the Welsh Government has put significant funding into these projects. I think, since I've been in post, for two years, we've had about 14 come to fruition.

Well, I'm more than happy to call it the 'Lesley Griffiths lagoon', particularly in this year of 100 years since partial suffrage, as long as we get the thing. I just want to go back to Mike's question about batteries because, of course, a big, big chunk of the city deal is the 'houses as power stations' programme. Mike mentioned solar panels and wind turbines, but I don't think we can overlook, as well, things like ground heat pumps and air heat pumps, which actually can be quite easily retrofitted to properties in a way that, perhaps, some of the stuff that we've got at the moment can't. 

I wonder if you can tell me whether programmes such as Nest and Arbed have actually contributed to a growth in the number of ground and air pumps, and whether—and we're talking about the 'homes as power stations' idea—they could be included a bit more visibly, perhaps, in the pitch for that. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy Davies. I'm sure my mother would agree with you on your first point.

I can't give you an exact number, but I'm happy to write to you.FootnoteLink You'll be aware that we're just procuring the next stage of Arbed, which has been very successful in improving energy efficiency in some of our worst homes. So, I’d be very happy to write on the issue of ground heat pumps and the number we’ve used.

Question 5 is withdrawn. Question 6—Jane Hutt.

Over the life of this Government, we have invested over £5.7 million in flood and coastal works in the Vale of Glamorgan. In addition, over £4.5 million has been allocated in this year's programme to complete works at Boverton and Coldbrook and progress the Llanmaes, Cadoxton and Corntown schemes.

Thank you, Minister. It is important to acknowledge the Welsh Government funding—substantial Welsh Government funding—for vital flood defences in Boverton and Llantwit Major. Following flooding of this community as recently as 2016, affecting homes and businesses, can you confirm the timelines for the urgent works to be carried out in Llanmaes village and Cadoxton in Barry, funded by the Welsh Government and managed by the Vale of Glamorgan Council?

I thank the Member for her follow-up question. In terms of the Llanmaes flood alleviation scheme, design work is continuing and expected to be completed later this year, with construction to commence shortly after. Improvements to drainage in the village to increase capacity and a series of small flood storage areas above the village—. Property-level protection is offered to properties at risk, and nine have taken up this offer, and that will be installed shortly. A large flood storage area will also be constructed downstream of the village of Cadoxton. So, there are two schemes in Cadoxton: the tidal work scheme and the flood alleviation scheme. The tidal work scheme is expected to be complete by the end of the year, and in the flood alleviation scheme, Natural Resources Wales are currently investigating several options, which have been assessed to reduce flood risk to properties in the village of Dinas Powys both now and in the future. This could include upstream storage, natural flood management and the installation of floodwalls and relief culverts in the town. But I’m happy to write to the Member with further details if she so wishes.FootnoteLink

Minister, obviously bringing together flood alleviation schemes relies on agencies working very closely together—local authorities and NRW, in particular, who are, obviously, the advisers on many of these projects. You’ll be aware that staff surveys have indicated a certain amount of unrest in NRW. Since you've become Minister, what is your assessment of the ability of NRW to work with partners in the Vale of Glamorgan to develop flood alleviation schemes that meet the community's concerns that have been outstanding for some considerable time?

I thank the Member for his question. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the staff survey; that’s a matter for NRW. We've had a new chief executive who has come into place recently, and I've had regular meetings with NRW. In terms of working with the local community and stakeholders, I have had meetings previously with NRW when we have discussed communication and the need to engage and work closely within communities and communicate, particularly on issues around flood risk, which can be quite a bit complicated, to get that message across, and on how things are evidenced and analysed. So, I encourage NRW to maintain that effective and ongoing engagement with the local community, and it's something that is an outstanding item in terms of my regular meetings with both the chief executive and the chair of NRW.

Thank you. Technological change, including artificial intelligence, can enable shared prosperity across Wales, building inclusive communities, and support our plans for regional economic development. The Welsh Government has recently launched a review into digital innovation, which will take a broad assessment of advancements in automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and big data.

Thank you very much. I'd be grateful if you could confirm whether precision agriculture would specifically fall within the remit of that review. The Assembly's economy committee this morning has been holding hearings on the subject, and has heard how precision agriculture is already helping improve productivity on farms, as well as reducing environmental impacts. We were told very clearly that data is now seen as an agricultural product. But the support available from the Welsh Government is fragmented and inflexible. Farming Connect, for example, can only be used to fund 10 soil tests, which isn't enough, and is only available to fund basic GPS. It's been some time now since the National Assembly voted to ask the Welsh Government to develop a strategy for precision agriculture, so that we see this not just as a farming issue, but as an issue for Wales's resilience, to create an industry—so, rather than importing the robots from China and the software from America and exporting our data, seeing how we can harness this for the good of Wales. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could outline a timeline of when we can expect that strategy to be developed.

I think it's really important that precision farming isn't considered in isolation. It does need to be part of a broader agriculture and land use strategy post Brexit, and it's certainly something that I want to see when I go out to consultation on the future of land management, following my statement yesterday. I think precision agriculture needs to be embedded in every aspect of farming, and that's through use of better genetics, targeting inputs use, and gathering and using data. 

You will be aware that, across the Government, particularly in innovation and information and communications technology leads, we're working with academic institutions—and my colleague Julie James is leading on that—because we are looking at further work that's going to be relevant to precision agriculture. We're also promoting it, as you say, through Farming Connect initiatives, and that is another area that we can look at to expand the schemes that we have in it. I'm also looking at part funding of technology through the farm business grant. But, again, when we look at the funding that we have post Brexit, we can see if there are other schemes that we can bring forward also.

Cabinet Secretary, in response to an individual Members' debate on this issue in November 2016, you said, and I quote:

'The Welsh Government is working closely with our stakeholders and delivery bodies to maximise agri-tech research income into Wales.'

In light of these comments, can you tell us how successful the Welsh Government has been to date, and can you also give us an indication of how much agri-tech research income Wales has received to date?

I can't give the Member that figure at the present time, but, again, I would be very happy to write to you with that figure.FootnoteLink

Thank you. The regulations introduce stricter criteria for licensed breeders and have helped enforce our commitment to ensuring high welfare standards. We work with local authorities to monitor implementation of the regulations, and last year completed a data capture exercise on the enforcement of the staff-to-job ratio element. 

Thank you. Concerns are raised with me very frequently about the extent to which brazen and discriminatory puppy breeding is still ongoing in Wales. The regulations provide a means for responsible breeders to be registered, and for prosecutions to be undertaken against those who do not comply and risk the welfare of the animals in their care. In the recent prosecution of a lady from the Vale of Glamorgan—she claimed to be selling a particular breed but was, in fact, acting as a front for puppy farming. Of course, social media is a very useful vehicle for this industry to flourish. In this instance, she was selling more than 100 puppies, having advertised 266. The general health and animal welfare problems experienced by these dogs and puppies is absolute cruelty, yet only 38 prosecutions took place across Wales in 2015-16 under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Cabinet Secretary, what steps can you take to highlight this issue? More importantly, will you somehow look to ban this cruel and ruthless money making at the expense of these vulnerable animals? 

Thank you. This is an area where I'm working very closely with the RSPCA to ensure that the number of prosecutions is as high as possible when these cases are found. I am looking to bring forward a statement on animal welfare before the summer recess, so I will be able to say more on that issue then.

As has been exemplified by my colleague Simon Thomas earlier, the Welsh Government recently announced that it would allow Westminster powers to legislate in a number of areas returning from Brussels, one of which was certain powers relating to animal welfare. So, I was wondering whether you could clarify how you think that could impact upon planned legislation. I was wondering if you could plan speeding up any work that you're doing currently on animal abuse, cruelty and protection legislation, so that there is no uncertainty about what your capacity is in the future. Although I understand that the task and finish group on the animal abuse register is set to report in the coming months, I would not want it to be as long-winded as the constant delays to the wild animals in circuses. So, I would put an appeal out that we see progress on this before any legislative changes come about by other forces. 

Thank you. As we don't agree with your view on the issue, it won't have any impact on legislation or policy. I think we tweeted one another around the animal abuse register, and it will be reporting to me in July.

I want to ensure our actions as a Government uphold our international obligations in respect of environmental impact assessments. Officials are giving careful consideration to compliance with the EIA directive, taking account of the representations of the developer and those of the Docks Incinerator Action Group and others.

Thank you, Minister. You will be aware, of course, of the widespread public and political concern regarding the opening of the Barry incinerator, which had adverse impacts on the local population during its pre-commissioning phase. We also await the review of permitting by the future generations commissioner as well. It is important that we have a timeline on your decision, and would you agree with me that it's inappropriate that the company should be claiming that the biomass incinerator will be opening by the end of this year when we still haven't had your decision about the environmental impact assessment?

I thank the Member for her question. I know it's something that she's raised over a number of years, and regularly with me since coming into post. I fully understand the frustration of both the Member and the residents of Barry with the time it's taken to reach a final decision on whether an EIA is required for the Biomass UK No. 2 project. The time is unfortunately necessary as matters raised by interested parties are complex, and we need to be sure that the final decision complies with the law and ensures that the environment is properly protected. 

Just to add in terms of—. Whilst I can comment on the intention of the developer to start operating the plant by the end of the year, enforcement is a matter for the local planning authority. But such matters could come before Welsh Ministers on appeal. Obviously, the Vale of Glamorgan planning department are aware that the Welsh Ministers are considering the potential need for an EIA in respect of the latest planning application, and have indicated to officials that they will not determine the application until a final decision is made. 

Just briefly, you raised the future generations commissioner's look at the review of permitting, and I can say that the project's progressing well. There have been a number of meetings, both with Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Government officials, and I look forward to any recommendations about how we apply the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to the development of complex and technical policy areas such as environmental permitting. 

Minister, you are most probably aware that the Vale of Glamorgan Council at full council in February supported a motion proposed by Councillor Vincent Bailey to make sure that there was an environmental impact assessment undertaken. And I do declare an interest in that that councillor does work for me—[Laughter.]—just to put it on the record. But it is a statement of fact that parties from across the chamber in the Vale of Glamorgan Council voted for this action to be taken. You in previous questioning sessions have indicated that you are minded to have an environmental impact assessment. The constituency Member indicated that some timeline and understanding of when that decision might be taken would be greatly appreciated by all concerned in this matter. Can you at least give us a timeline that you are working to as a Minister to make that decision? I appreciate you have to take consultations and views on board from a broad spectrum of stakeholders here, but you must now, at this stage in the process, have an idea when you will be in a position to make that decision. 

I thank the Member for his contribution there. I'd refer back to what I said to the constituency Member in terms of time frame. I do understand why this is causing so much concern and frustration, both for representatives and for people in the local community. But we are actively currently considering the representation made, and we do not intend to set a deadline for the final decision on EIA to be made, because the decision requires careful and full consideration of all the issues to withstand legal challenge. The case raises complex issues about how the need for EIA to accompany applications to amend conditions, which are taking some time to work through. By taking this time to fully work through the issues, I believe we will be issuing clearer guidance on EIA procedures that will benefit all those working with the planning system. So, it's essential to ensure that the decision complies with the law, so that it is fair to the developer, but more importantly, ensures the environment and the local community are properly protected.

There are real lessons for all of Wales in what's happened in Barry. It is frankly astonishing that such a major project in such a built-up area with such potential health effects could have got a go-ahead, or got so far, without an environmental impact assessment being done. I'm grateful for the letter I received from you this morning around this, which, more or less, repeats what you've just told the Chamber. Well, that's fine, but what I do want to understand, because there are lots of concerns in other parts of Wales that are facing similar biomass plant applications at the moment, is if it does transpire that this whole process should have had environmental impact assessment work done a lot earlier, will you ensure that that is done, even though the process has gone a considerable way along the route? And bearing in mind here what does sometimes happen in planning terms, in that people can do retrospective planning applications or they can disallow what should have happened because they say things have gone too far, if it does turn out, under the EU directive—which we still have, of course—that this project, with all the additions and changes that have been done to it, should have been done under the directive that requires environmental impact assessments, will that happen regardless of the fact that the project has got, as Jane Hutt mentioned, to a stage where the developers are already giving dates for it to begin?

I thank the Member and I'm glad that you received the letter following your question in business questions in Plenary last week and I hope that helped update you on where we are.

As I said to the Member previously, I'm unable to comment on the intention of the developer to start operating the plant by the end of the year, but the Vale of Glamorgan planning department are aware that we are considering the need for an EIA in respect of the application and I've indicated to officials that they will not determine the application until a final decision is made. I'm well aware that a number of wider issues have been raised, not just within this instance, but in terms of how we operate EIA and environmental permitting. So, I am very keen to work closely with officials, with NRW and with the future generations commissioner to see how we can identify how we can apply in the future, particularly within the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, to these, what are often complex and technical policy areas and ensure that they meet our environmental obligations.

Thank you, Minister and Cabinet Secretary.

The next questions are for the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the first question is from Llyr Gruffydd.

The Welsh Government believes public services are best delivered by engaged and supported public servants who are fairly paid for the essential work that they do. The Government also recognises the important role of the third sector and businesses in supporting public service delivery to secure the best outcomes for citizens.

Thank you for that response, because an increasing number of local authorities in Wales have outsourced services to the private sector—look at the way in which the environmental enforcement service has been outsourced in many parts of Wales. Kingdom is the most prominent company in north Wales, and programmes such as Panorama and Y Byd ar Bedwar have outlined how the internal targets of that company drive their efforts to generate the greatest possible profit at the expense of the residents of Wales. Now, bearing in mind that the First Minister told us here in January that he and his Government are entirely opposed to privatisation, and that you yourself have stood up in the Labour conference some months ago, saying that there was no privatisation in Wales, are you comfortable with the growth that we’re seeing in private providers within the public sector across Wales? And, if you’re not, then what are you doing to encourage and support local authorities to develop alternative solutions?

Llywydd, I believe that everybody is very pleased that the Member for North Wales remembers the address I gave to the Labour Party conference in Brighton. I was clear there, and I will be clear here today, too, that the way we deliver our services here is by ensuring the best deal for citizens, and also, of course, for the public workers themselves. It is a matter for the authorities themselves how they set about delivering those services, but I would ensure that—. We have a code of practice on workforce matters, the two-tier code, and he is aware that the officials carry out a national assessment across Wales on an annual basis to ensure that public workers and their rights are protected. I’d be very happy to publish the outcome, the results of those assessments, if the Member is not aware of them.

I'd like to thank Llyr Gruffydd for raising this again in the Senedd, because I was actually one of the first constituencies that saw hundreds of my constituents, particularly the more elderly in our population, targeted in this way by these private enforcers. I'm not against outsourcing to the private sector where local authorities can actually make savings and the service delivery is of a high quality. However, in this instance, we have got severe problems. Ten thousand have taken to signing a social media page. There is a huge campaign against this. I know of MPs and other AMs across north Wales where this is a huge issue.

I take a problem, Cabinet Secretary, with your response. You keep saying it's up to each local authority how they do things. I know that in other parts of the United Kingdom, if there were such schemes in place that were penalising people in the way that this is happening, their national Governments would get involved and actually send some guidance across the line. I would ask you if you would be so kind as to write to local authorities and just point out, where they are outsourcing to the private sector, that you as the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services expect due diligence, transparency, financial probity and absolute accountability with those services that are provided. It is unfair if our residents, our visitors, our elderly, if they are being penalised in some way because local authorities are outsourcing simply because they can't make ends meet given your financial settlement.

Presiding Officer, the Member was doing quite well up until that last sentence. She represents a political party, of course, that is almost removing the rate support grant from all local authorities in England, and in the last seven years has seen the spending power of local authorities in England fall by 49 per cent. So, I suspect she's on very, very thin ice there. However, let us take her at her word. We all welcome a sinner that repents. I join her in welcoming the fact that wholesale privatisation is not the way for local or public services to be delivered. I'm glad she's come and joined us in supporting that.

But, let me say this, where there are issues with the delivery of services, they are rightly taken up by Members and others with the local authority concerned. It is not right or proper that we seek to sustain and support local democracy whilst at the same time seeking to instruct local authorities how they should be carrying out their duties and how they should be delivering those services. That's not the way that you strengthen and empower local authorities. The Conservatives put their case to the people of England last week, and I think in most cases they were roundly defeated.

I share the concerns about outsourcing to the private sector, but would the Cabinet Secretary agree that there is sometimes a case for public services to be delivered in the voluntary sector? For example, in children's services, the voluntary sector is often able to get much closer to families than staff in the public services. So, would he agree that there is a case for some services to be outsourced to the voluntary sector?

I will, very much so. I think the Member for Cardiff North is absolutely right in the basis of her question and the assumptions that she makes. I do welcome the different expertise that the voluntary sector can offer and the benefits that can be accrued from working in such an open way. I would also say to her that, as a member of the Co-operative Party myself, I would like to see co-operative solutions reviewed and delivered wherever that is possible as well. The key issue here is that public services should remain and should be delivered within the public ethos, with an ethos of public service, of high quality, and recognising and valuing the workforce that delivers those services. All of those matters are hugely important to all of us, and the democratic control of those services should underpin how we take forward different models of public service delivery. 

Question 2 [OAQ52127] was withdrawn. Question 3, David Rees.

Presiding Officer, I have had some conversations with justice Ministers in the UK Government on their vision for justice services. I've also taken time to ask my officials to continue to have those conversations with officials in the Ministry of Justice. 

I think I can thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. [Laughter.]

Cabinet Secretary, the residents of Aberavon welcomed the statement from the Welsh Government on 6 April, which stated the clear position that any new prison development, including that at Baglan Moors, was effectively put on hold until meaningful discussions take place. I also welcome the intent to seek a criminal justice system for Wales that works for Wales and Welsh citizens, particularly as we have seen a complete meltdown of the justice system and the penal system in England and across the UK totally.

However, being put on hold does not remove the possibility of the proposal returning and a prison being built on that land, as meaningful discussions could occur at any time—and, as you've already said, you've had some discussions. What my constituents seek is something that will give them reassurance for their future, and returns their confidence in the political system. All they want from the Welsh Government is a simple answer to a simple question: will the Welsh Government give assurances that the land at Baglan Moors will not be used for the development of a new prison, irrespective of the outcome of these meaningful discussions?

The Member's written to me on these matters and I've replied to him. I am absolutely clear, and I hope I was clear when I met you to discuss these matters at the end of last month, that as far as this Government is concerned, we will not be giving consent for that land to be sold to construct a superprison on Baglan Moors. We've been very, very clear on that, and I repeat that clarity this afternoon. What I want to see is a wholly different approach to justice, and I hope that both the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom Government will engage with us in a more meaningful way to ensure that we can have a holistic approach to the criminal justice system in Wales, where Governments can work together for the benefit of people in Wales, and we can move away from the current structures that are not fit for purpose. The settlement we have, in my view, for the devolution of criminal justice is not one that is either fit for purpose or works, or that delivers the criminal justice system that we wish to have in Wales.    

Thank you for the answers you've given. I just wanted to clarify whether you meant that Baglan Moors would be taken off any list that you do have. I think that's where the confusion lies. Regardless of meaningful discussion, can you just confirm for the record that even if, for example—not that I'd be happy with it—you did put up a list that would suggest that other areas of south Wales should be considered, that you would not then include Baglan Moors on that list? I understand you met with an AM, David Rees, and other councillors from Port Talbot, where you did say in that meeting, as I understand it, although I wasn't present to be able to quote from it, that you would therefore take Baglan Moors off that list. But in the subsequent letter to said councillor, you didn't put that into writing. So, if you weren't able to do it there, can you do it here today, just so we have clarity of purpose as to where we take the campaign, if nothing else? 

I understand the point that the Member seeks to make and her wish for clarity. I'd hoped that I'd given that clarity. This Government will not be taking forward the development that has been proposed. Well, we haven't actually received a proposal from the Ministry of Justice on it, I'm aware of that, for Baglan Moors. We do not support the development of a superprison in Baglan Moors or anywhere else in south Wales, or north Wales, or mid Wales, or west Wales. What we want to see is a different sort of justice policy. I had anticipated some support from benches opposite for an approach to criminal justice that is rooted in locality, in family, in rehabilitation, in training, in support, in community. And I would have hoped that all politicians, whatever their colours in this Chamber, would support us in seeking to take forward such an approach to criminal justice policy. 

Cabinet Secretary, you went around the whole of Wales saying that the Government, as currently constructed, certainly will not be giving permissions for any—well, you said superprisons, but I assume you're talking about any form of prisons. [Interruption.] That isn't the case? So, can you clarify exactly what permissions or what engagement you will have over what would be built in Wales? Because, as I understood your previous answer to the Member for Plaid Cymru, you indicated that you would not give permission for prisons across Wales. And you yourself talked of other regions in Wales other than Baglan. So, can you be crystal clear as to what the Welsh Government will and will not support when it comes to proposals around the new prisons estate?

We were very, very clear in my—[Interruption.] I have here—. I'm going to read—[Interruption.] I'm going to read—[Interruption.] I'm going to read—. I'm going to read the written statement I made in April. Let me say this: what I said then, and what I'll say again this afternoon, is that it is in the interests of neither the Welsh Government nor the people of Wales to see further prison development in Wales until we have a policy, a criminal justice policy, which is agreed with the Ministry of Justice. I am not going to stand here and say that we do not want to see any development of secure accommodation in this country. That is simply not the case. And it would be wrong for me to either say that this afternoon or to make any commitments on that, because what we want to see is the removal of prisons—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the Member doesn't wish to listen; perhaps that's why she's confused. We do not want to see—[Interruption.] We do not want to see—[Interruption.] We do not want to see people in the old Victorian prisons. We want a development of the prison and the secure estate in Wales. We want to develop specific facilities for female offenders. We want specific facilities for youth offenders. We want to see an investment in rehabilitation. We want to see an investment in community support. We want to see investment in education. We want to see investment in how we rehabilitate young offenders. So, we want to see a great deal of investment in the secure estate in Wales. What we don't want to see are superprisons imposed upon this country without a holistic criminal justice policy that underpins our ambitions and our vision for this area of policy. And I contend that most people would want to see that as well. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Sayed. 

I'm tempted to go on this again, but, no, I won't; I'll just annoy people here. [Laughter.] It's now two years since the establishment of the Valleys taskforce to tackle poverty in the Valleys. Can you give us an example, a clear example, as to what one thing, as part of these discussions, has changed Government policy since this Valleys taskforce has come into being?

I've made a series of announcements over the last year. I will be making a further announcement before the summer recess on the work that's been completed as part of the delivery plan we published in November last year. The Member asks for a single example. I would point to the seven strategic hub developments that we've announced across and throughout the Valleys region. 

Thank you for that answer, but isn't the reality of the situation that this is another Welsh Government scheme to kick the can down the road so you don't have to deal with the consequences of your inaction on poverty and inequality? You have a smaller budget and no control over welfare, and this Government seems to have no willpower whatsoever to even try and get various devolution of welfare, despite a Labour-controlled Chair of the equalities committee saying that we should have some powers over the administration of welfare. A serious Government, with a real appetite for solving inequality and poverty, would jump at the chance to have some influence over welfare, but not this Welsh Government it seems. Isn't the truth that the Valleys taskforce has become another method for you to look at the issues and talk about the issues as opposed to delivering on these particular matters?

I think many of us who represent Valleys seats would hope that Plaid Cymru would engage in this process rather than simply search for sound bites and press releases. Let me say this: in terms of the investment—[Interruption.] In terms of the investment—[Interruption.] In terms of the investment that we are making throughout the communities of the Valleys of south Wales, we have set out—. We have set out an ambitious programme for investment in the people and the communities of the Valleys of south Wales. We published a delivery plan, which has clear targets and objectives in it and timescales. We will be held to account by the people for the delivery of those ambitions. And let me say this finally to the Member for South Wales West: the plan that we published in November wasn't a plan that was written in Cardiff Bay or Cathays Park. It wasn't written by civil servants or even by Ministers. It was written by the people of the Valleys, in communities that we met, we discussed, we debated with week after week, month after month, throughout the time that we have been delivering in this way. And what we've done is to deliver a plan that isn't for the Valleys, but from the Valleys.

