National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Dawn Bowden. 

Over the past few years, we have provided support for a number of exciting capital projects and events in the area, for example BikePark Wales, Rock UK and, of course, support for the Merthyr Rising festival. 

Thank you, First Minister, and given that this is tourism week, it's probably timely to remind ourselves that tourism, culture, our environment and our heritage will play a major part in securing a successful future for our Valleys communities as they make a valuable contribution to securing a diverse economy alongside the traditional sectors like manufacturing, public services and now an ever stronger retail offer. With this in mind, can you assure me that the recent 'Crucible' report, published by the Design Commission for Wales, which provides us all with a big vision for the huge future potential for Merthyr Tydfil's industrial heritage, will receive a full and proper consideration by the Welsh Government in order that all partners can work together to drive forward this ambitious project, which has the potential to provide us with a major Valleys attraction that could be as successful as Titanic Belfast or even the Eden Project in Cornwall? 

Well, I'm aware of the report. It does call for around £50 million to be spent on Merthyr's industrial past to make it a major tourist destination with the focus, of course, on Cyfarthfa castle. I do look forward to being kept up to date with progress on developing the offer that was set out in the report. I understand that you met recently with the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport to discuss the report, and that is something, of course, that will continue, no doubt, in the future. I know that officials are also working on a number of exciting private sector proposals that will continue to develop the offer in the area. So, a great deal of interest and, of course, a great deal to offer, as far as Merthyr and Rhymney are concerned. 

The report for the Design Commission for Wales has highlighted that there is a huge benefit that could be gained from the marketing of Merthyr Tydfil's industrial heritage, making the town a major tourist destination. Does the First Minister agree with me that a marketing strategy covering all industrial heritage sites of south Wales, including canals such as Monmouthshire and Brecon, has the potential of providing a massive boost to the tourism sector of our economy? Thank you.

Yes, because I think what's important is that we link what Merthyr has to offer with other attractions in the area as well. So, the centrepiece of the 'Crucible' report is regenerating Cyfarthfa castle, but there are wider opportunities to bring together other local heritage landmarks, including, of course, the furnaces at Blaenavon, Big Pit and the National Waterfront Museum as well, and being able to offer a collection of experiences to potential tourists of high quality will be important in the future. 

Well, via Sport Wales, we are providing over £570,000 this year to Newport City Council to support the development of sport in the area. The council has a contract with Newport Live to deliver a range of sport and physical activity programmes, allowing people of all ages to take part.

Yes, First Minister, sport and fitness are obviously vital for health and general quality of life and, thankfully, Newport is building a strong reputation in terms of its activities and facilities. As you mentioned, Newport Live is the bedrock, really, of delivery in Newport with over 1.6 million participants at leisure facilities annually and they work in close partnership with Newport City Council and many other organisations to reach every community in the city. Soon, they will be on the public service board and they are very keen to support the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

They also helped with the delivery of the recent Newport marathon and 10K, which saw several thousand runners on the route, including the vibrant riverfront and the wonderful Gwent levels. It was a great occasion for the city, First Minister, as I know you are aware, and it saw a really good turnout of local people in support. And the really good news is that there is almost a year to go before next year's event, which gives plenty of time for you and any others who may be considering participation to prepare. I'm sure, First Minister, you'll join me in recognising the sport and leisure activity in Newport at a scale that I think shows a good example to many others. 

Well, the Member has great faith in me in assuming I'd run a marathon in under a year. I will have more time on my hands after December, but I think that's misplaced faith. I understand that the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr was out jogging this morning; I think he's well ahead of me in terms of his ability to take part, rather than myself.

But he makes an important point and that is that people now are participating far more in activities than was the case. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, there were very few, if any, marathons that people took part in. It wasn't a question of trying to run to win; it was a question of taking part and finishing the course. That was the achievement for so many people. The money that we have provided for Newport, working closely with Newport Live, working closely with Newport City Council, has ensured that Newport is ever stronger in terms of being on the map for physical activity. That's good for the city, but it's also good, of course, for all those who participate.

Free swimming for children was a flagship Labour Party policy designed to encourage children in Newport and elsewhere in Wales to get fit and healthy. It has now been announced that Sport Wales is reviewing its support for free swimming for children. Given that child obesity in Wales is soaring, will the First Minister update this Assembly on its free swimming policy and what measures the Welsh Government intends to take to encourage children in Newport and elsewhere to improve their fitness?

We have no plans to change the policy. Policies are always under review, of course, and we recognise how important it is that children are able to access facilities in order to be active in order that they remain active for the rest of their lives.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Does the First Minister agree that, quite clearly, there is a power grab going on by Whitehall on the EU withdrawal Bill?

I think that was the case, but the agreement that we have reached now with the UK Government has avoided that.

It's absurd and embarrassing in equal measure that this Government chooses to endorse Theresa May rather than their own party leader. It's difficult to find any real benefits to exiting the EU, but there was one tiny sliver of positivity—[Interruption.]—

Can I hear the leader of Plaid Cymru, please? The question needs to be asked, please.

There was one sliver of positivity in that more decisions about Wales would be made in Wales, we were promised. That glimmer of hope has now gone. So, First Minister, tonight we will vote to accept this disastrous Brexit Bill. You can choose who to back: Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish and English Liberal Democrat parties, the Green Party, the Scottish Government, legal and constitutional experts, or your own party leader. Not even a single one of the six tests set up by this Assembly's own cross-party external affairs committee is met by this deal. The list goes on. Or you can back the Conservative and Unionist Party and UKIP. Who is it going to be?

Well, this is Wales, and, as Welsh Labour, we, in Government, have negotiated hard to get the best deal for Wales, which we believe we have achieved. What happens in Scotland and England is a matter for Scotland and England. That is what devolution is about. I note the support we received from the Confederation of British Industry and the report that we received from the Institute of Directors, and I am still not clear what the position of the leader of Plaid Cymru is when she says that, somehow, powers are being taken away from Wales. All 64 areas will return to Wales when we leave the EU. There will be some powers that, by agreement, will then be kept in the freezer. Every Government in the UK will be in the same position; they will not be able to legislate until such time as there is agreement to take those powers out of the freezer. That is a huge change from where we were last year when all powers would have gone straight to Westminster, where Ministers in Westminster would have had unlimited powers in terms of sunset clauses, and they would've determined when and if powers came to this Assembly and this Government. We've moved a huge way since then, which is why we are the party of devolution.

Can you tell us, then, what extra powers have been delivered by this deal? Because when our steel industry needed Westminster's intervention, they were nowhere to be seen. When our family farms need the support to sustain their business, do you trust Westminster to be there? When our environment is being laid to waste, do you trust Westminster to be there? That's what this deal means. Westminster, and not Wales, will decide on issues that matter to people's lives here in Wales. Llywydd, the very principles of devolution are at stake with this. So, First Minister, now that you know the facts, now that all the players have shown their hands, what will it be? Are you going to stand up for Wales or for Westminster?

I will always stand up for my country. It may be that others will take a different view on what's best for Wales, but I respect their views and I trust that the views of those on these benches will be respected as well, because they weren't last week. I have to say, as far as I am concerned—she mentions steel—we worked to save our steel industry. We did that with the powers that we have and we did that by working with Tata and putting a financial package on the table. With regard to farming, we need to see the colour of Westminster's money, that much is true, because we can't pay farming subsidies. It's hugely important that an equivalent sum of money is put into a pot at the UK level and distributed in the same way as it is now until such time as there is agreement to change the way money is spent and allocated. That much is very, very true.

But, as far as this agreement is concerned, there are restraints on the UK Government that are equivalent to any restraints there would be on Welsh Government. We are in a situation now where we are all in the same situation. There's great pressure on us all to come to agreed frameworks well before seven years, because England is now in the same situation as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And so—[Interruption.] It is exactly the same situation as Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. So, we've come to a position where a UK Government, a year ago, were saying—and I'm not sure the situation would be different if they had a majority of 100 in the House of Commons—'All powers will come to us. We will determine when and if they come to the devolved administrations.' That has changed; those powers will come to us. We will agree how they are frozen, we will agree the frameworks and then, of course, we will all be on a level playing field across Governments in the UK. This is the first time that the UK Government has ever agreed to be bound in this way, and that is a tribute to the negotiating skills of Mark Drakeford.

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's not very often I start First Minister's questions by saying I agree with the First Minister, and he might not want that type of praise from the leader of the opposition here in the Senedd.

I'd like to ask you about the rail franchise, First Minister, and the tendering exercise that is under way at the moment. Obviously, there is huge anticipation of the improvements that people want to see in the rail franchise. I think, across the Chamber here, people generally recognise that the last 15 years have been difficult, shall we say, because the last franchise that was awarded had zero growth built into it. You yesterday, at the opening of the new station at Bridgend and the subsequent journey you took, said that it is doubtful that there will be any real improvements until at least four years into the franchise. Those were your words. Back in June last year, the Cabinet Secretary, in responding to the committee report that looked into this, talked of there being very early improvements in the next rail franchise. Why is there now the difference in timelines for seeing the improvements that passengers, politicians and businesses want to see, because your assessment yesterday has those improvements coming at nearly a third into the life of the next franchise?

No, what I said was that people will start to see improvements in services very soon, certainly over the course of next year. But, in terms of new trains, well, clearly, they take time to procure and build, and, in terms of electrification, for example, in terms of new trains, in terms of looking to extend the current network, well, of course, that would take us into the early part of next year. People will begin to see changes early, but the step change will come, I suspect, in around about four or five years' time when people will see the roll-out of new trains and new modes of traction.

I think the language you used yesterday did confuse the situation for many people, because we were led to believe that the change would come in the very early years, but I'm glad of the clarification you've given. The Cabinet Secretary in February indicated that the announcement as to the winner of the tendering process would be made now in May of this year. I don't see anything on the forward outlook for next week on any announcement that's to be made. Is the First Minister able to confirm that the announcement will still be made in May as to who will be the preferred bidder and, actually, that the franchise will begin in October of this year, as the original timeline identified?

I can confirm there is no delay to the process, and we want to make the announcement as soon as possible.

So, on that timeline that I just asked you about, i.e. the announcement on the preferred bidder will be made in May of this year and, obviously, in October the actual franchise will begin, and given the difference in interpretation of improvements, i.e. the major improvements in five or four years' time, what can you also identify as being the quick wins that can be identified for early improvements? Can I ask you just to confirm that the timeline is still being stuck to on the franchise, with an announcement this month, which it would be pleasing to have in this Chamber, bearing in mind that the last week of May is the half-term recess, so that we can question the Cabinet Secretary and understand exactly what's happening?

I can confirm that. In terms of what people will see immediately, well, what we would look to see are new services and more frequent services, although not to say, obviously, with new trains at that stage. There's then the question of electrification and how that's rolled out, and then new trains being procured as a result of the electrification. So, people will see changes when the franchise is tendered, but the major changes are bound to come a few years down the line, as we look at changing the nature of the lines through electrification and as we look at new rolling stock. That's when people will start to really see a big difference in the quality of the trains.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Important as are the constitutional issues raised by the leader of Plaid Cymru, they're always likely to be of less immediate concern to the average person in the street than issues such as the health service, and last week, in answer to the leader of the opposition, First Minister, you were unable to give him the assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr health board would be out of special measures by the time your term as First Minister comes to an end. The Tawel Fan report referred to the difficulties involved in the creation of Betsi Cadwaladr in the first place, and that said that organisational developments on that scale normally take between five and seven years to accomplish. In the light of the Deloitte report, which was commissioned by the Welsh Government, which said that 

'change management arrangements...are not fit for purpose and remain a significant obstacle towards delivering sustainable change',

can the First Minister tell us whether he thinks that there is the right culture, still, within Betsi Cadwaladr, and whether their use of personnel is sufficiently good so that it can ever pull itself out of special measures?

I believe it can pull itself out of special measures. It's not there yet. I've never been somebody who would put an artificial timetable on when it should come out of special measures. I think it's important that it comes out of special measures when the time is appropriate and right. When that is, we would have to take a judgment at the time. There are challenges for Betsi Cadwaladr as a result of what was in the Tawel Fan report, that much is true, and they will need to meet those challenges, but I don't think, for example, another reorganisation of the health service in the north of Wales would be the answer. I think stability is crucial for the next few years.

I understand the point that the First Minister makes, and I've got a great deal of sympathy with it, but the Deloitte report notes a number of worrying, long-term systemic weaknesses, which will need to be addressed if the delivery of health services in north Wales is to be significantly improved. For example, in relation to the transformation groups that are supposed to deliver the improvements that we all want to see, the objectives are said to be poorly defined; group leaders don't yet appear to be clear on accountability outside their own divisions, and are yet to deliver any tangible outcomes; service improvement members of staff are said to be overly junior; there's a lack of in-depth analysis and benchmarking; there is concern about the project management office, over whether the skill set actually exists to address the transformation agenda; and in responding to a question from Deloitte on whether there is sufficient project management capability and capacity to support delivery across the financial plan, the majority of managers, finance directors and members of the central finance function teams said that they either could not say or they disagreed. So, are we actually in a position at the moment where we can say we've even begun this improvement plan to any significant degree?

There have been performance improvements, but there is some way to go, and the leader of UKIP is correct in identifying the weaknesses that still need to be addressed, which is why Betsi Cadwaladr will remain in special measures until such a time as we can be assured as a Government, and indeed that the Assembly can be assured, that it's able to stand on its own two feet again.

There were some damning comments in the Deloitte report about leadership in Betsi Cadwaladr, specifically: executive directors operating in silos; a lack of joint corporate ownership and accountability; the chief operational officer's portfolio was said to be too large for a single individual, managing a budget of over £800 million a year; other executive directors still establishing their portfolios; a lack of granular understanding that the actions of the health board will need to deliver to ensure financial stability. Given that continued indictment, is there not a case for the Welsh Government getting even further involved in the process of transformation than it is already, and that the current leadership team within Betsi Cadwaladr simply have a task that is too great for them to achieve within the limitations of the administrative structure of Betsi Cadwaladr and the budget that they have available to them?

No. I think it is right to say that the situation in Betsi Cadwaladr is such that the new structure is not yet bedded in, which is why, of course, it's still in special measures, which is why I've always been absolutely firm in saying that it will remain in special measures until such a time as it's able to leave. If I were to say, for example, 'Well, it will leave special measures by x date', well, inevitably, I think that would take some of the positive pressure off in terms of making sure that the health board is fit for purpose in the future, and I don't intend to do that. Working with the board, we intend to make sure that the board looks to a situation where it's able to run itself outside of special measures in the future.

Well, our investment in regeneration supports schemes that create jobs, enhance skills and employability, and delivers the right environment for businesses to grow and thrive.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Now, obviously, the Swansea bay city deal is vital in seeking to develop jobs in south-west Wales, yet 12 months on from the city deal agreement by the UK Government, and despite the agreement by Welsh Government that local authorities can retain 50 per cent of any business rates uplift, there are still concerns around finances and governance, most notably from Neath Port Talbot council. So, what is the Welsh Government therefore doing to tackle those concerns, and how confident are you that a joint-working agreement can be finalised and agreed by the local authorities in the near future?

I understand that the concerns of Neath Port Talbot have been addressed, but there is a responsibility on local authorities, of course. The city deal is a deal that requires local authorities to work together for the good of the wider areas—something that all parties in the Chamber have been keen to promote. We see, of course, the Cardiff capital region deal working very, very well, and it is hugely important that, with our support and with the support of the UK Government, local authorities are able to show delivery in Swansea bay as well.

I share Dai Lloyd's concerns, but I want to mention today that it's been a good five years now since it was reported that the revival of Swansea castle would provide an extra attraction to the thousands of people who were expected to flood into the city for the Dylan Thomas centenary celebrations. Well, those celebrations are well over now, but Swansea castle is still closed to the public. While there are some regeneration projects around the castle, I'm wondering whether you would be prepared to approach Swansea council to make more of the castle itself, because it's Wales Tourism Week and much of Cadw's promotion work, of course, is based on us being a nation of castles. So, I think perhaps a little Government support or intervention or leverage here would be very welcome indeed.

The castle was actually almost demolished after the war, because there was so little of it left that—

There's enough of it left.

—in the 1950s and 1960s, when such things were done, the suggestion was to remove it altogether. Fortunately, that didn't happen. It is a matter, ultimately, for Swansea council. I will, however, seek to get more information, and I'll write to the Member with more information.

First Minister, Port Talbot is not only one of the poorest parts of my region but also one of the poorest parts of the UK. The Social Mobility Commission also ranks Port Talbot as the worst area in Wales for social mobility. This is despite significant Welsh Government investment. The Port Talbot waterway has created fewer than 100 jobs, and we also live with an element of uncertainty regarding Tata steelworks. So, First Minister, what changes do you propose to your regeneration policies for Port Talbot, and will you support Neath Port Talbot council's bid to relocate Channel 4 to Port Talbot? Thank you.

Well, there are a number of bids from across Wales, so we have to be careful in terms of showing favouritism to any particular bid. We would like to be supporting all of them, of course.

In terms of Port Talbot, what is crucially important to the sustainability of Port Talbot is the future of steel making, and the fact that we have, over the past two years, secured that—let's not forget that, just before the last Assembly elections, the future looked very bleak indeed for the heavy end at Port Talbot. Because of the hard work that we've put in, working with others, working with Tata, the money put on the table, we've ensured that the steel-making end of Tata has a future, and that is something, in particular, that's hugely important to the town. I understand that Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council secured £11.5 million of the funding to deliver a programme of targeted regeneration projects to address community needs and to improve the well-being of the people of Port Talbot.

Well, £844,000 is in place over the next two years for credit unions to take forward projects to support financial inclusion. An additional £1 million has also been agreed to support credit unions with their growth. 

Diolch. The Minister for Housing and Regeneration has rightly commented that credit unions in Wales deliver financial awareness education for adults and children, they support people dealing with debt problems and provide some of the most vulnerable people with sound and ethical financial products, and therefore I very much welcome that the Welsh Government recently announced that credit unions across Wales will receive additional funding, including the £844,000 of funding, for projects that support people who are struggling financially. Sadly, under this UK Government, these people are the many and not the few. What direct impact does the First Minister then think this financial and capacity support for credit unions will give to some of the most vulnerable people in Islwyn?

I can say that officials will be meeting with the credit union sector on 21 May to discuss the financial transactions capital support that's being made available for this and the next financial year. Indeed, there's been interest from credit unions in terms of accessing that. We now have some 75,000 credit union members in Wales, and for many credit union members the credit unions provide a choice that doesn't involve going to loan sharks. We know that, and we know the financial pressures that have come on people over the last eight years, and we've seen never-ending austerity, and that's why the credit unions play such an important role in our communities, and it's why we have been supporting them to support people.

First Minister, I was looking forward there to saying I agree with Rhianon Passmore. Unfortunately, the bit at the end I found difficult to agree with, but the first part was positive. Can I also concur with those sentiments that credit unions do a great deal of work across Wales? In south-east Wales, my area, the Gateway Credit Union has branches in Abergavenny and in Bulwark, and as Rhianon Passmore said, they do a great deal to deal with poverty issues. Would you agree with me that it's important that we recognise the role that credit unions play in rural areas as well? It's not just an urban area that they serve. There are great pockets of rural poverty across my area, and also mid Wales as well, and they have an important role to play there. So, when you're targeting this funding, will you make sure that rural areas' poverty is addressed as well?

Absolutely. Credit unions are as relevant to rural areas as they are to urban areas. Some years ago, when I first went to Ireland, it was noticeable how large the credit unions were, particularly in small country towns, and the progress that had been made there. So, credit unions have a relevance and they provide a means of support to all communities in Wales, urban or rural.

Although people from Wales are members of credit unions, as compared to the rest of the UK and Ireland, as you’ve just said, membership is much lower than it is in those other nations. So, when I raised these issues with you in the past, I suggested the concept of having a national hub for credit unions. Yes, funding is provided to them individually, but there’s a great deal that they can learn from each other so that they can work and improve their offer as credit unions. So, where are you with looking into that concept and what are you as Government doing in terms of promoting or encouraging members of the civil service staff, for example, to save with credit unions, in order to ensure that we as Members, and those working here in Wales, play our role in promoting this sector?

I mentioned the funding that’s available and I mentioned the meeting that will take place next week. Membership of credit unions has increased from 10,000 people at the beginning of the century to 75,000, as I said, currently. So, there has been a great growth. The next step for credit unions, I think, is for them to consider how much they want to grow and what capacity is needed for them to grow. I know that, in Ireland, they can have hundreds of thousands of euros-worth of loans, which is much greater than those available in Wales. So, we must consider how far some of these credit unions wish to go. Do they want to grow to become much bigger, like the Irish credit unions, or do they want to remain as local credit unions? I think some of them will choose the first route and some will choose the other, but we will continue to speak with them in order to identify the ways in which we can ultimately promote them.

Yes. Progress continues to be made towards the next stage of delivery and to unlock UK Government funding.

Thank you. A groundhog day question, I know.

The shadow board of the Swansea bay city deal told us that they would, if it were possible, like to add to the 11 projects that are already part of the deal, and, of course, many of us have been speaking about transport potentially being an additional aspect of it. Two weeks ago, your economy Secretary said that work on a Swansea parkway should be taken forward 'at pace', just to quote him. And with that in mind, what discussions are you holding with the Wales Office and the Department for Transport about this idea? And can you tell us whether it's been discussed in the context of the city deal or more generally as part of the wider vision for transport improvement in Wales, or maybe both? Thank you.

I know the idea—the idea has been around for some time for a station at Morriston, effectively: Swansea parkway, as I understand it. There are issues, because it would mean upgrading the Swansea district line, and it would bypass Swansea itself, and also bypass Neath. And I know that people in Neath do not want to see their station bypassed in that way and I can well understand why it is not Government policy that we would want to do that. So, there would be a need to upgrade the Swansea district line, because at the moment it's a freight line and is used for occasional passenger diversions. There would also be a need to ensure that services were not lost to existing stations, particularly inter-city services—not just inter-city services, but all services—if that proposal was taken forward. So, an interesting idea, but there are some negative potential effects, unless any services on the Swansea district line were in addition to the services that already exist, serving stations such as Swansea high street itself and Neath.

Yes. The Welsh ambulance service continues to deliver a highly responsive service to the people of Wales despite record levels of demand. In March, 69.6 per cent of immediately life-threatening calls received a response within eight minutes, with a typical response time of five minutes and 29 seconds.

In a Plenary session on 16 January I raised the important issue of front-line NHS workers being at breaking point as a result of the pressures being put on them on a daily basis. This related specifically to the Welsh ambulance service, and you pledged to investigate and to write back to me. You wrote back to me earlier this month with a reply that outlined that measures are being taken by the ambulance trust to support its staff. And that includes an in-house well-being team, which on paper sounds great, but a contact of mine says they were unable to access this service because that service never got back to them. The lack of capacity in our hospitals, causing delays in transfers of care, is cited by my contact as being the biggest factor in delayed ambulance responses and, subsequently, stress caused to call handlers. For the sake of our NHS as well as staff and patients, when is this Government going to get to grips with this problem?

Let me give the leader of Plaid Cymru a fuller answer. The winter of 2017-18 did see a sustained pressure across the NHS, both in Wales and the UK in general. March 2018 was, I think I'm right in saying, the busiest month ever for the ambulance service. One of the key groups of staff affected has been the 999 call takers and the control-room staff who work for the Welsh ambulance service as well as, of course, ambulance staff themselves and the paramedics. What the ambulance service did was approach the ambulance service charity to provide support to ambulance clinical-control centres, particularly to call-taking staff. Two sessions were run at each of the three regional control centres, covering a range of support mechanisms available to help staff with their emotional and physical well-being, but also the wider support available from TASC, the charity, in areas such as financial management, preparing for the future, and other benefits that TASC provides for ambulance staff. And the feedback from staff has been, 'Those sessions were invaluable', and the trust is now looking at how TASC resources can be used to support staff in the future as part of the trust's response to operational pressure. 

First Minister, over the three winter months, 1,860 people who were classified as amber, and you will know this includes people suffering from a stroke or a heart attack, were made to wait over six hours for their ambulance. Now, this is, surely, unacceptable and we need to ensure that, next winter, some of these very basic standards are met.

I can say, at the request of the Cabinet Secretary, the chief ambulance services commissioner has commenced a clinically led review specifically on the amber category, alongside work that's ongoing at the moment to look at ambulance responsiveness, clinical outcomes and patient experience. There are four things in particular the review will look at: firstly, the current state in respect of extant policy practice and guidance; secondly, the expectations and experiences of the public, staff, and the wider service around ambulance response to amber calls; thirdly, consideration of environmental factors, such as the location of an incident and the age of a patient when determining allocation of a response; and, fourth, the other external or internal factors that may contribute to, or impact on, how the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust responds to amber category calls, and that work is ongoing.

The amount of emergency ambulance calls during 2016-17 was up 116 per cent on the number of emergency ambulance calls made in previous years. This is a staggering increase by any calculation, yet the Welsh ambulance service has for 30 consecutive months met its national response-time target for red calls, thanks to our clinical response model and our staff delivering care quicker to those who need it most—a model rubbished by the Welsh Tories as 'moving the goalposts', and a model now being looked at to be replicated in England by their Westminster Tory colleagues.

Will the First Minister join me, then, in praising the dedicated men and women of the ambulance service, who continue to contribute to our wonderful Welsh national health service in the year of its seventieth anniversary, and further outline what we can do to further aid their invaluable work?

Can I join the Member in paying my regard, consideration and thanks, indeed, to the ambulance staff for what they do in saving lives day after day in Wales? I can say that significant resources have been invested in the last few years, targeted at ensuring that the number of front-line staff is increased, both in the control centres and, indeed, on the road. We have a record number of staff, actually, employed in the service. Back in October, we announced an £8.2 million investment to enable the Welsh ambulance service to continue upgrading the existing fleet, which brings the total investment in new ambulance vehicles since 2011 to almost £45 million.

We continue to invest in the provision of healthcare services in mid Wales, including £6.6 million on the Llandrindod Wells County War Memorial Hospital. We will continue to work with health boards in the region to provide healthcare services that deliver the best possible outcomes for patients.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I've seen many health service reorganisations in the course of my lifetime, and it's always a great problem bringing about change—even beneficial change. There are always going to be perceived winners and losers. The Hywel Dda university health board proposed their big NHS change, which will affect the provision of healthcare facilities throughout the Hywel Dda area. Will he agree with me that any change that does take place should not disadvantage very significant areas of population within the health board in order to benefit other parts of the area?

In particular, in Llanelli there's a proposal to downgrade the Prince Philip Hospital, which will see the provision of 24/7 acute medical services affected; adequate bed space in the highest populated area of Hywel Dda will be reduced; a specialist breast oncology unit will not be there; and also it will affect mental health services. If changes are going to be acceptable to the public at large, then they have to benefit the maximum number of people and not disadvantage them. 