Thank you for the answer, but let's take a look at the record for a few minutes, shall we? Communities First—scrapped, with no replacement scheme, so the budget can be funnelled into bottomless pits in the revenue support grant or go into other areas that are currently struggling for funding, such as health boards. The child poverty strategy—scrapped, so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for failing to achieve the goals. We've even seen school uniform grants scrapped and moved, which could seriously undermine the Supporting People grant. The Independent, in March, branded Wales 'poverty stricken', with 700,000 people in relative poverty. It is a scandal. This Government was criticised last year, again, by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee for rejecting poverty targets, as you said that poverty was for all departments. Yet we don't seem to have much action from individual departments on this issue. If poverty is an issue that crosses across all departments, then surely it needs a detailed and targeted strategy to tie all of these things together. The truth is that tackling poverty has dropped off this Government's agenda—there is no appetite to tackle the ingrained structural barriers that have entrenched poverty in many places, and you're instead hoping that taskforces and poorly funded third sector initiatives are enough to make it look like something is being done. This is not something to put into a press release, but something to be taken seriously. Considering the fundamental flaws of Communities First, I would have hoped that you would have learnt from that.

I would very gently suggest that the Member, rather than read pre-prepared questions, listens to my answers, and engages on that basis. My suggestion to—[Interruption.] My suggestion to the Member for South Wales West would be to read the delivery plan, read the commitments we've made, read the ambitions we've described, read the objectives we've set for ourselves, and then question us on whether we achieve those ambitions or not. You asked for a strategy—we published one last November; my suggestion to the Member is that she reads it.

The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, it's essential that the Welsh Government should be supporting voluntary sector providers delivering key front-line early intervention and prevention services, which I know you agree support thousands of lives and save millions for statutory services. But, equally, it's essential that, when the Welsh Government provide financial funding, due diligence is in place regarding financial and HR controls. Given your responsibility for the voluntary sector in Wales, and the fact that Mind Cymru received almost £1.6 million of Welsh Government funding over the last three years, what action have you taken since BBC Wales published last month claims from former workers at Mind Cymru of bullying, systemic bullying, often involving staff being isolated and undermined—a vicious circle of a drop in confidence had detrimental effects on performance, leading to further criticism; subtle bullying—it felt as if an employer was playing mind games; being made to feel isolated and worthless after reporting feeling stressed to an employer; and many more people from local Mind offices contacting BBC Wales since, reporting and echoing concerns about the culture that they claim was damaging and unsupportive?

I did see those reports, and, like the Member for North Wales, I was very disturbed by what I read and what I saw. The issues are, of course, a matter for Mind Cymru to resolve, rather than for this Government. And if they're unable to resolve those matters, then clearly it would be a matter for the Charity Commission to take those matters up. The Welsh Government is not a regulator of charities in Wales.

Well, I fully appreciate that, but you'll be as aware as I am, from your time in this Assembly, of the number of occasions when Welsh Government has supported third sector bodies financially that have suffered similar allegations, and ultimately the Welsh Government has been held to account for its failure to intervene. Given the financial commitment that the Welsh Government is making, I hope you will confirm that you should at least be making some enquiries not only from the charity but from the alleged victims to establish what is actually happening with your money. Because I'm told that one of the triggers for the alleged bullying is when staff at Mind Cymru or local Mind offices across Wales talk publicly or talk to the likes of us about where the funding raised for Mind in Wales actually ends up. I'm told that of the £41.3 million going to national—that's UK—Mind to March 2017, only £1.2 million was directly spent on the network of 130 local Minds across England and Wales, delivering projects at the coalface in their communities, and that, having obtained moneys from grant providers like the Welsh Government and others in direct competition with local Minds, they're then top-slicing management fees, creating posts for people in offices and then only offering work to a handful of local Minds for not very much money when the local Minds that provide services are struggling for funding.

As I emphasise, and they've asked me to—or certain people have asked me to—emphasise, Mind Cymru is an office of UK Mind, and the money that's being raised in Wales from organisations like the Welsh Government—nearly £1.6 million over three years—is being used to compete with local Mind projects, such as peer support groups, putting the whole network at risk.

The Member's raised a number of different issues. Clearly, the delivery of those services is a matter for my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health who is in his place and will have heard the questions and will have taken note of those matters. I will repeat to the Member that, although he raises some very serious issues and I don't wish in any way for him to believe that we don't take these matters very seriously, these are matters that are properly the responsibility of, in the first instance, the charity itself and then the regulator of that charity, the Charity Commission. If he has concerns about specific issues where public funding in Wales is being misspent or has been mis-allocated in any way, then clearly he should raise those matters with the Welsh Government and provide the supporting evidence for that. I'm sure, were he to do so, then the relevant Minister would be very interested in seeing that information.

Well, clearly, I am using this opportunity to raise these matters with the Welsh Government. For confidentiality reasons, I can't disclose what further action might be taken and what information might be within that further action that I'm privy to. I am sharing the information I'm authorised to share at this point in time. Again, what action, given that you're responsible for the voluntary sector in Wales, do you take to ensure that moneys raised in Wales to support local charities actually stay in Wales for spending by those local charities? I'm told that people don't realise that all the local fundraising by Mind Cymru goes initially to their UK body, not to their local Minds, that the fundraising events advertised as raising money for Mind produce income that all goes to Mind national, which are unrestricted funds that Mind then decides how to spend, and they say they can't commit a direct benefit to local Minds in Wales. In fact, out of their total budget, last year's Mind expenditure on the network totalled just £4.3 million, or 20 per cent of their charitable expenditure. And, as I said at the beginning, only £1.2 million of that went directly to local Minds.

You are the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the voluntary sector. We have a brilliant network of 20 local Minds across Wales struggling to survive because the money being given for good reasons by people in Wales to support them is leaving Wales and only a fraction of it's coming back to deliver those services locally. Surely, Cabinet Secretary—and I hope you'll agree—this is a matter of concern for you as well as your wider Cabinet colleagues.

I'm grateful to the Member for raising these matters in the way that he has done. Can I say this to him? The way that Mind organises its business is a matter for that organisation, not a matter for this Government. Each funding stream will have a series of grant conditions attached to it, and I have no information available to me that Mind is not meeting the obligations that it has undertaken on behalf of Welsh Government. I will say, Presiding Officer, if the Member does have any issues that are causing him significant concern—he clearly does have—then it may be useful for him to put that in writing so that we can understand what those issues are and we can understand what action may potentially be taken in order to address those matters.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Minister. You made a statement last week on low-cost housing in Wales—low-cost home ownership, I should say, it was specifically—and we had an interesting discussion, I felt, after that and several issues were raised. One of them was the possibility that rents in the social housing sector in Wales are in some cases going up quicker than those in the private rented sector. So, I wondered if you saw that as a particular problem at the moment.

I thank you very much for that question, and I can confirm that rent within the social housing sector is one of those specific issues that we've asked the review of social housing to look into. As far as setting rent levels for next year is concerned, Welsh Government has asked Heriot-Watt University to undertake a piece of research in order to advise us, and I specifically asked the university to consider affordability amongst the work they're doing there and to hold round-tables of tenants in both north Wales and south Wales in order to get an understanding from social housing tenants as to the issues that they're facing with regard to affordability of rent.

Thanks for that answer. I think that's a good initiative, and particularly the consultation with the tenants, so I look forward to the outcome of that. Another issue that we did touch on last week—you actually raised an example of good practice that was going on with a particular housing association, Melin Homes in Newport, and you particularly cited the use of apprenticeships. Now, there have been concerns raised by the construction sector that not enough young people are being trained to go into house building and that does sometimes impede the progress of house building in Wales, as in the UK as a whole. Now, do you see that your department has a role in replicating the good practice of Melin Homes, particularly in terms of their use of apprenticeships across Wales?

I thank you for that question. We're very keen to replicate the success of Melin Homes and to provide RSLs with the opportunity in order to undertake the kind of work that Melin Homes has been doing. This is one of the reasons why passing our registered social landlords Bill yesterday in the Assembly was so important, because it does allow RSLs to continue their work, which isn't just about building homes, actually; it is about creating jobs and opportunities within communities as well. I was interested in the Federation of Small Businesses's recent research, which they circulated to Assembly Members, which demonstrated the kind of wages that young people can be earning if they do enter the construction sector and work within that sector, starting off as an apprentice potentially, and, actually, those kind of wages were really attractive, and I think that it would be quite an eye-opener for young people to consider the kinds of careers within construction. I'm also keen to see what we can do to support more young women to consider a career in construction, and this is something that the Welsh Government has been working on as part of its STEM subject work.

Yes, I think it's correct that a lot of people can actually earn more money, potentially, by going into things like construction rather than, perhaps, going down the route of university education, because there is a limited financial advantage of having a degree today when so many people actually possess university degrees. So, given what you've just said—and I tend to agree with the general thrust of what you said—how far are you liaising with the education Minister, and also perhaps Eluned Morgan, the skills Minister, in co-ordinating an approach so that perhaps more youngsters are encouraged to go into things like construction going forward? 

I thank you for that question. I would say that there is always value in learning and the experience of university, but we do need to be doing more to ensure that there is parity of esteem between academic and more practical skills as well. So, there's certainly work to do there in terms of perceptions about careers in construction and other areas, and I can confirm that I have been working closely with Eluned Morgan in her employability role in order to ensure that housing does provide a platform for young people to have the opportunity to enter the housing and construction industry, and actually do so in a way that offers them progression and good job opportunities and prospects for the future.

Local authorities clearly have their own views on the future of local government, and it is for their leaders to raise these in our ongoing discussions and debate, and through formal response to the Green Paper consultation on strengthening local government in Wales.  

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. To say that local authorities clearly have their own views on this process is probably one of the biggest understatements I've heard in this Chamber to date. But I agree with you on that.

We recently held a debate that you participated in—many AMs did—on the proposals within the Green Paper, specifically the concerns surrounding the proposed mergers of local authorities. Have you had time to reconsider the proposals in the light of that debate and in the light of feedback received from local governments across Wales? And do you think it would be an opportune time to go back to the drawing board to come forward with proposals that local authorities themselves can have some buy-in to, maybe looking at the prospect of an ever closer local government union, stronger collaboration, and to put voluntary mergers back on the agenda, as some local authorities were looking forward to going down that line?

To answer his final question, of course, option 1 was voluntary mergers. So, the Green Paper does clearly say that. And, certainly, I've said on many occasions that it is my point and purpose to seek agreement wherever that is possible rather than to impose.

I've outlined to this place and elsewhere a vision of a stronger, more empowered local government with greater powers and greater ability to shape the future of the communities that it seeks to represent. I do not wish to diminish local government in any way. My purpose is to strengthen local government, and the Government here has consistently over the last few years protected local government funding, has worked with local government in order to protect public service workers and to protect public services and the delivery of those services. What we seek to do is to seek a consensus, or to seek an agreement, on how we move forward to do that in the future.

Will the Cabinet Secretary join with me in congratulating Welsh local government on the way they have coped with reducing Welsh Government support year on year and the quality of provision that they are providing despite those reductions? And will he commit to working collaboratively with Welsh local government in the manner of his predecessor?

I would always seek to work in collaboration with local government, and I think the Welsh Government has an excellent record of doing so—let me say this. But I will also say that Welsh Government has protected local government from the worst excesses of an austerity approach taken across the border in England. I know that the Member for Swansea East takes a great interest in these matters, and he will be aware that no local authority in Wales has suffered the same level of cuts as has been seen across the border in England, and we need to recognise that. But, of course, we want to work with local authority leaders. But what I would like to be able to do is to work collaboratively to deliver the highest possible vision and not the lowest possible common denominator.

Will the Cabinet Secretary join me in praising the stalwart work of Welsh councils up and down the country, like Islwyn's own Caerphilly County Borough Council, who are continuing every day to provide strong public services in the face of dramatic cuts to their budgets, thanks to the UK Tory Government? Real cuts year on year to Wales since 2010. And with this in mind, what assurances will the Cabinet Secretary give so that the experienced voices of local government leaders, like Caerphilly's own council leader, Dave Poole, are listened to and respected in their management of service delivery, especially in such austere times, despite Welsh Government protection for local government? And will he continue to work with the leadership of the WLGA under its first ever woman, Debbie Wilcox, to continue to provide for Wales?

Absolutely. I met Debbie last week for a conversation about our vision of a future-empowered and strengthened local government, and I'm meeting her again tomorrow at the partnership council in order to continue those conversations.

I've also had some very positive, and enjoyable, can I say, conversations with Councillor Poole, the leader of Caerphilly. I think it's fair to say that he agrees with a great deal of our vision for the future and that he recognises that the current structures are not sustainable. I think most local authority leaders understand that the current structures we have of local government are simply not sustainable into the future, whatever the issues with the financial envelope available to us.

What I seek to do now is to pursue a conversation that is about how we will strengthen local government in the future. This whole Green Paper process and debate and the conversation that we're having isn't about diminishing and reducing the role of local government, but about strengthening the role of local government to be more powerful in the future than it has been in the past.

Public bodies are currently preparing their first annual reports under the Act. These reports will set out how public bodies are meeting the objectives they have set, and I look forward to working with them to make further progress towards our shared well-being goals.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, because delivering well-being in all our policies is clearly a major challenge that's going to be facing our public services. It's going to require a set of outcome measures for our public services that, in turn, will help to provide them with a clear focus on community well-being.

Public services, as you will appreciate, have a huge collective responsibility in terms of providing homes, in promoting mental health and well-being and in ensuring that the NHS continues to transform into a well-being service and not just an ill-health service. Do you agree, therefore, particularly in these times of austerity, that personal and community well-being has to be supported not just as an abstract notion, but as a key economic driver in our communities and that we should place much more emphasis on delivering a set of outcome measures for public services that provide them with a clear focus on community well-being that will improve people's lives now and into the future?

Presiding Officer, can I say how much I agree with the premise of the question and the principles underpinning that question? I think, in many ways, public services are the bedrock of our civilisation. How we deal with people and how we provide services for, sometimes, the most vulnerable people in our communities speaks to us of who we are as a country and who we are as a people.

I absolutely agree and I agree with the imperatives underpinning the well-being of future generations Act to deliver a more holistic approach to understanding how we deliver improvements in our communities. I would like to see how we do bring together economic, social and environmental indicators to deliver a far richer view of how we understand our communities in the future, and I'm looking forward to seeing and reading the well-being goals and the well-being policies that are being developed at the moment, and how far local authorities and others are able to come in delivering on that vision and that ambition.

One of the well-being goals is to create a healthier Wales. According to Diabetes UK Cymru, Wales faces a diabetes epidemic whilst the latest National Child Measurement Programme's annual report shows that more than a quarter of children in Wales are overweight or obese. Will the Cabinet Secretary comment on the role of public services in tackling obesity and diabetes, thereby helping to achieve the goal of a healthier Wales in the future? Thank you.

I do believe that we have a collective responsibility to improve the health of our communities. Members will, I hope, be delighted to hear that I've just signed up to a daily mile in a school in my own community, addressing some of these issues—it might take me more than a day to complete it, but it's certainly my ambition. I believe that we do have a collective responsibility to address these issues.

And, let me say this: speaking, perhaps, as a Member for Blaenau Gwent, when I first stood for election in the constituency, I felt that the economy was the beginning and the end of the issues facing us as a community. If I was standing for the first time again, I would focus on public health and focus on some of the real public health challenges that we have in the community that I represent and in many communities across Wales. I think addressing those fundamental issues of public health is a key determinant of whether the national well-being goals, indicators and milestones are a success in reality for our communities.

You yourself are a public body under the well-being of future generations Act, and, under the duties of this Act, in order to achieve the well-being goals, you have to deal with your functions in a way that promotes sustainable development in all aspects. That’s incorporated into the Act and also in the Wales Act, as amended by the former Act. Now, we may not agree on the impact of the European Union withdrawal Bill and the inter-governmental agreement, but, under that particular agreement, you have to come to an agreement on frameworks across the UK—I’m sure we can agree on that. Therefore, can you explain how you will ensure that sustainable development is retained in any frameworks across the UK, as that is now part of the work that you agree to do with the Westminster Government? Specifically, will we as an Assembly have the right to vote on the content of these frameworks as you proceed to negotiate them in respect of the well-being goals?

The contributions of Welsh Ministers to each one of the discussions that we have with the United Kingdom Ministers are always based on the policy approach of this Government. That in itself is rooted in the principles of the Act that you have described. And so, every part of our policies and the various approaches through which we will realise our ambitions for our country will be part of, and derived from, the same commitment to the Act and the principles underpinning that. So, Welsh Ministers in every case, not solely when dealing with the United Kingdom, but at every opportunity, will realise our vision and ensure that that is an integral part of it.

The Welsh Government does not support the devolution of welfare benefits or their administration to Wales. As a matter of principle, we should all be entitled to an equal claim from our welfare state. The needs of citizens within the UK, wherever they live, should be equally met.

At the same time as the Department for Work and Pensions is closing local offices, universal credit is taking hold in Wales. By 2022, 400,000 households in Wales will rely on universal credit. This Labour Government has previously, and again today, shunned the opportunity to devolve welfare administration, and you have claimed that it would be too costly. The £266 million figure quoted by Ministers as the cost of devolving welfare is grossly misleading, because that figure is based on costs paid to the Scottish Government by Westminster to administer all new powers given to them under the Scotland Act 2016, not just welfare. So, let's be clear: cost is not a barrier here. We have heard this afternoon how your Government is claiming to be mitigating the worst effects of austerity, but you're not. Will the Minister therefore finally join Plaid Cymru in calling for the devolution of welfare administration so that we can actually mitigate some of the worst effects of Westminster's cruel welfare policies?

Well, I think this speaks, really, to a fundamental disagreement between ourselves and between our parties about the place of Wales within the UK, because this is, of course, a United Kingdom that allows us to pool the risks and to share the benefits. And it is the case that the approach to the devolution of welfare benefits in Scotland has transferred that risk associated with the demand of welfare benefits to Scotland, and the risk there demonstrates that benefit requirements within Scotland are moving faster than they are in England. So, for Wales, this would provide us with a very significant risk. And the costs, I'm afraid, for administrating the welfare system would take away resources from the delivery of front-line services. Those figures are correct. For Scotland, it's £66 million for administration and a one-off payment of £200 million for the implementation of all of those newly devolved welfare powers—[Interruption.] But it's not, because they're all related to welfare powers, and those resources really should be spent on the front line.

Actually, let's be clear about what the Scottish Government is doing: the Scottish Government does not administer payments for universal credit. They're administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Scotland Act 2016 does give powers to the Scottish Government to offer flexible options for claimants, and these include the direct payment of housing cost elements to social landlords and payments twice a month after that first payment has been made. None of these things are not available to people on universal credit in Wales. What we're doing is trying to ensure that these opportunities are offered proactively to people in receipt of universal credit.

Post offices provide access to a range of important services our communities need. However, matters relating to post offices are not devolved.

The post office in Upper Bangor was closed without warning a few weeks ago, meaning that businesses, students and local residents had to rely on a mobile service in a car park, which is only available for an hour a week. That is entirely unacceptable. It is crucial that the post office in Upper Bangor has a permanent home in the future. I accept that it’s not a devolved matter, but there is a duty on the Government here to ensure that the Post Office does provide appropriate services to citizens across Wales. I’m sure you’d agree with that.

I am aware of the situation in Upper Bangor, and I can tell the Member for Arfon that this is a matter that is being dealt with currently. The Post Office is at present dealing with it. It's a contractual matter; I cannot say more than that. I am aware that alternative services have been made available, but that they are not adequate for the needs of the community, as it’s only a mobile service available for one hour on Wednesday. However, we have spoken to the Post Office, and we do understand that the Post Office cannot take any further action until the current investigation is completed.

Question 8 [OAQ52148] has been withdrawn. Finally, therefore, question 9—Paul Davies.

I set out our vision for strengthening local government in an oral statement on 20 March, in the Green Paper published for consultation, and during the debate on 25 April.

Cabinet Secretary, you will know full well that I'm against merging Pembrokeshire back into an old Dyfed model, given that I believe it will take the 'local' away from local government. I listened very carefully to your earlier answers on this matter, and as part of your Government's consultation plans, I do sincerely hope that you are engaging with councillors, not just local authority leaders, given the enormous impact your proposals would have on their communities. Can you therefore provide an update on the specific discussions you have had with councillors affected by the west Wales proposals? And what further engagement are you planning to ensure that, as a Government, you are truly talking to the people that will be affected by these proposals?

I'm very happy to provide all Members with a review, if you like, or an analysis of all our engagement during this process, when this process is complete. I'm very happy to provide Members with that information, but I will go further than perhaps the Member asking the question. I believe this is a matter for us as a country, as a people, and as communities. I do not believe that it is simply a matter for either council leaders or councillors. I believe it's a matter for all of us as a community, in order to have these conversations and to have a debate about how we want to see our services structured and taken forward. So, yes, we will be talking to councillors as well as council leaders, but we will also be talking to people throughout the community across the whole of our country.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the topical questions. There are two, and the first is from Suzy Davies.

I issued an update on this matter to Members on Friday. This is deeply disappointing news, and my sympathies go to those who are affected by the company's decision. I've asked my officials to establish a taskforce to ensure the best possible outcome for the workers affected by this corporate decision.

Thank you for your answer and, of course, for your letter. I think we were all pleased to see that. As you know, Virgin Media has announced plans to completely exit its Swansea site, which is pretty serious; we are talking about the best part of 800 jobs here, after all. But the reason for that is that they're merging from eight sites down to four sites. Of course, two of those sites are in the Philippines and India, so the offers for relocation to these places are pretty laughable. Even those to Glasgow and Manchester are a bit ambitious, shall we say.

I just wanted to ask you—. I've got three or four questions here. The first one is: I'm not particularly clear what support Welsh Government has offered to Virgin Media in the past. I know there were injections, shall we say, into the local economy in 2013 and 2015, but I'd be grateful if you could clarify whether there was any direct Welsh Government support and whether any of that is recoverable, bearing in mind that it's 2018 now. They haven't been there as long as perhaps you might have wanted them to be.

Obviously, you'll have heard the news that some staff found out about this happening through the press. I’d be very keen to know when you, yourself, found out. I know that Dai Lloyd mentioned yesterday that when this happened with Tesco in Cardiff, the Welsh Government didn’t know about it. So, that would help, particularly as, in the past, we've been very keen to hear from you, with both Tata and Ford, what kind of conversations you’ve had.

I see, from your letter, mention of a taskforce, and you’ve just repeated it, but I’m not clear whether you or perhaps even the First Minister have spoken directly to management. If either of you have, I’d be particularly keen to hear what they say, bearing in mind—. I’m just going to quote them here, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer. It says, specifically about the Swansea call centre—and these are Virgin Media's own words here:

'Solving problems like Sherlock, our 850 legends are so good at fault management and technical support that Swansea is Virgin Media’s official centre of excellence for those areas. We’re not the only ones who reckon it’s great. Swansea has won a whole heap of awards, including Welsh Contact Centre of the Year 2012. We’re gonna need a bigger display cabinet.'

So, my obvious question is: why isn’t one of these four hubs in Swansea? And I hope you’ve asked that question. If you haven’t, I'd like you to ask it pretty quickly.

Then, finally, I think we all will welcome First Priority's indication that they will be offering some jobs to those who are losing their spaces at Virgin Media. With the taskforce, who do you think the key stakeholders are likely to be? I don’t know if you’ve made a decision yet. Because bearing in mind—and I don’t know this for certain myself, obviously—the likely age profile and experience of the people working in their media centre, it's not going to be particularly clear to me who those key stakeholders would be. So, if you can give us any steer on that, I’d be very grateful—and particularly if you're able to give us any steer, as well, on any specific new attempts you’re making to promote investment into the area and perhaps secure a suitable employer for the site. I appreciate you’ve not had long to do that. Thank you.