There are two objectives, to my mind, to the exercise: first of all, to have the fullest possible consultation, and, secondly, to ensure that what we see, not just in Hywel Dda but across Wales, is the best, safest and most sustainable health service for the population. That is something that, as a Government, we'd want to see across Wales.

First Minister, a constituent, Mr Robert Jones, has recently informed me that he can no longer collect his prescription from the pharmacy within the building of his GP practice because of dispensing rules that have changed as a result of being brought in following the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Wales) Regulations 2013, in spite of the fact that he has been registered at the practice for the whole of his life. It's clearly common sense, as far as I can see, for him to be able to collect his prescription from within the building where he was given the prescription, so I do find the policy difficult to comprehend when the constituent is already at their GP practice. Can you commit to looking again at this issue to see whether there is sufficient flexibility within the system—from the correspondence I've received back from the health Minister that doesn't seem to be the case—so that these regulations do not have these kinds of unintended consequences?

I'd not heard that, I have to say. The Member asked a question that, with respect, is hyperlocal. It deserves an answer, but that answer will need to come, if he gives me further details, via a letter.

It's been a delight today to welcome Elly Neville to the Assembly, and many Assembly Members have met her. She's raised nearly £160,000 now, as a six and seven-year-old, for ward 10 cancer treatment in Withybush, and I'm sure you'll join me in a minute, First Minister, hopefully, in thanking her for her efforts.

But what it really underlines, of course, is how important those services are to local communities, and how committed communities are to them. You told me last week that in the options being considered for Hywel Dda, you as a Government and you as a First Minister had no preference. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, if your own Assembly Members did not campaign for or against some of these options, but let the public have that wider consultation and then take some decisions in the cold of light of day, with good clinical evidence to date with that, and with the best evidence possible from the health Cabinet Secretary around the availability of funding also?

Firstly, I've had the pleasure of meeting Elly before, and it's wonderful to welcome her back to this building. She's done a fantastic job in raising so much money, and it's great to know that she's here. Secondly, if it were the case that no AMs were going to campaign in any way with regard to Hywel Dda's consultation, it might be a level playing field, but I suspect that's going a little bit too far in terms of what to expect. Backbench Labour AMs are free, of course, to represent their communities; that's why they are there. There are more restrictions, of course, on those in Government, naturally, but I'm sure that all AMs who live in the Hywel Dda area will make their views known as part of the consultation.  

We continue to work with and support Stenaline to maximise Holyhead’s potential to increase economic growth and jobs for the region. This includes engaging on plans for a new multi-use berth, for which we have granted £0.5 million under the ports development fund towards undertaking a feasibility study.

Thank you very much. This Friday, a group will be reconvened bringing together various users of the port. It will be jointly chaired by myself as Assembly Member and the Member of Parliament for Anglesey, and I’m grateful for the confirmation over the last three quarters of an hour that the Welsh Government will send an official to that meeting. But prior to that meeting, I would like to appeal for a very clear focus from the Welsh Government on supporting and investing in the port of Holyhead and the transport infrastructure serving that port, particularly as a result of the challenge of Brexit, competition from other ports such as Liverpool, and the challenge of direct crossings developing more and more from Ireland to France. We must ensure that the excellent port of Holyhead continues to be competitive for the sake of jobs directly there and, of course, for the wider economy of Anglesey and not just north Wales, but the whole of Wales too.

Brexit, of course, is a challenge for Holyhead and the other ports such as Pembroke Dock and Fishguard. I can remember a time when there were tolls at Holyhead. Not everybody was checked, but if you were stopped there, there was a problem as regards a delay before moving on.

For me, there are two things. Firstly, we don’t know exactly what the relationship will be between Holyhead and Ireland. We’ve said that nothing should go there, by saying that the UK should remain in the customs union and that is vital. When I spoke to Irish Ferries, one thing that struck me was that they said there is potential as regards ferries going from Ireland to France directly, but that the capacity isn’t quite the same as that from Dublin to Holyhead. Their problem was that they would carry something like fish and then find that they couldn’t get out of the Holyhead port in time and then they would miss the ferry at Dover and their load would perish. That is something that they considered would have to be resolved.

At the moment, I don’t see any kind of investment from the United Kingdom Government in the network in Holyhead, but what I wouldn't like to see would be tolls and, even worse, we wouldn’t want to see any kind of passport control in Holyhead. All that that would do is make it even more difficult to use the port and give a competitive advantage to ports such as Cairnryan and Liverpool.

We remain of the view that Bangor University, working with Cardiff and Swansea medical schools, can deliver increased opportunities for medical education and training in north Wales. We are working with the universities on proposals for delivering sustainable medical education in north Wales.

You will be aware, of course, that I have been prioritising a campaign for a medical school at Bangor, because I believe that it is a means of improving patient care across north Wales. I commissioned this report, 'Tackling the Crisis', which outlined the case very clearly and there was an agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party and £7 million was allocated towards developing a plan for medical education in north Wales. I’m pleased that negotiations are ongoing but I would like some details on this expenditure, particularly the capital spend element of the funding allocated, and I would like a commitment from you today that we will receive a clear statement demonstrating the progress that’s been made in this area. Thank you.

I can give you that commitment. It is important that Bangor collaborates with Cardiff and Swansea in order to access the major hospitals in south Wales too, in order to give a complete education to any trainee doctors. The other option would be Liverpool, but, for myself, I would prefer to create a Welsh medical education system between the north and the south. That work continues and, once the work is ready, we will make a statement.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement and I call on the leader of the house to make that statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically. 

Leader of the house, you will have heard the First Minister's exchange—the questions exchanged between myself and the First Minister in relation to any announcement that we might be able to expect as an Assembly on the awarding of the rail franchise. The Cabinet Secretary is on record as saying that this will be made in May 2018. Can you confirm as leader of the house that next week there will be a statement on the order of business for the Assembly to actually understand how the Government are going to make this announcement and indeed who is the successful bidder? Because, in my understanding, there are still only 12 working days left in May and it is very important, with such a substantial announcement that affects so many communities the length and breadth of Wales, that that statement is made in this Chamber so that Assembly Members are able to question the Cabinet Secretary in relation to the awarding of the tender and, importantly, the timetable for implementation of that tender. So, I'd be grateful if you could confirm that that piece of business will be taken next week.

And, secondly, in relation to the QC-led inquiry, could we have a statement from the First Minister or the relevant person in Government as to the progress of the QC-led inquiry into the reshuffle of last November? There's much press speculation in relation to the progress, or not, as the case may be, on this inquiry. I think it is only appropriate that, as Assembly Members, we understand how the work is going in this particular area and when the actual inquiry will begin its full engagement and undertake its inquiry. 

In terms of the first question you asked, which you asked in FMQs as well—you can see the Cabinet Secretary explaining a complex process that goes with the procurement, but I'm sure there will be an announcement in May. There is the necessity for a stop—[Interruption.] Well, because of the procurement rules—and the Member, I know, is familiar with this—and because of the particular procurement route that's been taken, there is a standstill period between the initial announcement and the actual award of contract. So, a statement will be made, but it will be after the initial announcement, because of the way that the procurement rules work. But the Cabinet Secretary is nodding happily at me that we're on track and that the announcement will be made in line with the current timetable. 

Further to the point just raised around the QC-led inquiry that Andrew R.T. Davies asked about— another opportunity to answer that aspect, but, in particular, if you could confirm something that I've asked you in the past, whether the terms of reference of that inquiry will also be published by means perhaps of a First Minister's statement to the Assembly. Because I think we all have an interest to understand the terms of reference of the inquiry but, particularly, the extent of the inquiry in terms of the period of time that will be relevant to that QC-led inquiry. So, if you could confirm those and when we might hear about that in terms of future business.

The second item I wanted to raise with you is different, but many of us would have been shocked by the events in Gaza yesterday. It is not to excuse anything that Hamas or any other organisation does as an authority in Gaza to say that we do not and cannot accept the use of snipers to mow down thousands—literally thousands—of unarmed civilians. That is beyond any civilised Government's response in terms of protecting its borders or protecting its citizens. So, although this is not, I appreciate, an item for you or specifically for the Welsh Government, certainly people have been contacting me, people who are very upset about what was experienced. It's the worst that we've had for at least half a decade in that part. And, of course, the effects on overall peace in the middle east do affect us all because they affect the way we live our lives in our communities here and the way that many of our members of armed services might be involved in future as well. So, there is, I think, a real need for the Government to do two things, if possible: (1) simply for the First Minister to write to the Palestinian Authority just in terms of commiserating with the loss of life, not in a political way but simply just as a humanitarian gesture, and, secondly, to contact the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson to urge the UK Government to take this up at the highest level, including at the United Nations.

I know that questions are being asked right now in the House of Commons about this, so I'm not quite sure where it is, but I just would like the Welsh Government to be part of that discussion and, particularly in your role then, for you to share that correspondence with us so that, when people do contact us, as they don't always know who we represent and what level we represent at, we're able to share with them the expressions of regret but also some positive action going forward trying to achieve the maximum opportunities—that's all we can talk about at this stage—for peace in that benighted land. 

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely shocking scenes; I think all of us were just horrified at what we were seeing. I'm sure the Government will want to pass on its commiserations to the people who lost their lives in such an appalling way. It is a very worrying time in the middle east. There is a large number of things happening in slightly different spheres in the middle east, the complexity of which I think we haven't seen in many, many decades, if at all. So, I think the Member makes a series of very important points and I will certainly have a discussion with the First Minister about what can be done in terms of expressing the views of this place as to where we are with some of that. But I think, absolutely—. Presiding Officer, I'd like to pass on my own commiserations indeed to the people caught up in such an appalling conflict—terrible, terrible scenes.

In terms of the QC-led inquiry, my understanding is that we're still in discussion about the terms of reference and that that's very much a discussion ongoing between the QC, the family and the Government. Presiding Officer, if there is some information that's different to that that I'm unaware of, I will make sure that the Assembly knows, but I'm not aware that anything has changed other than that those negotiations are ongoing.

I would like to ask for two statements. The first one—I would like a statement on the Welsh Government's proposals to improve public health, this to include the relationship between health and lifestyle. It should also include action to reduce obesity, increase exercise and improve diet, including what is being done to replace Communities First activity in this area.

The second one, which perhaps is more urgent—last week we were all surprised, shocked and disappointed to hear that Virgin Media were talking about closing and the loss of just under 800 jobs. The Welsh Government hadn't been consulted a great deal at that time, if at all, about it, and it's a matter of grave concern to me, as it's in my constituency, but I'm sure it is to you and our colleagues from the whole of west Glamorgan and east Dyfed, because people travel some distance to go to work. So, have you got any further update on how the Welsh Government is doing? I know the Cabinet Secretary talked about that actions could be taken and a taskforce and lots of other things, but we're now a week further on, people are further worried, as we all would be, or, as I said last week, as I was when redundancy hung over me. So, have we got any further updates on what is happening?

Yes, indeed, on that matter, the Member will know, because he was there as well as me, that a large number of AMs from the region had a meeting with Virgin Media last week to discuss the situation that they find themselves in. I can't say that that meeting was entirely positive, but some positive discussions have been taking place since. Once the consultation period that was spoken of in the meeting last week is complete, which we understand is the week commencing now—so, at some point this week the consultation will have finished—then the taskforce has been agreed by Virgin Media to go in to assist people who are at threat of redundancy. We've had a very large number of positive discussions as the Welsh Government with other employers in the area who might have need of the skills of the people who are potentially displaced from Virgin Media and those have been going well. I'm delighted to say that Virgin Media have actually agreed that the taskforce will go in with their full co-operation, which is a serious step forward from where we were before. We continue to talk to other major employers in the area who might require the skills necessary for the displaced officials. I do very much regret that Virgin Media did not see fit to approach the Government first. You were in the meeting as well as I; it was very frustrating, where we were. But the Welsh Government has stepped forward and stands ready to support any employees that are displaced as a result of the activity there.

In terms of the public health matter, our proposals to improve public health definitely include the relationship between health and lifestyle. That includes all of the actions that the Member set out, and, in fact, it's set out in our flagship programme, 'Prosperity for All'. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services will be setting out our aims and ambitions to promote healthier weights in a forthcoming strategy to be consulted on later this year. That will include all local health boards and partners delivering against the all-Wales obesity pathway and also working with Public Health Wales and Sport Wales to deliver national actions to increase levels of physical activity and to develop a well-being bond, which will be launched in the coming weeks. So, very timely.

Could I call for two statements, or responses to two matters? The first on advance care planning: this is actually Dying Matters Week, from the 14 May to 20 May. Macmillan Cancer Support have published their report into advance care planning across the UK, including Wales, called 'Missed Opportunities', and they've asked me as chair of the cross-party group on hospices and palliative care to both raise this report and highlight the fact that this is Dying Matters Week in the Assembly this week.

They're urging the Welsh Government to honour its commitments, set primarily within its palliative and end-of-life care delivery plan, to support and roll out advance care planning and put the systems in place to ensure that advance care plans are acted upon as an important part of a person-centred health service, ensuring that people approaching the end of their lives receive the best care possible and that their wishes for death and dying are fulfilled.

Briefly, their report found that although almost a quarter of people with cancer in Wales have difficulty talking honestly about their feelings around cancer, more than three quarters of people with cancer in Wales have thought about the fact that they may die from the disease. However, in-depth conversations with health and social care professionals and people with cancer reveal there are a number of barriers preventing honest conversations about dying from taking place, not least the pressure to stay positive and support people to fight cancer even when they've received a terminal diagnosis. This, hopefully, might merit more than simply a response from yourself now, but a Welsh Government statement, given the importance of this matter to all of us, because it does affect all of us in our lives.

Secondly, and finally, could I call for a statement or even, dare I say, a debate in Welsh Government time on another equally important matter, and that's support to the deaf community and people with hearing loss in Wales, because 14 May to 21 May is also Deaf Awareness Week? Deaf Awareness Week aims to raise the awareness and challenges of deafness and hearing loss, ensure access for deaf people to information and services at first point of contact, promote equal access in health settings, particularly in reception areas, ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, provide clear and concise information about treatment and health management, and engage with and involve local deaf communities on a regular basis—also to improve access to education and social care, ensure people have the access to information they need, advocate and inform government and the public at large about deafness and hearing loss, improve services, but, above all, raise the profile and importance of equality, accessibility and recognition by supporting deaf access and communications, employment, British Sign Language and the deaf Olympics, noting, for example—and I'll finish with this—that although a checklist developed as a practical supplement to the all-Wales standards for communication and information for people with sensory loss was sent to health boards and health establishments across Wales, deaf organisations in Wales report that many health boards and establishments have not taken this on as a way of tackling the inequalities faced by British Sign Language users in Wales. I hope you agree that that merits a more substantive response from the Welsh Government in this place. Thank you.

Yes, on that last one, I've actually been, with my equalities hat on, having a series of discussions with a number of Cabinet colleagues, and had a very useful meeting with Mike Hedges AM on this as well about the services for people with hearing loss around a whole range of issues, including in education, in health settings, in general communications areas and so on. Actually, as part of my own brief with my equalities hat on, I hope to be at least including it as part of my statement, if not bringing forward a separate statement. So, we will have an opportunity before the end of the summer term in my portfolio to cover off some of those areas, because we've been working across Government. So, I entirely agree with the Member that it needs a cross-Government look, because it's a whole-of-life situation for many people. So, we will have that opportunity before the end of the summer term to do that. 

I was being indicated to by the Cabinet Secretary that we are already working very hard on the advance end-of-life care pathways and that we will be bringing forward a statement in due course, setting out what we're doing on that as well. 

Leader of the house, I bring two issues for your attention. Last night, I attended a packed public meeting in Cwmgwrach in the Neath valley—Jeremy Miles was also there—where universal opposition to a plan to build a garage complex in the village was voiced. Now, we've been lobbying and writing to the local authority for many months. Alternative plans are available. The original planning decision was passed last year, with few people even knowing about it. There's huge anger and concern locally in terms of what this Assembly can and cannot do. So, can we have a Government statement on any future changes in planning guidance that truly reflect the concerns of local residents in such matters, who cannot appeal, whereas the applicant can? 

My second issue involves Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board. Back in March, I raised the fact that Abertawe Bro Morgannwg local health board had been under Welsh Government targeted intervention since September 2016. The concerns that existed at that time centred around unscheduled care, stroke and planned care, amongst others. There's still concern locally with regard to the delivery of national performance targets and ABMU's ability to deliver sustainable services in the long run. Back in March, I asked for the Cabinet Secretary for health to bring forward a debate with a particular focus on improvements against the targeted intervention priorities in ABMU. In response, you stated that the Cabinet Secretary would bring forward an end-of-year statement. Given that we are now post end of year, can you provide me with the details of when we'll get that opportunity to scrutinise the performance of ABMU, mindful that it is nearly two years since it was put into targeted intervention status by Welsh Government? Diolch. 

On that, I understand that the Cabinet Secretary is bringing forward that statement shortly. So, you will have that opportunity. I'll also say that a large number of us who work in the ABMU area and represent people from that area have been having a series of meetings with the health board, both the chair and the chief executive. I know a number of other Assembly Members, and David Rees in particular, have been raising issues with the health board around some of those issues as well. So, the Cabinet Secretary is aware of all of those. 

In terms of the planning consent, I was aware that you and Jeremy Miles were at the packed public meeting. Obviously, we can't comment on individual planning matters, but there is an extant planning consultation out on 'Planning Policy Wales', and that would be an appropriate point to put in anything that you think is missing from that, including some of the issues that are always raised with all of us around what people who oppose an application can do in the light of planning consent being granted when they're not very happy about it. And I'm sure, Presiding Officer, that that's something that all of us have in our postbags every day of the week. So, it's an appropriate time to put that into the consultation. 

Following on from the task and finish group review of breastfeeding support and practices in maternity and early years settings, which has just been published, would the leader of the house look for opportunities for us to highlight the importance of breastfeeding and to debate the issues raised in this document, as it is absolutely essential for the future health of our children that women are encouraged and supported to breastfeed? I think we're all aware that the breastfeeding rates have been static in Wales for a number of years. 

The Member raised a very important point, and again, in a meeting in my own constituency very recently, I was very moved to say that I was very disappointed that all of the experiences that I had in attempting to breastfeed my own children, some 30-odd years ago, were being experienced by young women today. So, that's not good enough. And there are a number of things we can do across the Government. It's not just about health, is it? It's about social acceptability and the ability of people to be able to be comfortable with what is, after all, a very natural function and all the rest of it. As you said, an expert group was set up to look at the issues and provide recommendations. The Cabinet Secretary did issue a written statement last week, and he is indicating that he would be more than happy to arrange for a meeting with one of the senior nursing officers within the chief nursing officer's office if Members want to discuss that more. And then, depending on the outcome of that, we can see what we can do to take it forward.

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on waiting times for heart bypass surgery in Wales? Official statistics show that patients were waiting an average of 79 days between April 2016 and May 2017 for surgery, compared to 43 days the previous year. The average wait for heart bypass in England was 51 days, 28 days fewer than in Wales. Please could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on this unacceptable long wait for vital surgery? 

My second request to the finance Minister is: just before the Easter holidays, £6 million was given to Cardiff Airport. I'm pretty sure it's public funding going for good reasons, but I think we have a right to ask where this money was going, and in what direction, because the company, or the airport, in fact—Qatar came in earlier this month. So, for what purpose was the money injected, and how is profit-making business going to be improved in Cardiff Airport? Thank you.

The Member raises points that he obviously cares very much about, but there are appropriate moments to ask those questions—very specific questions—of various Cabinet Secretaries during oral Assembly questions, or, indeed, in written questions, and I don't think either of them warrants a statement from the Government. I would suggest the Member either puts them in as written questions or, indeed, raises them during oral Assembly questions with the relevant Cabinet Secretary, which is next week, in fact.

I have two issues I’d like to raise with you. The first: in the budget agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour, £2 million was allocated to promote co-operation between western counties on strategic linguistic and economic issues. Unfortunately, there is still confusion as to which Cabinet Secretary is responsible for this important programme, or at least we can’t access that information. So, would you write to me in order to clarify that particular issue? Plaid Cymru does have a proposal that is well developed with local government leaders, and this needs to be implemented as soon as possible.

The second issue is the announcement last week that the fire and rescue authority in north Wales is facing substantial budgetary cuts. There are a number of options that have been presented, including cutting services in my own constituency. At the moment, I understand that there is a consultation ongoing on the governance and funding in this area, and it may make more sense for that to happen first before any cuts are made. So, could we have a statement from your Government on the future of fire and rescue services across Wales?

On the second one, it is absolutely right that we should have a consultation. There will be an opportunity to ask the Cabinet Secretary about that. This is a very specific concern that, Siân Gwenllian, you're raising, which I'm not sure I entirely caught. So, perhaps if you wouldn't mind writing with that very specific concern, we could address it more directly. But apologies; I'm not sure I quite caught the point you were making, other than the general point about it. So, perhaps you wouldn't mind writing with that specific.

In terms of the first, the Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that he's more than happy to clarify what the arrangements for the budget settlement are.

This week is also Mental Health Awareness Week, and the focus of this year's campaign is stress. I am extremely proud to be wearing my green ribbon today in the Chamber in support of Mental Health Awareness Week. I want to begin by thanking all the Members from across the Chamber, and their support staff and staff from the Assembly, for joining me earlier outside on the Senedd steps for a photo in support of the campaign. Coming together to show support is so important, and it goes a long way in saying that it is okay not to be okay.

I have two things I'd like to raise in particular today. Firstly, will the leader of the house join me in paying tribute to those thousands of people who work for charities and organisations that help people with mental illness?

Finally, I want to take this time and opportunity to put on the record and inform Members and the wider general public that my family and I are very pleased to announce the first donation from the Carl Sargeant memorial fund. As this is Mental Health Awareness Week, we have decided to donate the money from the fund towards Cruse in north Wales. Cruse provides vital bereavement support, advice and information to children, young people and adults who need it when someone dies, and I know personally how important that support is. I hope that this donation will play some part in ensuring that organisations like Cruse and so many others can continue to offer the vital mental health support that is so, so important to people across north Wales and the whole of the UK, for those who desperately need it. Thank you.

Of course I'm absolutely delighted to join with you in congratulating and being very grateful to all of the people who volunteer in mental health services across Wales, and indeed across the UK and the world. Of course, the great thing about that is that we know that volunteering also assists with your own mental health, so it is a great virtuous circle, which I'm very delighted to encourage and applaud. I'm very, very pleased to hear about the first donation from the Carl Sargeant memorial fund. I'm sure that the organisation will be delighted and I'm sure that your father would've been very delighted with it as well.

I was very pleased to be part of your photograph. I particularly chose this poster, Llywydd, that says, 'We're all different, accept and be proud of who you are rather than wishing you were more like someone else.' I'm very pleased to have that, because, of course, it goes alongside our This is Me campaign, which we're very keen on promoting and is very much about mental health awareness. It's also about lack of stereotyping, particularly gender stereotyping, but any kind of stereotyping, because that's also very important for mental health. It's extremely important that we all accept who we are and that everybody around us accepts who we are as well. So, I was very delighted to be part of that, Jack, and congratulations on that first donation.

Can I concur with the sentiments of Jack Sargeant? I was pleased to attend the six-month memorial dinner last week. I'm pleased to hear that around £3,000 was raised at that dinner and I think that the decision to donate the first tranche of funds to the Cruse charity in north Wales is a very good one. I know that Carl would've been proud of your efforts in this regard, and also proud of the support he's had from Assembly Members.

Can I secondly say that yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending, along with the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, who's deep in his e-mails over there—you got a name check—the launch of the Museum of the Moon exhibition at Tintern abbey? I can see you looking shocked—'What is this?' I felt the same until I went. It was an art exhibition from internationally acclaimed artist Luke Jerram—a really fantastic event, which had a 7m large moon suspended in the middle of Tintern abbey. At night, that's illuminated and provides an amazing spectacle for locals and also tourists. That's attracting a different type of tourist from across the world, as art exhibitions can do. So, I wonder if we could have a statement in the light of yesterday's event, from the Minister, as to how—don't worry, not in the immediate future, you've got time to think about it—we're going to use our great historic buildings, such as Tintern abbey, as venues for different types of events, to attract a different type of tourist, so that we make the very most of the culture and heritage we have in Wales, bringing together different spheres so that people from across the world can benefit from the best that Wales has to give.

I'm sure that the Member will be aware that it's very difficult to make sure that the Minister takes his correct share of Plenary time, so he'll be delighted to bring forward a statement as long as I can give him the space for it, I'm sure. I have to say, Llywydd, that he appears to me to have been doing a tour of places starting with 'T', because I'm aware of several others as well. I'm going to have to have a word with my own diary secretary about getting some better gigs for myself, for some of these cultural events.

But in all seriousness, it is, of course, the effective and creative use of our beautiful heritage spaces that does bring them to life and actually attracts different sorts of people attracted by different kinds of cultural events. It's always great to see an old building brought to life by something a little bit unexpected. I haven't seen the moon suspended from Tintern abbey. Perhaps I should make a pilgrimage to see it. But there are several old buildings in my own constituency where having an art exhibition inside them has really brought them to life in a different way, and it's brought aspects of the building to life in a way that, perhaps, you wouldn't have seen if you were used to the building, even if you used it a lot. So, I'm very happy to applaud those creative uses to highlight both the cultural and artistic merits of all of our things. I'm sure that the Minister will bring forward a statement as soon as I can get him time on the Plenary agenda to do so.

As outlined by my Plaid Cymru colleague a moment ago, of course, the North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority executive panel met yesterday to discuss cuts of £1.9 million to its budget to balance the books for the next financial year, and the proposals still include, of course, cuts to front-line services. Now, in practical terms, that could mean losing one of the two whole-time fire engines that we have at Wrexham. It could mean reducing services across other towns in north Wales—Colwyn Bay, Rhyl and further afield, of course—as well as reducing a large number of retained stations. Now, the threat to one of Wrexham's engines was beaten last year, effectively, through mass protest by people locally, and if similar proposals are brought forward, I'd imagine we'll see, and rightly so, the same reaction locally again. The Government itself is projecting steep increases in population over the coming years, but, of course, the funding for those services isn't reflecting that potential increase in demand as well.

Now, I know that the public services Secretary is hoping to have that discussion around the future of the fire services that we have in Wales, particularly in terms of accountability, but also we have to discuss funding sustainability for these services, because, whatever the method we choose, whether it's directly funding through the precept or whatever comes out of that discussion, we have to be clear that we mustn't lose these jobs, we mustn't lose these services. For those people who are still arguing in favour of austerity, they have to realise that this is the sharp end and these cuts cost lives. So, can we have a clear statement from the Secretary and this Welsh Government about where this service is going in years to come and how, as a Government, you can secure the sustainability of these essential fire and rescue services?