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her questions, and can I thank Members across the Chamber for their keen concern regarding this dreadful news for very loyal and dedicated workers? All of our efforts within Government, and with stakeholders, now turn to supporting the award-winning workforce employed at the site who face a period of uncertainty over their future employment. I think we should also say—and Suzy Davies has alluded to it—that the decision by Virgin Media in no way reflects on the workforce, with their excellence in delivering customer services of the highest order, long recognised and regularly held up as best practice. Indeed, as Suzy Davies has said, it's award-winning best practice. It does appear as though Virgin Media have reached a decision based on the lowest cost options for consolidation.

Our assessment of future job trends within this particular sector is such that we believe that Wales is well placed to retain a significant proportion of people employed in contact centres. It's the lowest level of operations that will face the greatest threat from automation and artificial intelligence generally. Those lowest levels of operations have already been offshored outside of Britain. So, it could well be, in the future, that we see a return of employment opportunities to the higher levels of operations at tier 1 and tier 2, and Wales is actually well placed to capture a good chunk of that work.

Meanwhile, what we need to do, and what we have immediately begun, is assess employment opportunities in other established businesses and to assess what the pipeline of opportunities—the pipeline of inward investment—means for the existing workforce. There is already a significant interest in the workforce at Virgin Media by other businesses in the area, including Virgin Atlantic, who may be part of the same Virgin group but operate in an autonomous way. There are other businesses within the contact centre sector who are keen to look at employing and taking on those who will be affected by this decision, unless the decision is reversed.

The Welsh Contact Centre Forum, like us, were notified on the day of the announcement, and I’m also aware of employees learning about the announcement through the media, which I believe is unacceptable. It's not fair and it's not right, and I'd like Virgin Media to reflect on the way that some of their employees were notified about the decision.

We are liaising with the company. I am also, as the Member has outlined, putting together a taskforce that will include Careers Wales, the Welsh Contact Centre Forum, the Department for Work and Pensions, Public Health Wales, trades unions and also Welsh Government officials. I'm hoping that Virgin Media will also form part of that taskforce. The work of the taskforce will replicate what we did with regard to Tesco last year. Members will be pleased to know that the vast majority of people who were affected by that particular decision were helped into work elsewhere within the local economy. We hope the same will happen to Virgin Media staff. We are, indeed, very confident that there will be significant opportunities for the people who today face uncertainty. We are determined to work for them and with them to ensure that they have every opportunity to get work secured as soon as possible.

The human cost to this, of course, can be considerable, and for that reason Public Health Wales will be part of the taskforce, offering signposting services to employees who may face anxiety, depression or other mental health issues—to the right support. I'm also keen to ensure that any opportunity for relocation available to staff is taken up if they so wish. However, it must be said that we expect very few employees to relocate to Manchester or Scotland, and we do not anticipate seeing any employees relocating to Manila. I will endeavour to update Members on a regular basis on the progress that we are making in regard to this particular announcement. As I say, I am confident that the vast majority of people who wish to remain in employment will be able to be supported into alternative jobs within the local area, given the immediate interest that we have been able to ascertain in the days following the announcement.   

As someone who was made redundant by British Steel in the 1980s, I have huge sympathy and huge empathy with those who have been affected, many of whom are my constituents, and some of whom I actually know and will meet over the next week or so. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the action that he has taken. I don't think that we could ask for any more. I'm very pleased about the taskforce, and I hope that all those people who are currently there and who wish to continue in employment will be able to do so. But we will lose 800 job opportunities in the Swansea area. We're not that well off for jobs that losing 800 job opportunities will not have an effect on the local economy. So, what is the Welsh Government able to do in order to try and bring more employment into the area?

One of the reasons that has been given—I don't know whether officially or unofficially—is that Manchester has such good connections to London, including the expected high speed 2 line, and we can't even get electrification to Swansea. Will the Cabinet Secretary continue to press the Government in Westminster on the importance of electrification to Swansea? It's the signal that it sends out and, as I have said on more than one occasion, it's the importance of saying, 'This is somewhere worth going to, worth creating employment in, because we put electrification there.' Of course, the converse is also true.

Well, the Member is absolutely right that good connectivity, principally with London, given the size of the economy of London, particularly with regard to financial and professional services, creative industries and the services sector as a whole—. It's essential that we are better connected to that particular city. Many investors identify a two-hour time limit in terms of where they wish to invest. It is particularly the case, for example, within the creative industries. So, upgrading the south Wales main line between Cardiff and Swansea, following the cancellation of the electrification of that particular piece of infrastructure, is absolutely vital, and we expect that work to be carried out at pace, as I said yesterday.

I can assure the Member, as I said to Suzy Davies, that all options for alternative employment are being explored at the moment. I can't go into any details regarding the companies that have already expressed an interest in taking on people who will be affected by this announcement, but we are aware of at least five to date—major companies that are looking at taking on significant numbers. I've already identified Virgin Atlantic, and I wouldn't wish to go into any detail about the other companies. But in addition to this, we are also looking at bringing forward a number of investment opportunities. There is a very strong pipeline of investments in the regulated contact centre sector, and many of these opportunities are due to be landed in the Swansea area. 

It's fair to say it's been a huge, devastating blow to Swansea—772 jobs, or 800 in round figures, lost, and a knock-on effect on dozens of families locally. My first question is: where can we signpost individual workers who are getting in touch with us as Assembly Members expecting us to have some details to hand with regard to what they do know? I'd be grateful for some practical advice like that to start off with, and I'd be grateful, Cabinet Secretary, for assistance in directing these people, who are in a distressed state now, to the right sort of advice.

I won't rehearse the arguments that others have brought forward, but in terms of proactivity from Welsh Government in these situations, we're aware, obviously, that large amounts of the Welsh economy are based on call centres—call centres largely run by large private businesses. I was just wondering how, as Welsh Government, you are developing relationships with those same big businesses so that there's some sort of empathy, or some sort of working behind the scenes, before we have these huge announcements that, all of a sudden, 800 jobs are going and nobody knows about it—least of all you to know about it. You discovered it the same time that the rest of us did, or as some of our workers did in Swansea—they discovered it from the media.

I would hope there would be some proactivity behind the scenes. It's not without warning. We had the Tesco call centre losing 1,000 jobs from Cardiff last year. We all discovered it at the same time, when it was announced in the media. We were asking then: what about some proactivity? What's the role of Government here in supporting people, or at least working things out before the large balloon goes up and then we have to sort it out there and then? So, in terms of just some more detail on how you're developing those relationships with these large private companies so that we can do something proactively to help our people—. And in terms of alternative jobs, I would press again that we do need alternative jobs, as Mike Hedges has alluded to, in the Swansea area in particular. We've talked a lot about the tidal lagoon, but it's desperately, seriously required now— quality jobs in Swansea bay because we are losing jobs like this all of the time. Diolch yn fawr.

Dai Lloyd is right to point to the Swansea bay tidal lagoon as a project that could offer, and should be offering, high-quality jobs. The whole point of the economic action plan is to drive up the creation of higher quality, better-paid, more secure employment opportunities. And I think the announcement by Virgin Media demonstrates why we (a) need to supercharge the industries of the future, but also make sure that existing employers within Wales are futureproofed. That's why we've commenced work, the study, on digitisation and automation within the Welsh economy. It's why one of the calls to action concerns futureproofing of businesses, and so we're absolutely determined to make sure that existing jobs are retained, that businesses are futureproofed for the change that is inevitable and will come within the next decade, but also that we're focusing new job creation in those areas of economic activity that are sustainable in the long term.

I think Dai raises the important question of relations, not just between Government and some businesses, but also between trade unions and some businesses, and also stakeholder groups and some businesses. The fact that this particular business is non-unionised and that the Welsh Contact Centre Forum were not made aware of the decision demonstrates that this was a decision that the business reached and wished to keep for sensitive commercial reasons within its own ranks until the point at which the media were informed. But as I said in response to Suzy Davies, I do not think that that's a fair way to treat their own employees.

There are 772 people who have demonstrated great loyalty to the business. Two hundred and twenty are subcontracted to Sitel. Now, I wouldn't wish to raise hopes too high at this stage, but I've asked my officials to explore the potential of Sitel to remain in Swansea. We are hoping that Virgin Media will be supportive of this and will perhaps continue with the existing accommodation, as an interim offer would be particularly helpful in trying to secure as many of those jobs as possible. Notwithstanding this, we will be offering signposting services, primarily to the DWP and Careers Wales—they're certainly the two agencies that I would suggest the Member refers his constituents to in the first instance. But I am also hopeful that Virgin Media will allow on-site workshops to take place involving those partners who will form the taskforce. It's what Tesco allowed on-site when they made the decision last year and it made a huge difference in terms of making sure that people could segue from employment in Tesco to another job, and it also made a very significant difference in minimising the emotional damage of redundancies. So, I'm hopeful that Virgin Media will accept the request from us to allow taskforce partners to go on-site and to offer those people who are going to be affected by this decision valuable workshops in how to get into employment and how to make sure that their well-being is safeguarded in the interim period.

Cabinet Secretary, I make no apology for repeating a lot of the things that have already been said, but as these 800 people are within my region, it's important to emphasise that my thoughts are with these people who've lost their jobs and wanting to know exactly what we are trying to do and what we are going to do to find alternative employment for these people. Swansea has become something of a specialist in the call-centre sector, and everything must be done to enhance its position by providing a skilled workforce, a low tax environment and world-class infrastructure, and possibly the tidal lagoon, as has already been said by Dai Lloyd. So, Cabinet Secretary, what more can be done than has already been said to make Swansea an attractive place for entrepreneurs and large businesses alike? Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for her questions? Swansea has a fantastic future ahead of it. The progress that's been made locally in ensuring that it's a more attractive place in which to live, in which to learn and in which to invest should be admired by all. Indeed, I think Swansea sets the template for many other towns, cities and regions in Wales and the UK when it comes to place building and ensuring that the quality of place is at the centre of any economic development strategy.

In terms of what else we can do, I'm absolutely determined that employment opportunities existing elsewhere, or which are going to be created elsewhere, are brought to those people who are affected by this decision within house, so that we can not only offer within Virgin Media employment workshops, but also ensure that we are taking information about alternative employment into the workplace, so that people don't have to scramble around searching for jobs, worrying whether they're going to be able to make ends meet when Virgin Media finally close their doors. So, again, I would call on Virgin Media to accept our request for those workshops and for those stakeholders that will form the taskforce to be able to have access to their premises.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

The second topical question this afternoon is by Hefin David and it's to be answered by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. Hefin David.

Thank you. The leader of the house, as the Welsh Government lead Minister for Better Jobs Closer to Home, has made repeated representations to the UK Government, and in particular the Minister for employment, both in writing and in person, setting out the Welsh Government's serious concerns about this proposal.

I'm grateful for that, and I'll stand with my colleagues—Julie Morgan, Lynne Neagle, John Griffiths, Jayne Bryant and Dawn Bowden—who have raised concerns about the impact in their constituencies, and I also thank the work of the Public and Commercial Services Union who have worked very hard in ensuring that we have full knowledge of what is going on here. There was a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was not as full in its explanation as we might like it to be. In Caerphilly, we've got 225 staff who are employed at the Caerphilly benefits centre. A number of my constituents work at other DWP sites in my colleagues' constituencies, and I'm quite sure that other Members will want to raise concerns—those I've not mentioned today. The closure of the DWP office on Castle Street in particular will have a detrimental effect on employment and footfall in Caerphilly town centre. It will take jobs away from an area close to residential premises, close to shops, at a time when we're boosting the Caerphilly town centre. This flies in the face of a very positive announcement today about tourism at Caerphilly castle, and no consideration has been given to the impact on how residents in Caerphilly will reach this site by car.

In the letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, they said that they want to maximise the retention of DWP colleagues—maximise retention of colleagues. It's clear, therefore, that they're actually anticipating losing some people who will not be able to get to the new location. So, we're actually going to see some new recruits at this new location, but they will categorically not be new jobs. It will make it much harder for people in Caerphilly to get there, and therefore, it is something of a misleading statement to even suggest that any of these would be new jobs.

Those that don't agree to the new premises will have to travel to work, as I've said, by car, and congestion in the Caerphilly basin is already a problem. I'd be very concerned to see issues added to that. It also flies in the face of our own stated ambition to bring better jobs closer to home, and what particularly concerned me was that the DWP letter talked about working with the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' strategy. It categorically does not do that. In fact, it does completely the opposite to that. And I was struck by the fact that the first letter I received from the DWP, from the UK Government, was addressed to David Hefin AM, which suggests that they know very little about the workings of this Assembly, and adds further outrage to the fact that they try to tie this announcement to a strategy that they likely know nothing about.

What can the Welsh Government therefore do to ensure that well-paid sustainable jobs remain in our Valleys towns, but, also, to dig deeper into what is really going on here, and the issues that I'm sure my colleagues would want to raise as part of this question?

I thank you for those questions and I couldn't agree more about the importance of having these kinds of jobs in our town centres, in terms of footfall in town centres and ensuring that we do have vibrant town centres. So, this news has come as a great disappointment. I completely agree with your comments about Better Jobs Closer to Home, and it's actually something that Julie James brought to the attention of the DWP in one of her earlier letters, where she says,

'These decisions go completely against the Welsh Government's policy for Better Jobs Closer to Home and will impact on some of our most deprived communities. We're working cross-Government to support people into employment in these areas and we also provide strategic investment to attract good jobs with clear career pathways for employees in our most disadvantaged areas. Therefore, the relocation of the DWP staff based in Cwmbran and the other offices earmarked for closure is a significant shift of good jobs in direct contradiction to this policy.'

So, Welsh Government is completely in accord with your assessment of the situation, in terms of it being very much opposed to what we are trying to achieve for the Valleys. 

You're quite right, David Hefin, that the Tories just don't understand the Valleys, and for this reason Julie James actually got a map of the Valleys out in order to demonstrate to Damian Hinds in a meeting that transport in the south Wales Valleys isn't perhaps as straightforward as you'd imagine it would be. But these arguments about how difficult it is for staff to be able to get the Treforest site just clearly didn't ring true to him, so they didn't have any impact on the decision that was made. 

In terms of any potential job losses, I would just give the Welsh Government's commitment that we would work proactively with individuals through our ReAct programme, and other programmes, in order to support people into new employment, but clearly this isn't where we would like to be. 

I would like to reinforce, Minister, that it does seem as if the UK Government is seeking political cover for the decision that they've made by trying to explain it, at least partly, in terms of aligning with Welsh Government policy on the location of jobs and relocation of jobs to the Valleys, because, as well as Better Jobs, Closer to Home moving in the opposite direction to that alleged rationale, we also have, of course, Welsh Government policy to regenerate town and city centres. In Newport, for example, some 370 jobs are located in Sovereign House in the city centre, in the benefits office, which would be relocated. So, that would then go against a policy of trying to find use for these city centre premises, and also take spend out of the local economy. So, it would be entirely opposed to a major strand of Welsh Government policy, and have a major impact on that local Newport city centre economy.

Thank you very much, and, again, completely agree that we need people living and working in our town centres to ensure that they are very much vibrant places. So, again, I completely agree with those comments and concerns that you have raised, about the impact that losing so many jobs from a town centre location could have on the ability of small businesses, for example, in the area to remain sustainable.

It also flies in the face of our Valleys taskforce working. Because, again, Julie James said to Damian Hinds that the DWP offices are in some of our most deprived communities in Wales. The Welsh Government established a ministerial taskforce in September 2016 to work with communities in the south Wales Valleys over the course of this Assembly term, with a focus on creating good-quality jobs in the Valleys, and the skills people need to access those jobs has been identified as an early priority. And she was extremely clear in saying,

'The action that you are proposing undermines this policy approach in Wales, which is about ensuring a share of the growth seen south of the M4 corridor is brought into the Valleys, and I urge you to reconsider your proposals to safeguard the jobs in these communities.'

So, your assessment that the UK Government is trying to seek some kind of cover behind Welsh Government policy is again correct, whereas we've been very clear with them throughout that what they're suggesting actually flies in the face of Welsh Government policy.

Minister, the decision to open a new base for the Department for Work and Pensions at Treforest has been welcomed by the Labour leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, coming as it does after announcements that Transport for Wales, Health Education and Improvement Wales, and the new Welsh Revenue Authority will all have their headquarters situated there—more likely the more employment and more traffic and more everything, development will go in that area, which is welcome news.

Will the First Minister welcome the department's assurance that it will look at alternative roles for those who currently work in Cardiff, Newport, Merthyr Tydfil, Cwmbran and Caerphilly who are unable to relocate to Treforest? And will she undertake to discuss with her colleagues measures to alleviate any potential job losses, such as public transport, to soften the impact on those communities, particularly in and around the south-east Valleys? Thank you.

I think that finding alternative roles for people who have found that their jobs have been moved to a place that is just completely impractical for them to get to would be the very least that a responsible employer could offer. There are going to be certain transport challenges, no doubt, in terms of people getting to the new site in Treforest, which is one of the reasons why Julie James was so clear in terms of providing the map to the UK Government Minister. We have had some confirmation, just in the past week, about the fact that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says that the DWP will offer support with travel costs for a period of three years, for costs over and above existing costs. But, again, that is very little comfort for people who are facing their jobs being moved to somewhere that is beyond their own networks, and where they perhaps will be finding that their caring commitments will be interfered with, and so on.

I think the DWP's intentions for this relocation have been well known for some time, but it was due to a leak that we knew about the proposed site—it's only now just been confirmed. It's clear that, under this proposal, in my constituency alone, we're going to be losing more than 250—260 jobs, in fact—from Merthyr, to Treforest. And I'd reiterate exactly what Hefin and John have already said about that. Because, although most of these jobs are not being lost to the organisation, they are being relocated, and the towns that they are being relocated from will be hit economically, without any shadow of a doubt. You cannot take 260 jobs out of a town like Merthyr and expect there to be no impact at all.

Even though relocation is being offered to staff, for many, that's not going to be an option, because of the additional travelling times and costs involved in the move, and the difficulties that that's going to present for those with caring responsibilities, for example. And I've already had representations from constituents, saying that they're not going to be able to move for those reasons. And, indeed, the DWP themselves have identified to the Public and Commercial Services Union that at least 600 of those staff are going to be what they call 'outside mobility'; in other words, those are the ones that are not going to be able to be redeployed—600 staff are not going to be able to be redeployed. So, we would obviously be interested to know what's going to happen to them.

Like Hefin, I was also astounded to see the letter from the DWP to AMs whose constituencies are affected—they did get my name right, at least—saying that the move supports 'Our Valleys, Our Future', and that these would be bringing jobs to the Valleys. I've written back to the DWP to advise them—

Can you come to a question, please? 

—what our strategy actually needs, so that they know that it's not relocating existing jobs, but it is actually putting them in more accessible places.

The questions I wanted to ask were, firstly, whether the DWP has actually discussed with Welsh Government the plans for the relocation, which appear to be predicated on a private finance initiative project, or PFI-funded project, which, as we know, in the long term is going to be a huge drain on the public purse. And finally, if you could just repeat—. I think you were talking earlier on about some of the methods of assistance that might be available—the ReAct programme, and so on. What can be used for those people—those 600 people—who clearly are going to be displaced and not relocated as a result of this move? 

Thank you for those questions and, actually, one of the deep ironies of this is the fact that some of the places where jobs will be moving from are actually strategic hubs within our Valleys taskforce. So, it is just a completely nonsensical argument that the UK Government is in any way trying to support what we're trying to achieve for our Valleys communities.

You're right as well that the news first surfaced as a leak. Welsh Government had no notice of it, so the leader of the house was very clear that she was extremely disappointed that the UK Government didn't consult with the Welsh Government to seek alternative solutions prior to making decisions. And at every point she's been very clear that she's keen that her officials work with the UK Government to explore alternative solutions, including, for example, co-location where feasible with the Welsh Government. But, again, these offers to help and work collaboratively have not been taken up. 

The transport issues are very real in terms of people being able to move from your community to Treforest to take up their job. We've just had the statement on the decision of Virgin to close their Swansea plant, and offer some people jobs in Manila. Well, Treforest might as well be Manila for some people who are in this situation, because it's just completely unfeasible. 

I know that Julie James has offered to have some discussions looking at things like community transport options, and so on, but again these are just small efforts that we can make to try and make the situation better. But, at every stage, we have opposed this move.  

I'd like to thank Hefin David for raising this today and, as has been said, there's no doubt that this goes against the Welsh Government's plans for jobs closer to home. It will mean relocating 365 jobs from the heart of Newport, which will have a knock-on effect on the local economy and the footfall in the city centre. The staff at Sovereign House deserve better, and so do all the staff in other offices that are closing down in Wales.

The jobs moving to Treforest are not new jobs. This decision seems to have been drawn up by the UK Government with no understanding at all of the staff that they currently employ's commuting times, or the geography of Wales. Adding at least an extra hour each way on travel by train from Newport could put a huge pressure on parents and grandparents, and people with caring responsibilities. For those travelling by car, I understand that the planning application in Treforest only has 450 parking spaces, which seems totally inadequate for the 1,700 people who will work there. 

The UK Government have also failed to recognise the extra financial burden these workers will face because of further travel, although I hear what you've said today about it for a temporary time. But there's no doubt in my mind that this is a betrayal of all the experienced and loyal workforce in Newport. Is the Minister aware of any equality impact assessment by the UK Government, and what more can the Welsh Government do to support the workers and families who will bear the brunt of this terrible decision?  

I thank you for that question. I'm not aware of any equality impact assessment that has been undertaken by the UK Government, but I'm sure that this is something that the leader of the house will be pursuing with them now that the news has finally become formal regarding the proposed closures and the move of jobs. I just give you a guarantee that we'll work across Government to see what more we can do to support the communities that have been affected and particularly the individuals for whom moving to Treforest just isn't going to be a viable option.

Seven hundred and fourteen staff are affected from the Gabalfa site in my constituency of Cardiff North, and there are a high number of those staff who do have disabilities and do have caring responsibilities, so there is huge concern about how they're actually going to cope with this move. Can the Minister find out why a consultation hasn't already started with the staff? Because, as we know, this has been mooted for some time, and the staff do need maximum preparation for this move, so I'd be grateful if she could undertake to ask why this consultation hasn't already started with my constituents and all the other 1,700 people who are suffering in this way.

The other issue, of course, is the loss of expertise. I understand from talking to the PCS union that the staff are already under stress in terms of dealing with the welfare benefits changes that they are undertaking. So, what can we do to ensure that we do retain the expertise, because we are bound to lose a lot of people when this move takes place? And could she confirm that, in the costings from the DWP, all the costs of this move have been fully taken into account? Because there's going to be voluntary redundancy costs, potential compulsory redundancy costs, recruitment of replacement staff, new staff training costs, benefits costs for anyone who cannot find alternative work, and then, also, the impact on the local communities of losing those jobs in those areas, because it's going to have a huge impact on those areas.

It just seems an absolutely crazy policy to move jobs from places that are already struggling and suffering, and really to say that it's to be in line with the Valleys taskforce I think is absolutely disgraceful. So, I'd be grateful if the Minister could take up these issues and also the issue that Dawn raised about is this building being built by a PFI contract.

Thank you very much for those questions. I will certainly give you an undertaking to explore, alongside the issue of the impact assessment that Jayne Bryant mentioned, the other impact assessments that you have suggested and also the costs of the move. Certainly, I'll work with Julie James in order to get the kind of information that we now require, and either I or Julie will write to Members with the result of those investigations.

I agree that it's completely unfair of the UK Government to be keeping the staff in the dark about this and also to give them essentially a period now, looking towards 2021, of uncertainty. I think it's not the UK Government's intention to start consulting with staff until much closer to the time. I also understand that they're looking towards a phased movement, but, again, once we have more detail and more information about this, I'd be more than happy to share it with Members.

There is one aspect that will be interesting to Julie Morgan particularly, and this is in correspondence last week from Esther McVey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the First Minister. She states that there will be capacity for 100 DWP staff to relocate to the Government hub that is currently being constructed in Cardiff, in Central Square. So, that might be of particular interest to Julie.

Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you.

Item 4 is 90-second statements, and the first this week is from Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Saturday 5 May marked the start of the 2018 Dystonia Awareness Week. Dystonia affects all ages. It is a very painful, debilitating and disabling disorder. Faulty signals from the brain will cause muscles to spasm and pull on the body incorrectly. The body is forced into twisting, repetitive movements or abnormal postures. It may affect one part of the body or, indeed, multiple areas. In the overwhelming number of cases, there is no cure for dystonia—rather, it is a lifetime condition that must be managed. Dystonia is the third most common neurological condition in Wales. However, it still lacks awareness among the general public and even among some medical professionals. Dystonia Awareness Week aims to change this. The Dystonia Society have arranged for a number of events and activities around their theme, 'Go green and be seen'. The cross-party group on neurological conditions, chaired by Mark Isherwood, has played an excellent role in ensuring the voices of people affected by dystonia are heard here. I also want to thank the health Secretary, Vaughan Gething, for meeting with people with dystonia in my constituency office in Aberdare, and also for acting on a meeting held with the south Wales support group of the Dystonia Society. Since being elected, I have met many people who live with dystonia and still have incredibly full lives. I pay tribute to their courage and their fortitude. 

Thank you very much. Jayne Bryant.

The sixtieth anniversary of the Life Peerages Act 1958 was commemorated last week. One of those instrumental in campaigning for equality in both Houses of Parliament was Margaret Mackworth, Lady Rhondda. A suffragette and a lifelong campaigner for equality of women, she died in 1958, months after the Life Peerages Act was passed, and five years before the Peerage Act 1963 allowed women like herself to sit in the House of Lords. Raised in Newport, she took over as secretary of the local branch of the Women's Social and Political Union—the suffragettes—in 1908. A plaque now marks where she set off a home-made bomb in a post box in 1913, which she was sent to prison for. Although the post box is still standing today, she certainly made her point. During the first world war, she was appointed chief controller of women's recruitment at the Ministry of National Service. After the war, she founded the Time and Tide paper with its all-female board. Against the odds, she gained respect in the male-dominated world of business and became the first female president of the Institute of Directors. Lady Rhondda was a pioneer: she described women's suffrage as 'a draught of fresh air' and gained the nickname 'the Persistent Peeress' in her quest for equality. As her biographer, Angela John, says, in many different ways, and over decades, Lady Rhondda sought to turn the tide of public opinion in twentieth-century Britain. For that, we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

Thank you. 

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

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. Over the last 15 months or so, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has been somewhat obsessed with apprenticeships. In addition to the report we're debating today, we've also reported on the introduction of the UK Government's apprenticeship levy, and just last month we scrutinised the Minister again, assessing the impact of that levy one year on. We have dedicated so much of the committee's time to apprenticeships because we think they are important. Apprenticeships matter: they offer a great way for people to earn as they learn and for employers to invest in the skills their businesses need. Whilst we've badged this piece of work an 'inquiry into apprenticeships', the terms of reference were fairly wide-ranging and allowed us to look at issues including careers advice and aspects of vocational training in general. I'm sure today's debate will be equally wide-ranging.

In my contribution today, I do want to focus on the key appeal that the committee has issued. In our evidence, we heard from providers, apprentices and young people who hadn't gone down that route, and we heard a number of times that economic barriers—the cost of travel, the cost of buying a suit for an interview, et cetera—can prevent young people from taking up opportunities, and our response to this was to question the Government on what they can do, and we made two recommendations in that regard. Our recommendation 6 was that the Welsh Government should create a competitive hardship fund for apprentices on the lowest pay levels, or create other concessions, such as concessionary bus or rail cards, as exist for other students.

Our recommendation 7 was that the Welsh Government should establish a universal grant to cover living costs for all apprentices, as is due to be available for Welsh university students from 2018-19. At the heart of this debate, I think, at the heart of this question, is fairness. And I think there's probably widespread agreement across this Chamber that we consider academic and vocational learning equal—that there is parity between the two routes. But what we haven't yet achieved is parity of support for students going down both routes. So, I think there is a strong and compelling moral case for the Welsh Government to apply similar levels of support to apprentices as would be available to their peers in full-time higher education.

In adverts to promote its new package of measures for university students, the Welsh Government has declared it to be the most generous student support package in the UK and level of support that young people heading off to university can expect. I'll say it again: the most generous support package in the UK. So, today, I want to use this opportunity in this debate to call for Wales's apprentices to have an equally generous support package.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you. I think this parity point is particularly important, and I'm thinking of young adult carers who, at the moment, have financial disincentives for not going into higher education or, indeed, apprenticeships. When Welsh Government is listening and thinking how to respond to this report, would you agree with me that they should be considering ways to help young adult carers into apprenticeships, but also make it easier for businesses to take on young adult carers with a slightly less consistent ability to attend?

Thank you, Suzy. I don't think we had that precise evidence in the inquiry, but I think what you said is in line with the committee's thinking as well, and I suppose very much it feeds into our recommendations 6 and 7, which, I was about to go on to say, the Government has accepted, actually, in principle, pending the completion of ongoing consultation. I think I'm accepting of that; I accept that point as a sensible step. But I do trust that any delay will be short and that action will follow swiftly.

Providing parity of support, I think, is important in itself, but it also reinforces the message that both routes are equally important and valid. That message is an important one, as one of our findings was that perceptions of apprenticeships can lag behind the reality in the minds of parents and teachers. As a committee, we felt that there was more that the Welsh Government could do to support employers in raising awareness among a wider range of young people of the benefits of apprenticeships. The Government has rejected this recommendation on the grounds that it already provides extensive information. But I do have to say that's a shame, as it was clear to us that, whatever information is available, it hasn't reached everyone who needs it, and many young people still feel their teachers and parents aren't giving enough support and encouragement to vocational routes.

The Welsh Government's latest figures show a 60/40 gender split among all apprentices, with women in the majority. But, on digging further, there remains a stubborn gender difference in particular sectors. So, the committee recommended that there should be no let-up in the support to tackling the wider prejudices and conventions regarding gender and careers and that the widest opportunity is available to all. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted this recommendation.

The Welsh Government also accepted our call for more action to be put to the under-representation of disabled people. Written evidence from Remploy highlighted that only 2.7 per cent of learners in work-based learning provision, and 1.3 per cent of apprenticeships in Wales, are disabled. This compares to 9 per cent in England. So, I do look forward to some progress being made in that area.

Both in this inquiry and in our recent review of the apprenticeship levy, there was a growing concern that Wales has fallen behind England in the roll-out of degree apprenticeships. There are around 10,000 degree apprenticeships in England this academic year, compared to none in Wales. So, the committee recommended that the Welsh Government sets a deadline for the teaching of degree apprenticeships, but that has been rejected. The Minister has said that the money is available and that it is up to universities, as autonomous bodies, to determine when they start. But who is at fault is not really of concern to me or the committee; the issue is a growing perception in Wales that Wales is lagging behind. I would urge the Minister for skills and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Education to bring their influence to bear so that Wales picks up the pace when it comes to degree apprenticeships.

Our final recommendation was that Estyn should consider how best to include in its inspections the availability and quality of careers advice on vocational courses and training, including apprenticeships in schools. While Estyn do look at careers advice, it's not often a priority area, and we wanted to move it up the agenda. Schoolteachers—most of them—who themselves followed an academic pathway will naturally think that that route is suitable for other young people. And the funding regime, of course, is also all about retaining young people in a school's own sixth form, because of the positive impact that that has on school funding. So, there's a built-in incentive there to showcase that route.

So, Deputy Presiding Officer, at the very least, I hope that this debate and the publicity around it will encourage young people and the teachers and parents they lean on for advice to look at apprenticeships as a positive life option and the opportunities that they offer. I look forward to the debate this afternoon.

Can I thank the committee for their very detailed report on the work that they did from their inquiry? I want to take the opportunity to talk more widely about apprenticeships, before making some comments that I think are probably relevant to recommendations 6 and 7 around apprentice pay.

It's clear to me that well-structured training can deliver the skilled workforces that we require, and that remains vital to the future health of the economy in communities across Wales, especially for improving opportunities in our Valleys communities. Apprenticeship opportunities are key for many local economies and I know the value of them in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Companies like General Dynamics Land Systems UK in Pentrebach have a strong and successful record on apprenticeships, working closely with Merthyr college to deliver the skills that are needed in order to deliver its cutting-edge Ajax family of vehicles to the British army. In south Wales, General Dynamics Land Systems UK currently delivers two four-year apprenticeships in mechanical manufacturing and engineering technical support. Its current 12 apprentices—a number that is growing year on year—will receive an NVQ level 3 and higher national certificate in their fields, and the company is also branching out to provide apprenticeships in non-engineering fields such as quality and facilities. This shows a clear commitment from the company to the constituency, to its employees, and, particularly, to young people, and that is the good news about apprenticeships.

In contrast, however, the apprenticeship pay survey 2016, which was undertaken by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, points to a number of issues that should concern us, and this links directly with recommendations 6 and 7 around pay levels and the cost of living for apprentices. I was particularly interested in the data around compliance with the national minimum wage and the national living wage. While acknowledging methodology issues and changes in the rates applicable, the survey identifies that, in 14 per cent of cases in Wales, apprentices at levels 2 and 3 were paid below the appropriate minimum wage or national living wage, and that has to be a worry. Furthermore, the survey highlighted that the proportion of apprentices with non-compliant pay increased among those aged 19 to 20 in the second year of their apprenticeship—a further cause for worry.

Of course, the responsibility to make sure that apprentices are treated fairly rests with the employer, but businesses clearly need to understand those responsibilities. Research from the Learning and Work Institute Cymru found that a fifth of employers hadn't heard about the apprentice minimum wage and that more than 40 per cent didn't know that off-the-job training needed to be paid. But, most importantly for me, the survey highlights the importance of the UK Government ensuring compliance with such important legislation, and while I'm supportive of the proposals for additional support to apprentices that are set out in the report, we must look to the UK Government to more rigorously uphold the minimum wage and the living wage as that, in turn, secures fairness for everyone, including apprentices.

Usefully, the Learning and Work Institute recommended action in three crucial areas: firstly, around raising employer awareness so that all employers are aware of the rules; secondly, clear information setting out minimum wage entitlements at the start of an apprenticeship and more responsibility on training providers to ensure that this happens; and thirdly, better enforcement and support for apprentices when there is a problem. I would add here that I think there is also a responsibility on trade unions to prioritise organising and support for apprentices.

Because we all know that apprenticeships can be an exciting pathway to a successful job and career, and we also know that this Welsh Government is committed to a fair work agenda. So, I hope that the Minister would agree that a new fair work commission should take a look at the findings of the survey that I've been quoting from and that it should also be looked at when implementing the new economic contract. I hope that Welsh Government consider how, going forward, the research can also help to further shape our apprenticeship programme in Wales to ensure that those taking up apprenticeships are fairly treated. Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to write to the UK Government pressing the case for more rigorous enforcement of apprenticeship wages. These are hard-fought-for rights that no Government should allow to be flouted on their watch.

Our inquiry into apprenticeships in Wales exposed concerns that the number of disabled apprentices in Wales is far below the rate achieved in England, that economic barriers are preventing young people from taking up opportunities, that a stubborn gender segregation remained and that a lack of providers may be preventing young people from undertaking apprenticeships through the medium of Welsh.

In accepting our recommendation on gender and careers, the Welsh Government noted that although 60 per cent of learners pursuing an apprenticeship were female, this—quote—

'masks gender disparity in some sectors.'

In accepting our recommendation that they should produce a clear, disabled-person-specific action plan to address the under-representation of disabled people in apprenticeships, after 19 years in power, the Welsh Government said that they are—quote—

'committed to improving our approach'.

They state that they have been working with Remploy to match those who are participating in the Work Choice programme into apprenticeship opportunities and have introduced a case worker approach with the aid of designated Remploy apprenticeship co-ordinators. Well, last month, I visited Remploy Wrexham to discuss the launch of the UK Government employment support programme, Work and Health Programme Wales, and to sit in on a training session with customers. The Welsh Government must therefore provide assurance that its new employability programme adds to rather than replicates this, and this should be included in the annual progress report on implementation of its employability plan, which it pledges to provide to the committee in response to our recommendation 11.

In stating that it is in the process of setting up an inclusive apprenticeship working group comprising of representatives from disability organisations across Wales, which—quote—

'will produce an Apprenticeships Disability Action Plan', 

we'll need assurance that it will act on the explanation by Disability Arts Cymru that the difference between disability equality training and disability awareness training is that disability awareness training is often led by non-disabled people who are professionals in the medical or caring professions. This training has a medical focus, it informs participants about disabled people's impairments and ways of overcoming disability, whereas disability equality training is always led by trainers who are disabled people. The focus is on disabled and non-disabled people working together to overcome the disabling barriers in society. This training has a holistic focus, recognising that removing the physical, financial and attitudinal barriers will create a more inclusive, accessible society. That is core. That is key.

In rejecting our recommendation that they should provide more support to employers in raising awareness among a wider range of young people of the benefits of apprenticeships, the Welsh Government then provides a list of the information it already provides. However, this neither addresses the written evidence from Remploy, highlighting that only 2.7 per cent of learners in work-based learning provision and 1.3 per cent of apprentices in Wales are disabled, compared to 9 per cent in England, nor Remploy's suggestion that one of the reasons for this is a lack of awareness of apprenticeships by parents, employers and learners.

The young people we met at the Prince's Trust detailed the financial barriers that prevent young people from taking up apprenticeships. In only accepting in principle that it should create a competitive hardship fund for apprenticeships on the lowest pay levels, or create other concessions such as concessionary bus or rail cards, as exist for other students, the Welsh Government states that this would need to be considered—quote—

'against the outcome of the Discounted Bus Travel for Young Persons in Wales consultation.'

However, this closed four months ago. While the Welsh Government states that it responds to most consultations in 12 weeks, ITV Wales reported on Monday that the Welsh Government has failed to respond to nearly a third of its consultations launched since the election two years ago. Let's hope this is not another one. And although it states that subsidising travel costs is likely to be classified as a UK taxable benefit, NUS Wales point out that local authorities in Sheffield, Liverpool and the west midlands have already introduced similar plans.

Their acceptance in principle only of our recommendation that they should provide the committee with an annual update covering all protected characteristics and access from low-income communities is not acceptable. The committee is clear that apprentices in Wales are not yet fully representative of the wider society they're drawn from. Reform's recent report on the apprenticeship programme in England concluded that if the necessary changes they describe were made, then apprentices, taxpayers and employers across the country stand to benefit for many years to come. 

Can you wind up, please?

It is noted that there has not been an equivalent progress report on the apprenticeship programme in Wales.

I'd like to thank the Members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee for producing this report—thank you—on apprenticeships in Wales. It is clear that qualitative apprenticeships play an essential role in our economic success, as well as in building a stronger, fairer and more equal Wales. I'm proud of the Welsh Government's commitment to create 100,000 apprenticeships by the time of the next Assembly elections. These are qualitative apprenticeships, meaningful and targeted, as identified by the OECD interest in our wider economic action plan. There is much for us to be proud of, but of course this report identifies there is more that can be done.

I am glad that the Welsh Government has accepted the report's recommendation to do more to tackle gender prejudice and wider access to apprenticeships. As has been said, although 60 per cent of those pursuing an apprenticeship are female, they are too often guided towards lower-paid sectors and, despite many educational initiatives, are noticeably absent from STEM subjects. It is vital that we tackle such gender disparities if we are to build a fairer and more equal Wales, and so I very much welcome the Welsh Government's platform of wider initiatives on STEM and its response pledging to do more to get women into these priority sectors, including the clear expectation on progression pathways needed to close the gender pay gap, and the fair work commission agenda. 

Indeed, just this morning, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee was hearing about the role of apprenticeships in tackling the gender pay gap through getting more women into predominantly male employment sectors such as engineering. It is right, and it is an expectation in Wales, that employers and apprentice providers adhere to the equality toolkit, which includes modules on gender identity, stereotyping and unconscious bias. This importance attached to ending the inequality and the gender pay gap is critical to the Welsh Government's calls for action, the economic action plan, and the economic contract, which the OECD and the World Economic Forum are exemplifying in Wales.

I also welcome the report's recommendation to do more to tackle the under-representation of disabled people in apprenticeships. The establishment of an inclusive apprenticeships working group, which will publish an apprenticeships disability action plan, is also a welcome development, and it is vital that we reduce the barriers currently preventing disabled people from accessing apprenticeships.

In an era of enforced austerity from the UK Tory Government, some barriers to accessing apprenticeships are also very much financial, including the report’s finding that transport to and from training or learning centres takes up to 20 per cent of apprentices' wages. Again, it is right that the Welsh Government has accepted in principle the committee’s recommendation to create a hardship fund for the apprentices on the lowest pay, or create other concessionary travel rates. I understand consultations are currently being reviewed on these issues, and that there are concerns that concessions to apprenticeships could amount to a taxable benefit. As such, I would like to ask if the Welsh Government has yet spoken to local authorities in Liverpool, Sheffield and the west midlands who have introduced similar schemes.

So, to conclude, I wish to commend the stance that Wales has taken in the provision of qualitative and targeted apprenticeships in Wales, and will continue to enhance them, I believe, for the future workforce and the future productivity of a fair Wales.

I want to look at three particular areas—and I'm looking forward to hear the Minister’s comments on these three areas—starting with recommendation 1, relating to prejudice on the grounds of gender. Of course, unfortunately, some of the conclusions in the report aren't new to us, and certainly, in autumn of 2012, the Enterprise and Business Committee raised the importance of tackling these issues in order to expand access. A recommendation was accepted that the Welsh Government should monitor differences between genders in apprenticeships, the reasons for those differences, and to consider the possibility of setting targets for improving recruitment rates for women in apprenticeships in the priority sectors for the economy.

Accepted also, back in 2012, was the recommendation that training should be provided on gender equality for professionals in the field of careers and educating to correct any stereotyping in the advice that they give to young people. But, unfortunately, of course, over five years after publishing that report and accepting those recommendations, only 1.6 per cent of construction apprenticeships and 3.1 per cent of engineering apprenticeships are held by women, as opposed to 96 per cent of childcare and teaching and development apprenticeships and 91 per cent of hairdressing apprenticeships that are held by women. So, this does raise questions about the steps that have been taken by your Government over the past five years to get to grips with this issue, and it raises a question also about whether you will be genuinely taking action on the recommendations that have been made by this committee.

We discussed this morning, in the equality committee, the role that the economic contract can play in being used to try to get rid of some of these stereotypes. Even though this committee hasn’t considered this issue, I wonder what your comments would be. Could this contract be used with regard to apprenticeships as well to try to tackle some of the stereotypes on the basis of gender?

Secondly, I want to look at the aspect of the Welsh language and apprenticeships through the medium of the Welsh language. Again, the gap in the likely demand for apprenticeships through the medium of Welsh and the ability to meet that demand—. That isn’t unexpected either. The number of apprenticeships offered through the medium of Welsh has been extremely low for years. In 2014-15, only 0.3 per cent, or 140 apprenticeships, were completed through the medium of Welsh, out of well over 48,000 apprenticeships. The Welsh Government’s response to criticism of the situation was to change the way that the statistics are gathered, by publishing a figure for the number of apprenticeships with some element of bilingual teaching—and that could mean as little as introducing one bilingual resource to the students. Clearly, we need to get to grips with the situation in order to reach 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, and also to fill the gaps in skills in areas such as social care, where there is a need for Welsh speakers to provide services for Welsh speakers.

The decision to extend the responsibilities of the coleg Cymraeg to include further education colleges and workplace learning is to be welcomed, but we need a sufficient budget for that work and in order to increase the proportion of apprenticeships that are completed through the medium of Welsh.

Finally, and very quickly: even though the committee doesn't mention the apprenticeships levy from the point of view of the police—please forgive me for wandering into this field—it is a cause for concern because a year after the apprenticeships levy was introduced, it's still unclear who has the responsibility for the levy. My colleague the Member of Parliament for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Liz Saville Roberts, has received contradictory information—information from you that it's a matter that is reserved on a UK level, and information from the Minister for police also, which states that they're not responsible for police training. So, nobody's taking responsibility for training police, and nobody's taking responsibility for the apprenticeships, which would be very beneficial, of course, in this area. So, I would like to use this opportunity just to ask the Welsh Government to explain what's happening with apprenticeships for the police and the levy in that regard. Thank you.

I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak in this debate today. I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee and all its members for this very important report. Despite not being a member of this committee, Members will know that I take a great interest in apprenticeships, having been an apprentice myself before entering the Assembly. With that in mind, I could spend great time today speaking about this issue, but in the interests of time, I want to focus my contribution on three main issues: one, apprentice trainers; two, automation; and, finally, emotional intelligence.

At age 17, at the start of the fourth Assembly—for Members who are interested—I started my apprenticeship at a local firm on Deeside industrial estate. That apprenticeship gave me the opportunity to work, learn and earn, and I am delighted that the Welsh Government has a commitment to creating a minimum of 100,000 high-quality apprenticeships in Wales over this Assembly term. With that said, I hope the Government looks seriously at the issue of trainers. We know that once an apprentice has served his or her time, it takes a few years to get the relevant experience as a fully served and skilled tradesperson. I want to take this point now to pay tribute to John Steele, who recently retired from my workplace—the workplace where I was fortunate to do my apprenticeship. He was my mentor, my friend, and his retirement raises so many serious questions about how we ensure firms across Wales have the people with relevant experiences and skills to train the next generation of apprentices.

Automation is another big issue that will impact on the type of apprenticeships that we will need in the future. Members will be aware of the recent statistics that were recently raised on this matter. They revealed that the proportion of jobs at risk of automation by the early 2030s in Wales varies from 26 per cent to over 36 per cent. My constituency in Alyn and Deeside was highlighted as the constituency that had the highest percentage of jobs at risk through automation, with 36 per cent. Now, I agree completely with the future generations of Wales commissioner when she says that, instead of asking what automation will take away from us, we should be asking how automation can help us improve our public services and the well-being of our lives and communities. We should be embracing automation as a huge economic opportunity, but at the same time ensure that we have a strategy for dealing with the risks of these technologies.

At this point now, it is important to recognise and highlight the importance of emotional intelligence. Now, we've all been here and we've all been there: you're ordering tickets to an event online, you're almost done, but that annoying screen pops up and makes you type some blurry letters and some numbers, right at the end, into a box. Now, this is a step, as most people know, to ensure that you are just a person buying a ticket to your favourite concert or football match, and you are not a computer programme deployed to grab a bunch of seats. Now, it's that level of emotional intelligence that will ensure the next generation of workers does not lose out as a result of automation. We urgently need to identify those who are most likely to be hardest hit by automation, and to develop targeted measures to help those people. That must include financial and psychological support, as well as the upskilling of the workforce.

Finally, in closing, I welcome the publication of this report and look forward to working with Members from across the Chamber as well as the Welsh Government in ensuring that we have high-skilled, well-paid, quality apprenticeships for our future generations in Wales. Diolch.

We welcome the Welsh Government's generally good response to our report, though of course we are disappointed that it chose to reject some of our recommendations. The Enterprise, Innovation and Skills Committee's inquiry into apprenticeship delivery in Wales showed that there is now a consensus across both industry and the education sectors that apprenticeships have, for far too long, been a neglected element of our skills enhancement process. We are of course now reaping the results of this neglect in the emergence of a dearth of suitably qualified personnel required at all levels in both our business and public sectors. It is gratifying to note, however, that the education providers, both at further education and higher education levels, are now embracing this vital part of our economic base, and there really does appear to be a sea-change emphasis on making qualifications more applicable to business needs.