The Member makes a very important point, and, as we say all the time, it is impossible to have an austerity agenda without having real effects on people's lives. I've said many times in this Chamber that we're all faced with no good choice at all. We're not cutting things that we think aren't any good; we're cutting things that we know are important to people, because austerity is a political choice with which we do not agree and which has very serious consequences for public services. [Interruption.] It absolutely is. So, I absolutely hear what you say. You've made a very good point, and the Cabinet Secretary heard what you said as well and I'm sure will respond in due course.

It is a hard fact that the shrinkage of local government non-statutory services across the UK is happening due to the UK austerity agenda, but I'll leave that. I therefore wish us to ask for a statement to this place on the status and health of music support services across Wales and the subsidised instrumental tuition and incremental ensembles access that they provide. I would like to request that this statement includes an assessment of schools that currently do not have access to a music support service or are in the process of losing one, and an evaluation of the impact that the loss of a music support service has on the equality of access for poorer students to music performance education across Wales.

The Member's raised this many times in the Chamber and clearly feels very passionate about it, and has brought a number of events to the Senedd, actually, demonstrating the importance of it. It's a conversation we've had many times across Government about how we can best support the music service, and I know it's an active consideration for several Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers. So, the Member can be assured that we take it very seriously indeed and it's something that we're in active consideration about.

Finally, Bethan Sayed.

Thank you. I'd like to concur with the comments made by Jack Sargeant in relation to the importance of Mental Health Awareness Week and the fact that we can, where possible, work together in supporting one another. I think that was something you brought to the table, so, thank you, Jack, for that.

I wanted to expand on the comments made by Simon Thomas in relation to Palestine. I've had quite a lot of e-mails with regard to this. This is an issue that has really shocked our systems in relation to the violence. Fifty-eight people were killed in that protest. Today, the Scottish Parliament are having a debate on the future of Palestine, and we have had a consensus here in the past whereby most AMs have recognised that we need to have a state for it as a nation, and I wondered whether we could have another debate here in the National Assembly for Wales to take leadership on this issue, because it's clear that international law is being violated, and we cannot sit idly by. While we don't have powers over international affairs, it still means that we can take the moral high ground and that we can show leadership in this particular area. So, I would urge a debate on this issue as opposed to a statement, if that would be possible.

The second issue I wanted to raise here today was with regard to Resolven miners institute. Now, I know many AMs from across the party divide—again, a consensus-based approach here—have visited and have seen what they want to achieve there in relation to upgrading the miners institute. It's a vast building, but it could be a great resource for local people. But finance is always an issue, so I was wondering whether we could have a statement or a debate on support from the Welsh Government for industrial heritage to try and discuss some of these issues that challenge local people in relation to how they can build up their funds to make these particular amazing buildings viable again. They have cinema and theatre space, but it would cost some money to make that a reality. I know that some of these schemes have been successful in other parts of Wales, and we don't want to lose this heritage. We don't want that to be gone, as has been mentioned earlier in relation to Merthyr Tydfil. So, please, can we have a statement on the importance of industrial heritage? 

Yes. I think, on that second one, I've actually been there. It's a very beautiful building, absolutely. The Welsh Government has a number of schemes, including the potential for vouchers, community asset transfers and creative use of finance and so on, that can be brought to bear to save some of our industrial heritage. The Member will forgive me—I know it's in her region as well—but one of the examples that I'm particularly fond of at the moment is the Copperopolis development in Mike Hedges's constituency in Swansea, which brings alive much of the industrial heritage of the Swansea valley, which is a matter of great historical monument to the whole of Wales, but particularly to my own family as well.

So, it's great to see those, and it's lovely to see old buildings that were put together by the efforts of local working people very often brought back to life in the way, as I was just saying. So, I do think it's a very important matter. I will have some discussion amongst Cabinet Secretary colleagues and Ministers just to see how we can best highlight some of that. The Member makes a good point about how we highlight the various routes to save some of the industrial heritage and buildings, and there have been a number of issues raised—not least the land transaction tax, actually—that we can have a look at to see what we can do with unused buildings and so on, to encourage owners to bring them back into use. We all have a number of those in our regions and constituencies as well. So, I'll certainly take that forward and see what we can do to highlight it.

And, as I said on Gaza, words are just not enough to describe the horror that we saw unfolding there. As I said, it's such an immensely complex problem in the middle east, and we do seem to be in a particularly accelerating violent cycle at the moment, which is of some serious concern to all of us. As I said to Simon Thomas, I will discuss with the First Minister what we can best do to indicate this place's views on the subject.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is the legislative consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion, which proposes that the Assembly should give its consent to a parliamentary Bill making new provision on matters within and about the Assembly's devolved legislative competence. There is, of course, nothing unusual about that. The Assembly has been asked to do so over 100 times. Many long weeks and months have been spent in negotiating a new outcome to clause 11 of the original withdrawal Bill. I know, however, that there are other aspects of the Bill that are of concern to Members, and I will deal briefly with those aspects first. 

Many of the more objectionable elements in the original Bill—the omission of the charter of fundamental rights, the excessive Henry VIII powers and the inadequate provisions for parliamentary scrutiny of these powers, the risk to the environment, the labour market and consumer rights—have now been modified in the House of Lords and my party will defend every one of those changes when the Bill returns to the Commons. 

Directly in the devolution sphere, the Bill was also amended in the House of Lords to restrict the use of clause 7 powers, so that they will not now be able to be used to amend the Government of Wales Act, and the Bill was further amended to remove proposed restrictions on devolved Ministers in respect of retained direct EU law within devolved competence. But from the point of view of providing legislative consent, it is clause 11 that was at the core of our objections to the Bill when it was first published, and it is the amendments to that clause and the associated inter-governmental agreement that are at the heart of our consideration today.

Let me be clear, Llywydd, that the Bill to which the National Assembly is asked to give consent today provides that every one of the 64 areas of responsibility currently exercised through the European Union remains here in Wales. As the EAAL committee report into the second legislative consent memorandum published puts it,

'the default position is that the Assembly’s competence is untouched.'

On the day that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, that will be the position; every one of those 64 areas will be here. That's what you're being asked to vote in favour of today. Thereafter, the Bill provides that, by regulation, which, in consequence of the inter-governmental agreement, will be subject to this Assembly's consent, some aspects of some areas will continue to operate under the existing European Union rulebook—not to change the rules but to ensure that they continue as they are today, and to continue until a new rulebook can be agreed. Every time that happens, Llywydd, and a proposal made that existing European Union rules should remain in place, that will be subject to the consent of the National Assembly for Wales. That would mean that, on 24 separate occasions, this Assembly could be asked if it is prepared to give its consent to the temporary extension of the rules under which we currently operate. No wonder that the First Minister of Scotland summed it up in her letter to the Prime Minister in this way. She was referring to the work carried out in the Joint Ministerial Committee by David Lidington, Michael Russell on behalf of Scotland, and myself on behalf of Wales. Nicola Sturgeon says,

'We have made substantial progress in agreeing the areas where devolved competence intersects with EU law where common frameworks may be required and in agreeing that as we work through the detail of those frameworks, existing EU rules'—

existing rules, Llywydd—

'should be maintained on a temporary basis after withdrawal.'

In other words, nothing changes. As the First Minister of Scotland says, what we're agreeing is that current rules continue until we all agree that something better can be put in its place.

Llywydd, in the agreement we have reached, the regulation-making powers that will be used to put in place these new temporary arrangements will be subject to the Sewel convention so that the agreement provides for Parliament not to approve regulations unless the devolved legislatures and administrations have given their consent. Now, entirely in line with current conventions, should UK Ministers seek to move ahead with regulations in the event of a legislature withholding consent, then this agreement secures entirely new defences for devolution—defences that have never been here before. Because, if UK Ministers decided that they thought they would like to proceed in that way—and remember, it is not for UK Ministers to decide on whether or not they can proceed in that way—then the agreement secures the position that both Houses of Parliament separately will be asked to decide if the regulation should be made, and an affirmative vote will be required in both the Commons and the House of Lords—the House of Lords, where the Government has no majority, where it's just been defeated 14 separate times on its own withdrawal Bill. The House of Lords will be asked to decide whether or not the Government should go ahead. When it makes the decision on whether or not to go ahead, it will make that decision for the first time ever on the basis of even-handed information. It will have the UK Government's own account, but it will also have, for the first time, information provided independently by the devolved administrations.

I was following that closely, but maybe he can help me here, because everyone else, it would appear—as we heard from the leader of Plaid Cymru earlier—in your own party, the Scottish Labour Party, and the leader of the UK Labour Party, believes that the provisions that you've just set out are an affront to democracy and an affront to the principles of democratic devolution. Why are you right and they're wrong?

What is it about devolution, Llywydd, that Plaid Cymru does not understand? [Interruption.] Where have they been? [Interruption.] Where have they been for the last 20 years? Scottish politicians make decisions based on what they believe to be right for Scotland. This Assembly makes decisions on what we believe is right for Wales. What is it about that simple proposition that Plaid Cymru find it so difficult to grasp?

Will you take an intervention?

Last one, Llywydd.

Whilst the devolution settlement might be different for Scotland than it is for Wales, whilst there might be different questions of what to do with different powers in Scotland and in Wales, the principle is one and the same, and the principle here is that, in relation to Scotland, senior figures in your party, including your party leader, believe this is an affront to democracy, whereas in Wales for some reason it's not. It is one and the same in terms of the principle.

It really is an abject failure of understanding, Llywydd. What happens in Scotland is for people in Scotland to comment upon, and it's for them to comment upon what is right for them in their circumstances. Scotland—where, let us not forget, a majority of the local population voted to remain in the European Union. Here in Wales, different considerations, different powers, different arrangements apply. We debate what is right for Wales, and the agreement that we bring forward is one that we know is right for devolution and right for our nation as well.

And let me clear up as well, Llywydd, if I could, once and for all, what 'consent' means in this context. Consent means that the Assembly has voted positively in favour of the draft regulations being put before Parliament. That is what consent means, and nothing else.

In a third defence, Llywydd, the UK Government has always previously claimed that the constraints envisaged in its original Bill would be temporary, but there was nothing in that Bill to substantiate that. Now, there are sunset clauses on the face of the Bill. Some have argued that these could be extended ad infinitum, but let me be clear again: this Bill simply does not allow for that to happen. The only way in which the sunset clauses could be extended would be by way of new parliamentary legislation, and that new parliamentary legislation would of course be subject to the Assembly's consent.

In a fourth development, the agreement gives an unequivocal guarantee that UK Ministers will not bring before Parliament any legislation for England making changes to retain EU law in framework areas. As the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee said, in its report, yesterday, this recognition of England in the agreement is 'constitutionally notable'. It is just one way, Llywydd, in which the agreement breaks new ground in defence of devolution and the future operation of the United Kingdom. A level playing field has been created, it applies to all administrations, and it is now in everybody's interests, as the First Minister said earlier this afternoon, to agree a new post-EU rulebook as quickly as possible.

Finally, the agreement makes clear that any new primary legislation establishing new UK frameworks will be negotiated, negotiated by all partners coming around the table on the basis of parity, and that the outcomes of such negotiations will themselves require the Assembly's legislative consent in accordance with normal principles.

Llywydd, I want to end by addressing some of the wider constitutional issues that the Bill draws to the surface. Many of the objections and criticisms I've heard in recent days and weeks have not really been about the Bill or the agreement at all. They've been about the Sewel convention itself, a convention that the CLAC report says that the force of it has been 'maintained and reaffirmed' as a result of this agreement.

I've also heard a lot of ill-informed criticism of the 'not normally' formulation in the agreement, as if by agreeing to that we've somehow 'sold out', as we're told, on devolution, in that offensive phrase. But the commitment 'not normally' to legislate without consent is in the Government of Wales Act, to which this Assembly gave its consent, and it's there in the Scotland Act too. Have we reached a moment where we need to move beyond Sewel and the 'not normally' formula? Well, I agree with the conclusion reached recently by Professor Michael Keating of University of Aberdeen, when he said that the Sewel convention

'has worked well for almost twenty 20 years',

but it was not designed to bear the burden that Brexit is now placing on it. That is why, in 'Brexit and Devolution', this Welsh Government argued for the creation of a new UK council of Ministers, which would be able to reach binding decisions that would be supported by a dispute resolution mechanism and an independent secretariat, and which would operate with far greater visibility to the public.

Llywydd, our ambitions for devolution are by no means exhausted by the agreement we have reached, but our objective from the beginning has been a withdrawal Bill that delivers stability and certainty for businesses and citizens about the rights, obligations and responsibilities that will exists at the point at which we leave the European Union. We have defended and entrenched our devolution settlement. We have provided for the successful operation of the United Kingdom after Brexit. We have delivered a good deal for the Assembly and a good deal for Wales. I'm proud to ask the Assembly to give its consent to this legislative consent motion this afternoon.

I call on the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, David Rees. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee has been considering the legislative steps needed for Brexit since the autumn of 2016 and has considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in detail. Yesterday, we published our third report in relation to the Bill, in preparation for the debate today. I hope Members have had a chance to look at it. In an earlier publication on the Bill, Members will recall that we set six objectives that we believed needed to be met to safeguard our devolution settlement and the rights of the Assembly. And I'll remind Members what they were: remove the clause 11 restriction on the devolution settlement; ensure the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly are responsible for correcting all aspects of EU-derived law in areas of devolved competence; ensure powers available to the Welsh Ministers under the Bill are strictly limited and far more tightly drawn than those currently set out in the Bill; prevent UK Ministers from amending aspects of EU-derived law that affect Wales unless reserved; prevent UK or Welsh Ministers amending the Government of Wales Act using delegated powers; and, finally, to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements.

Following the agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments on clause 11 of the Bill, as numbered on introduction to the House of Lords, and the associated amendments to the Bill that were made in the House of Lords, we have reflected on the progress that has been made against each of our six objectives. It is fair to observe that, in some areas, considerable progress has been made. It is equally fair to observe that our objectives have not been met in full in all areas. But can I also remind the house that we had objectives that went further than the Welsh Government's original views?

Objective 1 is at the heart of today's bid, which was to remove the clause 11 restriction on the devolution settlement. Considerable progress has been made towards meeting this objective when we look back at the starting point we faced when the Bill was introduced. The UK Government now accepts that it cannot place a blanket restriction on the Assembly’s legislative competence in areas where European policy frameworks currently exist, and there is a mechanism for ensuring the Assembly can consider whether it should give consent to any restrictions being temporarily placed on its competence. However, parliamentary sovereignty means that in circumstances where the Assembly has refused its consent, Parliament could still proceed to impose a restriction on our legislative competence. Additionally, the mechanism established by the recent amendments to the Bill placed few duties on the Welsh Ministers to facilitate Assembly consideration of the proposed restrictions or to communicate decisions of the Assembly. We took a view on how the Assembly could take steps to strengthen this aspect of the mechanism and I'll talk about that a little bit later.

Considerable progress has been made on the second objective. The prohibition, in the Bill as introduced, on Welsh Ministers modifying directly applicable EU law, which includes much of the law relating to the common agricultural policy and structural funds, was the biggest difference between the UK and Welsh Ministers' powers. This has been removed, subject to the new clause 11 restriction mechanism.

In terms of our third objective, we concluded that whilst it has not been met in full, we do recognise that ministerial powers have been more tightly drawn. However, they remain broad and the Bill delegates significant powers to the Executive, with limited controls.

Objective 4 has not been met, and we are particularly disappointed that no provision for Assembly consent has been made for circumstances where the UK Government wishes to use its regulation-making powers in Welsh devolved policy areas.

Whilst our fifth objective has not been met in full, significant progress towards protecting the Government of Wales Act has been made. However, concerns remain around the UK Government’s powers to implement the withdrawal agreement, and we must not lose sight of that fact.

And, finally, objective 6 was to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements.

I pay tribute to the important work the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has undertaken in this regard, and particularly the recommendations it made for the establishment of a sifting committee, which were endorsed by this Assembly. We believe that, in the circumstances, giving effect to the Assembly’s preferred scrutiny arrangements through amendments to the Bill offered a pragmatic compromise, but does not detract from our commitments to the principle behind our sixth objective. However, we are disappointed that the Welsh and UK Governments chose not to implement the full extent of the scrutiny arrangements agreed unanimously by this Assembly on 7 March, and expect our Business Committee to remedy this in its proposal for changes to Standing Orders.

From this assessment of our six objectives, you can see that the inter-governmental agreement and the amended Bill have provided a stronger position for the Assembly than under the Bill as originally drafted. But it is true to say that they do not remove entirely the risks we have previously highlighted. A significant task for this Assembly remains. And if consent is granted today, we in this Chamber must use the procedural routes available to us to ensure that we play our full part in the process of managing the Assembly’s legislative competence in the months and years to come.

In our report, we recommend that the Business Committee considers the case for revising Standing Orders to place additional duties on the Welsh Ministers: to ensure that the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed constraints on our legislative competence is maximised; that we are provided with at least the same level of information as Parliament in relation to this, and at the same time; and that the Welsh Ministers are required to communicate the Assembly’s decision on consent for temporary constraints on its legislative competence. Yesterday, in our committee meeting, the First Minister committed to delivering such issues on the above points, and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will reaffirm those assurances to the Assembly this afternoon.

At the core of this inter-governmental agreement is an inter-parliamentary process. We also conclude in our report that strengthened communication between legislatures would wrap an additional level of assurance around the process, circumventing the need to rely solely on governmental sources of information. I intend to raise this for discussion at the next inter-parliamentary forum on Brexit.

Once the draft regulations proposing constraints on our legislative competence are laid for scrutiny, we need to ensure that we have the correct procedures in place to scrutinise them thoroughly. Without crossing into the important work the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is doing in this area, we believe that there will be a collective role for Assembly committees in scrutinising these draft regulations, if we are to bring the full range of technical and policy expertise to them. And with the Llywydd’s leave, we’ll perhaps discuss this at a future Chairs’ forum.

We shortly face a vote on one of the most significant decisions faced by the Assembly and in the Brexit process. I hope that throughout our consideration of the withdrawal Bill we have sought to ensure that the role of the Assembly and the powers devolved to Wales are protected in the Brexit process. We hope our report will assist Members in deciding whether or not to support the granting of legislative consent this afternoon. But whatever the outcome of today’s vote, we will, as a committee, continue to do all we can to protect Welsh interests in the Brexit process and to hold the Welsh Government to account for its actions.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. On 27 April 2018, the First Minister laid before the National Assembly the Welsh Government’s supplementary legislative consent memorandum—memorandum No. 2—on the Bill as presented to the House of Lords at First Reading. The supplementary legislative consent memorandum clarifies that the Welsh Government’s objections with the Bill as introduced related to four issues:

'all of which have been substantially addressed in the amendments made or proposed to the Bill or the Inter-governmental Agreement related to it'.

We took evidence from the Secretary of State for Wales on 16 April 2018 and from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, pre supplementary LCM, on 23 April, and again on 30 April, very shortly after the supplementary LCM had been laid. The evidence we heard informed our conclusions, and we made them in our report laid yesterday afternoon—the agreed report of the committee.

We welcome the progress made by the Welsh Government in negotiating with the UK Government the position regarding the powers to be exercised by the National Assembly following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. As a consequence, the original clause 11 has been inverted so that powers over devolved policy will now lie with the National Assembly and in line with the devolution settlement currently in place.

We believe it is unfortunate that substantial effort on the part of both sides has been spent correcting the significant deficiencies in the Bill in respect of clause 11, now clause 15—a situation not dissimilar to our experience with the Wales Bill. These prolonged negotiations could, and should, have been avoided had the original drafting shown more respect for the role that devolution plays within the United Kingdom.

The amendments tabled by UK Ministers to clause 11 of the Bill indicated an important step forward and showed significant movement by the UK Government. We welcome the fact that the UK Government, in evidence to us, and in other places, has repeatedly emphasised how important the Sewel convention is and how it will continue to be respected, although we draw the Assembly’s attention to our observations on the new clause 15, following the completion on 8 May of the Report Stage in the House of Lords.

The inter-governmental agreement will test the notions of shared governance and trust. However, we acknowledge that it is a start towards a more respectful and workable inter-governmental relationship. We hope this progress will mean improved inter-governmental working and lead to the short and long-term reform that we recommended to the JMC in our report, ‘UK governance post-Brexit’. We are committed to keeping a watching brief on the implementation of the inter-governmental agreement, including its future application, interpretation and review.

There is still considerable uncertainty around common frameworks, and the terms of the inter-governmental agreement suggest that much remains to be decided. In considering the supplementary LCM we wish to draw to the National Assembly's attention the following points, which I will detail in turn.

Point 1: the convention about the UK Parliament legislating on devolved matters is set out in section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and specifically deals with 'legislating'. For that reason, the inter-governmental agreement—a political agreement—does not form part of the National Assembly’s legislative consent process.

Point 2: the inter-governmental agreement does not have a legal status and cannot bind future Welsh or UK Governments.

Point 3: the length of the proposed sunset provision for new clause 15 will allow restrictions and common frameworks to potentially extend beyond the life of the current Welsh and UK Governments.

Point 4: for Wales, temporary preservation of EU law will be given effect through regulations made under new clause 15 and Schedule 3 to the Bill. For England, temporary preservation will be given effect through the inter-governmental agreement. The recognition of England is constitutionally significant. Nevertheless, in the context of mutual respect and parity—

Will you take an intervention? 

Certainly, yes. 

But in terms of—. There is no parity between the devolved nations and England in terms of legislating in devolved areas for England is under the inter-governmental agreement, which is political and not legal, whereas any legislation in devolved areas for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in legislation, so the treatment is different. 

The treatment is different, but there is a clear convention and the whole agreement, and the whole arrangement sinks or swims on the implementation of that and the maintenance. If that were to fail, then it's very clear, as we discussed within committee, that there would indeed be a constitutional crisis. 

Nevertheless, in the context of mutual respect and parity between the nations of the UK, this difference of approach is also noted.

Point 5: the new clause 15 restrictions will apply until the National Assembly passes Acts that lift those restrictions. 

Point 6: the amendments to the Bill do not require the Welsh Ministers to lay before the National Assembly a copy of any draft clause 15 regulations on the day they receive them from the UK Ministers, even though the 40-day clock on making a consent decision will start on the day the Welsh Ministers receive them. We acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary—and we put on record—has given an undertaking that the Welsh Government would lay them immediately if they were able to.

Point 7: in the event that the National Assembly actively refuses consent for any draft clause 15 regulations, UK Ministers will be able to lay those draft regulations before the UK Parliament for approval, with a statement prepared by the Welsh Ministers explaining why the National Assembly refused consent. It will then be for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to approve clause 15 regulations. Therefore, it will be for the UK Parliament to make a decision on whether the Sewel convention will be enforced.

Point 8: UK Ministers will report every three months on whether powers that impose restrictions on the National Assembly’s competence should be repealed. UK Ministers will send a copy of each report to the Welsh Ministers, but there is no requirement for the Welsh Ministers to subsequently lay the reports before the National Assembly.

And point 9: when restrictions on the National Assembly’s competence are lifted by the UK Government, the Bill does not require UK Ministers to notify the National Assembly or the Welsh Ministers.

I think those are the comments that summarise the key parts of the report, which, as I say, was an agreed report representing the position of the committee. Thank you, Llywydd.  

I'm pleased to support the motion before the Assembly this afternoon. As the CLAC report notes, central to the recommendation to approve the LCM is the inter-governmental agreement, and I want to return to that later. This, together with the amendments to the original clause 11. As the CLAC report states: 

'The amendments tabled by UK Ministers to clause 11 of the Bill indicate an
important step forward and show significant movement by the UK Government.'

And CLAC also observed, and this has already been referred to, that 

'the force of the Sewel convention has become apparent during the Bill’s progress'.

I do believe genuinely that this whole process of difficult negotiation has been to the credit of the UK Government and also to the Welsh Government. This is what we expect in difficult constitutional areas, which many of us never wanted to occur and many of the challenges have been unanticipated. But there has clearly been constructive working on both sides and this has borne fruit.

It is clear to me that the Welsh Government secured an important and constitutionally significant concession from the UK Government on the way EU law is to be retained until frameworks for the UK are agreed. Let me again quote the CLAC report: 

'The current position whereby this temporary preservation will apply to the devolved institutions and England is a substantial development.'

I genuinely think the Welsh Government's negotiation here has been hugely significant and has obviously had an effect on the debate in Scotland. 

Immediately after the Brexit vote, which was a democratic mandate of great constitutional importance—I did not vote for it, but we cannot deny its importance—there was a strong consensus that UK frameworks would be needed when we left the EU. It seems to me that the need, overwhelmingly in the public interest, to construct frameworks has been the motivational principle driving the Welsh Government and the UK Government. Unfortunately, Plaid and the SNP have been driven by narrow political interests. On the one hand, they say we need frameworks, but on the other hand, Scotland, and presumably Wales, should have a veto.

It's appropriate to note here that the EU's frameworks do not operate on the basis of a national veto. They operate by negotiation, with an ability to use majority voting if necessary. Perhaps the public are well ahead of the nationalists. They realise the practical need for shared governance, relating to the environment and farming, for instance. There seems little support in Scotland or Wales for the narrow nationalist agenda on the process of agreeing frameworks.

Would the Member give way? 

If this is really a roll-back of devolution, as Plaid and the SNP claim, the public seem very sanguine. I will give way. 

I thank the Member. Can he name one occasion when any Member here has argued against a UK framework? 

Well, you see, that's the whole point, isn't it? You argue, 'Yes, we need them', but you won't agree any process or give reasonable consent to them being constructed. You want a national veto. You want to preserve what you see as your absolute sovereignty. 

Will you take an intervention? 

There wouldn't have been an EU in the first place if that particular interpretation of sovereignty had not been reassessed. As Monnet said, we need to go through the barrier of narrow national sovereignty, and we need to create, in the UK, something analogous to the shared governance in the EU. Your approach is antithetical to that and that's the whole problem here this afternoon. 

Will you take an intervention?

Okay, I'll take one more. 

Thank you for the intervention and for drawing attention to our narrow nationalism versus your wide nationalism, if that's the case. One thing that we certainly did propose was a disputes mechanism. You have a Council of Ministers on an EU level; we need a disputes mechanism on a UK level, which we don't have. 

Can I say, Rhun, I'm genuinely pleased that you've made that point because I want to now move to my conclusion, which I do think is an area, we may find, that more unites us?

As I said at the start, the inter-governmental agreement is really important. It's only the start, however, of our concept of shared governance and this does require an overhaul and it will be the ultimate test of whether these frameworks endure and work effectively. If they don't, then that unfortunately will undermine the integrity of the British constitution and the devolved settlement. So, I do partly agree with you that issues like how you resolve disputes is really, really important.

The overhaul of inter-governmental relations needs to be accompanied, Llywydd, by an overhaul of inter-parliamentary relations, because how we scrutinise this level of governance has been little discussed so far and that's going to be very, very important. One of the main reasons we got into a mess, in terms of what the public saw anyway, of deficient EU governance was there was a lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and we do not want to repeat those mistakes. And here I conclude by commending the CLAC report, 'UK governance post-Brexit'. I do urge everyone to vote for this most reasonable compromise and the motion before us.

Today is about facts. There has been a lot of debate; there have been lots of accusations that we over here don't understand what's going on, but now the time for rhetoric is over. This is about a reasoned argument against a Bill that will weaken this Assembly. Llywydd, tonight, we'll see a Labour Government vote with the Tories and UKIP to support Westminster's EU withdrawal Bill, a Bill that is designed to take powers back under Westminster's control, and it's as simple as that. The body of evidence, public opinion and even their own party leader are against them.

We heard from the Chair of the committee who's just accepted that not a single measure of the tests set by the cross-party external affairs committee was met. Labour's own party leader called it a 'power grab', while the Conservative Prime Minister is praising their actions. Members opposite, I know that many of you believe in devolution and, for this reason, I'm appealing to you to take a stand today. Join us in defending Wales. Join us in standing up for devolution. If you take the party whip, if you follow your front bench, know that this institution will be weaker for it.

Llywydd, I know that through arduous discussions with Westminster, concessions have been achieved. This deal, however, does not deliver on the targets set out by Ministers themselves. In a lecture yesterday, the finance Secretary outlined in detail how the Joint Ministerial Committee is not fit for purpose, yet this deal commits us to using that very committee to protect our powers. The Assembly lawyers have highlighted the risk to devolution posed by this Bill, and the cross-party committees that took a look at these matters agree. Even last week, the environment Cabinet Secretary complained that Westminster had failed to consult her before publishing a new consultation. Westminster are breaking this agreement before it's even in force.

Llywydd, there will be heated contributions to this debate, I've no doubt, but I once again want to appeal to reason. If you believe in Wales, if you believe in devolution, if you believe that it is this Assembly and not Westminster that best serves our people, vote against this motion; vote for devolution; vote for Wales.

I thought that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance made a powerful unionist case for this legislative consent motion. And, of course, I understand where Plaid Cymru are coming from; they don't believe in the United Kingdom, so they therefore take the maximalist view that has been expressed, and Plaid are quite right to make the points that they have made with the force and vigour that we've come to accept. If I took their view of what nationalism meant for Wales, I would agree with them, but I don't; I'm a unionist, and I accept the fundamental reality that was referred to by David Melding in his speech that this EU withdrawal Bill is consequent upon a decision of the people of the United Kingdom by referendum to leave the European Union, and I believe it's a trust that's been handed to us as legislators to deliver on the decision that they made. It is not for one constituent part of the United Kingdom to frustrate that process. Even in Scotland, where 62 per cent voted against Brexit, I don't believe it is constitutionally proper for them to stand in the way of the passage of the Bill.

I believe that the Welsh Government has played an extremely good hand in the course of the negotiations, and there's been, I think, a deepening of the whole devolution process—a deepening of understanding of the constitutional processes that were set in train 20 years ago. I believe it is regrettable that the United Kingdom Government was so far behind the tide of events in this respect that the whole argument about clause 11, as was, was allowed to develop as it did. I thought it showed a sort of shocking failure of understanding on the part of UK Ministers of the constitutional realities of modern life in Britain, and that's highly regrettable.

I believe also that Plaid Cymru have been quite right to draw attention to the deficiencies of the leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom in the course of the last few days, because what's happening in Scotland is that he is playing party games with the future of the United Kingdom, and I believe that that is a fundamentally irresponsible approach. And I'm sorry to have to say this, but I believe the grown-up and mature approach that we've had from Ministers in the Welsh Government shows how unfitted the leader of the party in the United Kingdom is for the office to which he aspires. 

Now, I'll say at once that I've got no more trust in Theresa May than Plaid Cymru have. She makes Ethelred the Unready look like a model of decisiveness. I wouldn't trust her word, not because I think she's a dishonest person, but I think that she is so hopelessly incompetent that she could make the opposite happen by accident. And I do believe that for a remainer to show her colours in the way that she has done over the last few weeks over the absurd proposal of some kind of a customs union, which isn't even on the table, and which nobody on either side of the argument over Brexit is prepared to give the time of day to, shows the problems that we're dealing with. 

But the fundamental reality is that we, in this Assembly, do not exercise any of the powers that are going to be affected by this Bill at the moment. The fundamental reality is that these powers are exercised by bodies that are far from Cardiff and over which we have no practical control, whether it's the European Commission, which has the power to legislate in itself without any democratic control by the Council of Ministers—. There's a huge corpus of EU regulation that simply spews out of the Commission and is rubber stamped on the spot. We will now have the opportunity to participate in the democratisation of huge portions of technical legislation in areas such as agriculture and the environment, in particular, which are of great importance to us here in Wales. 

This is a massive—this whole process—enlargement of the democratic process and an extension in practical terms of the powers of this Assembly. I think that is hugely important, and this is why I can't understand the paradox of the Plaid Cymru position, that they regard a power grab by Westminster of constitutional tools and legislative tools that currently we don't even possess to be of fundamental importance, but they show absolutely no fear at all of handing those over to a body based in Brussels or elsewhere in the European Union, where we have even less control over what goes on than we do at Westminster. So, that seems to me to be, in practical terms, a most unsupportable position to hold. If Wales were an independent country politically then their points would have some force. But, as we are not, and the Welsh people don't show any great predisposition to adopt the Plaid Cymru position on Wales's role within the United Kingdom, and are not likely to in the foreseeable future, I think the arguments that Plaid are advancing here are very, very far from being in the world of reality. 

So, consequently, I think it is very important that we do pass this legislative consent motion today, not just because it gives us the scope for increasing the powers of this Assembly, but, as part and parcel of this process—and I'm not sure that this point has been drawn out today, although it has on previous occasions when we've debated this topic—actually England is restricted now in many ways that it wasn't before as a result of this agreement, and that gives us the greatest possible assurance that the United Kingdom Government will want to conclude this transitionary period as quickly as it can, because I don't believe that the United Kingdom Government does want to have the legislative power for Wales in these devolved areas and that we can, I think, be as confident as we possibly can—. Even though I accept that this is not something in which the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed in legal form, I think it's inconceivable almost that the United Kingdom Government would want to resile at this stage from the devolution settlement, and, as Mick Antoniw pointed out in response to Dai Lloyd earlier on, there would be a fundamental constitutional crisis of great importance, where I think you would find that across this Chamber there would be, to all intents and purposes, unanimity in opposing such a venture. Therefore, I don't believe, personally, there is any constitutional risk in allowing this legislative consent motion to proceed; I believe there's every constitutional advantage and practical advantage for the people of Wales in doing so. 

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing the LCM forward for debate this afternoon, and once again acknowledge the major gain that this agreement delivers for Wales and for the people we represent. Now, last night, I was fortunate to hear Mark Drakeford speak to a packed audience at Cardiff University on Brexit and devolution. He gave a formidable account, a formidable account, of Welsh Government and not just himself as the key Cabinet Secretary, the First Minister, all Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers, of their engagement in the Brexit process, but also focused on options, opportunities that we can consider that lie ahead through towards the transition period and beyond, but he delivered the message very clearly on his inter-governmental agreement, and, of course, was questioned on it, but was so clear. And we must make sure that we get this message over to the people that we represent, that all powers in our devolved policy areas will be held in Cardiff except those areas where UK frameworks are needed, and repeat the fact that the original clause 11 in the EU withdrawal Bill would have retained in Westminster all returning EU powers in devolved policy areas. We must show clearly what we have moved from, what this inter-governmental agreement has achieved. 

Will you give way? Thank you. 

What they're doing is taking powers from Brussels that ought to go to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England and instead hoarding them in Whitehall. That's totally unacceptable, and we've made that clear. Jeremy Corbyn: what have you got to say about that? 

The powers are coming back to Cardiff; they're going to Edinburgh. Indeed, what is so important about this agreement is that it was developed over a long period of time with negotiations with the Scottish Government, with the Scottish Minister, acknowledged in terms of substantial progress by the First Minister of Scotland. And this agreement will deliver for the people of Scotland, not just for the people of Wales. It will deliver for the people of Scotland. It will ensure that those powers are retained in Cardiff and Edinburgh. So, securing this substantial agreement is a major achievement, but I think it now will enable the Welsh Government to constructively engage at inter-government level in the Brexit negotiations that lie ahead.

I also want to recognise the opportunities and responsibilities that we have as an Assembly as we move forward. We did conclude in our LCM report, and, of course, David Rees has spoken of this already, with a strong message from the EAAL Committee, a strong message to the UK Government, and that conclusion was that we hope that the UK Government will seek to engage meaningfully with the Assembly through its committees at an early stage when it comes to future Brexit legislation that affects Wales, and, in particular, the proposed withdrawal agreement and the implementation Bill. And that is what we must focus on. I do welcome the inter-parliamentary forum, and that's been mentioned by Mick Antoniw as well. It has given Wales a strong voice in Westminster and with the devolved administrations. I'm glad that that forum is there to ensure—. It will have a close watch on the delivery of this agreement, but also a close watch on those amendments that, of course, will now go back to the Commons, which we need to make sure are delivered and are supported by our parliamentary colleagues.

Now, Mark Drakeford has told our committee that the Welsh Government has had to prioritise 40 strands of Brexit negotiations, and it's vital that there is robust machinery to enable the Welsh Government to take this forward and to be held to account by this Assembly. There are areas where we can unite and should unite in this Chamber as we move from this LCM with a strengthened message from all parties that the UK Government must now deliver that more robust inter-governmental machinery, and, of course, we only have to turn to 'Securing Wales' Future', which Mark Drakeford mentioned more than once last night, and look at that section in 'Securing Wales' Future' on constitutional and devolved matters, and that section, which says, 

'Withdrawing from the EU is a major constitutional turning point for Wales and the UK as a whole.'

'The current inter-governmental machinery will no longer be fit-for-purpose and new ways of working—based on agreements freely entered into by the UK Government and the three devolved administrations and subject to independent arbitration—must be developed.'

Let's move forward together on that all-important objective. We do need a council of Ministers, we do need a strengthed JMC machinery. And, Llywydd, we have an agreement that has forced the UK Government to respect devolution, that not only protects but entrenches devolution with entirely new defences, an agreement that has broken new constitutional ground, a remarkable achievement. Let's make sure we do share this good news as clearly as possible as much as necessary. Now, let's move on and engage fully in the next phase of the Brexit negotiations, in particular the withdrawal agreement and all Brexit forthcoming legislation.

Historians often say that British rule, while it often was unfair, was almost always polite, and here we are in this Welsh Parliament presented with a consent motion that, effectively, is asking for our consent to be removed.

We are joining a very select club of national Parliaments, if we pass this motion today, that have voluntarily decided to cede their own authority. You have to cast about and think of the Scottish Parliament in 1707, the Irish Parliament in 1800, for examples in history—albeit, of course, we are ceding our authority for a time-limited period in certain areas. But the principle is there. Now, I was expecting the former honourable Member to intervene on me, and say, 'Well, isn't that what we did with the European Communities Act?' And, indeed, it was echoed, really, in David Melding's point. But an essential difference was there: we were joining a community of equals, and through mechanisms like weighted voting, et cetera, then the interests of small nations in particular were protected. That isn't the case in this unitary state. Effectively, the dominance of one nation in these four islands, it's almost a kind of Bagehot-like part of the dignified constitution of the UK; it's a principle that underpins everything, and, actually, it's now written into statute. And therein lies the problem. Indeed, this debate actually has laid bare, hasn't it, the fractures, the fault lines, of what is an entirely imbalanced and unstable constitution in these islands.

What we're asking for is parity for this nation. That is surely a principle that we could all actually get behind. Now, of course, the constitution is where politics and law meet, and I think that the note that we got from the Assembly lawyers, it's incredible reading:

'The words "consent decision" suggest that the Minister can only lay the draft regulations before the UK Parliament if either the Assembly has consented to their making, or the Assembly has done nothing about them for 40 days. But this is misleading.'

Those are rare words coming from any lawyer because, of course, as we know, as indeed Nicola Sturgeon, who was quoted earlier, I believe—as she said, if we say 'yes', UK Ministers will take that as consent, if we say 'no', they will take that as consent, and, if we say nothing at all, they can take that as consent. It is heads they win and tails we lose.

Now, I've heard the argument that this is actually—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

You're referring, of course, to the Assembly legal opinion. But, of course, in paragraph 15 of that, it says, 'The amendment has been described by some as defining the concept of consent as including refusal of consent.' The legal opinion actually says, 'In our view, this is not accurate.'

Yes, but it goes on to say—. There's another 10 paragraphs, by the way. It goes on to say, the key point remains

'the Assembly’s competence can be restricted without its consent.'

And that is the essential point in any democracy. I heard the Member say, 'Well, this is Sewel. This is Sewel.' Well, this is Sewel on steroids. This creates a legal pathway, a streamlined mechanism whereby the exception can become the rule if the politics of Westminster so decides. And that's the tragedy. That is the tragedy, you know. Thinking in particular of the words of Rhodri Morgan—his last words in this Chamber—when he talked about this National Assembly we built together, it will outlast us all, it will continue to develop and grow and serve the party of Wales, he was echoing the words of Henry Grattan, who actually created the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament and talked about a nation and a new character when they won their legislative independence:

'I hail her and, bowing to her august presence, I say, "esto perpetua"'—

it will continue. It didn't. It didn't. And therein lies the danger, because, if we pass this motion today, we are accepting the principle that this place is no longer sovereign.

Mark Reckless. [Interruption.] Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm delighted to speak today in favour of the National Assembly for Wales giving our legislative consent to the European Union withdrawal Bill. This is, of course, the UK Government's legislative mechanism for leaving the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and I'm delighted to support it.

Back at the first First Minister's questions after the summer, I was rather critical of the First Minister for the degree to which he had, I think, been palling up to the SNP Scottish Government over the summer. I questioned why he was working hand in glove with a Government that wanted to break up the United Kingdom and with a Government that was impeding our exit from the European Union. And he responded by saying that he was only doing so to the extent that we had a common interest in protecting the devolution settlement. Now, I was surprised by that, not least because the First Minister and Welsh Government had spent considerable time working with Plaid Cymru to come to a joint paper on what the objectives should be for the future migration or the future trade arrangements of the United Kingdom. I feared that the First Minister and the Welsh Government, potentially working with Plaid Cymru, would use this process of legislative consent to this Bill as a way to seek to impede the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. It has not done so. The First Minister has been as good as his word. The Welsh Government has succeeded far more than I would have expected in improving this Bill to protect the legitimate interests of our devolved settlement. And I think they deserve respect and congratulations for doing that.

Of course, some people have a different objective—one of staying in the European Union, even though the majority of people in Wales voted to leave, or the intention of being independent from the United Kingdom, even though only a tiny minority of people in Wales support that. And, of course, they will, therefore, oppose this, just as Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will oppose it, because almost nothing would've settled what they were requesting, because their objective isn't to make this withdrawal from the European Union work while protecting the devolved settlement; it is to impede Brexit and to break up the United Kingdom. And of course—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you. Just on a basic point, will you understand that the purpose of Plaid Cymru is not to break up the United Kingdom? It's to build up Wales. 

The purpose of Plaid Cymru is to bring about an independent Wales, breaking up the United Kingdom. I respect, but I do not agree with, your objective.

Returning to the legislative consent motion and what we are debating today, this Bill has been hugely improved by the efforts, yes, of Welsh Government, but also, I think, others, and I'd like to congratulate both Mark Isherwood and David Melding for how they have dealt with this issue, and actually the unity of this group in supporting and trying to improve this legislation while noting what others were doing, including the threat and the actuality of a continuity Bill. I think what Mick Antoniw said about how this would've been a much better process if, at the beginning of it, UK Ministers had shown, in how they drafted the initial Bill, an appropriate level of respect to the Welsh Assembly and the devolved settlement—that that would've been better. But it is the case that, with some exceptions, UK Ministers are not as knowledgeable—and it's not at the top of their mind through most of what they do—about the mechanisms, the assumptions and the understandings, as well as the legal basis of the devolved settlement, as we in this Assembly are. But during this process, they have been educated on that. Damian Green and David Lidington in particular I think had reasonable knowledge to begin with, and that knowledge has become more expert as the process has gone on. I think, helped by Alun Cairns as Secretary of State, as well as by Andrew R.T. as leader of the Welsh Conservatives, many more Ministers at a UK level have come to appreciate and to understand the devolved settlement and how it functions. We now have a Bill that reflects and understands that in a way it didn't before.

When we talk about what a committee may have asked for before, it didn't ask for one of the things that, actually, the Welsh Government has succeeded in getting, and that is for the UK Government to commit not to legislate for England in these fields until there is an agreement on UK-wide frameworks, when England has 18 times the population of Wales. People often, with justice, complain about Wales not being treated with respect by the UK Government, but in this case the UK Government is binding, or at least giving a commitment to, itself in respect of England, the same as will be for Wales, as to what will actually happen, and there is a great motivation for everyone to agree on getting sensible frameworks up and running so we leave the European Union successfully, and go forward together as a United Kingdom.

I stand here today to state that I’m against this LCM that is before us, and against it because it could open the door to undermine the National Assembly. Over two years ago, I had the thrill of coming here as an Assembly Member for the first time to join with this Parliament, and in coming here I was very aware of the work of patriots who had been campaigning so hard to establish this Assembly in the first place. So, today is a very depressing day for me.

Devolution is a process. Many people have said that over the years. So far, we’ve had a story of progress and a process of development and growing and maturing. Passing this Bill today is a step backwards. The legislative clause that includes the sentences about the consent decision is what counts today, not any political agreements. This clause undermines, this clause takes us backwards. Two years is a long time in politics and I’m afraid that the thrill that I felt two years ago may become a huge disappointment before the end of the day.

I welcome the Welsh Labour Government's robust and highly proactive work in negotiating with the United Kingdom Government to stand up for Wales over the complex consequences of Britain's withdrawal, still to unfold, from the European Union. It is evidence, if any was needed, that the Welsh Labour Government stands up for Wales and Welsh interests within the fabric of our family of nations within the United Kingdom. As the First Minister said in the Chamber earlier today in First Minister's questions, much tribute needs to be paid to the expert negotiation skills of Mark Drakeford, and I wish to strongly echo the First Minister's praise.

Nationalists criticise this critical, important legislative consent motion—a good-deal motion—but let's be candid; the avowed aim is for an independent Wales that fundamentally breaks away from the United Kingdom, and I believe nothing less than this would ever please Plaid Cymru. If the Welsh public, in the expression to leave the European Union in 2016, and their expressed wish delivered in election after election and opinion poll after opinion poll, is for Wales to remain within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, calling us unionists is not an insult on these benches. Indeed, it is an act of description of the majority of the Welsh people.

This historic and, let me say, hard-fought agreement—let's be under no illusion—that has led to this LCM means any changes to power held in Westminster would need the consent of all the devolved legislatures. Indeed, finance Secretary Mark Drakeford articulated Welsh Government, saying that the aim throughout these talks has been to protect devolution, to protect the economy of Wales and to protect the livelihoods of the Welsh people, and make sure laws and policy in areas that are currently devolved remain devolved. This has been successfully achieved with the Westminster UK Government fundamentally changed in its position, in clause 11 to clause 15, so that all powers and policy areas rest in Cardiff unless specified to be temporarily held by the UK Government. It is right to say that there is a factual element of 64 areas to come home to Wales that were previously held in Brussels. Surely this must be understood by Plaid Cymru.

Will the Cabinet Secretary and First Minister confirm for me, then, that these will be areas where we all agree that common UK-wide rules are needed for a functioning UK internal market—

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Just picking up on something the finance Secretary said earlier on, he basically said that we need to note, in considering different actions taken in Wales and Scotland, that Wales voted to leave the European Union, whereas Scotland voted to remain. That, to me, sounds like an admission that, in terms of what it means for devolution, what the Welsh Government is settling for is inferior to that which the Scottish Government has decided to continue to fight for. How come this Government thinks it now has the right to decide that what a 'leave' vote meant in Wales was a vote to undermine devolution?

Fundamentally, I don't agree with the connection that you have made, and I hate to say this, but I think in regard to what David Melding said earlier, I think some of his points are extremely valid.

So, finally, would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK—[Interruption.] I did caveat it. I did. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK—[Interruption.] I'll start again. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK, respective, mature Governments need to deal with each other as mature equals, that a council of Ministers and a disputes framework is a good idea, and that this agreement is a good step forward in the right direction for that goal? Thank you.

In Plaid Cymru, we believe that you should respect the result of every referendum, including the 2011 referendum in Wales, when the people of Wales voted decisively for more powers. Since then, we have lost hundreds of powers with the Wales Act 2017. That's why we had to rush through Stage 1 of the minimum alcohol pricing legislation, otherwise we would lose those powers, and we face losing more powers now, with the EU withdrawal Bill and the deal over clause 11—now clause 15—meaning 24 devolved areas have gone back to London and are frozen for seven years, some people's definition of 'transient'. They're frozen, and can be changed by UK Government without our consent. Even when we refuse consent, they can be changed by UK Government. So, we have lost power. We have lost leverage over environment, agriculture, fisheries, public procurement and another 20 devolved areas. They can be changed without our consent, and in the teeth of our opposition. [Interruption.] My Chair.

I do appreciate you reciprocating the intervention. Thank you. We do, of course, recognise that Government can't change anything; it has to be Parliament, not the Government. The UK Government has no powers whatsoever.

Keep on listening, Chair.

Now then, in terms of public procurement, for instance, we have seen large parts of the health service in England fall into private hands already. The public procurement process there has enabled companies such as Virgin Care to run the NHS in several areas, such as Surrey, Kent, Staffordshire and Lancashire. Huge swathes of NHS services are run by Virgin Care, all in the private sector. Virgin has 400 separate NHS contracts in England, worth over £1 billion, and if UK Government decided on a similar course of action with our frozen public procurement powers here, this Assembly would be powerless to resist. Imagine: obstetrics and maternity services—[Interruption.] Just imagine—[Interruption.] No. I'm getting to it. Imagine: obstetrics and maternity services in Swansea could be outsourced to Virgin Care in future. That's what public procurement means, obviously—and doubtless called 'Virgin Birth' as a result. Our woodlands could similarly fall prey to Sir Richard Branson as well. What price for 'Virgin Forest'? Welsh Government has conceded any leverage, conceded devolved powers, and it is gambling on an inter-governmental agreement based on trust and shared governance that has no basis in legality. [Interruption.] Lee Waters.

Just on the point of gambling, had we not reached an agreement, this would have been decided by judges. It's entirely possible that judges would have constrained and constricted the devolution settlement. So, in terms of gambling, would you rather put our powers in the hands of judges, or reach an agreement here where the powers will come to us?

You know what, Lee? Standing up for Wales means responding to a threat like that and saying, 'Bring it on', because I'm standing up for Wales, all right? [Interruption.] Wales's frozen powers are frozen by law. This trust in a UK Tory Government is a political convention. It's not a law at all. We have Labour AM after Labour AM in recent weeks laying into the UK Tory Government about how they cannot be trusted on women's pensions, on welfare reform, on reorganising Department for Work and Pensions offices, now, yet, all of a sudden, the UK Government can be trusted with powers that we have always had here, and now no longer will have.

Will the Member give way?

Go on, then. In for a penny, in for a pound. [Laughter.]

Is it not the case that, as well as the inter-governmental agreement, we have, as far as the Sewel convention is concerned, an extension to regulation-making powers and a requirement that the House of Lords must approve them too?

I wish I could share your confidence, Mark; I really do. But the inter-governmental agreement is a political convention not in statute, as is the Sewel convention. It's a political convention that is not enshrined in law. Our devolved powers that we've had are enshrined in statute, and we're about to lose them, frozen for eight years—seven plus one. So, that is enshrined in law. Others are conventions. So, we've lost powers, we have lost leverage. Now, Scotland can see that. Scottish Labour can see that. Even Jeremy Corbyn can see that. Why can't you? Vote against legislative consent.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I'd like to start off by congratulating the Cabinet Secretary on all his hard work in turning the situation around so that the Government is able to recommend voting for this LCM today. I think there's no doubt that, originally, this was a power grab by Westminster, and I think it does reflect badly on the Conservative Westminster Government that they weren't able to realise at an earlier stage how their plans would undermine devolution. I think it's to the credit of our Government Ministers that we were able to change that around.

I think it's absolutely right that we put forward a continuity Bill as a stopgap, but the intensive work that now has been done I think has produced significant changes, and certainly make me feel able to vote confidently for this LCM today, because, as has been said many times today, this transfers all the 64 areas to us. The most important change, I think, is that clause 11 is inverted. The original proposal was that all powers would return to Westminster and Ministers could then release them in a colonial way. That's all changed now: all the powers will now be held in the devolved bodies except where the UK frameworks are needed. I think we all accept that UK frameworks are needed. It fits in with the reserved-powers model, and there are lots of safeguards built in in what will be a collaborative process.

I'm very pleased that the sunset clauses are on the face of the Bill—two years for the power to create regulations, and five years maximum for any regulations made. The Cabinet Secretary has said that he thinks that those periods will not be as long as that because the pressure of having to three-monthly report on the procedure for the continuation of a freeze will be quite an onerous duty. So, it's likely that those periods will be much less.

So, I think that this deal with Westminster represents huge progress, and I think it's very lucky that, at this point in time, we have a Labour Government here in Wales—a Labour Government that is committed to devolution and to being part of the UK. The Cabinet Secretary said that in his introductory remarks, that we are—Labour is the party of devolution. I think that this LCM is an illustration of how we have used that commitment to devolution and to the well-being of the people of Wales. That is why we're putting forward this LCM here today. I know that Leanne appealed to reason when she spoke earlier in the debate. Well, my view is that reason would tell you to vote for this LCM.

I don't know if it's true or if it's an Assembly myth, Llywydd, but I'm told that if you stand on that piece of glass in the middle of the Assembly Chamber, it will crack and let you fall into the fault that lies below. I don't know if that is true or not, but the debate here—[Interruption.] I'm not going to try it, don't worry. You can try it, though, Alun. It would be a good place for you to go. Go on, have a go. [Laughter.] But the debate here today has definitely shown a fault between those parties here who believe in the indelible rightness of parliamentary sovereignty at a UK level, and those of us who have spent our political lives questioning the ability of the British constitution to deliver for the people of Wales. When the Cabinet Secretary first introduced his statement on this agreement, I challenged him at the time, and I said I thought he had a touching faith, I think I put it, in the UK constitution. Over the last couple of weeks I think that touching faith has been revealed, but I think all the weaknesses have been revealed as well.