In order to alleviate this imbalance between the needs of the business and public sector and a suitably skilled workforce, there must be a greater emphasis on work-based skills enhancement, and an expansion of technical facilities in our colleges that are more aligned to the needs of the workplace. The evidence the committee gathered does suggest there is a strong apprenticeship base in Wales, but there are glaring deficiencies in some areas, particularly with regard to apprenticeships for the disabled, which figures show are much worse in Wales than in England. This must be an area of high priority for all those involved in the delivery of apprenticeships. We also found that Welsh-language based apprenticeships are not adequately provided for, where it appears that there is a distinct lack of suitably qualified teaching staff in Welsh-language apprenticeship frameworks.

One vitally important area where our inquiry has indicated deficiencies was in the provision of adequate information and pathways in our schools with regard to apprenticeship opportunities. It is now incumbent on all agencies, schools, colleagues and FE establishments to promote the pathways to vocational skills as an alternative to academic qualifications. Allied to this must be a greater involvement of business with the educational sector. Our inquiry did indicate the Welsh Government is putting policies in place to address these issues.

In order to ensure that we had the relevant numbers taking the apprenticeship route, it is absolutely vital that all agencies involved embark on a strategy to ensure that there is an equality of esteem between vocational and academic achievement. However, as the National Union of Students point out, there can be no equality of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications without equality of funding. This must be addressed as a priority by the Welsh Government.

In conclusion, the partnership between education and business is crucial to make sure we have the correct skills base to drive the Welsh economy forward in the twenty-first century.

I'll keep my contribution short, given that we're so pressed for time. I wanted to make the case for higher level apprenticeships and the fact that development of degree apprenticeships in Wales is at level 6. I think there are universities that are ready to provide degree-level apprenticeships at Master's level. I think that's a significant way forward that will, certainly from the evidence in England, suggest that degree-level apprenticeships will be taken up in STEM subjects by women who want to study those subjects, as well as amongst learners from areas of traditionally low participation in higher education. Therefore, a Master's progression is quite important.

I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted recommendations 9 and 10 regarding the need for clarity and security when it comes to the funding of degree apprenticeships. But I also think—. I'm concerned about the rejection of recommendation 12, which says that the universities are autonomously responsible for the design and delivery of their courses, but I would like an opportunity to scrutinise, in this Chamber or in committee, the roll-out of degree apprenticeships across Wales. I fear that if it is just left only to universities, they will do a good job, but the democratic accountability may well be missing. So, I think that's quite important.

I'd also like to pick up on a point made by Siân Gwenllian. I spoke to my predecessor yesterday, Jeff Cuthbert, my predecessor as an Assembly Member for Caerphilly—I'd say to the Chamber I've no plans to ever become a police and crime commissioner, but he is currently the police and crime commissioner for my region—and he raised that concern about the £2.8 million in apprenticeship levy that goes to the UK and the police service is unable to draw on it. It's a massively significant issue that doesn't happen in England and it is a controversial one. It is bizarre that the Treasury then expects the Welsh Government to fund vocational training in the police force and, therefore, I would urge the Minister and the Government to raise this with their counterparts in the UK. And, with that, I think I will draw my comments short, perhaps to give someone else the time to contribute.

I welcome the committee report, which addresses issues regarding one of the greatest challenges facing the Welsh Government: how to address the skill gap in Wales. The British Chamber of Commerce's quarterly economic survey for the final quarter of 2017 indicates that skill shortages are reaching critical levels. Firms in the services and manufacturing sectors report difficulties in recruitment. They claim that the survey results emphasise the need to kick-start the economy by addressing the barriers to growth, in particular the growing skills gap that is hindering the ability of companies to find the workers that they need to develop. Commenting on results, the director general of the British Chamber of Commerce said:

'Labour and skills shortages are set to be the biggest potential drag anchor on business in 2018, since ultimately it is people that make businesses work.'

Having skills can greatly add to a worker's potential earning in Wales because skilled workers are in such short supply here. I am concerned that the Welsh Government is failing to promote the benefits that apprenticeships can bring to students at early stages. Career information in schools about apprenticeships is vital if we are to increase the supply of trained workers that our economy desperately needs. The committee notes issues with the quality and availability of careers advice, including the lack of trained careers advisers, and the lack of knowledge of apprenticeships and vocational training among school staff. Schools also exhibit a tendency of encouraging pupils towards the study of A-levels. Further education and work-based learning organisations need greater access to schools to broaden the range of advice that young people receive about their future prospects. By doing so, I am confident that this will go some way to tackling the worrying gender imbalance and under-representation of disabled people that we currently see in apprenticeships in Wales.

Having encouraged young people to take up an apprenticeship, we must now look at the level of support we provide them with. There is substantial evidence that financial barriers, such as transport costs, are discouraging and, in some cases, preventing young people from taking up apprenticeships. The committee calls on Welsh Government to create a competitive hardship fund for apprentices on the lowest pay level or to create other concessions, such as concessionary bus or rail cards as already exist for some students in other parts of the United Kingdom. In October last year, the Welsh Conservatives pledged to give free bus travel and a third off the cost of rail tickets to all 16 to 24-year-olds in Wales. Last month, Jeremy Corbyn announced plans to give under-25s in England free bus travel. So, it would be ironic indeed if we in Wales, the only nation in the United Kingdom where Labour is in power, denied our young people the support they need to access the skills needed to build our future economy.

I would like to say a few words about digital skills in Wales also. Nearly half of all small businesses in Wales lack the business digital skills that could help them to improve productivity and save costs. One of the barriers holding Welsh firms back from doing more online is a lack of staff with digital skills. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe the recommendation in this report represents a potential major step forward in boosting the number of apprenticeships and providing Wales with the skilled workforce that is needed now and in the future.

In Wales, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have learned to fly, and I know people 20 years ago used to go for vocational training to get their pilot licence. I'm pretty sure a number of world airlines must be employing those pilots, those who are actually not doing other things—they became pilots and serve their nations. If the Conservatives come into power, there are a couple of areas we shall certainly do: gender, age and NEETs—not in education, training or employment. These people, we'll make sure they will learn for their full potential in life according to their aptitude test. We must have some sort of system in the education department to make sure that our children grow and achieve their full potential in life, according to their aptitude and ability in life, no matter whether able, disabled, man, woman, young or old. They will all be equal in the eyes of the Conservative Party. Thank you.

As a member of the committee, I was very pleased to take part in this inquiry, and I'll keep my contribution short and focus on a few recommendations. Firstly, recommendation 6, which calls for a competitive hardship fund for apprentices, and also for the extension of concessions such as travel schemes to apprentices too. That, I feel, links in with recommendation 7, which calls for the establishment of a universal grant to cover living costs for all apprentices.

I think they cover different aspects of a single challenge, and that is ensuring parity between apprentices and students, between the vocational and the academic. The evidence that we took from witnesses on this was very clear. The Construction Industry Training Board, the south west and mid Wales regional skills partnership and the Federation of Small Businesses all agreed that much more work needed to be done in this area. The FSB noted that support for university students was predicated on equivalency with the living wage, but that that is currently not the case for apprenticeship funding.

Clearly, financial hardships are a barrier preventing people from more disadvantaged backgrounds from taking up apprenticeships. So, there is a need to make provision so that economic barriers are not the sole factor dissuading potential applicants. Moreover, there is the need, as others have said, to promote parity of esteem between study in higher education and apprenticeships. Countries like Germany do this so well and if we could have that shift in this country, it would be a wonderful thing.

I know that the Welsh Government has accepted both of these recommendations in principle and that work is ongoing. I look forward to future updates from Ministers so we can ensure that our apprentices do get a fair deal and do get parity of esteem.

I'd like to finally briefly consider recommendation 3. This sets out our finding that more support should be provided to employers so that they can raise awareness about the benefits of apprenticeships amongst a wider cross-section of young people. I feel personally it's unfortunate that the Welsh Government has rejected this recommendation. I note the range of mechanisms by which they currently make available information on the benefits of apprenticeships and the various engagement devices outlined in the Welsh Government’s response to recommendation 14 too.

However, from my background in secondary education, I know that far too often our young people are really not fully aware of the range of apprenticeships that are out there, or the benefits that they can bring to their career development. Often, responsibility for conveying this message falls onto teachers. With so many pressures already on the school timetable, it is not always possible for teachers to gain the expertise they need to understand and therefore adequately promote the benefits of modern apprenticeships. Employers who take on apprentices, who may be former apprentices themselves, are surely better placed to champion the opportunities in this career path; to explain the benefits and challenges inherent in choosing a non-university pathway; and also to note the possibilities of success in that area too, just like our colleague Jack Sargeant. So, I would hope that more work could be done in this area. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, Joyce Watson. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to focus on help that is available to the Government and the people that you already work with in breaking down some of the perceptions of what an apprentice looks like, and what an apprenticeship is. The Institution of Civil Engineers do have a fabulous school programme that involves building a bridge, and they take it around schools and give students a real opportunity for hands-on. The Construction Industry Training Board also have similar schemes.

What I found and what came out of our evidence gathering, following on from what Vikki said, was that where people were located in an area where apprenticeships were fairly evident, like in a local industry, whether that was energy or aerospace or anything else, they were fully aware, their parents were fully aware, and they were engaged with the opportunities of apprenticeships. But, the further that you moved out from such geographic locations, the less awareness there was, so that puts the onus firmly and squarely on others helping to lift and encourage and promote the apprenticeships within those communities. 

There is real innovation that is happening in existing opportunities. For example, there's huge innovation that's going on in the construction industry that's not fully understood, and it's not fully understood by the people who are trying to help the pupils understand those opportunities. And if it was, I think we could remove the gender gap within that industry virtually overnight. So, my ask of you, Minister, is this: to try and engage with those people who are not currently within schools, with the industries themselves, and feed back to those people who ought to be giving career advice about the innovation and the possibilities within the apprenticeship structure that is currently available, but is quickly changing.  

I call the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning, Eluned Morgan. 

Thank you very much and thank you for the debate this afternoon. May I give particular thanks to Russell and the committee for their recommendations? You will be aware that we have accepted the vast majority of those recommendations, and I'd like to discuss a few of them now.  

Our work in Wales and apprenticeship programmes, you will be aware I'm sure, are trying to reshape the skills landscape in order, as Mohammad Asghar set out, to change the fact that we need to meet the challenges of the new economy. Members will be aware that it is one of our flagship programmes in the Welsh Government. We've got a target of 100,000 high-quality new apprenticeships, and that's aimed at generating growth and investment. I'm delighted to report that we are hitting that target; we're on target to meet that projection. 

We are seeing a growth in the number of apprenticeships here in Wales, whilst seeing what's happened in England because of the introduction of the apprenticeship levy—a levy that was introduced with no consultation with the Welsh Government at all. What we've seen there is a drop of 40 per cent in apprenticeship numbers, according to the Reform think tank in England. So, we're doing much better than they're doing in England, but let me make it clear that we're not just interested in numbers, and I think this is the mistake that England has made. 

We won't dilute and demote that apprenticeship brand here in Wales, because what you've got in England are baristas serving coffee who've been given apprenticeships, or people being given the title of an apprentice when they're paid extremely low wages with the prospect that, if they're lucky, they might get a job in the gig economy. That's not the kind of thing that we are aspiring to here in Wales. So, our interest is in modernising the apprenticeships to meet the changing needs of the economy and raising the quality and relevance of apprenticeships.

Mark, yes.

You refer, as I did in my conclusion, to the Reform report, and, of course, that spared no blushes for the UK Government, but it also made a series of proposed changes, and it said that the UK Government's approach was, in principle, the right approach and that, if these changes were implemented, it would set things right for years to come. Why won't the Welsh Government therefore consider the findings of that report in the context of the cross-border provision in Wales, which is so critical for so many thousands of young learners?

There's a whole host of reasons why we are not going to follow the English example. A 40 per cent drop is one of the reasons, but also we're absolutely focused on quality so I'm not going to take any lessons from England on this.

I think that one of the biggest challenges facing us in Wales today is in-work poverty, and the fact is that 40 per cent of the people who use food banks in Wales are in work. So, the problem that many people face, particularly those with low qualifications, is that low-paid work is not providing a stepping stone to those higher paid jobs and people are being trapped in low pay.

Dawn, I'm very aware of the fact that there are lots of issues in relation to low pay around this area. We in the Welsh Government are keeping a very close eye on compliance in relation to the minimum wage, and I think it's a good point that you make that we should make sure that the fair work commission addresses this issue, and I'll make a commitment to write to the fair work commission to address this issue once it's established. 

We think, as a Government, that it's our responsibility to help people to break out of that cycle of low skills and low pay and to support people into higher level apprenticeships and to help people onto that ladder of opportunity. What we know is that the challenges of the future will be different from those of the past, and I'd like to agree wholeheartedly with Jack Sargeant when he says that what we need is a different response in an age of new technology and automation that's going to change the nature of the workplace. And that's why we are focused on expanding the number of higher level apprenticeships and why we've got this situation now where we've convened an expert panel to look at how automation and digital will impact on the economy in future. But I take the point—and I'm not happy with the point—that, at the moment, as Vikki Howells has suggested, we haven't reached a stage where we do have parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications. I think it's really important that we keep our focus on that.

There is a UK Government review in terms of post-18 education, and we will await the report of that expert panel. And at that point I think it's important that we do then review in particular the hardship fund that we are interested in looking at and the discounted travel for young people. So, those things are absolutely firmly on our agenda.

Our goal is to double the number of higher apprenticeships with a focus on STEM and to create that new generation of professionals who are going to drive innovative practice, create new products and raise productivity levels. I think that Joyce is absolutely right: there's a lot we've done already in relation to raising awareness. Civil engineers, they're doing a great job going into schools, as she's suggested. But I think that probably Vikki has a point that we could do more in relation to teaching the teachers about apprenticeships. 

We've also developed these new routes to apprenticeships through introducing these degree apprenticeships, from this September. As you've heard, we're working with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to develop those degree apprenticeships. We want to get this right, so we're not chasing numbers and we're not chasing date targets. I actually think that it's probably too early for us to look at a Master's at this level. Let's get the degree apprenticeships right before we go on to Master's.

Let me be clear in relation to apprenticeships also that we are committed to driving inclusivity, equality and diversity. And, on the issue of gender parity, we've instructed apprenticeship providers to give extra support and mentoring to tackle gender stereotyping, for example, through encouraging more women to enter the construction profession. We've also been working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to promote—

Will the Minister take an intervention? 

Yes, if you'd like.

Thank you. I was listening to Siân Gwenllian's comments earlier, and she mentioned the Economy and Business Committee report from 2012. I might be one of the few people who still have a copy of it up in my wardrobe upstairs, and recommendations 16 and 17 are not word for word exactly, but say exactly what you've just said, Minister:

'Provide gender equality training for careers advisers and teaching professionals to redress any stereotyping in the advice they give.'

That was six years ago, actually, now, Siân. Clearly, we're still looking at dealing with those problems. Can you tell us what you're going to do to make sure that in six years' time we're not still facing the same problem?

Well, we've got a whole suite of measures where we are promoting, trying to get women into these areas. This is not an easy task—this is not easy. If anyone's got any good ideas, then let us know, because it is a very, very difficult task. What we have introduced is these 'have a go' days. Sometimes, these are specifically targeted at women to try and make sure that they have a go at welding and trying these professions that perhaps they won't have thought of going into. So, we're doing our best; we're encouraging it. I'm trying my best with my own daughter, but you can go so far, and, at the end of the day, I think we've got to make this fun for them and introduce them really early, which is why STEM has got to start in school. You've got to start at a very, very young age and that's what is happening through our education system as well.

We're reviewing the recruitment practices for apprenticeships specifically in the engineering sector. So, I think that is something that we need to focus on; it's these sectors where we have to focus. Siân Gwenllian, just to make it clear that

every careers officer is trained in equality. So, we are doing our best to ensure that people are aware, when they are giving young people an idea of what’s available—that they are aware that they have to try and attract women to those apprenticeships. 

On disability, I think it's fair to say that the participation of disabled people in apprenticeships needs an improvement, and I'm glad that Mark Isherwood has drawn attention to the work we're doing with Remploy. We've also facilitated workshops between apprenticeship providers and regional Remploy offices, and we've ensured that there's a dedicated equality and diversity champion who is working with providers, making those connections with local communities, and I'm pleased to say that the majority of apprenticeship providers have signed up to the Time to Change Wales pledge, which is a public declaration that they want to tackle mental health stigma and discrimination. But let me be clear to David Rowlands that this is a priority area for the Welsh Government. We know that we've got work to do in relation to disability and apprenticeships in particular. We've developed a toolkit, and we've provided bespoke training to that provider network.

I take on board the points made by Mark on the disability training, that, actually, sometimes that is most effectively delivered by disabled people—

Can I ask the Minister to wind her comments up to a close, please?

Absolutely. 

Just a few words on the Welsh language: may I say that it is possible to take any apprenticeship through the medium of Welsh where there is demand? I want to make it clear that apprentices can study in the language of their choice, but the fact is that very few people choose to undertake their apprenticeship solely through the medium of Welsh. There are quite a few now who are doing it bilingually, but it’s the choice of the apprentices. So, there are many people who perhaps don’t have the confidence that we would hope to study solely through the medium of Welsh.

Can I just make a couple of points on—?

No, no. Sorry. You're way out of time, Minister. I do apologise. If there is one urgent, final sentence that you have to say, you can say a final sentence to round the debate off.

Well, just to thank—. I just want to thank the committee for their interest in this, because it is a really important area for us and I'd like to ask you to keep us on our toes in this regard. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Dawn Bowden, can I thank you for your contribution in regard to the issue you raised about raising awareness—employee awareness? I think that's quite correct. You raised some issues that we didn't look at in our inquiry but I think are completely relevant to today's debate. I certainly think that there are some areas that you raised in your contribution that the committee could pick up. And your points in regard to pay rates not meeting minimum requirements—the Minister has already committed to looking at that herself, but I think those are also areas that the committee should perhaps do some work on as well.

Mark Isherwood used his contribution to highlight, in large part, evidence that we've received from Remploy in regard to apprentices and in regard to disabled people. This is an area where we need to see some real progress being made; the Minister's acknowledged that and accepted that recommendation in that regard as well. 

Joyce Watson, Rhianon Passmore and Siân Gwenllian also raised issues around gender, disabled people, Welsh speaking, and I should say that, as a committee, we did decide not to ask for specific targets in this regard; we didn't want to create a tick-box culture. We did have some discussion around that, and we are keen for those regular updates. But I think as we come back as a committee to look at this work again, and we will do, then I suppose if we feel that progress isn't being made in those areas, it might be a case where the committee are minded to look at recommending specific targets in those areas.

Jack Sargeant, you should join our committee. We've just started a piece of work on automation this morning—a real fascinating session this morning, and I agree with all the points you made in that regard. And, of course, you talked about your own experience as an apprentice yourself—so, so much in common with what our committee's looking at. You'd be very welcome to join our committee, but that would mean I'd have to choose one Member on your side to leave, and I wouldn't be able to do that either.

David Rowlands and Mohammad Asghar—I'll just say Oscar; I'll just call you Oscar—were also pointing out the requirements for independent career advice and getting the correct balance for the Welsh economy, and also highlighting our recommendations for equivalent support to be made, of course, between apprentices and that also available to students.

If I could thank Vikki Howells, of course, for raising the issues of awareness of encouraging younger people, I suppose, and bringing your own experience as a teacher yourself—of course, I'm disappointed, like yourself, that the Government didn't accept recommendation 3 in this regard.

Thank you, Nick Ramsay, for your intervention as well and for rooting through your wardrobe this afternoon to pull out an old committee paper. I think it's important that we do look at our previous committees' work and not let them gather dust; I'm certainly a big believer in that.

Can I thank my colleagues on the committee for their work and their contribution, and also Members who have left our committee now? Two Members have now joined the Government since we started this piece of work.

I particularly wanted to thank BT and the Prince's Trust for hosting the committee and showcasing us the work of their apprentices and young people respectively—that was a very valuable meeting for us, and we thank you for that—and also the other organisations who also submitted evidence to the committee's inquiry. So, today's debate, I think, has showcased the passion that Members have in our committee but also from Members not sitting on our committee as well. It's encouraging that a lot of Members who took part in today's debate are not members of the committee, and that's the way I think it should be; that should be the norm.

And I do appreciate the Minister's enthusiasm as well in regard to apprenticeships; I can certainly agree and see that. So, I can say to the Minister the committee won't be leaving apprenticeships behind after this debate, you'll be pleased to know. We'll be publishing our thoughts on the first year of the levy later this term, and this is an issue that Hefin David and Siân Gwenllian also mentioned. So, I'm pleased to say that some of the issues around policing that were mentioned in today's debate will be addressed then as well. But I can say to the Minister we'll certainly be keeping up the pressure on the Government in regard to the support for apprenticeships and support packages for apprentices equivalent to those that are available to students as well.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on land transaction tax on commercial land. I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion—Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion in the name of Paul Davies AM. I will address the amendments first.

We're happy to support Plaid's amendment 2, reflecting the devolution of powers agreed between the Assembly and the Conservative-led Government at Westminster. We also support Plaid's amendment 3. With our new tax powers, we need good scrutiny over how they are used and any impact on the economy. A review of property taxation is appropriate, given the number of taxes that we now have affecting property. This should now be expedited, because we want to give urgent consideration to Labour's 6 per cent supertax on significant commercial transactions. We'll be able to compare the impact of their 6 per cent supertax—a fifth higher than the 5 per cent under stamp duty land tax—and the lower 4.5 per cent rate set in Scotland. This, industry leaders say, has made Scottish commercial property more competitive, which is evident in the increasing demand the market has experienced. Devolution allows us to assess evidence from across the UK and to reconsider mistaken policy. We must take that opportunity.

Turning to the Government amendment, which we'll be opposing in light of its dismissive 'delete all', I will address its two parts. The Welsh Government is correct to say that no Assembly Member voted against the setting of these tax bands, but as the Minister is well aware and will recall from our debates on the Finance Committee and attempts from myself and Nick Ramsay to put those rates onto the face of the Bill, the reason is because, against our entreaties, those tax bands were introduced by regulation, which we have no power to amend. It was a take-it-or-leave-it decision and our concern relates to this 6 per cent supertax on significant commercial transactions, not to the land transaction tax regime as a whole.

The second half of the Government's amendment relates to the purchase of the Cardiff bus station site just a few days before the switch from SDLT to LTT. I'm glad that the Welsh Government is now clearer about its position, however it's still not clear why it made no announcement about its end-of-March purchase of the bus station site until 18 April, or why Ken Skates gave me such an opaque answer in writing on 11 April. Perhaps I shouldn't give Ken too hard a time about his written answers at the beginning of April—he was, after all, representing us at the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast and our athletes were very successful under his encouraging eye. The one consistency through the Government's response to our questions is that it has not gained any tax advantage. Can it then clarify what was the motivation for rushing the Cardiff bus station deal through before the end of March? Was it so that the capital spend counted against the 2017-18 budget rather than this year's?

Of course, the reality is that Welsh Government does enjoy a tax advantage when dealing in property. It benefits from Crown exemption. So, it doesn't pay SDLT or LTT, unlike the private sector. As a property investor, it is unaffected by whether the rate is 5 per cent or 6 per cent—[Interruption.] Was that an intervention over there?

No, no. Carry on.

Ah, excellent.

I think we're fully aware of the Crown exemption, but I can't understand, therefore, why you aren't happily accepting the Government's amendment, seeing as, clearly, as they have Crown exemption, they would never be needing to pay the land transaction tax. It's a complete non sequitur.