When I think of this idea of parliamentary sovereignty trumping everything, when I look at my political history from 1979 on—from the miners' strike, from the erosion of workers' rights and trade union rights to the poll tax, to austerity as a result of the crash—I don't see parliamentary sovereignty protecting the people of Wales. I see it as an entrenched narrative to justify inequality and privilege, and I see that it needs to be challenged time and time again until we get a better narrative of where power comes from amongst our people and how it's held by Parliament in trust for our people and then utilised. I think the disruptive forces unleashed by the referendum on Brexit are ones that will change politics, and it's actually not Plaid Cymru that's talking about the break-up of the UK as a result of this—it's the Cabinet Secretary himself, last night, who said he was convinced that there was a real threat. In his speech last night—a real threat to the future of the UK, which was why he made this agreement. And I'm going to argue over the next couple of minutes that he's made the agreement too early and he's sold out too short. I hope to do that by recognising the fault line that's between us, but by challenging this Government on what they said they would achieve, and what they've actually brought to us today and asked us to vote for.

I fundamentally believe that I trust the people of Wales to exercise all these powers that were exercised at the EU level responsibly and in solidarity with other nations in these islands. I thought the Welsh Government also took that view, because we were told at the outset that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view of equality and parity between the nations here, that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view of having a constitutional approach to how these things get sorted out—the council of Ministers was suggested—that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view that there would be a legal framework, including a disputes mechanism, for working out how this would be resolved, and they wanted to negotiate from the point of view that they could always be reviewed from the point of view of equal partners coming together.

So, I invite you to look at the inter-governmental agreement and ask yourself: are those features there? They are not. There is a political agreement and a sense of trust that has grown up between the Welsh Government and the current UK Government, but that sense of trust, we are told, to take on trust ourselves, but then to extend it not only for this Assembly, but for the forthcoming Assembly, and also to take into account goodness knows how many changes in Parliament and Government that might happen in Westminster as well—I'm not prepared to take that risk. I'm not prepared to take that risk for Plaid Cymru, and nor, I think, should we as Assembly Members take that risk. It's clearly set out in the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. Yes, as David Rees said, as the Chair, that committee set out principles that went further than the Welsh Government's position, but so it should, because that committee should protect the Assembly, not the Welsh Government—the Assembly. And those principles—six principles: two of which have not been met at all; two of which, you could argue, if you want to take a very generous view of the Welsh Government's position, have been met in part; and two, the report says, have substantial progress. But I don't think that's sufficient to have trust in this process.

The Welsh Government itself said that it wanted, in order to take this forward, a proper council of Ministers, and proper approach post Brexit to the fundamental relationships between the nations of this United Kingdom currently put. We don't have that in this inter-governmental agreement, and a reliance on temporary party agreements, which is what an inter-governmental agreement is, is not constitutional, it's not legislative and it's not a strong enough legal ground for us to give our consent to this legislative consent motion.

Now, this debate has revealed some of the weaknesses in the individual aspects of the agreement: whether the consent decision is consent or not—we've looked at that; the 40-day period; the fact that the Welsh Government itself said, 'No sunset clause, thank you very much', and has now agreed to a sunset clause; the fallacy that England is treated the same as Wales. It is not. It may be novel to have England included in an inter-governmental agreement like this, but it's not treated the same—Wales and Scotland are constitutionally frozen. England has voluntarily put itself in the deep-freeze. Well, let's see how long Michael Gove decides to stay in the deep-freeze when it comes to changing environmental policies. There's a fallacy here that this is new constitutional ground being made. But it's not—it's just an inter-governmental agreement. That's a political agreement, not a constitutional agreement. And the Gina Miller case itself does demonstrate that, ultimately, this can be challenged.

My final point, if I may—the final point I would make to the Welsh Government—is that you threw away your strongest weapon. What was your strongest weapon in challenging what was happening in Westminster and clause 11 as it was? Your strongest weapon was time. The Westminster Government is up against it. They can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag at the moment, they've got two sub-committees of Cabinet just to see what their customs union options are. You had time on your side to grind this out through the Supreme Court, to grind this out until the Westminster Government gave you a better deal. Time is a wonderful wearer away of entrenched positions in politics. You sold out too short and you sold out too soon.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, especially that majority of speakers whose grasp of the decision we were asked to make bore a strong relationship to the realities at stake?

Can I begin by responding to Simon Thomas in the serious way that he made his points? It was good to hear a serious contribution from Plaid Cymru this afternoon. And I'll answer three or four of the points that he made, and I'll explain why I take a different view to him. I take a different view to him on the business of touching faith. This agreement is not based on trust, it is based on the negotiated outcome of weeks and months of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, reaching an agreement with the UK Government that is set out for all to see. Now, he says, 'It's an inter-governmental agreement', as though it was written on the back of an envelope. It has exactly the same status as the fiscal framework—that's an inter-governmental agreement. And think how carefully—[Interruption.]. Yes, and your party supported it. You did. I don't remember you saying then, 'It isn't worth the paper it's written on; it's only an inter-governmental agreement.' And inter-governmental agreements are serious things and when Governments put their name to them, it's not trust in the Government that you're putting, you're putting trust in the institutional ways in which serious Governments have to react and negotiate with one another.

The Member talked about the doctrine of time—that we should have waited longer. Well, the Scottish Government has waited longer. Where is the better agreement that they have got as a result? And the heart of the difficulty in Simon's argument is this: he wants to suggest to you that there was a choice between what we have agreed and some mythical nirvana that would be even better. But that nirvana doesn't exist. The real choice was between what we have negotiated and a reversion to the far less satisfactory amendment that the UK Government first put down. Of course we should be ambitious for even more ground to be gained, and we are too. And I said in my opening remarks: there is more that we want to achieve. We have ambitions beyond the agreement. But the agreement is a serious step in the direction that we want to go in.

Llywydd, there are only three positions, really, at play in the debate this afternoon. The first: the UK Government began with an ultra-centralising set of proposals, which in a 'care less' way rode roughshod over devolution. In the second position, there are those—and we've heard them today—whose political ambition is to leave the United Kingdom. It's a perfectly respectable political ambition—I'm puzzled as to why those who hold it aren't willing to speak up for it a bit more directly. But the fact that they wish to leave the United Kingdom means that they have no long-term interest in creating a successful future for it. And then there is the third position, which I believe is preferred by the majority in this Chamber and, quite certainly, the wider population here in Wales, that both devolution and the UK matter. And that's what this agreement and the amendment to the Bill deliver. I set out earlier this afternoon how the amended Bill breaks new ground in cementing the defences that devolution provides. And I set out the way in which it is reforming—[Interruption.]

Thank you. He said that the alternative was to go back to the unsatisfactory draft of the Bill before, but is it not the case that, actually, his Government has protected the Scottish people and their devolution settlement, and that it's his negotiation of what he's agreed for Wales that will now apply to Scotland, even though Nicola Sturgeon has not done the sensible thing that his Government has?

Llywydd, I am very glad that everything that we have negotiated will, indeed, apply to the Scottish Government, just as we agreed with the Scottish Government that had it been possible to agree on any further advances in the agreement they would have applied to all three nations as well. I say nothing against the Scottish Government and the efforts that it put into reaching the point that we have been able to reach today. 

As well as the new ground that we have broken in relation to devolution, the agreement begins the essential process of reforming the way in which business is conducted between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. That is why the amended Bill, and the inter-governmental agreement that goes with it, does both things we set out to do. It safeguards devolution and it safeguards the future of a successful United Kingdom, and that's why, emphatically, I ask Members to support it this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the leader of the house on International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and I call on the leader of the house to make the statement. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. The seventeenth of May will mark International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, or IDAHOT. This day offers an important opportunity to draw attention to the violence and discrimination faced by LGBT+ people internationally.

The day was created in 2004 to mark the anniversary of the World Health Organization’s decision in 1990 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. It’s fair to say that LGBT people in Britain will have seen a great number of legal changes in that time that have brought us closer to equality for these communities, but I am in no means complacent—nor should we be—and we would not suggest that LGBTQ+ people no longer face discrimination.

Stonewall research shows us that more than half of LGBT young people in Wales and 73 per cent of trans young people still face bullying at school for being what they are—nearly half of those never tell anyone about it. We also know that one in five LGBT people in Britain have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their sexual orientation and/or their gender identity in the last 12 months. We are also very aware of the increase in damaging online hate directed towards trans communities at the moment.

And what about the situation for LGBT communities outside the UK? Whilst marriage is currently available for same-sex couples in 22 countries, same-sex relationships are still illegal in 72 countries, with eight states around the world activating the death penalty for consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults in private. This is why days like IDAHOT are so important in giving us the opportunity to stand in solidarity with LGBT communities around the world, and to highlight where we need to do more at home.

We must do all we can to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools and prevent the potentially long-term educational and emotional damage it can cause. Tackling all forms of bullying within education remains a key priority for the Welsh Government. Our vision is to tackle bullying holistically, addressing the root causes of unacceptable behaviour and creating an inclusive and engaging environment where learners feel safe and are ready to learn.

We are updating our anti-bullying guidance, 'Respecting Others', which was published in 2011. The revised guidance will be published for consultation later this year and will include guidance on bullying incidents related to LGBT issues. We are working closely with education practitioners, other partners and children and young people to ensure the revised guidance has the maximum impact possible. 

LGBT people can also face hate crime that can take the form of verbal threats, assault, offensive graffiti, damage to property, cyber bullying or abusive texts, e-mails and phone calls. LGBT hate crimes can have a devastating and long-lasting effect on people and communities, but we know that around four in five LGBT hate crimes still go unreported.

In marking IDAHOT in Wales, I want to encourage the reporting of LGBT hate crimes. I urge anyone affected to report and seek support by contacting the local police on 101, or 999 in an emergency, or Victim Support’s national hate crime report and support centre, which is funded by the Welsh Government to provide emotional, practical and advocacy support.

We continue to work through our hate crime criminal justice board Cymru to make sure that as well as encouraging people to report hate crimes, we also strive to improve the quality of service and care that victims receive. This year, the hate crime criminal justice board is looking closely at case load attrition rates—that is, the drop-off in the number of cases between the first report, through investigation, community disposal, or charging and prosecution. We want to continue to examine each step and improve where necessary to ensure that victims are satisfied with the way in which their cases are handled, and that wherever possible justice is served.

We provide funding to Stonewall Cymru to engage with LGBT communities around Wales, empower LGBT people and their allies, amplify LGBT voices, strengthen advice, information and advocacy services, and transform learning environments. We are fortunate to have Stonewall Cymru provide their advice and expertise across the Welsh Government to help enable our policies to be inclusive. 

The global theme for IDAHOT this year is 'Alliances for Solidarity'. Now, more than ever, this theme is a rallying call to us all. We all need allies, especially when we are working to fight prejudice, reduce violence and campaign for cultural change. The 2018 theme encourages LGBT organisations to reinforce their bond with current partners, and to reach out to new partners working in the equality and inclusion sphere to raise awareness of our commonalities, and engage in collective action to tackle discrimination.

In Wales, we are working to strengthen such alliances and ally networks. They are important because we cannot secure the rights of any group facing discrimination while the rights of other groups are left undefended. For example, under our equality and inclusion programme, organisations working across the protected characteristics are discovering common causes and finding new ways of working together, so that collectively they can have greater positive impact. This also allows us the opportunity to recognise and consider the effects and consequences of multiple or intersectional discrimination, when sexual orientation or gender identity are accompanied by other grounds, such as gender, race, disability, migrant and asylum seeker status, or age, et cetera. 

I am very proud to be an LGBT ally and show my support and solidarity to our LGBT communities. At the beginning of this month, I attended Spring Pride in Swansea. I have to say at this point, Presiding Officer, it's not part of my statement, but I had not realised quite how unfabulous I was until I walked among that group of people. [Laughter.] There was a great turnout, and it was a fantastic way for groups to join together to celebrate diversity in the city. It leads me to think about what more we can do as allies. We can listen to LGBT people who have had real lived experience, and do our best to further our understanding of the issues they may face. We can stand up against discrimination when we see it. We can make sure we raise the voices of those people who are seldom heard, for example, BME LGBT people or disabled LGBT people.

In a world today where voices of intolerance and prejudice have been growing louder, it is very much time for us in Wales to ask ourselves: how tolerant are we? How much have we learned, and how committed are we? Our answer is resoundingly that we care more than ever, and that we must join our voices together with our allies and through all our networks to continue to strive for a more tolerant, more open and more welcoming society. Diolch. 

Stonewall's—. Well, let me start by saying we can all be fabulous, and that you're as fabulous as you feel inside, so be fabulous. [Laughter.] Stonewall's 'LGBT in Britain—Trans Report' in January 2018 found that two in five trans people and three in 10 non-binary people had experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months, that one in eight trans employees had been physically attacked by colleagues or customers, and that more than a third of trans university students in higher education had experienced negative comments or behaviour from staff in the previous year.   

When I was speaking here in February 2017 on LGBT History Month, I noted that Stonewall Cymru had stated that 55 per cent of LGB pupils had experienced bullying on the basis of sexual orientation, 83 per cent of trans young people had experienced verbal abuse and 35 per cent had experienced physical assault.  In your statement, you state that tackling all forms of bullying within education remains a key priority for the Welsh Government, that you're updating anti-bullying guidance, 'Respecting others', which will be published for consultation later this year, and you're working closely with education practitioners, other partners, children and young people.

As I recall, we were having the same debates 15 years ago, with the same shared goals across this Chamber, the same awareness because we were all receiving the same messages, because Stonewall Cymru was holding events, including theatrical productions involving people playing pupils in school to highlight the bullying issues, and yet we are where we are. How do you propose to do things differently so that this doesn't fall into the normal consultation trap and actually is co-produced with the community, so that this is designed and delivered and monitored together, so that it's a continuous process? 

You state, quite rightly, the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia theme, Alliances for Solidarity, and talk about the way protected characteristics are discovering common causes and finding new ways of working together, so that collectively they can have greater positive impact. You're absolutely right. I'm very conscious—in fact some of the cross-party groups I chair involve groups of people and organisations representing groups of people, often with protected characteristics, working together. Clearly, the direction of Welsh Government policies—the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—has acknowledged, if not in the Act itself—although it did in the well-being of future generations Act—then in the guidance and regulations of the social services and well-being Act, the importance, again, of co-producing solutions and designing and delivering services together. What assurance can you provide that the problems that I know some of those groups are still encountering, because of poor understanding or awareness, or simply protecting people's own turf at senior level in public sector organisations, can be challenged, so that the message gets through that getting this right not only improves lives, but saves money too, which is often the argument given for not doing it in certain places?

Again, I referred to LGBT History Month, last year's speech and debate in the Chamber. At that stage, I said,

'LGBT people in Wales continue to face significant health inequalities, with only one in 20 health and social care professionals having received training on LGBT people’s health needs, according to Stonewall.'

Again, that was 15 or 16 months ago now. Are you able to comment or assure us that the Welsh Government will update us on the progress that might have been achieved, given the concerns raised by Stonewall at that time?

The Terrence Higgins Trust report, 'Uncharted Territory', has shone a light on the needs and experiences of older people living with HIV, including the needs of gay and bisexual men living with HIV. Fifty-eight per cent of people living with the condition over 50 were defined as living on or below the poverty line—double the level of the general population. Eighty-four per cent over 50 were concerned about how they will manage multiple health conditions in the future. A third were socially isolated and 82 per cent experienced moderate to high levels of loneliness. What consideration has the Welsh Government therefore given to the needs of older people falling within these demographics? I recall, again nearly 15 years ago, a report then being produced on the needs of older people living in the LGBT community. So, again, we seem to be, to an extent, risking going round the circle once again.

I will finish by referring to the 'LGBT in Britain—Trans Report', which you may be aware of, which was published in January. It refers to the 2017 UK Government announcement that it would consult on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and it went on to the consultation that was to follow from that. What representation, if any, has the Welsh Government made to that? I understand in Scotland there'll be separate legislation, but I believe it will be the UK Government legislating for England and Wales. The same report said that:

'Two in five trans people...said that healthcare staff lacked understanding of specific trans health needs when accessing general healthcare services in the last year.'

And worryingly added that:

'This number increases to half of trans people...living in Wales.'

What consideration is the Welsh Government giving to that? Similarly—

Can you wind up, please? You're in danger of going longer than the Minister took to put the statement out. 

Well, I will conclude similarly and in the same context, with the section in the same report that says, 

'In Wales, access to treatment is particularly poor. There is currently no gender identity service in Wales and patients have to travel to London for care. They face long journeys, extended waiting times and difficulties in bringing supportive family or friends to accompany them. The Welsh Government has announced the creation of a Welsh Gender Team to treat patients from March 2018.'

Can you update us on where we've got to? 

Thank you for that series of comments and questions. In terms of why we are having this discussion again, I actually think it's really important for us to have the discussion very frequently. I make no apology at all for revisiting it. I actually think that we should probably revisit it more frequently than every 15 years, because things move. Things move on, people bring different agendas to the table, the community itself raises different issues and Government policy needs to adapt and change. So, for example, looking at the bullying in schools, which you raised, we have a large number of plans to be able to conquer some of the issues that we face. So, for example, we publish lesson plans for schools on gender- and transgender-based bullying, which are aimed at key stages 3 and 4, which are all on Hwb. We are, as I said, updating the guidance. It's published for consultation later this year, and it does include guidance on bullying incidents related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. That guidance is being produced very closely with education practitioners, other partners and children and young people to ensure that the revised guidance has the maximum impact possible.

I think that Mark Isherwood makes a very good point: co-production is something we're very wedded to, and the guidance needs to ensure that it has the endorsement of all of the people for whom it is intended to have the maximum impact, and that is the purpose of the new consultation, because methodologies change, delivery of systems change, and we need to adapt accordingly.

He also mentioned a number of other issues. I'm not sure I've got time to cover them all, but in particular he mentioned health. I'm particularly pleased to say that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services published a written statement last year, which confirmed a new adult gender identity service is to be established in Wales to enable transgender people to access the care they need closer to their homes. The Cabinet Secretary wrote again in February this year to reassure the transgender community and other stakeholders that the Welsh Government remains committed to the improvements announced last August. Five hundred thousand pounds has been committed for those improvements, and the business case for the new Welsh gender team in Cardiff is now agreed. The funding has also been agreed for a GP to cover the immediate prescribing needs ahead of the establishment of the GP network that was announced during that thing, so things are moving on.

There are a number of other issues that Mark Isherwood raised, which I'm sure will come up, Deputy Presiding Officer, in the comments of other people. If not, I will try and cover them off later on.

Thank you for the statement and for marking this important day. Having this statement is a means of raising awareness of the terrible discrimination that still happens and the terrible violence facing people from the LGBT community across the world, but also here in Wales, unfortunately. There is a great deal of room for improvement, as the statistics in your statement note.

I would like to focus on three specific areas—and we've touched on one of them—sexual identity services, mental health services for these communities, and how schools deal with LGBT issues.

First of all, on the gender identity services, the continued delay before introducing these does cause great concern. It is an unacceptable delay, particularly given the fuss made by the Government when this service was announced last year. Two in five transgender people, 41 per cent, say that the majority of healthcare staff don't have a full understanding of the health needs of the trans community, and this figure increases to 51 per cent of trans people in Wales, and 7 per cent of the trans community say that they have been excluded from general healthcare services during the past 12 months. Such a situation simply isn't acceptable, and it's about time that we saw progress with the establishment of this service. Can you explain in greater detail than you've done thus far what exactly is the reason for this delay? What is the timetable? And how much of a priority is this in reality for you? I think the trans community particularly deserves some answers on this.

Turning to mental health services, once again, the statistics are frightening. Two in five trans people have attempted suicide at some point. That's two in five. Seventy-seven per cent of trans young people have self-harmed at some point in their lives. Clearly, purpose-built mental health services and appropriate mental health services are required for young people, and particularly for trans young people, perhaps, so I would like more information about your plans in this area.

Clearly, the way in which schools deal with bullying among the LGBT community deserves to be addressed, and also the role of the education system in dealing with prejudice. For example, only 6 per cent of LGBT pupils in Wales know where to go for help and advice on being transsexual. So, when are we going to see that change?

So, whilst thanking you for your statement and for raising awareness of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, I don't see much substance in the words of the statement, or any idea of how this Government will enhance how it actually moves towards doing away with violence against this particular community.

Siân Gwenllian makes a number of very valid points, as always. There is always more that we can do, and the statistics show very clearly, as she says, that more needs to be done. We certainly accept that there's a holistic set of circumstances that need to be done: we wish to address that all the way through. So, as Mark Isherwood pointed out, we have a number of groups of people that we need to address the needs of—older people in the community who lived through the decriminalisation process and who often have mental health and other associated traumas associated with all of that process, which many of us remember only too vividly. But we also have, at the other end of the spectrum, youngsters coming forward who we want to have the very best possible outcome all the way through our processes in our schools. And we are addressing those issues all the way through. So, as I said—I won't repeat myself—we're currently looking at the bullying policies in schools, specifically with a view to addressing potential incidents. The Cabinet Secretary for Education is going to be making an announcement next week about the sex and relationships education agenda, so I won't stray into her announcement, but, of course, that impacts on this agenda in a very major way, and that is very much about establishing our education system to be the best that it can be in that regard and to follow on from the Diamond review's four purposes, which are very much at the centre of part of this agenda as well.

In terms of some of the very specific things you mentioned, I just said what we were doing on some of the trans healthcare issues, but there are some ongoing frustrations, I suppose. In July 2017, the UK Government announced proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender as part of the broad consultation on the legal system that underpins the Gender Recognition Act 2004. We expected that consultation last autumn. The latest communication between our officials and the Government Equalities Office suggests that they now hope that it will be before the summer recess this year. I'm sure Siân Gwenllian is aware that, currently, individuals need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and have to provide evidence of transition for two years. We very much want to come away from that, but we're caught up in the consultation exercise. We want to remove the need for medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition and we want to streamline the entire process and propose a number of options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system so that people can self-identify. Proposals for or a system of self-identification to change gender exist in quite a lot of other European countries: Portugal, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Norway, Denmark to quote a few of them, and have been welcomed by trans communities, but it's led to a backlash in some cases, particularly, for example, in Ireland. The Irish Government is due to put a review of its complete system out, which we are hoping will be with us towards the end of the summer, the beginning of the autumn. So, we wish very much to learn from those experiences whilst developing our own system as well.

So, there are a number of things we are doing. There are things we could do to accelerate that. We are having a cross-Government conversation about this, and I myself will be reporting back to the Senedd towards the end of the summer term on an equalities platform generally, which will set out some of the detail of moving that agenda forward in some of the specific areas that you mentioned.

Thank you for your statement, leader of the house. Just over a week ago, I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with members of the LGBT community at Swansea Spring Pride. The group accompanying me had a wonderful day also. I'm proud to support people being who they want to be without fear of reprisals. Thursday is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, and will be marked and celebrated in 120 countries across the globe—a tremendous achievement and a sign of how far we have come. Only a few short decades ago, being gay was a crime in this country and, today, same-sex marriage is possible in most of the UK. So, we have made some progress but we have a lot more work to do.

When I got married six years ago, many of my friends were present from the LGBT community, and what a wonderful day we had with, indeed, Chris Needs and his husband, Gabe, giving me away; it absolutely made my day. Giving me away willingly, they tell me.

Same-sex relationships are still illegal in 72 countries and carry the death penalty in Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Thousands of people have been killed because of their gender diversity. But we are not living in these dark ages, people shouldn’t be persecuted for whom they choose to fall in love with, or because they were born into the wrong gender. So, it is up to each and every one of us to tackle unsavoury behaviour towards anyone, towards others when we witness it, and also to give confidence to those who experience bullying, whether it be direct or indirect in nature.

Leader of the house, what discussions have you had with other Members of your Government to improve knowledge of same-sex relationships to the wider community? What bullying and behavioural policies in schools and colleges—are they robust in covering this issue? 

The National Assembly has been recognised by Stonewall as the leading employer in the UK for LGBT staff. So, leader of the house, will you commit to emulating this within Welsh Government and ensuring that all Welsh Government contractors and sub-contractors ensure every LGBT employee is accepted without exception?

I would like to thank you for all you are doing to tackle homophobia, transphobia and biphobia, and please be assured that you have support from across this Chamber. As Assembly Members, we all have a duty to support and be allies of our LGBT colleagues and constituents. Working together, we can make Wales the most LGBT friendly nation. Thank you.

Yes, I very much want to congratulate the Assembly Commission on its award as the Stonewall Employer of the Year, I think the exact title was, and very well deserved it was. What that award really shows is what a determined group of employees can actually do when they want to advance an agenda and make sure that everybody around them—all their colleagues and everybody else—are fully aware of all of the issues that present themselves. I think that that's actually a really excellent role model for how you can roll it out. And we are doing very similar things; we work very closely with the police and crime commissioners, and with all other agencies, for example, to make sure that we have a holistic approach to capturing hate crime. It's very much part of our community cohesion work as well. 

I'll just reiterate, Deputy Presiding Officer, that anyone affected by hate crime should come forward, report and seek support by contacting the local police on 101, or 999 if it's an emergency. And I repeat that for this reason, because, even when it doesn't lead to an arrest or a prosecution, the information is always useful to the multi-agency teams that work in this area. It's only by raising the profile of these terrible hate crimes that we raise the profile of the issue generally in wider society. So, as I said, we have a multipronged approach. We have a very comprehensive approach in our education system. We have a very good multi-agency approach to the darker end of it, if you like. We have a curriculum response that I won't pre-announce on behalf of my colleague who's going to have a statement on it next week, tempting though it is to do that. We are addressing a number of housing issues, and we've got some issue there with some of the funding that we give to Shelter Cymru to ensure their national advice and support workers are suitably trained in how to support and mediate with those impacted by homelessness from the LGBTQ+ communities, because they often have specific requirements that need to be covered off. And I've answered a number of questions on health already, Deputy Presiding Officer.

But, really, what this statement is about is to celebrate our communities here in Wales, to celebrate the contribution that all of our communities make here in Wales, and to signal our intention to the world that we are not happy that those communities are treated differentially elsewhere.

We've come a very long way in my lifetime. My uncle was blackmailed for his activities and my aunt was forced to emigrate because of the stultifying opprobrium that only the genteel middle classes know how well to do. But most families will have similar experiences in their family histories if they care to look for them. So, we absolutely need to celebrate that, in this country at least, homosexual activity is a legal activity and we should celebrate people's sexuality however they feel to express it. We want to promote respectful, loving relationships, whomever somebody wishes to have as their partner.

We have to remind ourselves that Jeremy Thorpe's political career was ruined by the fact that he tried to suppress his homosexual relationships—a gifted politician was crucified for failing to have the guts to recognise what he was. And it was only in 1982 that homosexuality was legalised in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so it may feel like a very long time ago for somebody like Hannah, but it isn't that long ago. So, we really do have a lot to celebrate.

I was very pleased to see in the leader of the house's statement that we're going to be doing a lot more work with schools, because we have to remind ourselves—. There isn't a great deal we can do about countries where people can get a death sentence for homosexual activity, but some of the diaspora is living in my constituency. And in all the schools where we have a multiracial, multi-ethnic community, we need to ensure that everybody is understanding of what living in Britain should mean in terms of our tolerance. So, I want to just highlight to you, Cabinet Secretary, that St Teilo's, where I'm a governor, has done some brilliant work. St Teilo's was a winner of the Not in My School award this year because of the work they have done tackling all hate crime, and I think all these things need to be tackled together. So, we consistently have zero tolerance towards remarks that previously would've been ignored by the staff or other pupils. It has to be clear to all pupils that this sort of behaviour is not appropriate and cannot be tolerated. So, I think that the work they're doing to ensure that, if you like, the most beefy individuals are also the allies for solidarity is a very effective way of ensuring that everybody can recognise, celebrate and respect difference.

I'm very proud to be hosting Just a Ball Game? on Thursday, which everybody is invited to. I appreciate those of you who have to travel back to your constituencies some distance are unlikely to be able to attend, but it's a fantastic opportunity to celebrate how far we've got and also to ensure that we are combating homophobia and transphobia in the sports industry, because that hasn't always been the case. So, we've got Neville Southall, a famous footballer and Welsh goalkeeper, amongst other professional sportsmen and women, coming to help us at what, I'm sure, will be a great celebration. I'm really pleased that the Presiding Officer has agreed to fly the rainbow flag on Thursday, because we all need to be proud of the fact that the National Assembly for Wales is the Stonewall best employer of the year, and I hope the Welsh Government will aspire to win it next year.

Indeed. I completely concur with many of the remarks you made. St Teilo's is a really good example. It's really excellent to see what can be done in schools. The Member makes a very good point about the diaspora, as well, and the work that we have to do, which is why I was emphasising the community cohesion parts of these outreach workers. I just want to highlight as well, Deputy Presiding Officer, the existence of Meic, which is the helpline service for children and young people in Wales up to the age of 25, which is a confidential, anonymous and free service available in Welsh or English from 8 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, which is contactable by phone, SMS text and instant messaging. It is a helpline for people who feel they are being bullied in any way at all in school, and has been particularly used by members of the diaspora community, who sometimes have cultural difficulties to cope with at home.

I mentioned briefly in response to a number of other Assembly Members, and Siân Gwenllian in particular, the issue around LGBT housing and homelessness issues. I would just like to highlight as well that, although we've got data difficulties, because homelessness is not captured as part of the wider statutory statistical return in terms of LGBT-specific data, Llamau have confirmed the anecdotal information we've gathered from both Shelter Cymru and local authority homelessness teams that there is a growing trend of homelessness caused by family conflict that is caused by a young person identifying as LGBT. As we discussed earlier in our proceedings today, Deputy Presiding Officer, incidence of mental health issues amongst homeless young people is higher within the LGBT population than the general population.

Just to highlight the points I made then, again, this is around the whole issue of being yourself, the ability to say, 'This is me. I am what I am. I'm proud of it and I don't want to be anything else.'We need to be able to assist young people to come forward and to be protected and safe from harm as they go through that process, and so the Government runs a number of campaigns, which we are accelerating—the This Is Me campaign, the Don't Be a Bystander campaign, the youth homelessness campaign—which all converge on this agenda. And we just want to be sure that people with LGBTQ+ protected characteristics are front and centre of those campaigns, as we take them forward.

But Jenny Rathbone is right; we have a large number of things to celebrate here in Wales. So, today is about the celebration, as well as about the need to send that message out into our communities and our world. I too am delighted that we'll be be flying the rainbow flag on Thursday.

It’s a pleasure for me to respond to this statement about the international day that’s happening on Thursday. A week Thursday, next week, it’s 30 years since the passing of section 28 in the Local Government Act 1988 at the time. A protest against section 28 was the first gay march ever in Cardiff, if not in Wales, and I was on that march and it was a part of my extended process, the first step of coming out. Now, 30 years on, I’m here, responding as a proud, open, gay man to the Government of my country, celebrating the gay community. So, to me, that period of time does represent the progress that has been made and I’m very grateful to the leader of the house for that.

But, despite the progress, as the leader of the house did recognise, there is work still to be done. I was looking at the figures on LGBT pupils in Welsh schools, and slightly less than 60 per cent of them don’t have any education about issues to do with their sexuality. So, there is work to be done there.

Could I ask three questions specifically, in terms of what the Welsh Government can do to help? In terms of procurement, with the procurement rules and also the economic agreement in terms of grants that are given to companies, are we—?

If I can ask on procurement, then, on the economic contract, will we make LGBT-inclusive employment policy one of the criteria in terms of our procurement policy in Wales and in terms of the economic contract?

Secondly, we mentioned the problems in terms of housing that particularly affect the LGBT community, and the landlord training that has been set up as part of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. I'm told by somebody that's recently undertaken the online training that it doesn't deal currently with discrimination against LGBT people. Could the leader of the house investigate and come and report back on that? Because it is quite important it's covered.

And finally, it is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia and, of course, regrettably, there are many countries in the world where it is still illegal to be gay, and, indeed, the sanctions in some cases are very extreme. Can I raise the question of Qatar? The Welsh Government has, I believe, a memorandum of understanding or a co-operation agreement with the Government of Qatar. It's one thing selling to businesses in Qatar and opening markets, but the Government of my country signing an agreement with the Government of a country that has a very poor record on human rights in general, and has a particularly poor record, I can tell you, on LGBT rights, doesn't sit comfortably with me. I understand there was a party at the national museum of Wales celebrating the Qatar Airways link et cetera. Again, for many people in the LGBT community, that leaves a slightly bitter taste, and people have raised this recently with the Football Association in England, which has also signed an agreement with Qatar. Can I ask her—? It has been floated the possibility that the Government of Qatar, through its sovereign wealth fund, could take a share in the national airport of Wales. Could I ask her to rule that out? That would seem entirely against the spirit of what she has said today in terms of homophobia and transphobia.

The clause 28 thing was a defining moment for quite a few of us in what was then a pretty low point in many of our political careers, so I don't think that—. There are lots of bad things you can say about the Thatcher years, but that's certainly right up there as one of the things that was just intolerable. I, too, almost cannot believe that, 30 years on, I have a son who's going to marry his partner, and I'm going to go, and we're going to be very pleased. He grew up in an era when people tried to stop that being taught as an ordinary family relationship—if you remember the words. I've never been so incensed by anything, I think, on a personal level, as I was by that. The Thatcher years brought quite a lot of destruction to our communities, but that was so personal a thing, and I think it spurred a lot of us on to thinking, 'This is enough; this is not okay.' And that's been a driving force in my political career. I'm straight, but what difference does that make to any of this? That's not the point. People should be allowed to live their lives the way they choose, as long as they don't do any harm to anyone else, and I don't understand why anyone has any problem with that at all. So, I am absolutely dedicated to sorting that out.

In terms of the three very specific things you asked, I'm going to answer the one I know most about first, which is the economic contract. We are working on a definition of fair work. We will put a commission in place. It will definitely be looking at inclusive employment policies, and that's very much part of what we're doing. I was having a hurried conversation with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary. I'm afraid I can't quite remember the exact wording of the ethical procurement supply chain stuff. If it doesn't include it, then I'll go away and make sure that the next revision does include it. I want to say to you that it does, but I'm not 100 per cent certain, so I'll go away and check. If not, then we can certainly revise it to that effect.

The landlord training, I didn't know about. I will certainly take that up with the Minister. There's no reason why it shouldn't include it. It ought to be including anti-discrimination issues anyway, so thank you for bringing that to my attention; I'll certainly take that up.

In terms of Qatar, I don't know the details of the particular thing about the sovereign wealth fund that you mentioned, but I think the whole issue with other countries is such a difficult one. We have a big programme, Wales for Africa, and Uganda is clearly a big problem—. This is a very personal comment; this is not the Welsh Government responding here. This is my personal comment. I think it's really difficult to know quite what level of contact brings people forward into the age and place that we want them to be, and what level of opprobrium and sanction also works. I think that's quite a difficult thing. I will discuss the issue with the Cabinet Secretary responsible. I don't know the detail of it. But isolating countries doesn't work; we know that. The conditions inside countries that are isolated get worse for the people there. On the other hand, I quite agree that the hand of friendship shouldn't be extended fully to people who are not in a place that we'd like them to be. The travel between those two things is, for me, very personally, a difficult line to draw, but it's something I will take up with the Cabinet Secretary, because I think it's well worth exploring further.

And just to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this is the very reason we wanted this statement to be brought forward today, to have these very important discussions about where we are in the world, and what we can do with our partners in terms of an influence that can be brought to bear on them. 

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on vacant land tax. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In February this year, I was able to inform Members of the Welsh Government’s intention to test the new Wales Act 2014 mechanism to establish Welsh-specific taxes by seeking the devolution of powers for a Welsh tax on vacant land. This is an entirely new process, which neither the Assembly nor the UK Government has undertaken before. The first step was to agree the necessary process steps to securing the transfer of the relevant powers.

As a result, Dirprwy Lywydd, a protocol has now been agreed, as set out in my letter to the Chair of the Finance Committee on 29 March last. That protocol sets out a two-stage process. First, the Assembly, along with both Houses of Parliament, will be asked to agree a draft Order in Council, which will specify the power for the Assembly to introduce a tax on vacant land in Wales. If that first stage succeeds, it will then be for the Welsh Government to bring detailed proposals before the National Assembly to enable Members to decide whether to pass any proposed tax into law.

While the UK Parliament has a part to play in the decision to devolve these powers to Wales, it is for this Assembly to determine how such powers are to be used. I'm confident that the process we have managed to agree properly reflects those different responsibilities.

Of course, Dirprwy Lywydd, the process for transferring powers not only requires the powers to be transferred from the UK Parliament; they also have to be accepted by this Assembly, should the Assembly choose to do that. I remain committed to joint working with Members in this regard, ensuring that the Assembly is supplied with all the relevant information, and that should happen throughout this process.

If that is the process that we've agreed, I thought it would be helpful to set out expectations for the next steps. It's my intention that we will be in a position by the autumn of this year to submit a formal request to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and by the spring of next year, I would hope that legislation will be laid before the Assembly and the UK Parliament to seek agreement to the transfer of these powers.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if these are the means by which the new Wales Act 2014 possibilities are to be tested, I turn now to the purpose of a vacant land tax itself. As discussed previously in this Assembly, taxation can serve a variety of purposes. A vacant land tax is intended to incentivise positive behaviours, rather than primarily to raise revenues. By increasing the cost of holding onto land that has already been identified as suitable for development, a vacant land tax could help to change the balance of incentives so that we encourage the development that will help to provide much-needed housing and economic opportunities in Wales. And at the same time, it is the tax that can be put to work to support our regeneration objectives.

The goal is not to make life more difficult for the majority of responsible businesses and landowners who do the important work of developing land for commercial or residential use. The aim is, rather, to bring about changes in the behaviour of the minority who look to speculate unfairly on rising land values, and to tie up land that could be used to the benefit of people and communities.

Dirprwy Lywydd, for taxation to be an effective way to encourage positive behaviours, it has to be considered not in isolation, but as part of a suite of solutions designed to encourage the effective use and development of land in Wales. It is but one tool available to us in pursuit of that purpose, but the purpose is an important one. Research commissioned by the Welsh Government into stalled development sites found that just over 400 sites were stalled across Wales at the time of publication, in 2015. These stalled sites primarily related to residential development, with at least 7,600 homes being tied up within these sites across Wales.

Last month, my colleague the Minister for Housing and Regeneration announced an independent review of affordable housing supply in Wales. Amongst other things, this review offers us the opportunity to explore ways we can increase the number of homes built through the Welsh Government’s contribution to social housing, and to look at the quality of standards of that affordable housing. We have to continue to be concerned, not just with the quantity but the quality of the homes being built in Wales. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, while a vacant land tax may be a new idea for us, it is certainly not novel in other parts of the world. The issues we face are not unique to Wales; they exist across the United Kingdom and beyond. In England, as a result of remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an earlier budget, there is an acknowledgement of these issues, with a review now taking place of the gap between planning permissions granted and housing starts. Chaired by Oliver Letwin, that inquiry issued a preliminary statement in March, identifying factors holding back development once planning permissions have been granted. The review intends to provide a full report in time for the Chancellor’s autumn statement later this year.

Now, other countries are already using tax to help address this problem. In the Republic of Ireland, as Members here know, they have recently introduced a vacant sites levy in order to encourage the development of vacant and derelict land. Similarly, municipalities in the United States have also successfully used taxation to encourage development of derelict land.  

The international picture suggests that taxation can certainly be a powerful tool to drive development. That is not to say, of course, that these experiences in these other jurisdictions can simply be picked up and dropped into the Welsh context, but there is certainly enough evidence to suggest that this is a route worth exploring further. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, it is a fundamental principle of the Welsh Government that policy development, whether tax or otherwise, should be informed by evidence. The first stage of our work will therefore be to work further on building that evidence to ensure that we reach the best possible understanding of the issues and how our interventions could address them. By pressing ahead with this work now, we will be in a strong position to make necessary decisions if and when the necessary powers are agreed. There are important questions as to how we can incentivise positive behaviour in the public as well as the private sector, and how the policy can serve to encourage the regeneration of derelict or underused urban land, as well as to deliver housing.

I recognise that it is only through close co-operation with our stakeholders that we can ensure that we achieve our objectives without placing an unintended burden on responsible developers and builders. To that end, I'm grateful to all of those who have already begun to contribute to the development of these proposals.  

Deputy Presiding Officer, the advisory group on taxation is already helping to inform our thinking, and we have begun to engage with Wales’s planning authorities, house builders and a number of business associations. I intend to establish a particular group, made up of those with a close interest in this area, to advise on policy development. In this way, as we begin the process of securing the powers, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders to help to inform future decisions on whether to proceed with a vacant land tax.

Deputy Presiding Officer, it remains the early stages of this untested process of devolution in Wales, one that we haven’t tried before. I hope that I have been able to set out the progress made to date and the plans for further development over the coming months. I will, of course, continue to keep Members informed as we move through this new process. Thank you.

Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's statement today? You certainly have to be a jack of all trades in this new tax world, don't you, Cabinet Secretary? Many of the taxes involve land in some way, so I'm sure you're becoming an expert in your own right.

As you said today, this is new territory for the Welsh Government and for this Assembly, and I appreciate that your statement today falls into two parts, primarily, as you've explained. So, you've got the testing of the new tax machine through the mechanisms on the one hand, which can then be employed with other taxes, of course, and then the actual tax, the vacant land tax, on the other—the tax that you've decided to progress. This part of the process—the third part of the process—is as important as the development of the tax itself.

I suppose my first question is: what sort of timescale are you looking at here? As I say, I appreciate that these are early days and you can't be exact on that, but, clearly ,we're at the start of the process and we've not been through this before. What sort of rough timescale would you anticipate each of these different segments of the process being played out to, so that we move to a point where the tax is either decided upon or not decided upon? As I say, I appreciate there's a number of hurdles to jump through when it comes to giving that answer. You've mentioned the different permissions required from the Assembly and from the Houses of Parliament, but if all that goes to plan, at what point do you see a new tax coming into operation?

Turning to the tax itself, clearly, in many ways, the jury is still out because there are a number of different scrutiny levels that that would have to go through before it was decided on, and there'd be amendments to it and what have you. I do think that there are, from what I've seen, some sound reasons for implementing a vacant land tax, and you've touched on some of those arguments today. I've looked at the statistics, and it's estimated that the UK housing developers are holding around 600,000 plots of land that have planning permission but remain undeveloped. I think you had the Welsh statistics at your fingertips. I didn't have those—I had the UK level, and it clearly is a staggering amount of land currently in the bank.

According to the Land Registry, this also includes the practice of buying undeveloped land with the intention to split it up into smaller plots to then sell at inflated prices—a practice that I'm sure has gone on for some time. Of course, if that is happening, it does mean that people who are waiting for houses, and waiting for houses to be built, are having to wait longer than they otherwise would because of that. The potential—. I should say that the focus is on the potential future value of the land against the current selling price. Sorry—that was the final bit of that sentence that I didn't finish.

The UK Government have said that they'll be looking at this whole area themselves. Are you liaising with them on that, or with the officers in Westminster? I suppose key to this question, and key to the development of all taxes, is: are you confident that the tax that you are proposing is actually required—that it will resolve the issues that we're addressing? I fully understand what you're saying about tax being a valuable tool to change behaviours, but, of course, tax isn't the only option. Just because you have a tool that you can use, it doesn't mean that you always use it if there might be other options that can be used to ease the situation.

As I understand it, according to Oliver Letwin's interim report to the UK Government, the biggest driver of building rates once permission is granted for large sites appears to be the absorption rate—the rate at which newly constructed homes can be sold without distorting the local market price. The type of home, as well, is a factor in that, so, clearly, this is a complex landscape that we need to work within.

You mentioned other countries—I looked at the Irish example. What lessons do you think can be learned from countries with a vacant land tax? I note that the Irish levy has already been criticised by some leading estate agents across the Irish sea. The increase in the rate there to 7 per cent has led to fears that boom and bust could be amplified beyond what it otherwise would be without that. As land is viewed as a raw material, it's natural for developers to carry a stock of development land, but they will not carry a land bank in a slow market, meaning that when a recovery follows, developers will spend the early years on site assembly rather than the house building that they could and should be doing. I know that that's probably a question for a future phase of this, but I think it's key to the development of this tax, so I'd be interested to know what evidence you're gleaning from the example of other countries.

So, I welcome your statement today. I think it's fine as far as it goes, Cabinet Secretary, and I think the Assembly realises that testing the machinery is all-important at this phase. Whilst many of these questions remain for the future, I think it would be good if you could put some meat on the bones at the moment as to what discussions you've had with other Governments and with the sector.

I thank Nick Ramsay for those questions. He's quite right that the statement today is an updating statement, designed to make sure that Assembly Members know where we have got to in the development of this new possibility for devolution. We are not at all in a definitive place in relation to a vacant land tax, but I thought it was important—that Members would want to know both where the process had got to and where the thinking on developing policy ideas had arrived at as well.

In relation to the timescales that Nick Ramsay asked me about, as I said in the statement, I hope that we will be in a position to make a formal submission to the Treasury in the autumn of this year. There's a lot of work going on with the Treasury to make sure that we've got organised the material that they will need in order to be able to make a decision at that point, so we're doing that work now and we'll formally submit it in the autumn. The Treasury will then have a job of work to do in considering the material that we have provided. I think their rules will require them to carry out a brief consultation on our proposals themselves, and if that is successful then in the spring I hope we would be in a position where the Treasury would take the necessary Orders through the UK Parliament, and it will be for the Assembly to decide whether or not it wanted to take on the new power. 

After that, my intention would be to consult on the idea of a vacant land tax here in Wales, and to have a greater depth of detail beneath what we are proposing. I remain open-minded about where all that will take us, and if the evidence that we got in through consultation persuaded us that this was not an idea that had value here in Wales, then we would have to learn the lesson of that consultation. I embark on it with some confidence that this is a useful new tool that we would want to develop, but if we're serious about being evidence informed in the way we make decisions, we have to be open-minded enough in this very new area to be open to the fact that consultation might provide evidence that would point in a different direction. So, I don't expect the process to be rapid. I think it's more important that we do it properly than we just rush to make use of a power that we've obtained. I want to do it thoroughly and I want to make sure that those who have an interest in it know that their views and their voices will be properly heard in it all. 

I start from the point of view that this is, as Nick Ramsay said, just one tool that is available to help us in this area, but I believe it's very likely to be a useful and effective one, but it's not the only factor—absorption rates and other factors are important as well. In the meantime, we continue to learn the lessons where we can from others. The Republic of Ireland, the Government there's been very generous with giving us the time of its senior officials to make sure we've learnt from their experience so far. Nick Ramsay asked me what I thought that the lessons were; I'll just identify two at this point. I think the first thing that they said to us was that it's very important that this is a planning-driven idea, not a tax-raising idea. You're doing it in order to make effective the planning system and the permissions that it provides. And, secondly, I think they said to me, 'Don't forget that regeneration is just as important a purpose of this tax as housing.' Housing tends to be the obvious thing that you refer to, but regeneration is an equally important policy objective for a vacant land tax.     

Thank you. Simon Thomas. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Llywydd. I welcome today’s statement from the Cabinet Secretary. Of course, Plaid Cymru welcomes the fact that we are using these new powers, and that there is a process in place to reach agreement with the Westminster Government as to how these powers should be transferred to Wales. It is important, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, that we look at the evidence, and we certainly wouldn’t oppose such a tax in principle, but we would want to see that this is going to work in a Welsh context and would tackle that fundamental question as to whether this is what is holding development for housing or regeneration back in Wales, or whether there are other factors at play here.

In that context, you say in your statement that you want to establish a specific group as part of the advisory group that you have to look at this area. May I just ask you to tell us a little more about how you hope that group will work? Will it be a group that will be outward facing? Will it be gathering evidence? Will it be available to attend Finance Committee, for example, to share its findings? Or, is it an entirely—I won’t say 'secretive', but is it going to be behind the scenes within Government? What sort of group is this? I ask so that people can feel confident that the work is being done in the broadest means possible.

You also say in your statement, and I agree entirely—and it’s what I’ve just mentioned, if truth be told—that there are a number of factors that impact on the fact that land is left undeveloped in Wales, despite having planning consent. You have another proposal in terms of sites that are stalled, as you describe them, and in the budget of this year you mentioned using financial transactions capital for that purpose. I’m not sure whether you can give us an update as to whether that is working, but specifically, how do you believe that that would go hand in hand with any proposed vacant land tax? Because clearly if the availability of funding isn’t shifting some of these sites, is the tax going to mean that this land is going to be shifted? There seems to be something else that is holding these developments back, and in that context, of course, planning and consent for wayleaves and so on, there are a number of factors that can impact upon land and the development of land. So, if you could just give us some idea of how you are going to consider this bigger picture. I accept that you say in your statement that you will do that, but what specific steps will you take in order to ensure that the tax will meet any specific needs and demands?

May I also ask, on the final point—a point that has been raised relatively recently relating to land in Wales? The Labour Party at a UK level has talked about the right to purchase land for affordable housing—it’s a sovereign land trust, as it’s been described, I believe. Your Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs, who is responsible for planning, has mentioned that this is a possibility in Wales or is at least something that could be considered. Again, this is another development that will have to fit in to any tax development of this kind, because we are talking about a number of different ways of skinning a cat here, as it were. So, how does this concept fit into these proposals? And will you, when you transfer—? Let’s say that you do decide, to proceed with this tax, will we as an Assembly be able to consider the tax, not as a stand-alone issue, but in the context of these packages of policies that I’ve mentioned, and there may be others, so that we have a more comprehensive idea of the broader policy of Government towards land, the development of land and planning?

I thank Simon Thomas for the questions. I agree with what he said at the outset. I’m eager to use the new possibilities that we have and that’s why we have started on the process of testing the new mechanism and we’re creating the mechanism, because there wasn’t a mechanism there before. So, one of the purposes of doing this in the first place is just to learn the lessons that will emerge from trying this for the first time and to see, as Simon Thomas said, how this is going to work in the Welsh context.

That’s why I’m going to pull together a new group. We’re going to use a couple of people, I think, who are already in the group that we have that advises the Government on taxation generally, but I want to draw into that group a number of people who have a specific interest in this area—people who work, people who develop land and people who build homes, but groups such as Shelter as well, who have other aspects to contribute. I’m eager to draw into that group people who do have experience in the area of—well, I’ve forgotten the word in Welsh, of course—in the process of regeneration. Adfywio—yes, thank you very much.

So, how will the group work? Well, I haven’t spoken to the group members yet. I think the intention is for us to have advice as a Government, and I’m sure there'll be a number of people in the group who usually come to give evidence in terms of the work that they do when the Assembly committees do their inquiries. But, I’m happy to talk to them if there are other possibilities for them to do some work to help the committees as well.

In terms of the stalled sites fund, just to say, as some Members know, that we have earmarked new funding to help those sites to come onto the market. 

There are sites in Wales that cannot yet be brought to market. They wouldn't be saleable in the state they're currently in, so the stalled sites fund is intended to help those who have possession of those sites to be able to do the necessary work that would allow them to be turned into profitable use. So, they are a couple of steps behind where a vacant land tax would come into things because, as I said in my statement, it is not the purpose of the vacant land tax to penalise anybody who is making every effort to bring a site that has the necessary permissions into profitable use. The stalled sites fund is for sites that are not yet in that condition, and we hope to create a sort of chain that will bring them to the market and to profitable use in due course.

I agree, again, with what Simon Thomas said about when the Assembly comes to consider a vacant land tax and we have the consultation results and so on: it will be important to put that in the wider context. And that's where the work that my colleague the Minister for Housing and Regeneration has embarked upon in an independent review of affordable housing, and how we do more in that area in future, comes in. That will help us to create that wider context in which this particular tool and the contribution that it can make can be properly assessed.

I welcome the statement, and I'm in the paradoxical position of very much being in favour of the devolution of the power to tax, but not actually very keen upon exercising it. It's a point I've made before that I'm in favour of tax competition because I think that it, in general, tends to go against increases in taxes around the United Kingdom. But I wonder whether this vacant land tax has been chosen because it's probably the least likely of all the possible taxes to affect more than a very small number of people. I think it's quite a good tax in that respect to choose in order to test the system, which I'm very much in favour of.

I have actually read the Welsh Government's 'Stalled Sites and S106 Agreements' document. It's not exactly a page turner, and it was not designed to be so, but what did strike me from that is how small is the number of instances that might be affected by this tax, if it's designed to pinpoint cases of land-banking where developers are deliberately sitting upon land that ought otherwise to be developed and which they could develop but they have decided not to do so. Of course, there are times when there is an incentive to do this. I well remember, as I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary himself does, in the early 1970s that there was a controversy about the Centre Point building in London owned by Harry Hyams, which was totally unoccupied for many, many years because the notional value of the building was greater as an unoccupied building with the potentiality of sale as such than if it had been full of offices paying rent. That was regarded as a scandal at that time, 40-odd years ago.