Well, the reason we're opposing the amendment is that it starts with 'delete all' with reference to our motion. We also have some concerns about how Welsh Government is treated compared to local authorities and potentially some other bodies, and the potential differences between LTT and SDLT and the centralising effects we think that may unhelpfully have on partnerships.

I previously criticised Welsh Government for its lack of joined-up approach to office development and employment growth, particularly in the constituency of the AM who's just spoken, Cardiff Central. One Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, promotes an enterprise zone, yet another, Mark Drakeford, subjects it to punitive taxes. Industry leaders say they're already seeing reducing asset valuations and investors who will no longer consider Wales as a direct consequence of this policy decision. How are we to reconcile what Ken Skates describes as his business-friendly approach with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance's new supertax? The property industry tells us that private investor interest will significantly subside with the LTT increase and will result in Welsh property being less competitive than the other UK nations and regions. Investors will be concerned that, having raised tax once, this could happen again. Having the Corbyn-backing Minister who raised the tax move to the top job may not mollify such fears. The BBC reported on 28 March how Welsh Government may sidestep private investors being unwilling to pay its rising tax burden. According to the BBC, for Central Square, the Welsh Government will buy the offices on the site, so punitive taxation then begets nationalisation. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted.

While Welsh Government has a Crown exemption from both SDLT and LTT, my advice from the Assembly legal team via the Research Service is that local authorities may be less generously treated by LTT. If they jointly purchase property with Welsh Government, LTT may be payable, while some purchases that HMRC may have exempted from SDLT could be liable for LTT. The safer option for local authorities on regeneration may now be to defer to a Welsh Government lead, relying on Welsh Government's Crown exemption to assemble land for what should be locally driven schemes. I've spoken about the Cardiff bus station, but the implications may be wider, as Suzy Davies will address for the Swansea region.

Finally, I'm extremely concerned that the Cabinet Secretary may have made a serious error in January in his Welsh tax policy report at paragraphs 60 to 61. He admits that higher LTT

'will reduce both prices and the number of non-residential transactions',

but then says,

'The size of these effects is estimated using the OBR’s behavioural effects',

applying SDLT elasticities. Basing his forecast on such UK-wide calculations wholly ignores the likely substitution effect away from the relatively small Welsh economy. While it is hard for UK investors to escape higher SDLT, they can avoid LTT much more easily, simply by investing in Bristol or Birmingham or Reading, instead of in Cardiff or Swansea. I fear the Cabinet Secretary's decision making and budget have failed to take account of that.

Today, we debate LTT and the punitive 6 per cent rate that Welsh Government has set for higher-value commercial property. Cabinet Secretary, is this how it will be with income tax too?

I have selected the three amendments to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move formally amendment 1.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 2 and 3.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendments 2 and 3 in the name of Plaid Cymru. And, just for the sake of clarity, although I am Chair of the Finance Committee, I’m speaking today on behalf of Plaid Cymru in the absence of another Plaid Cymru member of the committee, namely Steffan Lewis.

I’m pleased to contribute on this issue, and I’m pleased that we are having a discussion on the first devolved tax. This is the first debate on the first tax—we are doing things anew. And we have a Member speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party for the first time who is not a member of the Conservative Party, so that’s a first, too. I’m not quite sure how comfortable that is for his fellow members, looking at their faces, however, he has opened the debate.

Plaid Cymru doesn’t agree—. Well let’s put it in these terms: we’re not of the same view as Mark Reckless on this motion. I think it’s important that we see whether the differentials in taxation between Wales and England—which have been outlined and have been approved, as the Labour Party’s amendment states, with unanimous support in this Parliament—is going to work. Because, although there is a higher rate for properties over £1 million, there is a lower rate, or no rate at all, in fact, for some categories of commercial property in Wales. We must at least see if this policy will work over a period of 12 months, whether it will encourage development in the foundational economy—which is something that Plaid Cymru has been seeking—and, indeed, whether it is going to lead to interesting developments, particularly in our town centres.

I see that another member of the Finance Committee wants to intervene.

Diolch, Simon. Would you not agree that if all we do is copy everything that's done in England in terms of rates, we might as well not have taxation devolved?

Well, yes, that’s an entirely valid point, and that is why we asked for the devolution of some of these taxes, and that is why Plaid Cymru’s amendment specifically mentions tax rates going hand in hand with economic, environmental and social impacts, because there is more to taxation policy than the rate for specific properties. It’s the impact that you want these taxes to drive. That’s what the important thing is, and our amendment encapsulate the aims of the well-being of future generations Act in the way that we have set it out.

So, although we don’t support what the Conservatives have to say today, and we want everybody to support our amendments, of course, I also recognise that it is appropriate that we discuss even the purpose of taxation policy and how it will impact in terms of the economy and trade. In that sense, Plaid Cymru has tabled an amendment that specifically mentions the broader work in terms of taxation policy and properties in Wales. We have introduced a land transaction tax, but business rates is the main tax paid by people year on year. That is the main tax that has an impact on trade and industry in Wales, and that is where the Government’s taxation policy has stated that they want to look at this area, to see whether there are possibilities in terms of improving business rates in Wales. Our amendment asks for this process to be hastened, because I do believe, and Plaid Cymru is of the view, that there are examples here where we could make improvements for the benefit of our local economies.

I will just select a single area as an example of this—and I declare an interest here, because I am chair of the cross-party group on pubs and beer. But pubs, if you look at the impact of business rates on pubs—how that has happened in the reform that happened last year, which led to a number of pubs and hotels seeing great increases in business rates—at the moment, pubs pay almost 3 per cent of all business rates in Wales, but they are only 0.5 per cent of the number of businesses in Wales. So, there is a total mismatch between the number of businesses in this sector and how much rates they pay. They pay some £0.5 billion more than they would do if they were taxed in the same way as other businesses. It’s also anticipated that business rates on pubs in Wales will increase by some 18 per cent by 2021-22.

Now, I’m not asking for that to be entirely changed, but for us to start to move to a system of business rates that acknowledges—as the amendment does—the social and economic value of any tax policy and the possibilities here of ensuring that either pubs or town centre businesses do see that their taxes are based on turnover and profit, rather than on the location and the land only. I think all of these issues are worthy of discussion, so I welcome the fact that we are having such a discussion today, and I look forward to hearing the views of many other Members on this issue. Because one thing that’s certain with the onset of the devolution of income tax is that this will become more of a contentious issue over the months and years to come.

I welcome the opportunity to engage in the debate today, and I commend the opener for the comments that he made in setting the scene as to the way Wales faces the new environment, the new era of tax rates, and the competitive edge—or not, as the case may be—that Wales finds itself in with the rates that the Government sets. It is quite right and proper that the Government does set the rates. We live in a democracy, and based on the evidence that they have, and the demands on their public services and protecting the public revenues, that’s obviously what the Finance Minister's role is all about, as he highlighted in his letter to me on 21 March. We don’t dispute that whatsoever. The point we are making in today’s debate is that, actually, the level of taxation that the Minister's chosen to set has put Wales at a competitive disadvantage, and that’s not the Conservatives who are making that point, that is the industry itself making that point from virtually every leading commercial surveyor who, I know, have obviously lobbied the finance Secretary on this particular issue.

It is an important consideration, when you look at the economic benefits that Wales has benefited from over the last 10 years, for projects in the superleague of projects that have been in excess of £50 million, such as the Swansea University bay campus, Cardiff Waterside development, 2 Central Square, Government property units at Central Square, Friars Walk in Newport, the Aston Martin development, and Bridgend designer outlet village. All, I would suggest, are key projects that have helped stimulate and develop economic opportunities here in Wales, and all with tags of £50 million and above in investment. When you go to the commercial sector and you seek that level investment, it’s not unreasonable that the sector looks at the yield that they will get from the money it is investing. We, in Wales, face a very competitive environment to try and bring those developers over this side of the water to make those key decisions and key investments. And especially now, with the development of local democracy in England, such as the mayor in Bristol, the mayors in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, there is a particular focus in their mayoral mandates to develop an exciting and dynamic environment for investment and investment opportunities. Because, obviously, when they come before the electorate in their four-yearly cycle, that is one of the areas that they will be marked against as to whether they've given their particular area a competitive edge. What we’re seeing here in Wales is the sector clearly highlighting that they do believe that the rate of tax that the Minister has set, via the Welsh Government’s tax-raising powers, will put Wales—. And that’s not politicians saying that, that’s the sector themselves saying that, and it's important to listen to the experts in the field who ultimately are dealing with the big investment funds and the pension funds when they’re looking to attract that level of investment into Wales.

Again, what is really concerning is that, when the finance Secretary focuses on the evidence from the Bangor University report, 'Independent Scrutiny and Assurance of Devolved Tax Forecasts for Wales', which he commissioned, the sector indicate quite clearly—and I read from the letter that they sent to the Minister—that they had no consultation with the sector whatsoever when it came to the formation of this report. Now, again, I appreciate, in the letter that the Minister sent to me in March, that he says that the Bangor Business School's report was about the level of forecast of tax revenues—it wasn’t exactly about the policy. But, surely, you need to be linking the policy with the forecast, because if you get the policy wrong, then whatever you're forecasting potentially could go wrong as well, and the revenues you expect could deplete the public purse. As we've seen in Scotland, where they’ve gone for a lower rate of tax, there’s been a considerable uplift in the level of taxation that’s come into Scottish public services—I think in the region of £13.5 million—because they chose to set their land transaction tax rate at 4.5 per cent to give themselves that competitive advantage over other parts of the United Kingdom.

Would the Member give way?

Yes.

I understand the point he’s making, but does he accept that all that's been described here is exactly the same as what happens with the UK Government producing its policy, which then is worked on by the Office for Budget Responsibility in terms of forecasting, and therefore that is the way that policy drives the forecast? That doesn’t say that either Bangor or the OBR is responsible for the policy in turn. So, we really need to understand—because Scotland is ahead of us—whether this actually drives change in Wales. His remarks are premature, to say the least.

Well, what I would say is: the evidence that's emerging from the Scottish situation shows that the lower the rate of tax—and I believe this, as a Conservative, anyway: that a low-rate tax economy actually generates more revenue overall because you stimulate individuals to go out, work hard and generate more wealth. [Interruption.] I’ll take another intervention if you can point to a high-tax economy that contradicts that argument.

I wasn’t going to get completely diverted down that track. I was merely going to point out that he’s asking for a low-tax economy. This tax rate we've talked about in Wales, which we all approved, has no tax for a higher band of commercial properties. So, maybe we'll see the growth there.

From the evidence that is emerging—and I appreciate we need to see that evidence emerge, but it wouldn’t be right if we, as politicians, weren't responding to the concerns that have been flagged to us—the professionals in the field that are trying to attract this investment in are already pointing to a downturn in the commercial sector. They are pointing to making it more difficult to bring investment—[Interruption.] Well, it's not four weeks, because the notes that were sent out to the investment funds were already asking for write-downs on investments, Minister, as you well know from the representations you've received. This Act was coming in, so investment funds were having to write down their investments above 1 per cent. If you've invested in a £50 million project, that's £0.5 million hit straight away. If you're in competition with Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool, which are right on the border with us, and you're that investment fund manager, you will put that money into any one of those four other destinations, because when you're looking at your yield, when you're looking at your return, that is a higher rate of return for the money you're investing. So, I do call on the Minister to reflect on the representations he's received to date, reflect on the debate this afternoon, and actually make Wales that competitive economy we want to see, which creates quality jobs and lifts take-home pay, which successive Labour Governments in this institution have failed to achieve in the first 20 years of devolution.     

Well, I'm sympathetic to what the Conservatives are proposing here in the first part of their motion, but I'm also sympathetic with the Government, except for the 'delete all', and we are going to support the Plaid Cymru amendments as well. I supported the devolution of tax-raising powers to Wales because I believe in tax competition between the various parts of the United Kingdom. I think this will be healthy for the whole United Kingdom economy, as Mark Reckless pointed out in his speech at the beginning of this debate.

Property taxes, as they've developed in the UK over hundreds of years, are very bad taxes indeed because the overall effect of them is to gum up the works of the economy—to make the use of capital more and more inflexible. We've seen this to a growingly dramatic extent in the domestic housing market. I reflect that when I first bought a house back in 1984, the rate of stamp duty then was 1 per cent, so it didn't matter. Nobody was deterred from buying houses at that sort of rate, even when it was doubled to 2 per cent shortly after that. But now that the rates of stamp duty are dramatically higher, this has had a most unfortunate effect, I believe, upon the whole of the property market in the United Kingdom—less so in Wales, of course, because as the poorest part of the United Kingdom, property prices here are so much lower.

I did support, and do support, the Government over the land transaction rates generally. I think that what the finance Secretary has produced is a better overall system than what we have across the border in England, which is a good thing. But I do think that if we want to grow the Welsh economy, it is absolutely essential that, if we are to fund improvements in public services, we must make Wales a magnet for business. We don't do that by having higher taxes on business in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Even though the difference may be very small—. You, know, 1 per cent is not the end of the world by any means, and certainly, if you're thinking of locating here, the effect of the tax is likely to be replicated in a reduction in the price of the land or the buildings to start with. But the problem with these land taxes is that they freeze the ownership or occupation of property because the tax is borne on those who move. Taxes on movement are very bad things for the economy generally. So, UKIP's view is that Wales should position itself within the United Kingdom as a kind of tax haven, and I hope that—. I had hoped that when these powers—and I hope new tax powers—are devolved to Wales, we would be able to use them to lower tax rates rather than to increase them, because to have a high tax rate in Wales is likely to be wholly counterproductive.

Our property taxes are a complete mess in the United Kingdom: council tax, business rates, stamp duty, the land transaction tax here in Wales, the restrictions that were introduced by George Osborne on buy to let. All these things have had dramatic impacts upon the housing system, gumming it up, at a time when we need more houses. The whole quantitative easing exercise has trickled into values of shares and real property. One of the main reasons why there's been such a boom in house and land prices in the south-east of England is the vast quantitative easing programme that the Conservative Government embarked upon. That has made the local economy in the south-east of England that much more difficult—not that we're too worried about that here, but there is a kind of trickle-down effect from there, out into the other reaches of the United Kingdom as well.

So, it's a principle upon which I want to make my speech today, rather than the arcana of the Cardiff bus station and the other elements of the Conservative motion: it is to encourage the Welsh Government to use the freedoms that it has as a result of devolution to show an example to the rest of the United Kingdom—in fact, to steal a march on the rest of the United Kingdom, to make Wales into a more attractive place for businesses to locate and to operate, and to attract also high-rate taxpayers from England into Wales to help increase our tax base, and hence the tax take, as in the 1980s the Lawson tax reforms were able both to see a reduction in tax rates but also a dramatic rise in tax revenue.

Cabinet Secretary, I wanted to speak in this debate primarily because of my concerns regarding the Swansea bay city deal, but I think I would like to start with an observation, if I may. We're quite used now to Welsh Government using framework legislation to cover the fact that it hasn't quite got some of the evidence to support a particular policy objective. There are certain decisions on processes that need to be observed to meet compliance, or particular figures that get referred to regulation, for example. Even though they are not framework pieces of legislation, I think both this Act and the minimum alcohol unit price Bill, actually, are affected by the same problem, and that is that original legislative impetus comes from an academic study that extrapolates results from a UK-wide study base, then they receive a sort of general policy wave-off by the interested parties, but in terms of detail, the views of those with the real-life experience of what might and might not work don't seem to count for an awful lot.

Just to address Simon Thomas's point, I think it's a good example, this one: adjusting rates to benefit buyers at the cheaper end of the residential market, which I'm sure we all supported—I haven't seen that Government has really considered that by creating disadvantage at the job-creating higher end of commercial rates, there will be a drop in new job opportunities for those buyers of the houses who need the work to sustain their mortgages on their new homes.

So, Cabinet Secretary, I think maybe we might have been a little overwhelmed to be swayed by your reassurances at the time we supported this Act, and I think I'd like you to look again at those points—Andrew Davies referred to a lot of them—referred to in the property agents' submission of 16 February. I suppose the cynical would say that they're worried about their own turnovers, to a certain degree, but I think you should be worried about why they're worried about that. Because if, as they say, they've had no consultation with or understanding with the Government, and there's been no understanding of the commercial property industry, then I think that's why the policy aims of this Act are running into trouble pretty quickly.

The direct effects of the 6 per cent rate are calculable. They're not just academically forecastable. They can be looked at as real-time maths, and these companies that Andrew referred to are already seeing reported reductions in capital values on commercial property in Wales. As we heard, investor sentiment is being affected to the advantage of the big regional centres in England and Scotland, but at the very point, that 2015, 2017 mark, when Cardiff in particular was starting to break through the perception that Wales was a less attractive place to invest—. And, of course, you already threw a cowpat onto Wales's path to prosperity by introducing the highest business rate multiplier in Britain at this crucial time. So, I don't really know why you thought this tax hike at the same time would help.

Now, £1 million is not a huge sum of money for commercial purchase. About 80 per cent of commercial land sales, even here in Wales where it tends to be cheaper, are over that, and presumably that's why you thought that this would be a profitable area to levy a super tax, although I understand actually the tax take isn't going to be particularly higher. Of course, I draw attention to Swansea University bay campus. The land there cost over £87 million and I'm sure there would have been some pretty fierce negotiation over that purchase figure had there been, at that point, an exposure to an additional, effectively, 20 per cent hike in the tax that they were paying. So, you can see why I am keen to understand from you what consultation you undertook directly with the Swansea bay city deal shadow board and with any of the industry representatives who have expressed an interest in being one of the necessary private sector partners.

Firstly, there’s that question, which Mark Reckless mentioned, of whether local authorities have the HMRC exemption from this purchase tax that Governments do. The city deal executive board is of course all about local authorities. Then, secondly, there’s a question for me about whether the Tatas and the GSKs of this world, who don’t have to come to Swansea bay, after all, might not just be attracted to invest in other UK city deal areas where they would pay less.

These are big figures we're talking about: the Swansea waterfront digital district is worth £168.2 million, and that's including 100,000 square feet of office space; the homes as power stations project is £517.1 million; and the life science and well-being village is just under £200 million. The £1 million threshold is of very little significance here, but investors will be paying 20 per cent more tax than they would be in England and over 30 per cent more than they would in Scotland, and boy will they notice the difference on figures of that magnitude. The price per hectare or per square foot may be cheaper than central London, but you misunderstand the commercial property sector if you think that’s the only factor it takes into account.

So, just to go back to evidence for a second, did you discuss the effects of the 6 per cent with the city deal interested parties, specifically the economy Secretary, who was interested? And how did you take that into account before throwing this second cowpat onto the path to prosperity in my region? Thank you.

Perhaps I will start by making a defence of taxation. Taxation exists to pay for public services. Too many people seem to believe that we can have the same quality of public services as Scandinavia but have a taxation system that is more like that of the USA. When you look at the cost of private education and private healthcare, it puts into perspective the value for money we get from our taxation system. It is not by random chance or serendipity that those countries with the highest tax levels have the best public services and those with the lowest tax levels the poorest. It is because taxation is necessary to raise the money to pay for the public services we all need—things like roads, the safety of food and the health service, which we talk about a lot here.

Quality public services, be they health, education or infrastructure, come at a substantial cost to the public purse and the only way of paying for them is via taxation. Taxation can be on income, profit, consumption, expenditure, or value of land and property, or a combination of all of them. But, you need the taxation to get the money in.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly, I was waiting for it.

Can he explain how he will get this taxation by raising this rate from 5 per cent to 6 per cent when the people investing have the opportunity to not pay it at all by going to Reading or Bristol or Birmingham instead?

I wish you'd waited for the next page. What I'll say is this: taxation is our membership fee for belonging to a civilised society. I think perhaps you need to remember that.

For multinational corporations, corporation tax is an optional payment whose value can be reduced by things such as intra-company charges, paying for intellectual property rights, transferring charges for goods and services, or making the point of sale outside Britain. 

What people don't like about land transaction tax and what people don't like about property taxes is that you've got to pay them. You cannot avoid it. These are the difficult-to-avoid taxes. The difficult-to-avoid taxes are the ones that are always under attack and criticism because you can't get out of them. 

Taxation can be either progressive or regressive. You either get those with the most money to pay a higher amount, or you get those with the least money to pay proportionally the most.

Turning to land transaction tax, making land transaction tax more progressive is something I very much welcome. Can I give a worked example on a different value? If a parcel of land is worth a £1 million with zero tax then a tax rate of 100 per cent, its cost will not be £2 million; its cost will still be £1 million, but 50 per cent will be tax and 50 per cent will go to the owner. So, the owner of the land is the only person to lose out, not the purchaser. One of the problems we have is the belief that there is an absolute value of land. So, taxation will be on top of that value—[Interruption.] Can I just finish this bit, Andrew? I'm going to call you in because I've mentioned you.

So, taxation will be on top of that value, rather than part of it. Just see how the price of agricultural land increases when it has planning permission for housing. There is no absolute value. What are you paying in the Vale of Glamorgan for agricultural land? Is it £20,000 or £30,000—

I'll sell you some now.

—for good planning permission land? Is it £1 million an acre in Cowbridge and the Vale? That's the difference—I'm coming to the end of this sentence—that's the difference. So, if that land had absolute value, you'd never put it out to auction, because you'd know what its value was and people would have to pay that. Thank you.

I am grateful, Mike, that you've taken the intervention, and you've thrown several figures out there. But, you have to have a market to create those figures, and if you put punitive measures in place as a Government, you kill the market, so you kill the value, so you lose the tax revenue. Don't you recognise that? People don't have to come to Wales to invest. They've got other opportunities if other environments are more favourable to those investments, as the Scottish model shows.

I think the point I was making was the land. The land price will not increase. The money people will pay for the land will not increase. What will happen to that share of that market price is that more of it will go into taxation, and less of it will go into large profits for the owner. I think that's the difference. I believe that people shouldn't have this bit of serendipity or, 'I'm very lucky, I've got this bit of land, it's worth £1 million, if nobody collects tax on it, I get £1 million in my back pocket.' I think that we should get higher taxation on it, and I agree entirely with what the Cabinet Secretary has done.

If land transaction tax above £1 million is reduced—from listening to others earlier, they'd abolish it altogether—who pays to make up this shortfall? Do we wish to raise it from those—? [Interruption.] Or do the Welsh Conservatives want to reduce public expenditure? I congratulate the finance Minister and Government on making land transaction tax more progressive. You don't know what people—. The rate is a very minor part when land is exchanged; it's who wants to buy it, why they want to buy it and what's available. With planning permission on 10 acres of land in the Vale of Glamorgan, it wouldn't matter if you were paying 50 or 100 per cent taxation, people would want to sell it and people would want to buy it.  

Thank you. David Melding. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's always a pleasure to follow Mike Hedges, and how brave he was to approach this issue from a philosophical point of view. He seemed to be arguing that land tax was both essential and imaginary at one stage, but perhaps I didn't really follow his logic terribly well. The rest of his peroration was on the purpose and wonder of tax, and I've read the motion carefully, and I can't see anything in it that says we should be in a no-tax environment. Obviously, tax is an important part of establishing any civic form of life, and as Conservatives we recognise that. But it's getting the best value and ensuring that the tax regime does not inhibit optimum enterprise, and that's what this debate is about this afternoon. And it's quite proper that we scrutinise the Cabinet Secretary for the choices he has made and where the tax burden should fall. 

I think it's best to look at the big picture. We now have, with a fairly radical form of devolution in the United Kingdom, which I do support, the potential to introduce a level of economic competition that we can, to some extent, control. Until now, we've really been dominated very much by the economic pattern of London and the south-east of England, which sets some pretty firm norms in terms of taxation and broader economic policy, but with devolution we can now make more of these choices ourselves. And we should look at how we compare with the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom; that is the rational thing to do. By looking at the big picture, isn't it better for us to say, 'Come to Wales, we're the most business-friendly location in the United Kingdom'?