But the point I want to make in this respect is that, if we are to have a vacant land tax, it has to be sensitive to economic circumstances. The early 1970s was a period of rapidly rising, indeed unsustainable, property price rises. And immediately after that, in 1975, there was a collapse in the market and everything went into reverse. So, we have to be flexible enough to be able to cope with the circumstances because what is a scandal in one instance is just the unfortunate result of economic circumstances in another, and we don't want to, as the Cabinet Secretary has already said, find that businesses are unfairly penalised for not doing what is, at the time, impossible to do for a variety of reasons. 

He mentioned the Oliver Letwin study that is currently going on. Again, what strikes me about reading his letter is how narrowly focused that seems to be at the moment as well, because he's looking only at large sites for development at the moment, and in the course of that study he recognises that there are all sorts of economic or planning or technical reasons for those developments not being proceeded with. And in respect of the social housing aspect of this, again, because social housing under section 106 agreements is funded by successful sales of the rest of the development, if those properties can't be sold, then, of course, there is no money available to build the social housing.

So, this is a very complicated matrix that has to be understood and, therefore, I feel that if and when a tax is constructed it's going to involve a very complicated piece of legislation that actually applies in practice to only a very small number of potential instances. So, whilst I'm in favour of having a go at this—and I fully take the point that the Cabinet Secretary made that he is going to base his decisions on evidence; that's a very laudable statement to make—we will need, I think, a lot more evidence than is provided for in this stalled sites and section 106 agreements document, and we'll need to look at, I think, a large number of academic studies of what's happened in other parts of the world as well. So, I hope all that will be made available in a convenient form for Members of the Assembly to debate it, but I wish him well with his enterprise even though I will suspend judgment on what ultimately emerges. So, I can't promise him I'm going to support what he comes up with at the end of the day, but I'll certainly support the process.

Of course, I understand that the Member takes a different view on the part that taxation can best play in the way that we conduct our affairs. He is right to say that a vacant land tax was partly chosen because I didn't want to send an idea around the circuit that would overwhelm what is a very nascent process, and some of the other ideas we talked about are much more significant ideas, but I felt that we might not get the lessons from the new process if we found ourselves dealing with ideas that are themselves of considerably more significance.

The Oliver Letwin review: I'm not sure how much we will be able to draw from it for Wales, but I cited it because it has its genesis in the figures that Nick Ramsay helpfully quoted earlier and shows that the issue of permissions that have been granted and the work that the public has done in order to get land into that position isn't always matched by the use that those permissions are then put to, and it's not a Welsh-only issue.

Of course, Neil Hamilton is right to say that more evidence will be needed, and I tried to indicate in my statement that my aim is to use the period between now and when any power might be devolved to Wales to begin to build up that evidence base so that by the time we come to have a consultation and to look as to how those powers might be used we will have a much richer body of evidence ready to share with others to see how this might be taken forward.

Can I welcome the statement? Going back to the basis of taxation, we have two types of taxation, that which is there to raise revenue for public services, such as income tax, and then we have taxes that are behaviour taxes. And the Cabinet Secretary brought one of those in this year, which is the landfill disposals tax, which makes recycling cheaper than landfill disposal in order to get people to do good things and recycle, and if the landfill tax was set at a very low level then you wouldn't have people recycling at the level they are. And then, of course, you've got the sin taxes, like alcohol and tobacco, which are a mixture of the two. I put this very much into somewhere between the sin taxes of a mixture of the two and the landfill disposals tax, which is a behaviour tax. So, it's a behaviour tax plus: it's a behaviour tax that we hope will bring us some money as well. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary accepts that as the way it's going forward. 

It needs to incentivise positive behaviour by increasing the cost of holding on to land. Far too many people hold on to land and just let the value go up, so they actually increase their book value of the land without actually doing anything with it, which is good for the companies but not good for our economy, and so I think it is important that we find some means by which we can get this land out into use. We're all aware of land banking and the slow release of land to keep housing supply well below housing demand in order to keep house prices artificially high and land values artificially high in order that landowners and the builders can increase their profits.

We know other countries are using tax to help address the problems, and we know what the Republic of Ireland has done—a vacant sites levy—and I think, if Ireland can do it, I see no reason why we cannot do it successfully. As the Cabinet Secretary also knows, of course, my personal preference was for an environment-type tax. If I'd been sat where he was, we'd have an environment tax rather than this, but I see nothing wrong with this as a way forward.

Can I just ask the Cabinet Secretary to solve a problem, which we're all going to get? Can he just confirm this will not be a tax on people's front gardens, which is what we're going to see opposition parties putting out in the future? It's not going to tax—. My front garden is not going to be taxed, your front garden is not going to be taxed, and nobody else's front garden is going to be taxed. It's going to be a tax—[Interruption.] It's going to be a tax on land that is there available to build on, with planning permission, that people are hanging on to in order to build book value and to control the release of land.

Mike Hedges regularly reminds us of the different purposes that taxation fulfils—from revenue raising to behaviour shaping—and he's right, this tax has some elements of both. In the Republic of Ireland, bringing in Nick Ramsay's question about lessons to learn, I remember being told by senior officials there that their first ambition was that the tax must raise sufficient revenue to cover the cost of the work involved in bringing about the behavioural change that the tax is intended to generate.

Mike is right: it's the windfall nature of rising land values that people find objectionable, when it is public investment in providing those permissions that causes the value of the land to rise. So, the public has made the effort, and yet it's the private individual who gets the gain, and that's what people find objectionable.

Of course, we did consider an environment tax—a plastics tax, as we were talking about it then. The reason that I decided not to use that as our first testing of the machinery was not for the reason that I mentioned to Mr Hamilton, that it could've overwhelmed the mechanics, but because the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement a call for evidence with a view to creating a UK-wide tax in this area. And I just knew, or felt I knew, that if I'd sent such a tax down the line to test our machinery the answer would have come straight back: 'Well, there's nothing we can do to give you an answer on that until the call for evidence has been completed.' So, we would've stalled the process at the very outset, and that's the reason why I decided in the end not to pursue that avenue.

As far as Mike Hedges's front garden and indeed my own Canton back yard are concerned, I can confirm that both are safe from a vacant land tax.

I do think how we control the supply of land is a really important issue; I'm not convinced this is going to be a particularly productive way to do that, but I'm certainly open to evidence. There's a real public interest here—the greatest windfall, I should say to you, Minister, of course, is when land is zoned for building when it had a previous use, especially if the previous use was agricultural. And, you know, there is a real—. The biggest factor in high house prices is actually the price of land. So, there is a real public interest to have a more equitable system over some of these forces, which is why I quite like Oliver Letwin's more holistic examination of this particular area. But 7,600 homes could be built if all the current land plots were used and that's over a year's supply of housing at our current rate that we need to increase that.

I think a couple of Members—Neil Hamilton mentioned it directly—. We need a system, if we're going to go down this track, that is flexible enough to take account of market conditions because some people could get penalised in a downturn when they've got every intention, actually, of using the land productively, but, for whatever reason, cannot get all the capital together to undertake the building programme. And so I think (1) you could set the bar quite high; you could say that the tax only gets applied after 18 months or two years—you could do that, and that would give you time to assess market conditions—or, if you're going to do it after a year, have certain ways of being flexible, should market conditions require that. So, I think it is worth us looking at this, but, as I said, I'd like to reserve my position until we see further evidence. And, as you said, the model is used in some other countries, so I think a further examination of the situation there—particularly over how it does produce a more effective market, because I think that's really, really important. We could end up undermining the market at certain times if we're not careful.

I thank David Melding for what he said. He's absolutely right that there is a fundamental public interest in all of this. I give him an assurance that, when we come to do the detailed work on how a tax might be designed, we do not start out with the intention of penalising anybody who is making every effort to bring land into productive use. And there will be some quite sophisticated thinking that will need to be done to make sure that, as market conditions vary—and they vary in different parts of Wales already; it's not just the cycle, is it, it's the geography as well—we design any tax in a careful way to make sure that it captures those people who we want it to capture and it doesn't, in an unintentional way, end up penalising people who, in the way that you put it, have every intention of bringing that land into productive use.

Thank you. And, finally, Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As you will know, this is an issue of real interest to me and was the subject of my short debate earlier in the year. So, I have two questions for you today.

Firstly, I note your comments about a vacant land tax incentivising positive behaviours, but do you agree with me that a central aim of it will also be to tackle the harmful behaviours associated with land banking? For example, I can think of numerous examples from my constituency where a piece of disused land, sometimes very sizeable, lies at the heart of a community and is kept in an appalling condition, impacting on community well-being. I quoted a constituent in my short debate who spoke of 11 years of hell living next to such a plot. In what way do you think the vacant land tax could be used as a lever to tackle these sorts of problems?

Secondly, Cabinet Secretary, I know you've also previously spoken about the importance of defining vacant land, saying this is key to both the operation of the tax and achieving the policy effect. In particular, I think it's important that derelict buildings, not just empty plots of land, which are often the community eyesores I alluded to earlier, are included in such a definition. Would you be able to provide us with an update on your thinking around this, please?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank Vikki Howells for those questions. I was hoping that she might be called to speak on this statement, because I wasn't able to be here in the Chamber during the short debate, although I've read the transcript of it since, and the Member brings forward in that short debate compelling evidence of the impact that land lying derelict, which could be put to proper use, has on the wider community. And, in answering her questions, it gives me a chance just to re-emphasise a point I tried to make towards the end of my statement, which was that this is as much about regeneration and tackling dereliction as it is about housing issues as well. Because we know that land that lies there doing nothing doesn't just stand still, it becomes a target for things like fly-tipping and other forms of dereliction and that brings untold misery to those people who live nearby. In the worst examples—and some of these were cited to me in the Republic of Ireland—you then get a downward spiral in which people start leaving the area, where buildings now stand idle as well as land, and, before you know where you are, you have a whole street, which previously was in good and productive use, where people no longer wish to live. And that's why I said, in answering earlier questions, that applying a vacant land tax can be just as important a tool in relation to preventing that sort of dereliction and promoting regeneration. Because the other side of the coin of promoting good behaviours is to prevent harmful behaviours in the way that Vikki Howells said, and her interest in this topic and the contribution that she made in the short debate will definitely make an impact on our thinking as we take this idea forward.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 is a statement by the leader of the house: update on digital connectivity in Wales. I call on the leader of the house to make the statement—Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today, I want to provide you with an update on the digital infrastructure aspects of my portfolio.

I will begin by focusing on broadband. The delivery phase of Superfast Cymru closed in February, and, since then, we've been working to resolve three outstanding issues. Firstly, we have been considering whether the Welsh Government can work with BT to complete structures part-deployed by BT during the Superfast Cymru delivery phase. Such structures have caused frustration for consumers reporting that they can see fibre coiled on poles, yet they have seemingly no realistic prospect of receiving a fibre service. We expect to conclude this process at the end of May. Secondly, we have been revisiting with BT all of the claim packs submitted by them over the past five years to cleanse the data and confirm the final premises given access to 30 Mbps services as a result of our market intervention. While I am not in a position to confirm the figure today, I can confirm that, in fulfilling its obligations under the grant agreement, BT has delivered a significantly larger volume of premises than either party anticipated at the outset of this project. Finally, we have been establishing the processes and resources required to support the complex defrayment exercise that will confirm the final eligible expenditure under the grant agreement. To date, we have paid BT £300 for every premises, however, the closure of the delivery phase means that we must now work together to balance the books and ensure that all expenditure is eligible and fully evidenced. This process will take several months to conclude, but it is essential to ensure that BT does not benefit from any oversubsidy.

While there continue to be frustrated consumers that cannot yet access the services they require, we must not lose sight of the considerable success that Superfast Cymru has had in delivering access to fast and reliable broadband to thousands of homes and businesses that would not have benefitted without our intervention. I have previously announced an investment of £80 million to reach as many remaining premises as possible. I anticipate that £62.5 million will fund the Superfast Cymru successor project. I can report that our preparations for the successor scheme are well advanced, with the tender exercise ongoing and expected to conclude in June. I aim to announce the successful bidders before the summer recess, with deployment work commencing as swiftly as possible after that. It's clear from other schemes across the UK that the premises remaining will be significantly more expensive to address than those connected during the Superfast Cymru delivery phase. The premises that remain unserved are generally more sparsely distributed and harder to reach. This is why we are investing an additional £31.5 million through the Wales infrastructure investment plan.

The digital landscape is ever evolving and that requires us to constantly look ahead to understand future needs of businesses and residents and whether our interventions continue to meet that need. Our sights are currently set on how we can support and stimulate a progression towards full fibre connectivity. I am pleased to report that the proportion of homes and businesses in the Superfast Cymru intervention area that can get a full fibre service is more than twice that of the UK as a whole. Achieving our 30 Mbps target persuaded BT to invest in significant volumes of fibre to the premises in some very rural parts of Wales. There is currently more fibre into the premises in Powys than anywhere else in BT's network, and the fibre-to-the-premises technology now being delivered across the UK by Openreach was first deployed in Wales. Similarly, we have have constructed the current procurement to favour full fibre services so that we can encourage even greater full fibre penetration where we are investing public funding. Despite a commitment to invest more than £90 million, I am convinced that even this level of funding will not reach all remaining premises. Doing that will require complementary interventions that can operate in parallel with this investment and offer solutions to those not captured by it.  We need to make sure that these complementary interventions address local need, reflect the local demand for services and align with our broader deployment. I hope to be in a position to flesh this out ahead of the summer recess.

Members will be aware that we have been reviewing our ultrafast connectivity voucher and Access Broadband Cymru schemes. I'm pleased to confirm that it's my intention to continue offering a voucher safety net for the foreseeable future. Work is ongoing to streamline the application processes to enhance the experience of those accessing the vouchers. Members will be aware that the UK Government launched a UK-wide gigabit voucher scheme last month. I'm therefore reviewing the ongoing relevance of our ultrafast connectivity voucher scheme to avoid duplication or confusion, and I will update Members further on this ahead of the summer recess. Finally, I am also planning to introduce a novel scheme that supports communities not reached by our latest procurement, but also where voucher support may not be the answer. This approach will not be firmed up until the current procurement has concluded and we have clarity on where the successful suppliers will reach.

Access to broadband is clearly an important issue. However, for businesses that have access, it is equally important to get the most out of it to increase productivity, efficiency and add value. You will have seen the announcement today on the Cardiff University digital maturity survey. This survey shows that the more digitally engaged a business is, the more likely it is to succeed. Our investment in superfast broadband infrastructure and in our business exploitation programme is helping businesses to understand, adopt and exploit the benefits of superfast broadband, increasing turnover, profitability and enabling SMEs to introduce more products and services. I am pleased to see that local public bodies are also championing improvement to digital infrastructure, building on the success of Superfast Cymru in their areas. My officials are working closely with the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, the Cardiff capital city region and the Swansea bay region city deal teams, to help them develop and deliver their digital infrastructure strategies to ensure that they complement the work that we are doing. We are working with local bodies across Wales as they develop bids to the UK Government local full fibre network programme, so that Wales can benefit from the funding available where this can deliver local and regional priorities and complement our national schemes.

With the majority of premises in Wales now able to access superfast broadband, we need to focus on ensuring that homes and businesses take up the service so that they can make the best use of the technology for the benefit of the economy and for society generally. Take-up across the Superfast Cymru intervention area now stands at around 42.5 per cent, which means we're ahead of where we expected to be, and on course to meet our 50 per cent target much earlier than anticipated. This is encouraging and frustrating in equal measures, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is encouraging because the rate of growth is greater than modelled, but it is frustrating because there clearly is room for improvement. It is worth remembering that the greater the take-up, then the greater funding pot available to help reach the have-nots. We are continuing with our campaign to raise awareness of the availability and benefits of superfast broadband with home users. The integrated campaign uses public relations, advertising, events and social media targeted at a regional level. Today, the team are in Llanfair PG, talking to local residents about superfast broadband availability. I would again urge all Members to do what they can to increase take-up in their constituencies.

While broadband continues to be the main focus for many communities and businesses, I also receive calls for improvement to mobile coverage. We are making steady progress in delivering the mobile action plan. The consultation on 'Planning Policy Wales' ends this week, and the proposed changes recognise the wider contribution that telecommunications make to the economy of Wales, and the role of local planning authorities in positively planning for telecommunications in their development plans. This will be followed very shortly by a consultation on new permitted developments rights, including changes to those for mobile phone infrastructure. We have also recently undertaken a call-for-evidence exercise, where we have asked the mobile industry to provide clear evidence on the tangible benefits that introducing a reduction on non-domestic rates for new mobile masts might bring. Officials are currently reviewing that evidence.

We continue to engage with Ofcom to discuss regulation of the mobile industry, and have recently responded to their consultation on coverage obligation for their auction of the 700 MHz spectrum band next year. On 5G, I have asked Innovation Point to advise, stimulate and co-ordinate activity on 5G in Wales, including identifying opportunities to secure funding from the UK Government test bed and trials challenge fund. Our work to improve digital infrastructure is vital to underpin our commitments in 'Taking Wales Forward', and we continue to make good progress. As I have outlined above, I will be able to provide a further comprehensive update ahead of the summer recess.

Leader of the house, can I thank you for your statement this afternoon? I have a number of questions, and I hope you'll be able to answer them specifically. If not, I may have an opportunity to ask you again tomorrow during questions.

You seem to suggest that Openreach have been more than successful in delivering on the terms of the original Superfast Cymru contract, but five months after the drop-dead date, can I ask why you are still unable to provide a definitive list of those premises that haven't received an upgrade? I'm struggling to find why it's so difficult to answer that question. Can you also confirm that Openreach have definitely met the obligations of their original contract, which states that a minimum of 90 per cent of all premises in the contract intervention area are capable of having access to broadband services at a minimum of 30 Mbps, and 95 per cent are able to receive 24 Mbps? Now, you have said in your statement that BT has delivered a significantly larger volume of premises than either party anticipated at the outset of the original project. So, I would struggle to understand why you can't answer that question.

Can I also ask how many premises the second phase will cover? A number of figures have been floated, and my understanding is that the open market review identified 88,000 premises that were considered white premises, and that an assessment of the so-called standard premises had not been included in that figure. So, I'd appreciate any clarification on that. And can I ask how many stranded premises did Openreach manage to complete during the two-month extension, and how many remain? Will these remaining stranded assets be transferred into the next project? You initially envisaged that the Welsh Government would be able to reinvest a predicted £37 million from gain share as a result of take-up of the Superfast Cymru project. You now refer to £31.5 million through the Wales infrastructure investment plan. Can I just ask—I'm not sure what the answer is—is this new money, or is it part of the previously announced £37 million? Can I ask what consideration also has the Government made to require new-build developments over a certain scale to have access to affordable Superfast broadband services without the need for public subsidy?

With regard to the mobile action plan, I think what you call steady progress is actually non-existent progress. I'm sorry to say this, leader of the house, but I really don't think that you've made progress on this. You announced the mobile action plan in January 2017—16 months ago—so what concrete measures can you point to in improving mobile coverage in Wales during that time? So, over the last 16 months, I would say you've done zero in terms of action in reforming existing planning laws, which are delaying and adding costs to enhancing coverage, particularly in rural areas, making Wales the most difficult part in the UK for mobile operators to build infrastructure. And once again, in your statement, you asked for mobile operators to provide yet more evidence. Well, the industry has repeatedly outlined the barriers and solutions that will be required, so why are we experiencing continuing delays? The Scottish Government and the UK Government in England—they've asked for that evidence a long time ago. They've received it from the operators, they've analysed it, they've accepted it, and they've acted on it. So, I am disappointed in this regard. We're falling behind the rest of the UK. And indeed, in England, reform of the planning system has already been enacted. So, do you therefore agree with me that removing the need to process applications from the planning system, via the permitted development rights regime—a principle that is fully accepted everywhere else in the UK—is essential as a matter of urgency? The industry has been clear that reducing the costs of infrastructure deployment is absolutely critical, and I would therefore question why further evidence is required. You have it, so just get on with it so Wales doesn't fall further behind.

I'll take some of those in reverse order, since they are fresh in my mind. I disagree entirely with Russell George's analysis of the situation with mobile there, at the end. As I've said many times, Deputy Presiding Officer, in this Chamber, the geographical problems in Wales are unlike anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We have to have a very large number of masts in order to get the sort of coverage, unless the mobile operators are a good deal more able to plan better and to share and to act, actually, with some civic responsibility for it. Nobody wants to see masts every 50 ft or so right across all of our national parks. [Interruption.] No, tall doesn't do it. They have to be line of sight. It doesn't get into every nook and cranny. The other issue we have made significant progress on, which I'm very pleased with, is the issue around geographical coverage. We've battled with Ofcom, we've battled with the UK Government, who see these products as luxury products, which we do not see them as. 

Actually, a lot of this would be solved if we had sensible conversations about, for example, the need to allow roaming in rural areas. It's quite obvious that it's possible to have a competitive attitude to this in areas of high population where a large number of mobile operators are in evidence, because obviously there are high volumes of customers there. But you know as well as I do that, in large parts of Wales, only one operator is present, and the idea that you say, 'Come to Wales as long as you're on this operator, Mr Tourist, because otherwise you can't get coverage in this area,' is clearly not one that is sustainable. It's obvious to me that the UK Government is going to have to review its view of this as a luxury product and allow roaming in rural and very rural areas, because there's never going to be a large coverage of several mobile operators in that area. As I say, this isn't devolved to us, more's the pity, and if it were, we would do a number of things that I would very much like to see, including treating it as infrastructure. But anyway, we have made significant progress in the planning consultation and we're about to consult specifically on permitted development rights in particular areas of Wales. But, as I say, it's right to have a balance between what the local communities want to see and the coverage that we all need and expect.

Turning to the specific details of the superfast programme, the contract has very specific obligations around postcodes in it and the number of premises identified in each postcode. It's obvious now that more premises have been covered in postcodes than was hitherto the case. That doesn't mean, though, that the grant attaches to all of those premises. There's a very complex calculation to be made about which premises that now are covered are actually covered by the grant agreement. So, it's quite a complex exercise.

We're also revisiting, as I said in my statement, all of the claims packages made over the last five years, and we're doing that partly as a result of my tour around Wales and meeting with various communities where it's been obvious to me that places we thought were connected have not actually been connected. There've been problems with the fibre—one of them was in your own meeting, actually, which identified one of those. So, we've gone back over the claims packages to ensure that we're not paying for something we haven't received and to make sure that all of the data is robust. I make no apology for that. I'm very pleased that that was highlighted as part of my ongoing tour of Wales, and that's a good thing, and we're going through that process. So, that's why it's slightly delayed, but I've always said it would be at the end of May, and, as we approach the end of May, we're still on target to be able to say that.

We're having a complicated conversation with BT around the connection of the stranded assets. There is a complex commercial negotiation—'negotiation' is the only word I can think of—going on about who should pay for them. So, BT have sunk an enormous amount of capital into the ground. They haven't got a penny from us for that, because they've over-bulked the programme. The conversation is: who should pay for the last bit of the connection? That's a complex commercial conversation that is ongoing, and, as soon as we've reached the end of it, I'm more than happy to report it here in the Chamber. But I make no apology for the fact that, obviously, what I want to get out of it is the maximum number of premises for the least cost. So, quite clearly, where we're coming from is we want as many of those assets connected as possible for as little part of the gain share as is humanly possible.

The figures in the gain share are £62.5 million we're allocating to the new procurements from the £80 million available. The rest is being kept back for the bespoke community arrangements that we've discussed at great length. I'm only saying 'ish' because it depends what the procurements come in at, but we've deliberately kept a pocket back in order to get those bespoke solutions for some of the communities, and the investment from the intermediate plan is additional.

I was quite struck by what you just said, leader of the house, in terms of your tour round Wales. I'm very grateful we've had a conversation as well about you and your officials coming down to some of our communities in Carmarthenshire that are facing the frustrations that will be shared by many people and many Members across this Parliament. I'm grateful for that, but I'm very struck by you saying that, actually, communities that you, Welsh Government, thought had been connected, you find by going to these public meetings aren't. That is, at a national scale, I suppose, a parallel experience to what individual constituents of ours have felt, haven't they? They've been given information by Openreach about dates of the provision of the service and, of course, then the goalposts shift ad infinitum. Is there going to be any financial penalty as a result of that? Do you share the anger that some of the constituents felt in the way that you've been misled, and then you come to those communities and you find that out, actually, and you understand how those people feel? I'd like to know a little bit about what the consequences are for Openreach, in terms of the way that they have, by their own admission actually, in front of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, communicated appallingly. I accused them of lying, and they weren't very happy with that. We can choose our own language for it, but, unfortunately, what you've said confirms the experience of many constituents.

In terms of the money that you referred to in your statement, you said that, of the £80 million, £62.5 million will be used to fund the Superfast Cymru successor project. Perhaps you could remind us what the other £17.5 million will be used for. What's the relationship of that money to the £31.5 million that you mentioned in the Wales infrastructure investment plan?

You mentioned full fibre. We've talked a little bit about this. To what extent, in the next wave of the UK Government's programme in this area, and the bidding process, do you see the potential for an all-Wales bid? There have been some localised and regionalised bids within Wales, but do you see some advantage of building a kind of digital fibre spine in the whole of Wales and connecting as many communities as possible at once?

I was quite interested in the comments that you made about Powys, et cetera, in terms of fibre to the premises. A year ago, in the last figures that I looked at, I think Kingston was at 50 per cent of fibre to the premises, probably because of their unique history of public ownership—Kingston Communications as was, or KCOM now. That allowed Hull City Council to build up its infrastructure. The Counsel General floated this possibility—it was in the Plaid Cymru manifesto—of a publicly owned telecommunications infrastructure and broadband company. Is this something that the Welsh Government is actively exploring?

There was quite a range there, so, again, I'll go backwards, and if I miss something out let me know. We are actively exploring that. There are some difficulties, because a large amount of the infrastructure that we've put in place has been done with European funding through a state-aid programme, and then having a company that interferes in the market, to use the parlance, on top of that is problematic to overcome. But, we have a team of officials working on how we can maximise the benefit of the public infrastructure that's there—it'd be through the public sector broadband aggregation, for example, so we have a pipe into every public building in Wales. That's not the Superfast Cymru programme; that's Government pipes into every building. What we can do to exploit that and what we can do to bring its benefits to communities, including things like community Wi-Fi schemes and so on, we're actively researching that at the moment. We're hopefully going to put some pilot schemes in operation very shortly around school communities and so on, so we're very much looking at that.