My colleague Suzy Davies talked about rental markets in London, and no-one disputes that commercial properties are a lot more expensive in London, but our competitor for the economic activity that is being pushed out of London and the south-east is Manchester, it's Newcastle, it's Liverpool, and those are the areas that we will now see some of the investors fleeing to, where they may have come to Wales. And I do think this point has to be addressed very seriously. It's not a good message to say, 'Come to Wales and you'll certainly pay more in terms of land transaction tax than you would in Scotland or England'.

My economic vision for Wales is that we use the resources that are in the other parts of the United Kingdom as well. I'm a firm believer that it will work to the benefit of London and the south-east if more economic activity comes to the other parts of the United Kingdom, and this was a big part of the shift we saw in public policy after 2010 and the election of a Conservative-led Government. We do need to rebalance the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. We should see London as a resource. I think we should have a bigger presence in London. I was always rather critical of my own party's view of our commercial embassy, or whatever we call it now, in London. It seemed to me that it should have been rather grander and more conspicuous and more ambitious in going out there and using London as a way of attracting business, not only that which is being pushed out of London, but also the investors that come to London to make an investment from abroad into the British economy.

Can I just offer the Minister, because I see him shaking under the assault of our criticism—? [Laughter.] I greatly admire the Cabinet Secretary, and I wish him well in his future ambitions as—. I want to offer him—[Interruption.] I want to offer him—[Interruption.] I want to offer him—[Interruption.] I want to offer him a bit of a way out—

Your future ambition is to move on. So, that's your future ambition. 

I think that perhaps one thing we should look at is reducing the tax burden on commercial investment by rewarding environmentally sensitive building techniques and practices and how they're going to use the building and other facilities they may have there that will be environmentally sustainable. Perhaps you could offer a few incentives there to mitigate the unfortunate decision you've made in this case.

It's very fortunate, is it not, that the Tories are not in charge of Welsh Government finances? I just wanted to pick up on this fundamental mistake that the Conservatives have made in the second part of their motion, because it indicates that they have simply no grasp of the status of the Welsh Government or the purposes of the taxes that they are now so deriding. It's just lamentable really that you've been unable to check the accuracy of your own assertions before you submitted the motion.

There can be no sensible suggestion of the Welsh Government seeking to avoid land transaction tax because the tax implications of both the stamp duty land tax and land transaction tax are exactly the same: nil. There is no tax liable where a purchase is made by the Crown, and that includes Welsh Ministers. So, I think to suggest that Welsh Ministers were trying to engage in the deliberate act of tax avoidance only months after we, the Assembly, considered legislation in which anti-avoidance rules formed a prominent part of the debate is pretty desperate.

The exemption is clear on the face of the legislation. In Schedule 3 to the Act, entitled 'Transactions Exempt From Charge', under 'Acquisitions by the Crown', it states that paragraph 2 lists Government bodies that are exempt. This is consistent with the exact same rules of the stamp duty tax that preceded the land transaction tax.

Will the Member give way?

Not at the moment. 

It's really disappointing that, after the passage of the Act, we are still having to clarify the purpose of the legislation in this way, particularly in response to a motion that proposes that this Government would engage in tax avoidance. As Mike Hedges has already made abundantly clear, that's absolutely not what is being spoken about, and instead we are looking at ways in which we can fund the ongoing wealth of our country. So—

Will the Member give way?

I'll give way now, yes.

But is it not the case that, by stepping in and buying this site, the Welsh Government, which doesn't pay tax because of its Crown exemption, is avoiding tax that would be paid potentially by another of its partners? The guidance on the LTT says that if it's bought jointly with another public authority not so exempt, e.g. a local authority, the exemption won't apply, and then later the Welsh Government says it's going to be buying the offices. So, instead of the private sector, who may not want to pay the 6 per cent, Welsh Government, it says here, will buy the offices on the site, stepping in to avoid the tax.

I've spent 10 years waiting to get a new bus station for Cardiff, and I'm absolutely delighted that the Welsh Government has stepped in to build the bus station, because, for reasons that I have yet to fully understand, the money that we should have been receiving from section 106 from all the other commercial transactions that have been taking place on Central Square, which, by the way, was where the old bus station was—. I don't understand completely why there wasn't sufficient money from all these commercial transactions to pay for the bus station, but, clearly, that was not sufficient and that is why the Welsh Government has stepped in.

I think that the fact that they bought the land on 29 March is for a completely different reason, which seems to have passed you by, which is that it was the end of the financial year, and it is well known that Governments, like local authorities, like many other organisations, wish to get money out of the door at the end of the financial year in order to account for it in that year rather than possibly seeing the money going on to something else.

So, I'm absolutely delighted that the Welsh Government has bought this piece of land, and, in due course, I have no doubt the buildings above the bus station, once they've got planning permission, will no doubt reap rewards back into the Welsh economy as soon we've got purchasers for it. This is a temporary measure to ensure that we get on with the bus station that's so crucial to having the integrated transport system our capital city needs.

So, I think the message from this section of your motion is deplorable and is completely contrary to what we are trying to achieve. My message would be, picking up on what David Melding says, that I think it's clear that we do not want people to come to Wales if they simply want to speculate on the value of land, nor do we want people to come to Wales if they want to clean up dirty money, which, sadly, London is awash with. I think that the land transaction tax is a very fair way of raising money on what is a restricted resource, which is, namely, land.

Thank you.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Last month was an important milestone in our devolution journey, with devolved taxes successfully going live on 1 April and now in operation fully for five weeks. The WRA have now received the first returns and have begun to collect important tax revenue, marking the culmination of work to bring about the devolution of these taxes.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I listened carefully to the speech that introduced today's motion. The mover comes to us from the darker side of planet Thatcher, relying on his nineteenth century copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, upon which all his contributions rely: 'For Wales, see England'. It is his only contribution to the debate: 'if we don't do what is done across the border, it must be worse in Wales.'

Let me directly address the second part of the motion and, to take up the points that Jenny Rathbone was making, I have the motion in front of me: it unambiguously accuses the Welsh Government of tax avoidance. That is a very serious accusation, and no amount of—[Interruption.] No. I've heard enough. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon. It very directly suggests that the Welsh Government acted to avoid its own LTT regime, and no amount of obfuscation by the Member who introduced the debate will take away the strength of that accusation, and that is a very serious accusation, which he ought not to have made. The experiment that Simon Thomas pointed to, in having your motions introduced by someone who's not a Member of your own party in this case, is not one that I imagine you will be quick to repeat.

Let me be clear, Llywydd: as Jenny Rathbone said, under both SDLT and LTT, there is no tax liability where a purchase is made by the Crown, including Welsh Ministers. That's there on the face of the legislation. Someone who would purport to come amongst us with a grasp of detail would have done better to have made sure that he had grasped that point before he persuaded others to put down the motion in that way.

Will the Minister give way? The purchase of this site, I understand, on 28 March, and then the granting of the 999-year lease on 29 March, took place under the SDLT regime. If it had taken place three days later, Ministers would not have avoided their own regime. I have raised very serious points about what happens to local authorities, what happens to other public sector bodies, why the Government is then coming in to look to buy the offices on this site, avoiding tax that the private sector would have to pay. Is it because of this 6 per cent rate, which means fewer private sector people will want to buy offices in Wales?

Had those been the points that the Member wished to concentrate on in this debate, he could have put them in the motion; he didn't. Instead, he put something else in on which he has been found out, and no amount of standing up here and spraying a set of other accusations around the room will detract from the point that his motion is defective; he knows it is, he's been found out in doing so. And the accusation is a serious one. Let's be clear about this: if it were true that a Welsh Government had deliberately set out to avoid tax, that is not—

I didn't say that. We didn't say that.

Well, you should read your own motion. You should read your own motion and you should be more careful next time you put it down so that you don't suggest things that, if they were true, would be very serious—but you now spend the whole of the debate trying to persuade us that that isn't what you meant in the first place. It clearly is; you've been found out and we will vote against the motion for that and many other reasons.

Let me turn to the issue of LTT rates. Llywydd, we only debated them in January of this year. In the context of UK Government austerity, my approach to setting tax rates was guided by the principle that there should be no less funding available for Welsh public services as a result of tax devolution.

Wales now has the lowest starting rate of tax for businesses anywhere in the UK, as Simon Thomas pointed out. Six thousand non-residential transactions in Wales will now pay either no tax or less tax than they would have before these changes were introduced. Fewer than 300 will pay the 6 per cent rate. Neil Hamilton said that the purpose of our tax regime should be to grow the economy, and I agree with him there. I don't probably agree with his strategy for doing so, but he made an important point about the general state of property taxation and the need for us to take a more rational view of it all. Within that rational view, the fact that 90 per cent of businesses in Wales will now be advantaged by our tax regime seems to me, as it seemed to the Bangor Business School, to be a course of action that will lead to more activity in the non-residential property market than would otherwise have been the case.

Non-residential transactions incur a range of costs and LTT will be one of them. The tax change for the highest-priced transactions represents a less than 1 per cent increase in the overall cost of the transaction, and that 6 per cent rate is a marginal rate, in any case, so it only applies to the price paid over £1 million.

The rates were the result of careful consideration of Welsh priorities and circumstances, with analysis of the potential effects taken by the Welsh Government and independently assured by the Bangor Business School.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for taking an intervention. Do you recognise, though, that whilst the percentage terms of number of deals is relatively small, this is the most mobile sector of the market, which can invest that money elsewhere, and, in the letter that you received from the industry itself, it says:

'As industry experts, we are already seeing reducing asset valuations and investors who no longer consider Wales as a direct consequence of this policy.'

Do you recognise those concerns, Cabinet Secretary?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, of course I have heard the representations made by some in the development sector. Both I and my officials separately have met with those who have concerns, and that engagement will continue. Andrew R.T. Davies, in his original contribution, set out their concerns very fairly and of course I will listen and continue to listen to them. No doubt the UK Government, his Government, in 2016, in its budget, when it raised the top rate of tax for non-domestic transactions by 25 per cent—not the 20 per cent horror that Mark Reckless mentioned in opening, but by 25 per cent—a Conservative Chancellor doing that, then he relied on what his budget document said to him, that these changes ensure that businesses purchasing the highest value freeholds and leases make a larger contribution while delivering a tax cut for those purchasers, often smaller businesses, who purchase less expensive properties; exactly the analysis that we carried out here in Wales.

The Conservative Chancellor's budget document, when he raised the top rate of property taxation by 25 per cent in that budget, said that this measure was not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts. When these things are done by a Conservative Chancellor, it is a matter of standing up and cheering. When they're done by a Welsh Government here in Wales, the whole of the world is about to fall in on their shoulders.

I also heard, Dirprwy Lywydd, from the business sector, that, in developing LTT, businesses stressed the importance of stability and certainty. To consider changing the rates after only one month of operation, with no further evidence about the effect of these rates, would be premature and would create instability and uncertainty, which, itself, would be potentially damaging to the economy in Wales. So, what I will do is what I have said repeatedly in this Chamber: we will now look at the actual evidence, not the speculative evidence, not the things that are said in advance about what the effect might be; we will see the actual evidence from transactions and give that evidence very careful consideration. As a result of amendments promoted by our colleague Steffan Lewis during the passage of the Bill, there is a legislative requirement to secure an independent review of LTT in the future. In the meantime, consideration of the emerging evidence will be part of every budget cycle, and, for a newly commenced tax, that is particularly important.

Llywydd, the Government will oppose the Conservative motion today. We're pleased to support the Plaid Cymru amendments. We are already committed to keeping under review all of the taxes for which we have responsibility. We will seek to do that at the earliest practical opportunity and, most importantly of all, we will do it on the basis of the actual evidence, which only experience itself can provide.

I call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, we may well have emerged, on this side, from the dark side of planet Thatcher, but this afternoon we've well and truly landed on planet Corbyn, haven't we? Can I thank everyone who contributed to this afternoon's debate? There are many of you; I'll try and mention as many of you as I can, but it may be difficult to include everyone.

As the Cabinet Secretary has reminded us in the past and again reminded us today, phase 1 of tax devolution is over; the next stage is implementation and the all-important monitoring. Mark Reckless, in opening, highlighted the need to listen to the sector, to listen to businesses and their concerns and to then respond to those. And we are concerned, on this side of the Chamber at least, that the higher 6 per cent rate on commercial transactions over £1 million will harm businesses. It's not only us who're saying that; it's also the sector. Businesses are telling us that, our post bags are telling us that; I'm sure that AMs in other parties are also getting the same concerns. Maybe it's not in their interest to listen—[Interruption.]—one minute—to those in the same way, but, certainly, it is disingenuous to say that those concerns are not being made. Mike Hedges.

Can you give me an example of a sector asking to pay more tax?

Well, that's a typical Mike Hedges comment, isn't it? So, basically, you're not denying that you've also had concerns from the sector about a higher rate.

But all sectors ask to pay less tax.

Yes, okay. I'll touch on it when I come to your comments later. I've lost my place now.

And, yes, my former colleague on the Finance Committee will remember his drive and our drive to get the rates on the face of the Bill, because even back then—. I understand that there were concerns from some of the civil servants to do that, and from the Government to do that, but, at that time, we thought that that was a way to provide clarity to the sector, to reassure the sector, that this difficult time of a change in—I hate to use the word—regime, which has caused so much unpleasantness here this afternoon, but in that change from the UK tax regime to the new Welsh tax regime, we thought that there was a merit in having a certain sort of stability at that point. That was the point that we were trying to make.

Simon Thomas—well, I was more than happy, actually, to let my former colleague on the Finance Committee shine by opening this debate. I'm happy to encourage and support other Assembly Members—[Interruption.] I'm always more than happy to have the last word, as well, which I've got today. [Laughter.] I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns, actually, that you raised about pubs, and you're right that they don't pay traditional business rates. I think we're all aware of that, and that should certainly be looked at. I know they're looking at that in England, and it's probably been long overlooked across the United Kingdom as a whole, and we're now seeing the problems that are happening to pubs because of that. So, that was a good point that you made.

Andrew R.T. Davies, you reeled off—I didn't have time to write them down—a long list of projects in Wales and Cardiff that, let's face it, have received considerable investment and are receiving considerable investment. And Andrew said that small variations in tax policy compared with across the border could have a disproportionate effect—a perfectly reasonable point to make. Yes, there may be cases where, because of the changes in this policy and other tax policies, there are people who are paying less tax—that is to be welcomed—but you also have to look at those people and those businesses that will end up paying more. They might be a small number, but if it's a disproportionately high amount that they are paying and if they are the investors in the economy at that level of economic development, then that is a concern.

But I do understand—and we discussed this at length in committee—the Welsh Government's position that this is still early days. Of course it is. Nonetheless, Cabinet Secretary, warning signs should always be heeded. As Neil Hamilton said—well, Neil Hamilton supported the motion. You supported the Government amendment, which deletes the motion. You didn't support the 'delete' bit, to be fair. You support Plaid Cymru's amendments as well. I think you're generally happy with this debate today, so I don't think you really mind which way this debate goes, and I think you've won anyway there, Neil. I think you found considerable amusement as well at different points today. But I agree with you that tax competition is not necessarily a bad thing. As a former Conservative, of course, you would say that, and, of course, as a Welsh Conservative myself, I agree with that as well. However, as a Welsh Assembly Member, I think it is a bad thing if that tax competition happens to be detrimental to Wales and positive for England. Of course, that was always the danger that we were facing. Yes, tax devolution is very good for increasing accountability, and it's very good for us here having the levers of power that are necessary to improve our economy. But the flipside of that, which has to be watched, has to be monitored, is to make sure that that doesn't end up with our economy being on a poorer footing.

You mentioned quantitative easing. It wasn't just the UK Conservative Government, of course; it was the UK Labour Government that initially introduced the concept of quantitative easing into the British economy. I do think, actually, if you say you don't want quantitative easing, then the cuts would probably have been deeper. So, I think, at that time, it was a tool that was a valuable one for a Government to look at using. Of course, there was the feared effect of higher inflation that hasn't fed through, certainly yet, into the system, but I think that, at that point in time, clearly, we did go through difficult times. But I think you have to recognise it was the Labour Government that introduced that concept. So, something clearly had gone wrong with the economy to require that.

Now, as economists are well known for saying, predictions are normally always wrong. We took that evidence on Finance Committee. That doesn't mean that they're not useful. In fact, they are very useful, so long as you recognise that there can be inaccuracy in them and that you're prepared to revise those predictions.

I've got to mention Mike Hedges before I close, who quoted—I was looking for the quote—Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, 1904:

'Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.'

Of course, I think we all agree with that. Nobody here would say that we don't want to pay tax. I would, however, say that, of course, it's not just the raising of the tax that is important; it's the way that that tax is spent that is all important, as well. As the Welsh Government has more powers, more tax powers at its disposal, then it becomes increasingly important that the Welsh Government does prove that it can spend that money as efficiently as possible.

David Melding, you spoke about the rebalancing of the UK economy, using London as a resource but making sure we strike out on our own and develop the Welsh economy as best as possible—and that is what tax devolution is all about. You said, Cabinet Secretary, that you were prepared to monitor, to evaluate, and to make changes if you think that the policies that are in place relating to tax rises are wrong. Well, we're receiving a lot of concerns from businesses that they feel they are wrong. I would urge you to keep this situation under review and to make sure that the Welsh Government does act to change any tax policies that do prove to be uncompetitive to our economy in the future.

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

That brings us to the next item, with is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on a minimum price for alcohol, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the agenda. We move from a tax to something that is akin to a tax: the Government's proposal to impose a minimum price for alcohol. Our motion makes two basic points, that a minimum price will have a disproportionate effect upon those at the lower end of the income scale—the poorest people in society—and that it won't actually achieve its stated objective, because the people with the biggest problem with alcohol, of course, are the ones who are least likely to be affected by changes in price. They are addicted to alcohol, and people with an addiction are driven by demons inside, which are not generally susceptible to alteration by changing the price of whatever it is that they consume. Indeed, in the case of controlled drugs, of course, they're not available for sale at all. They're banned and it's a criminal offence to use them, but we have massive drug problems in this country, and in the 1920s, when the United States did the same for alcohol—attempted to prohibit it by law—that created a massive series of social problems and the growth of crime but without actually dealing with the problems of alcoholism itself.

I'd like to start by asking how big a problem we actually have with alcohol in Wales. I was interested to read a report by Alcohol Concern that said that, since 2005, the overall amount of alcohol consumed in the UK—unfortunately, I couldn't find figures for Wales—and the proportion of people reporting drinking, and the amount that drinkers report consuming, have all fallen, and this trend is especially pronounced amongst younger drinkers. On the other hand, 77 per cent of the highest earners report drinking in the previous week, compared to 45 per cent of the lowest earners and, of course, the highest earners are the ones who are least likely to respond to changes in price at the lower end of the alcohol market, whereas the 45 per cent of lowest earners are the ones who are going to be targeted by the proposed changes. 

So, this proposal is introduced at a time when drinking is being moderated by the overwhelming majority of people, and the number of people who actually have a real problem, and create other problems for us in society, is either remaining static or diminishing as well. What's proposed here is going to be a general imposition upon the population at large to try to deal with the problems created by a very small number. So, it's the very opposite of targeted intervention, which is what would be required in order to solve the social problems, which the Government wishes to do.

Now, international comparisons are always dangerous, because different societies are very, very different in their history and social composition, and human behaviour differs between countries as well. When the health Secretary came to the Finance Committee to give evidence to us, I asked him if he had any statistics that produce the evidence for any correlation between the price of alcohol and the number of health-related diseases or other medical conditions that were found in those countries, and he said that he wasn't interested in statistics; they were of no value. Well, I think that there is some value in looking at the experience of other countries. You, in the usual arrogant way, dismissed a point that I was trying to make seriously. But I think there is some value in looking at international comparisons to see whether there is any relationship between the price of alcohol and the effects upon health. I've again found it very difficult to discover the statistics that I wanted, but I have found statistics for alcohol-related deaths as a percentage of total mortality. For England and Wales in the period 2006 to 2009, alcohol-related deaths as a percentage of total mortality amounted to 2.3 per cent. Now, that compares with 9.8 per cent in Finland, 3.2 per cent in Sweden, 6.5 per cent in Denmark, all of whom have much, much higher prices for alcohol than we have in the United Kingdom. Countries like Spain and Italy have much, much lower prices of alcohol and there isn’t a great deal of difference between their rates of alcohol-related mortality and ours.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

You said at the beginning of this speech that this was akin to a tax. Isn’t the big difference with Scandinavia that, there, it is a tax, and at least the revenues can be used to support high-quality public services? Here, the money raised would just go as higher profits to the private companies who produce them and sell them.

The Member is absolutely correct. That's another deficiency of the proposal. There is no direct connection between the sums of money that will be raised and what the Government can spend on trying to target help to those who really need it. Even those who have an occasional drink problem, they're not going to be affected by this very much. The hospital admissions, which always rise at the weekends, where they're related to alcohol as a result of binge drinking on a Friday or a Saturday, those are very unlikely to be altered by the imposition of a minimum price for alcohol. What we should be doing here is looking at where the problem exists and a microsolution to that difficulty.

So, this is a very badly designed proposal, and it is a sledgehammer to miss a nut, actually. That's what is proposed here. At 50p per minimum unit, if that’s what eventually emerges, it’s very unlikely to have any impact upon more than a small number of people. Of course, demand for alcohol is not price inelastic any more than cigarette smoking was not affected by increases in the taxation on tobacco. In order to make any significant inroad upon the problem that the Government adduces as the justification for this proposal, it would have to be a very, very much higher increase than the one that has been suggested. It would be a brave Government indeed that sought to impose a minimum price of, say, £1 per unit on alcohol. I think that would receive a resounding raspberry from the voters.

But I object to this proposal because it is particularly targeted at those on lower incomes. Like many of these proposals—like the sugar tax in England is going to affect those at the lower end of the income scale as well—these are all impositions upon people who are having a struggle anyway to make ends meet in life, and it's going to make it very much more difficult for very little, if any, improvement in public health or a diminution of the other social problems that excessive consumption of alcohol brings about, which we all know about.

So, it’s actually, in many ways, an irrational tax that’s proposed—if I can call it a tax for these purposes. Like many of the taxes that we’ve got in this country, it's very, very badly designed. We’ve just had a debate about property taxes, which are very badly designed. Here we're deliberately creating another one, rather than inheriting it from our predecessors, as a mass of confusion and counter-productive activity.

So, this is not the time when we should be trying to make these impositions upon people who can least afford to deal with them. If we are going to introduce new taxes, they ought to conform to the general canons of taxation, which is that they be well designed, properly targeted and raise reasonable amounts of revenue, or design to achieve in practice the social objectives that they're supposed to, and this proposal will achieve none of those.

As Mark Reckless pointed out, the principal beneficiaries of this will be the supermarkets and the shareholders of supermarkets, to the extent that, at the borders, there will be leakage across the border into England. It's not going to be a big problem, generally speaking, but it might well be in north-east Wales, or indeed in south-east Wales as well. Then that's going to be a problem for local traders in those areas. This is something that has been, I think, very badly thought out, and it cannot be administered in a way that will produce the answer to what is accepted as a significant social and health problem. So, I'm afraid it will fail at all levels.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I have to say that I’m a little bit baffled by this debate, because I'm not entirely sure what we'll hear today that the Cabinet Secretary hasn't heard before, including some of those issues where actually we have some sympathy with UKIP. The general principles of the legislation have already been debated in this Assembly. Evidence has been taken by the health committee, on which the UKIP spokesperson sits, of course, and where some of the points put out in the motion were rehearsed and reflected in the Stage 1 report. At Stage 2, our own amendment for a 50p starting point was voted down, and it's highly unlikely to rise again, I suspect. So, I think that point (c) of the motion is actually meaningless. The place to have made a meaningful contribution to this particular point would have been at Stage 2, whereas UKIP’s blanket abstention meant a failure to engage with an important step of primary legislation, which, after all, is a privilege that is only afforded to 60 of us in the whole of Wales.

Our amendment, which I now move, reflects our shared concern about the possible impact on low-income households, but our amendment also sets out a separate concern about the likelihood of substitution by individuals who are dependent on, or at risk of dependency on, alcohol. As I said at Stage 2, I don't think this Bill is fully cooked either, insofar as the full suite of evidence is not there yet, and too much is being deferred to regulation. But, the way to deal with that, with a Bill that clearly has numbers supporting it, is to try and amend the Bill, which is what we will be doing at Stage 3. That's why, in this debate, I will give due notice to the Cabinet Secretary that we will be revisiting the issue of the evaluation report. As I say, I think Stage 3 is the best place to rehearse that. It arises from a Stage 1 recommendation, which was signed up to by Labour members of the committee and only defeated at Stage 2 by the imposition of the Government whip and the abstention of UKIP.

Once this Act is passed, it becomes a creature of the Assembly, not the Government, and so it is right that the Assembly decides what information it needs to decide whether this Act survives the sunset date. The information we think we will need on behalf of our constituents, and indeed the Assembly, in order to assess the success or failure of minimum unit pricing in five or so years, is listed here in the amendment. The Government is not restricted to that list, but it is these criteria that must be included in the evaluation report. Otherwise, it will be no evaluation at all. In short, just let’s avoid a row in five years' time if we get an evaluation report that doesn’t refer to these impacts. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to formally move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Formally, Llywydd.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 3 tabled in his name.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I formally move the amendment. I’m pleased to participate in this debate, because I do think it’s an opportunity for us to explain some of the principles at the heart of what we are discussing. I was reading an interesting article earlier today on the relationship between the price of tobacco in the US and smoking habits and on the population there. It takes us back to the 1880s, when production methods for the American Tobacco Company enabled them to corner the market. It then takes us through to the 1960s and the first medical reports on the dangers of smoking and the increasing taxation that came as a result of that. The conclusion of the report is no surprise at all:

'Pricing and price related promotions are among the most important marketing tools employed by tobacco companies. Future tobacco control efforts that aim to raise prices and limit price related marketing efforts are likely to be important in achieving reductions in tobacco use'.

The reason that conclusion doesn’t surprise us is that we know instinctively now that smoking tobacco is bad for your health and that an increase in the price is clearly a useful tool in the challenge of encouraging more people to give up tobacco. What we have here, if truth be told, is the beginning of a real debate on how we can use price and financial incentives to influence how much alcohol people drink. There are differences between alcohol and tobacco. I’m not aware that there is such a thing as moderate smoking that can be acceptable in terms of the level of risk to health. We do accept that someone can drink moderately and carefully, and we need to keep that in mind, but the fundamental point here is that drinking too much alcohol is bad for your health. Not only is it bad for your health personally, it’s also damaging to society. It can have serious impacts on children, it’s a strain on public services, and it can have an impact on poverty. And I have to say that I was surprised to hear Neil Hamilton rejecting this idea that alcohol is damaging to our society, because it is, and what we have here is an attempt to tackle that.

Now, each and every one of us should believe that trying to encourage people to drink less is a positive thing. And following on from that, I agree, as with the case with tobacco, with the principle of trying to use financial incentives in order to encourage people to consider drinking less, and also to think about alcohol in a different way, to think about alcohol as something that can be harmful. Now, I do agree with Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless in as much as I do believe that it’s through taxation that that should happen. That would allow the funds that would be generated to be gathered by our own Treasury here in Wales and spent on tackling the abuse of alcohol and its impacts. But we can’t do that, because we don’t have the powers here in Wales to do so. So, the concept of a minimum alcohol price per unit is another approach—an imperfect approach, perhaps, but a possible tool—to try and vary prices of various kinds of alcoholic drinks in order to encourage moderate drinking and less harmful drinking.

We have a Bill, and there are many elements of that Bill that I want to see strengthened before I can be comfortable that we are going about this in the right way. I agree with the motion, which raises the risk that low-income households could be hit by this. I am asking for assurances through amendments about the way in which the minimum alcohol price will be set—50p is the figure that’s been discussed most. I’m no expert, but I feel that that possibly isn’t quite right; it’s a little high perhaps. So, I am introducing amendments to insist on more data, more modelling, and I think there’s also an opportunity to see how this works in Scotland, as the price is set there. So, we need the best possible evidence. I also want to see better communication around the Bill and a commitment to educate people on how to avoid paying more for alcohol, for example by drinking alcohol that has a lower alcohol content, and I think that that would be a positive side-effect. With any public health issue, we need to persuade people as to why these steps are being taken, and this is no different in that sense.

So, we are focusing many of our amendments on the elements of evidence and communication, and on the evaluation elements, in order to bring people with us. That’s where I stand on this. What the motion in the name of Neil Hamilton attempts to do is to shut down the debate as we are still going through the legislative process. There are major gains if we get this right. Getting it wrong would hold public health efforts back in future, perhaps. So, let’s focus on trying to see whether we can achieve a Bill and then an Act that is stronger by working constructively.

I think it's important to state that we in UKIP do acknowledge that there are individuals who do abuse alcohol, and alcohol abuse can—[Interruption.] Alcohol abuse can have a devastating effect both on individuals and on their families. It is not that we aren't concerned by this issue. We are. We are simply questioning whether minimum unit pricing, or MUP, will work as a means of effectively combatting alcohol abuse. Our considered conclusion is that is won't.

Now, we know that the Welsh Government doesn't simply do things without research. Yes, they have their research. They have sourced research from the University of Sheffield, for instance, which estimates that a minimum unit price of 50p a unit would save the Welsh economy £882 million over a 20-year period. That works out at about £40 million a year, which sounds like an appreciable saving. This is due to reductions in the fields of crime, illness and workplace absence. The problem is that the methodology behind this report has been criticised by other academics and think tanks. 

For instance, the Centre for Economics and Business Research have come up with an alternative appraisal of the MUP plan, which includes a critique of Sheffield university's work, particularly focusing on alcohol demand elasticity—that is, the willingness of problem drinkers to pay more money to get their fix of alcohol. The CEBR felt that the Sheffield study didn't properly distinguish between different types of drinker and different types of drinking behaviours. In other words, it didn't take enough account of the readiness of problem drinkers to pay more money to get their fix, or that problem drinkers tend to exhibit behaviours that are different to average behaviour.

We have to accept that we are dealing here with people who have an addiction, people who have an illness, so they will not always act in rational ways. Addicts will often tend to carry on getting hold of the substance that they are addicted to, even if the price goes up.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Do you understand that this piece of legislation isn't really aimed at getting alcoholics to stop drinking? Alcoholics will, you're quite right, seek alcohol out in any way they can. Efforts need to be made—more efforts—from Government to help alcoholics come off alcohol, but we are talking here about hazardous drinkers, who can be persuaded through price incentives to perhaps behave in a different way.

Yes, I appreciate that you're making a distinction between alcoholics and hazardous drinkers, and such a distinction does exist, but all the same we don't believe that this legislation will even effectively tackle the problem of hazardous drinkers. 

To go back to what I was saying, an alcoholic may simply spend more of his or her money on alcohol after MUP and spend less on basic essentials, such as heating, food, utility bills and rent. Raising the price of alcohol could therefore be the tipping point that ends up tipping an alcoholic over into homelessness. In the case of an alcoholic who also has a family, it could plausibly lead to the entire family being evicted. 

Richard Edwards, chief executive of the Cardiff-based homeless charity the Huggard centre, is one of those who has major concerns over the MUP plan. I quote:

'Raising pricing alone, for legal drugs such as alcohol, may simply change one addiction for another and condemn people to a more entrenched and desperate life on the streets'.

End quote. There is the very real threat that hardened alcoholics will turn away from alcohol and get involved with much worse substances such as spice, which is already prevalent on the streets of Wales's major towns and cities. There is also the prospect that alcoholics could turn to crime to raise funds for their habits. Crime levels could actually go up, rather than down as the Welsh Government's evidence has asserted.

There has been an argument that pubs will actually benefit from the introduction of MUP. Well, let's have a look at that. Pubs have, it's true, complained for some years that they are unfairly treated by the tax system compared to supermarkets, which are able to undercut them on alcohol products. This is due to different rates of VAT being charged. Unfortunately, this tax disparity won't be addressed by the introduction of MUP. CAMRA, which has previously supported MUP, have since 2013 opposed it and recently their head of communications said:

'CAMRA does not support minimum unit pricing because we believe it penalises moderate and responsible drinkers while doing little to support those who have issues with alcohol abuse.'

Another who opposes the scheme is Tim Martin the boss of Wetherspoon, who has called MUP a red herring and says that what is really needed is a cut in VAT on beer sold in pubs. So, if the Welsh Government really wanted to improve the position of pubs, which wasn't actually their objective in any case with this Bill, they should instead lobby the UK Government for a reduction on VAT on alcohol sold in pubs. 

Another body that has performed a u-turn of sorts is the UK Government. Having previously been in favour of introducing MUP, the Westminster Government has now decided that they will carefully monitor what happens in Scotland first, before they implement any similar scheme in England. But the Welsh Government has decided to do it differently and plough on with its own plans regardless. I think that they now need to take a step back and think again about this legislation. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I very much support the Welsh Government's policy of introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol, and thankfully I'm not alone in that, given that so many organisations with expertise in the field in terms of how you reduce harm from alcohol also support this policy. Many health organisations, for, I guess, fairly obvious reasons—obvious to most of us, anyway—also support this policy, and indeed the consultation on the draft Bill a couple of years back showed very strong public support as well. So, I think we start from a pretty secure base in terms of an understanding of the need for this policy as part of an overall strategy and package of measures to reduce harm from alcohol abuse here in Wales. Of course, it is just that—it's one part of an overall policy and strategy, and I do believe that it would play a significant role within that overall suite of measures. 

I think all of us would be familiar with the harm that alcohol does cause, or alcohol abuse causes. It's very clear in terms of its toll of ill health, the effect that that has on the economy in terms of days lost from work, the problems in terms of crime and violent crime, some of that around binge drinking, which is a terrible blight still on many of our town and city centres, and also, of course, harm to families and marital breakdown. So, the harm is very, very significant indeed, and we do need to bring a wide range of measures forward to deal with that harm and, as I've said, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, I believe, is significant within that overall package. 

Cancer Research UK, Llywydd, are one of the organisations supporting this proposed policy, and they're clear that alcohol is the third-biggest preventable risk factor in terms of cancer incidence, and that this particular policy would be a very effective tool in reducing that toll of ill health and harm in terms of cancer. We have the research from the University of Sheffield commissioned by Welsh Government, which others have referred to. Personally, I find that research strong and convincing. It talks about a policy of 50p as the minimum price leading to some 1,300 fewer hospital admissions in Wales and over 65 fewer deaths on an annual basis. Importantly, I think, in terms of some of the criticism that's levelled at the policy, the greatest benefit would be to people living in poverty. We know that 37 per cent of alcohol sold in Wales is sold at less than that 50p unit price, and that heavier drinkers are more likely to pay less than 50p. I think when you look at those sorts of factors it does suggest that, first of all, it will have a significant impact, and, secondly, that it will have a proportionately greater health benefit to people in the poorer communities—

Will the Member give way?

—certainly—given the drink patterns that we're familiar with. 

I give way to Simon Thomas. 

Thank you. He'll be aware that I broadly support this Bill and what the Government is trying to achieve, but I think it is important to put on the record that what he's just quoted to us is modelling, not evidence. We can't use evidence because we haven't got anything like this. Scotland's just begun its journey, but we haven't got that.

The modelling he has set out is important, but what really needs to happen, does he not agree, is that when we do come to decide the eventual price, that modelling and all the evidence are also debated thoroughly and fully here in this Chamber—that we don't just pass a framework Bill and then let the Government get on with it? We need to be part of this all the way through.

I very much accept that there needs to be a continuing debate about all aspects of the proposed legislation, including the minimum unit price. But I do very much believe that, given the scale of the harm that alcohol causes, and indeed the health inequalities that are involved, there is a real responsibility here on Welsh Government to act. This is, in some respects, a fairly courageous policy, but it is a matter of Welsh Government understanding the scale of the harm, the responsibility that it gives to Government in Wales, and then taking forward a policy on that basis. And I very much commend Welsh Government for having the courage to propose this policy and to act in this way.

Alcohol is a major risk factor for cancer, as we've just heard. In fact, it's a class 1 carcinogen, and it's the third biggest preventable risk factor for cancer and is linked to causing at least seven types of cancer from its corrosive effects: mouth and lip cancer; tongue, pharynx and laryngeal cancer; oesophageal cancer, all the way down; as well as being associated with liver cancer and bowel cancer; as well as breast cancer.

Now, the minimum price for alcohol legislation targets the heaviest drinkers at risk of the biggest harm. It targets heavy drinkers. Harmful and hazardous drinkers, that is, who are not alcoholic. The alcoholic is not being targeted here, and cannot be targeted. As we've heard, the alcoholic carries on drinking. But the harmful and hazardous drinker who is not addicted will stop when the price gets too much. Because a major review of the evidence for minimum alcohol pricing, which looked at over 100 systematic reviews and meta-analyses—meta-analyses are reviews of reviews—shows that increasing the price of alcohol is associated with falls in both alcohol consumption and in alcohol-related harm. Alcohol-related harm is the huge increase in liver transplantation for alcohol disease that we've seen in recent years. Alcohol-related harm is domestic violence and abuse, especially at times of 6 Nations rugby matches and international football matches—anything that's associated with heavy drinking. Alcohol-related harm is assaults and falls, is crime, is attendances at accident and emergency departments. On some nights of the week in Wales, over 90 per cent of the patients in an A&E department have drunk too much alcohol—over 90 per cent of attendances, any night of the week, usually on weekends—contributing to packed accident and emergency departments, and the abuse, assault and vilification of medical, nursing and portering staff in those A&E departments.

So, the minimum price for alcohol in this legislation is computed from a formula, as has been ascertained: the volume of alcohol x the strength of the alcohol x the minimum unit price for alcohol. So, it's not just all about the minimum unit price. A Saskatchewan study from Canada showed that increasing the minimum unit price by 10 per cent there led to an 8.43 per cent fall in alcohol consumption. The Swiss Government wrote to the health committee making similar points. Countless medical reviews over decades have concluded that if you make alcohol more expensive and more difficult to get hold of, then people drink less. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, alcohol was relatively more expensive than it is today, and also more difficult to get hold of, due to restricted opening times and sales. The night-time economy of liberalised opening hours and cheap, loss-leading booze had not been invented back then.

In the medical world, this issue, I've got to say, is an absolute no-brainer. Doctors overwhelmingly support legislation that targets cheap booze and makes alcohol more expensive. Minimum alcohol pricing targets hazardous and harmful drinking of alcohol that falls foul of that formula, in that it's high-volume big bottles, high-strength, and cheap—as little as 18p per unit. Strong, white cider forms 25 per cent of the alcohol intake for harmful and hazardous drinkers in all except the most affluent socioeconomic groups—25 per cent of the alcohol intake is the very cheap, strong, high-volume stuff that will be affected by this legislation, putting up the price of a bottle of white cider from around £3 up to about £11. Therefore, minimum alcohol pricing has the potential to do the greatest amount of good in health terms, and also to the poorer sections of society who already have other adverse health indicators. And, as John Griffiths said, it reduces health inequalities.

Now, I know we'll have accusations of the nanny state—doctors always face that: 'This is the nanny state. What do the experts know?' 'There's no enjoyment left', some of my patients tell me when we were debating the smoking ban. 'There's no enjoyment left, doc. You'll ban sex next.' Well, no, we're talking about alcohol today. But we have been here before with the smoking ban. Big tobacco didn't want the smoking ban. Big alcohol doesn't want minimum unit alcohol pricing. There is a corollary. And I'm not saying, in closing, that minimum alcohol pricing will cure the problem of alcohol misuse, but it's part of a raft of measures that we must engage in to decrease the toll that alcohol exacts of Welsh society today. Diolch.

As we've heard, minimum pricing won't cut the intake of alcohol amongst problem drinkers. I think if—listening to what Dr Dai said then—basically, people will just choose shorts, which may even cause further problems.

I'm going to support the motion, and the reason I'm supporting it more than anything else—it's more of a cultural thing, which we find in this Assembly, because I find that we have a Labour Government whose AMs genuinely feel they know best for everyone, and as a result we see a restriction in choice across the board. You seek to restrict just who people can vote for at council elections. You seem to think that you have the ability to tell people how to bring their children up. And now you want to control how people drink. I feel there's a certain arrogance in that, and I simply—. [Interruption.] Well, I'll throw the question open here. I've been around the bars in Cardiff Bay, so come on, is there anyone here who doesn't drink too much on occasion? The issue here is, it's another—. I'll give way, Rhun, if you wish to interrupt. I'll give way.

I'm just making the point that I don't drink when I'm down in the Assembly, so, you know—.

Okay, thank you very much. But the point I'm making is, outside of working hours, I think we all know that people in this Chamber do drink too much. [Interruption.] It's a fact—with respect, it's a fact of life. It's a cultural thing. Is anyone here seriously saying that, on occasion, they don't drink too much? Be honest. Really? Okay. I'll remember that next Christmas.

I'll move on because what I see this as, more than anything else, is a tax on those with the lower incomes. Minister, chatting away there—I'm saying, if you want to listen, the Cabinet Secretary for health, what this is is a tax on the low paid. It's another Labour tax, and I certainly won't be supporting it.

I call on the Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in today's debate. We will be voting against the motion tabled by UKIP. We believe that this Bill will help to make a real difference in reducing hazardous and harmful levels of alcohol and drinking, and the harms this causes to communities across Wales.

The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill was introduced into this National Assembly on 23 October last year. It is already, as Suzy Davies has noted, the subject of a detailed and rigorous scrutiny process, as is the case with all legislation. Scrutiny will continue as the Bill progresses through Stage 3. I do not believe that today's grandstanding from UKIP and their fellow travellers should be allowed to torpedo this Assembly's scrutiny of this important piece of public health legislation.

There is a strong policy rationale for introducing a minimum price for alcohol in Wales. A commitment to legislate in this area has featured in the last two Plaid Cymru manifestos—that not just the Plaid Cymru group stood on, of course—and I'm grateful to both Rhun ap Iorwerth and Dai Lloyd for their sensible and constructive speeches, in particular the case made by Dai Lloyd for the harm caused by alcohol on the imperative to act. It is also, of course, a long-standing commitment of this Government. It is backed by international evidence that confirms that the price of alcohol does matter. And as we heard the Chair of the health committee refer to evidence submitted, the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland, who did respond to the Stage 1 evidence, highlighted the impacts of a decrease in the cost of spirits led to a direct and almost immediate increase in consumption. There is an undeniable relationship between the price of alcohol and the amount that we drink, and there is also, of course, as we heard from Dai Lloyd and John Griffiths, a strong relationship between the amount that someone drinks and the harm that they experience. This Bill is a part of helping to reduce those harms. And I do accept that the evidence base for introducing this legislation is based on the modelled impacts, but the evidence is as comprehensive and persuasive as it can be, and I do have confidence in the analysis undertaken by the University of Sheffield. It is the same evidence base that the Scottish Parliament acted on to introduce their legislation on a minimum unit price.

We have, of course, consulted twice on the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol—once in 2014, as part of a public health White Paper, and once in 2015, as part of a draft Bill, when I was the then Deputy Minister for health—and both times the Welsh Government’s intention to bring forward this public health measure has been well received. That was also the case at the end of last year with the evidence provided during Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions during the scrutiny of the Bill, we will also consult again on the proposed level of a minimum unit price, should this Assembly pass the Bill.

The health committee heard powerful evidence from both service providers and from experts within the field of public health. There has been considerable support from stakeholders in England, not just doctors but a range of other stakeholders, and they hope, as do I, that the UK Government will finally follow the example being set here in Wales and in Scotland. This legislation takes a sensible and targeted approach to a very real and evident problem in Wales today.

Like so many other western countries, here in Wales we have a problem with cheap, strong, readily available alcohol. We see the effects of harmful drinking every day in our NHS, in our workplaces, in communities, and in families. Published research this year shows that hazardous and harmful drinkers in Wales make up 28 per cent of the drinking population, but they consumed three quarters of all alcohol. In 2015-16 alone, there were 54,000 hospital admissions in Wales attributed to alcohol. Direct healthcare costs attributed to alcohol amount to an estimated £159 million a year. When Neil Hamilton read out figures and statistics about the harm caused, I'll repeat again what I said from my seat: over 500 people die every year because of alcohol. There is a powerful reason to act, and every one—every one—of those deaths was preventable. I have never said, though, that this legislation will be a panacea—far from it—but it will be one more way to help us to tackle and prevent alcohol-related harm. We already invest almost £50 million a year to support people with substance misuse issues. Almost half of this funding goes directly to the seven area planning boards, who commission substance misuse services for their region, and a further £18 million is ring-fenced for substance misuse services within health boards.

During Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the passage of this Bill, a number of issues have been raised and debated, particularly in relation to the impacts of this legislation on particular groups within society, on the importance of providing services to those who need help and support, and the importance of considering the impacts of a minimum unit price on moderate drinkers and low-income households. The evidence that we do have from the modelling undertaken by the University of Sheffield shows that moderate drinkers will be largely unaffected by the introduction of a minimum unit price. Moderate drinkers typically do not drink large amounts of alcohol, and are less likely to drink cheap, high-strength alcohol.

We do expect there will be an impact on people in low-income households who drink at hazardous and harmful levels. This is, of course, the area where we expect the largest health gains to be made. People with the least resources who drink at harmful levels are much more likely to experience alcohol-related illness, requiring long-term and significant healthcare. They are also much more likely to die from their drinking. The most recent figures show that people in our least well-off communities are nearly three times as likely to die from alcohol as people in our most advantaged communities.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

I'm grateful. He will be aware that, if we are able through this Bill and other measures to reduce the amount of strong alcohol that people are taking and move people into more—if I can put it in a roundabout way—healthy ways of drinking, we will have succeeded in reducing the harm that comes from alcohol. The Bill is one way of doing that. Another way, of course, is to have more low-alcohol drinks being sold, lower alcohol drinks, particularly beers and ciders and so forth. That takes us into the UK Government's and particularly the Advertising Standards Authority's rules, which, at the moment, stop us promoting, if you like, better ways of drinking or alternative ways at least for people to be more aware of that. Is that something that he is encouraging the UK Government to have a discussion on, to go hand in hand with this legislation?

Yes. We've already written to the Advertising Standards Authority about a range of matters, and officials do continue to have a dialogue, not just about this Bill but about a wider suite of measures to try and change individual behaviour, but also within the alcohol industry itself, because it's actually not that long ago that most beers, lagers and ciders sold in pubs were significantly less strong than they are now. They're about 20 per cent stronger on a regular basis now in every pub that we drink in. And referring to the figures on health inequalities, we should not simply stand by and ignore that level of health inequality that already exists.

Last Thursday, we completed Stage 2 proceedings on this Bill, and I have listened carefully to the debates that we have had so far, and I do plan to work with Members in other parties over the coming weeks to see where we can work together to address some of the issues raised, particularly around the need to promote awareness of the legislation and post-legislative scrutiny. Members will, of course, have a further opportunity to debate the Bill at Stage 3 and a final vote at Stage 4.

Minimum pricing for alcohol is not a silver bullet. It is part of our wider approach to reduce alcohol consumption and to promote a healthier relationship with alcohol. We should use all levers available to us to support people in Wales to develop that healthier relationship with alcohol and end the sad reality that far too many people die from drink.

Minimum pricing is both novel and groundbreaking, and it can, of course, divide opinion. That is exactly why we have included sunset and review provisions in the Bill, and they have been widely endorsed and I'm sure, as Suzy Davies indicated, we'll continue to debate them throughout Stage 3. I look forward to Stage 3, Llywydd, and hopefully Stage 4, and the continued scrutiny of this significant piece of public health legislation.