In terms of the UK full-fibre issue, that's very problematic for us, because our biggest problem still in Wales is getting it out to everybody—some kind of broadband out to everybody. Full fibre is about changing the copper network that's carrying the speeds into full fibre. So, in my home, for example, I don't get superfast speeds but I get high 20s, but that's because I'm on the end of a copper wire. The full-fibre scheme is to change those copper networks into full fibre. That would be great—we've got a lot of communities that are hovering around the 30-ish mark. It would be good for them, but it won't help the people who are not connected at all.

So, in terms of priority, I've got a real desire to get the people who aren't connected at all in first, although there's nothing to stop us having full fibre afterwards. And, of course, we're looking to see how best we can take advantage of the UK's money for full fibre, and we are looking to see whether an all-Wales bid might be more successful in phase 2. We've had some success for local authorities, as I know that Adam Price is aware, in the first stage, so we're very interested in seeing whether we might marshal a bid to do that, but it won't help the people who are not on the network already, which is something that's of some regret.

In terms of the communications, I couldn't agree with you more—the comms have been dreadful. I've had endless discussions with BT about why the comms are so bad. They hide behind semantics—they say that the letters say that things that are scheduled are never definitive and so on, but I myself have hung on the end of a three-month rolling programme for quite some time and I understand totally the frustration of that. I put my hands up to that. When we let this contract, that wasn't an issue, because nobody had it and everybody was delighted when it came. Vast numbers of people were being connected. It became a big issue towards the end of the contract because of the way that the contract was structured, which is that we didn't specify any premises in Wales. BT had to get to 690,000 premises, which, in 2011, was 96 per cent of the premises in Wales; it no longer is. So, I accept that the comms are bad.

That's a different issue to the issue I talked about where we've discovered that some communities' fibre isn't properly connected. So, that's not about the communication with them; that's about the way that the claim has been processed and what we've tested. Some communities in the Presiding Officer's community, actually, and in a couple of others, have said to us, 'Well, I should be able to order fibre.' We've said, 'Yes, we should be able to order fibre.' When we've investigated, it's not been possible for various very complicated engineering connectivity issues back down at the tetrabyte hubs, and so on. So, it's a different issue, but it results in the same frustration for people who are being told one thing and it's not true. But it means we've revisited all the claims, just to be absolutely certain that we're not paying for something that we haven't actually got, and that's ongoing, which is why we're still in that process. I suppose it has the same result for the citizen—the frustration—but it's a very different cause from our point of view.

And then, in terms of the money, the three procurements have been put out to procurement in the ordinary way, and we specified particular areas that we want to—. So, we're prioritising people with very poor mobile coverage, no 4G and very bad broadband in one of them. We're specifying business premises in others, and the three lots have gone out in a very standard procurement way. We're waiting for the responses back to see how many premises will be covered, at what cost, and so on. But we've deliberately kept a pot back to look at bespoke community solutions, because a number of communities have come forward and said, 'We would like to do something very bespoke here with this small company. A group of us have a solution', and we want to be able to fund that, so we've kept a pot back for that.

The moneys are fluid. I'm casting these figures around but this is the gain share, Deputy Presiding Officer, so obviously it's moving. So, the more people buy it, the more money comes in, and we've pledged to put that money in. So, it's a fluid amount of money because it gets bigger. As more percentages join, more money gets spent on it. So, I'm saying 'about' for that reason, but it's about three quarters of it, and a quarter we've kept back. We want to see what community projects come forward and what they look like, and, as I also said, we're committed now to reviewing the ultrafast—the business voucher—because of what the UK has just done, because we want to make sure that we're ahead of that curve as well. They've just announced the gigabit fund, so we want to be ahead of that. So, we will review it in that light.

But it's a very complex grant agreement with BT, and we're very keen that they don't get any money that they're not entitled to and that we get as many connectivity outcomes from it as is humanly possible.    

I'm afraid my analysis of the situation may not be in accord with my Chair of the committee, so I hope he will take it in good part. Can I thank the leader of the house for her statement today, updating the Chamber on digital connectivity in Wales? Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Welsh Government on the excellent progress made so far through their Superfast Cymru programme, especially given Wales's topography and population distribution. We all acknowledge the challenges this brought to the implementation of the Government's ambitions.

Since the summer of 2013, Superfast Cymru, in partnership with BT, rolled out plans to provide superfast broadband to 655,000 premises, with the demand significantly increasing in the following years. The pledge to provide access to a further 40,000 properties in 2014 certainly enlarged Superfast Cymru's target. We must all recognise that managing the ever-changing demand for access speeds of 30 Mbps or more is certainly an unenviable task, particularly in some of Wales's most remote communities.

I do believe, however, that the Welsh Government must set targets that are ambitious but achievable, because access to superfast broadband has swiftly become a fundamental necessity of day-to-day life in the twenty-first century. It is frustrating enough for households who lack sufficient access, but for small businesses desperately trying to modernise and succeed in rural Wales, access to superfast broadband can often be the difference between success and failure. The UK Government's own minimum acceptable download level is 10 Mbps, but still many people in rural Wales suffer average speeds of less than half that. For instance, it was reported last year that in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Montgomeryshire, Ceredigion and Dwyfor Meirionnydd, over 50 per cent of broadband connections were slower than 10 Mbps. Could the First Minister update us on whether this is still the case?

Following on from some comments made by Adam Price, I would like to ask the leader of the house what measures has the Welsh Government put in place to ensure a greater level of communication with those communities that are still failing to receive satisfactory broadband access speeds. Is there still some confusion with regard to whether connectivity has been achieved or not, as in the case of Llangenny village in Brecon and Radnorshire, which formed the basis of a petition to the Petitions Committee? Is the First Minister satisfied that these issues have been addressed?

I note that Access Broadband Cymru has played a vital role to provide broadband to communities that have failed to receive sufficient access and I therefore welcome the announcement in today's statement that the scheme, along with the ultrafast connectivity scheme, will continue for the foreseeable future. We look forward to hearing from the Minister—sorry, from the First Minister—whether the plans and the partnership that he envisages will bring superfast coverage to the remaining 4 per cent in Wales.

Turning to another vital component in the communications roll-out, I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government appear to be heeding the recommendations of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee's report on digital infrastructure in Wales by undertaking a call-for-evidence exercise on the benefits of introducing non-domestic rates relief for new mobile masts.

Finally, does the leader of the house not agree with me that the Government must use whatever leverage it has to encourage mobile operating companies to share their infrastructure in order to provide improved mobile coverage in the many black spot areas?

I'd just like to point out I'm not the First Minister. I do sometimes stand in for the First Minister, but on this occasion I'm just being myself. [Interruption.] No worries. It was just causing other Members to grin, I think. 

So, a number of issues there. The way that the original scheme worked was that we didn't specify any premises at all and BT just had all the premises in Wales to chose from and obviously they went to the ones that were the cheapest and the fastest and the closest together because that's their best commercial advantage. However, I just want to put to bed once and for all the myth that this is not a rural scheme. This is a market intervention: we are not allowed to go with it where any commercial operator goes and therefore there is no Superfast Cymru in any city or conurbation or large development because obviously that's where the commercial roll-out has happened. So, in my own constituency there's no Superfast Cymru, and I can assure you I have people who haven't got broadband, but I'm not able to go there and intervene on their behalf, which is a frustration.

But we have learnt from some of the issues that we had around comms, as I've said in response to a number of Members around the Chamber. In the new schemes that we're putting out, once the proposals come back, we have asked for specific premises. So, the new procurements will be on the basis of specific premises and specific costs and we will be able to tell people immediately whether they're in or out, and the ones who are out, we'll be able to work with proactively to get them involved in the community schemes and the voucher schemes, and the ones who are in, we'll be able to keep them informed on a personal basis about where they are and any engineering problems et cetera, et cetera that arise. So, we've learnt the lesson of the comms and I like to think that, going forward, we won't have that problem. 

We do know within most parameters who is connected and there is an interactive map on the Welsh Government site that tells you if you're a white premises or not. There are small tweaks with that, as I said. As I go around the country, we've found some issues with it, but they're very small. So, by and large, the map is accurate. I would urge Members who do find an inaccuracy on the map to tell me about it because we are working very hard to make sure that that's as accurate as it's possible to make it. 

We did include nearly 2,000 additional business premises through the Airband contract as well, so that's an additional contract we've put in specifically to cover off business premises, because in the initial open market review, a lot of business premises were covered by the commercial companies and then it became increasingly obvious that they weren't going to be covered. So, we did put an additional contract in for that specifically, and that contract is now complete and running.

Lastly, in terms of the shared infrastructure and mobile masts, as I said in response to Russell George, my frustration is that it seems obvious to me that we are not going to have a full commercial market in rural parts of Wales. We'll be lucky if we get a single operator. So, the idea that we don't allow roaming, never mind shared infrastructure, is a matter of huge frustration to me. I just don't see how you can run a tourist business by saying, 'Come to Wales, as long as you're connected to this one operator.' I mean, clearly, that doesn't work. If you have a continental SIM—if you're lucky enough to have one of those—it happily roams around and finds you the operator, so I continue to press Ofcom and the UK Government very forcibly to allow that in rural and very rural parts, where there clearly isn't competition for those services.

I'd like to start by thanking the leader of the house for bringing forward this very important statement today. She will know that this is an important issue for my constituents in Alyn and Deeside and that I have previously raised the issues relating to digital connectivity within this Chamber.

Clearly, getting digital connectivity right is important if Wales and the UK are going to be the global technology leader of the future. I have two points that I'd like to ask the leader of the house about. Firstly, does she agree with me that improving our digital connectivity is vital if we're going to make the best of the developments in smart technology, from driverless cars to autonomous drones and environmental monitoring devices? We need to improve, and we need to do it quickly.

Secondly, does she agree with me that we need to be truly radical on ideas surrounding this issue and build gigabit cities and hubs? For example, Flintshire and Wrexham could link together to become one gigabit hub, and through the design and deployment of this type of future proof, full-fibre infrastructure, we could help bring many of the benefits you've mentioned throughout your statement, including unlimited bandwidth and gigabit-speed connectivity, to entire communities, both urban and rural. Every gigabit city and hub we build would provide local businesses, government, health and education sectors with state-of-the-art facilities and digital infrastructure capable of meeting their data, connectivity and communication needs for decades to come.

We should strive for Wales and the UK to be the global leader of this technology and innovation. The world is already going through a technological revolution, and if we fail to grasp these opportunities that we have in Wales we will regret it.

I couldn't agree with you more, Jack Sargeant; you make a series of very, very good points. Quite clearly, one of the reasons we've invested so many millions of pounds in the roll-out of broadband is because connectivity is absolutely essential. The idea that we continue to treat it in the UK as a luxury product and not an infrastructure is increasingly unsustainable in the modern world, and we really are driven to address that, would that we had the devolved power to do so. But it's clearly increasingly a difficulty because it isn't a luxury. People are actually socially isolated without it and disconnected from global networks and so on. 

So, I very much welcome a meeting with you and any other Member who wants to discuss how we can take that forward. We have just announced a digital taskforce on the economy side of it, but there is a whole pile of other things that we could do in terms of some of our public investment. I talked earlier to Adam Price about some of the issues with the public sector broadband aggregation and what we can do with that. There are lots of opportunities there in areas such as Alyn and Deeside to use the public connectivity of all of the offices for public good and for social good and for economic action. We do have some technical issues to overcome, but I'd welcome a continued conversation on that.

Of course, we have the fibre-speed connectivity network in north Wales as well, and there are some real issues with how we can make sure that people can access some of the advantages that that brings. We've got the full-fibre connectivity issue that I talked about. The British Government is putting out calls for action for full fibre, and there's been a successful bid in the north-east—I get my easts and my wests mixed up—which we are very pleased to see. So, we'll be looking to see what we can do with that. As I said to Adam Price, we'll be looking to see whether we can do an all-Wales bid to match that in the future, although I am very concerned that we're not leaving behind people who are not connected at all while we full-fibre everyone else.

I've also appointed Innovation Point to advise, stimulate and co-ordinate activity on 5G in Wales, as I said. And, as I said in my statement, I'm very concerned that the UK Government does the 700 MHz spectrum sale properly and we don't have the land banking that we've seen with the 4G spectrum, so, basically, we want them to put in a 'use it or lose it' category for that because in large parts of Wales, for example, 4G is not being used by the operators who bought it, and it's very frustrating to us that we can't get it back off them in the way exactly that we were talking about vacant land tax, actually: you've got an asset, and you're sitting on it, and we want to use it for public good.

So, I very much welcome a conversation about how we might take that forward and, actually, with colleagues on the Conservative benches, on what you might bring to bear by way of influence with the current UK Government, because I do think it's a real issue for rural Wales here that isn't seen by people who live in the south-east bubble at all—that this kind of connectivity is very unlikely to be done by a competition-type thing in very rural Wales, and a different solution is necessary. So, we do need to work together very hard to do that, but we're very keen to work together with all of the current city deals, the North Wales Economic Ambition Board and local bodies across Wales to make sure that we do take advantage of the UK Government's programmes for full-fibre networks, and the gigabit hubs will absolutely be an essential part of that, because unless we ride that wave, then we're going to be engulfed by it. So, I very much welcome your input on this.

We're running out of time on this statement, so if we can have short questions and answers, I'll try and call the three remaining speakers. Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you again. Just to reiterate, really, you've been extremely helpful and co-operative to concerns I've raised with you, and I think it's fair to say I've raised plenty. But just taking you back quickly to the meeting that you came to where we had over 100 people very concerned in the room, and one of the big things that came through was the issues with BT themselves, in terms of their communications with our constituents and then them having to ultimately come to me. One of the constituents asked, and was supported by the whole room, as to going forward—and I know it's a difficult one for you—but going forward with the tender processes. If there's this feeling, the lack of confidence in BT itself, how will this impact on (a) you going forward in terms of having confidence in dealing with them again? But my bigger concern is in your statement today where you mention: 

'To date, we have paid BT £300 for every premises, however, the closure of the delivery phase means that we must now work together to balance the books'.

And when it says 'work together', who with? And:

'ensure that all expenditure is eligible and fully evidenced. This process will take several months to conclude, but it is essential to ensure that BT does not benefit from any oversubsidy.'

That, to me, is a little bit vague, and in terms of audit processes, I just wonder how you can actually just give us a little bit more confidence that there will be a rigorous look at this, because I know, in my constituency, you were probably surprised by how many people themselves believed they were getting it—they were told they were getting it, they still haven't got it, and yet they are actually in this current roll-out phase.

So, there are still a lot of questions to be asked about BT's part in this, and I think you've probably taken a lot of flak over the past few months for something that's not actually been your fault, but it's what influence and what power you have as a Cabinet Secretary, as the Welsh Government, against BT, because I think they're well aware of my concerns, because I had them at the meeting as well.

The Member makes the points that many Members make all the time about the comms issue, and I won't rehearse it, Llywydd; we've been through it many times before, but we have learnt that lesson. So, going forward, it will be a condition of the new contracts, for whoever wins them, that the communication is direct with—. We will have named premises in those contracts; we won't have the fishing pond effect that we have this time. We will know who's in the contract and who isn't, and we'll be able to put a comms policy in place, because we have learnt that lesson very much. Indeed, I have taken a lot of flak on that subject from around Wales, I think it's fair to say.

In terms of the grant claims, we would always go through a vigorous process at the end of any contract. It has severe financial penalties in it, so it's in our interest and the contractors' interest to make sure that we're both on the same page about what's being claimed, why it's being either agreed or not agreed, and what the processes for that are. And, obviously, they claim it, we say 'no', they say 'yes', we go back and forth quite a few times, and now we're going through the whole contract again at the end to make sure that we're all clear exactly on what basis we've paid for which claim, why, and why we've said 'no' or 'yes' and so on.

So, that's the process. I'm very happy that it's very vigorous. It has been informed by my tour of Wales, where some people, I think, even in the Llywydd's constituency the other day, we thought were connected were saying that they weren't. So, we've put our teams back out onto the ground to check, verify those claims once more and to just test the whole process one more time. So, I'm very pleased about that, and, as I said, there are complex issues in the grant agreement around the numbers of premises that could be claimed in each postcode, but it's now obvious that they've connected far more premises in many of those postcodes than we anticipated, or indeed, than they'll be paid for under the grant agreement, so that's a good thing, but we're still very keen that they don't get subsidy for things that weren't in the original contract.

Thank you, leader of the house, for your statement. For my questions today, I’d like to link some of the points in your statement back to 'Our Valleys, Our Future'. As you know, that document sets out an ambition to develop a digital vision for the Valleys, which centers on working with communities to identify how technology can be used to deliver better outcomes for people living and working there. Can the leader of the house update us on progress towards achieving this? Specifically, what interventions, in terms of both digital connectivity and digital infrastructure, will be needed to drive this forward?

Secondly, another action from the Valleys taskforce was to support the creation of digital jobs in the Valleys. This could be crucial in driving their future economic prosperity, but again requires that the digital infrastructure is capable of meeting expectations. How is the leader of the house building this into her work?

I've listened to two excellent questions. We had a very good meeting of the Valleys taskforce in the Neath constituency, actually, very recently, where we went through, with the taskforce lead, exactly what's happening across the Valleys taskforce area. I think Lee Waters was present at that meeting. We came up with three very concrete actions, but I'm afraid I'm not going to pre-announce them, because my colleague Alun Davies would be very cross if I do, so you'll have to wait with bated breath for him to announce it to us. But, that piece of work has gone very well indeed, and we have some very creative and innovative ideas to share with the Valleys communities in some of the pilot areas and hubs, which I'm very delighted by. We will be helping the SMEs in that area to take advantage of some of the data-driven possibilities that have come forward, because we've done a big exercise in what public data is available and what can be shared in the Valleys communities as well. So, it's not just about the connectivity, it's about what can be done with the data that then travel over those networks.

We've also mapped the entire area for the best connectivity and we mapped those to the hubs that we've spoken about. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport has just announced a cross-Government digital taskforce that will be looking to see what we can do to best grasp the economic benefits of that, and a number of you, I know, have been involved in discussing that with him, me and with Alun. We've been working right across the Government. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs and myself have had great long conversations about precision agriculture and some of the benefits that can be brought, through connectivity, for our farming industries as well. Many of our Valleys communities are in those categories, so a lot can be done with that, and I think we'll be very well placed as a result of our work, both on the connectivity—the hard stuff—but actually, more importantly, the skills and soft stuff that goes with it, to make sure that our Valleys communities really get the boost they deserve as a result of the expenditure that we've put into this.

Finally, Lee Waters.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'll keep my comments brief. I acknowledge what you're saying about not losing sight of the considerable success in the scheme, but inevitably, it's the sore thumb that gets attention. You said that work is ongoing to streamline the voucher scheme. I just want to raise with you the case of my constituents in Bynea in Llanelli, who've been very frustrated that Openreach would not install fibre optic broadband and each of them have to apply for an Access Broadband Cymru voucher to enable them to commission an independent supplier. They've now been waiting 11 weeks. They have speeds of 0.04 to 0.6 Mbps, and understandably, they are very frustrated. So, I wonder if you could offer them any comfort.

I can indeed. If you want to write and give me the details of contacts for them, we have a business exploitation team whose expertise is in bringing communities together in order to exploit the voucher with some dispatch. And we've got a team who are very good indeed at getting the best out of that system. And before they go and spend their money on the voucher scheme, we'd also have a very good idea of what was coming down the line in terms of the new procurements and so on. So if you give me the detail on that, I'm more than happy to put that team in touch.

Llywydd, I've made that offer at all of the meetings that I've done in public around Wales, so I'll just make it openly in the Chamber. If Members are aware of a group of people who want to come together to use the voucher scheme in any innovative way, or if they have any other innovative solution they want to bring forward, if you want to draw their details to my attention, we have a team of people whose purpose it is to go out and assist that to happen. So, if you want to let me know, we can certainly speed that up.

Thank you to the leader of the house.

The next item is the debate on the role of the planning system in placemaking. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. The quality of the places where people live and work has a direct impact on well-being. It is vital that people can walk from their homes to work, to the shops, doctors' surgeries and schools their families use without having to get in their cars. This has a positive impact on mental and physical health, as well as reducing emissions and improving air quality. Access to services by walking, cycling or using public transport must be a key consideration.

In thinking about any new development we must also look at how the design or layout will affect the residents' daily lives. Our green spaces, which improve health and well-being, and provide habitats for flora and fauna, must also be considered. Placemaking is the way to bring these issues together to create sustainable, thriving communities. Placemaking embraces the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and puts it at the forefront of discussions that affect the built environment.

As we all know, none of this is easy. There are many competing interests to think about. The planning system is integral to balancing these interests. We must ensure we build high-quality developments that have a positive impact on the economy, the environment and our communities. We must manage new development in the public interest.

Placemaking is essential. It must become the central feature of our planning system. To achieve this we must focus on outcomes rather than simply counting the number of homes we build or how long it takes to determine a planning application. These things are still important, however, we need to consider quality as well as quantity. The Welsh Government is leading on this issue. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act sets a template for public organisations to consider sustainable communities and placemaking. We've revised 'Planning Policy Wales' to put placemaking at the heart of our national planning policy. It clearly states the consideration of creating good places must be done early in LDP development and the design of individual schemes. Consultation on the draft PPW closes on Friday, and I look forward to reading the responses. I will publish the final policy in the autumn.

I'm pleased the draft document has been welcomed across sectors, particularly when compared to policy across the border. In a recent comparison between draft PPW and draft English planning policy, Hugh Ellis, director of policy in the Town and Country Planning Association, commented positively. He said England had fallen very far behind the ambition and competence of the Welsh in developing coherent policy with strong objectives and outcomes identified.

The national development framework raises our ambitions for effective placemaking. It will look at what infrastructure and strategic policies are needed to shape Wales. I'm currently seeking views on the preferred option for the NDF and the policy direction it should take in leading major development decisions in Wales for the next 20 years. Consultation on this continues until July.

An adopted local development plan is essential for a planning authority to express its vision for an area. Where issues are complicated, impacting on a number of authorities, a strategic approach to placemaking through strategic development plans may also be necessary. This whole package of planning policies at the national, strategic and local levels must work together to ensure we achieve placemaking on the ground through consistent decisions on planning applications that help to create a better place. To achieve our placemaking ambition we need local authority planning departments to be adequately resourced. This should include individuals from the wide array of the built environment professions, including planners, designers, ecologists, conservationists and regeneration officers.

I continue to support local planning authorities' work with the planning advisory service to fully understand their costs. I'm committed to moving toward full cost recovery with increased application fees retained to improve delivery of planning services. I'm currently supporting work by the Royal Town Planning Institute to produce a toolkit to better understand the value the planning system brings to an area, and will be announcing the results for Wales next month. The toolkit will allow each local authority to estimate the value generated by the planning system for their area, and meet the case for increased resources. We must work together to achieve a shared vision of what Wales can be like in the future, where people and placemaking are put at the centre of our decisions on development. I look forward to hearing Members' views on this important topic this afternoon.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion, and I call on David Melding to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. David Melding. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I'm pleased to move the amendments, and I'm pleased to take part in this debate. I'm not sure we discuss planning very often, but it's very, very important. To reciprocate the generosity of the Minister in bringing this forward this afternoon, I'd like to start in an area where there is undoubted agreement, and that is that good planning and development of coherent places is essential for the long-term health and well-being of the people of Wales. If I could quote the Royal Town Planning Institute:

'cities will be the places that determine the health and the wellbeing of the majority of the population in the twenty-first century. As the costs linked to health conditions are increasingly unsustainable and are expected to increase in the years to come, we need to take a long-term, preventive and proactive view to promote healthy cities.'

And, of course, this goes for towns and even for villages as well. It's very important that we have effective and ambitious planning. For instance, green spaces provide a natural escape within densely populated and bustling neighbourhoods, for residents and workers alike. As a recent study reported in The Guardian said, researchers found that each degree of increase in surrounding greenness led to a 5 per cent improvement in the development of short-term working memory over a period of one year. Additionally, if we analyse the impact that a well-designed development with better transport infrastructure could have on air quality, there are also significant benefits to be made for the long-term health and well-being of residents.

So, I agree that we need to be more ambitious in our vision, and I'm delighted to say, Llywydd, that the Welsh Conservatives will be bringing forward our own ideas in a policy document that we're publishing on Thursday, in advance of our conference on Friday; I'm not supposed to give that a plug, I suspect, but you are generous as ever.

If I can turn to point 2, we've amended this just because I don't want to give such an open endorsement to the Government's approach, though I am pleased to watch their work in progress, if I can put it that way. So, our first amendment just emphasises the need to adapt our systems and make them more holistic, so that the built environment, in particular, can ensure there's an increase in the supply of land for housing. This is not a housing debate, and I've often pointed out the UK's housing crisis, which unfortunately is as bad in Wales as it is in any other part of the country. So, I do want to see a more effective system that increases the supply of land for housing, and then for that housing to be built, and for it to be built to a high standard, both in the design of each house, but also in the overall neighbourhood design and integration of green spaces, and sustainable transport systems and the like.

We really do need to do this at pace. I think that's the argument I would make here, and I'm very much hoping that the affordable housing review will say that we need to increase very significantly the supply of new homes. Of course, that will require very high-quality planning. Those homes are going to be around for decades and decades to come, so we want to ensure that we make the best of things for future generations as well.

And point 3, then, the only issue I have here, really, is that these matters are pretty much out to consultation, so I'm not sure they need to be so strongly endorsed as coherent national placemaking. At the moment, though, as I said, I do see this as work in progress and we look forward to taking part in this, because I think there can be many areas of real deep agreement, and it's certainly in the public interest that we find those and that we do our best for present and future generations. So, I would just like to see the consultation responses to the two documents, one of which only went out a couple of weeks ago, come back. So, I think we need a bit more information. But, as I said, it's meant to be a constructive amendment, though I suspect it won't get much support from the Government, but it's important that we put it on record.

And then, point 4. I think it's important—I'd agree with this, what the Government said—to emphasise the role of professionals in delivering the highest quality places that we can get. There is an issue around that expertise in the planning departments, and that's a welcome review.

I see time is rapidly running out. Can I just say we will support the Plaid Cymru amendment, because I think it's very important that TAN 20 does get reviewed and the place of Welsh-speaking communities in this is really important? I'm not going to commit the Welsh Conservatives to having a separate Welsh planning inspectorate. I'm open to the argument, but I don't think it's been made yet, and it's really important we get the highest quality expertise and professionals coming from England to work in Wales and vice versa. So, I'm not so sure about that bit. But I still want to support your amendment, because of what it says about TAN 20. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call on Siân Gwenllian to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much. At the outset, Plaid Cymru would like to bring a slightly different vision to the table—different to what is outlined in the Government’s motion, or perhaps additional to what’s included in the Government’s motion, because we believe that we need to recognise that the planning system has a role to play in maintaining and creating viable communities as a means of securing the health and well-being of the people of Wales. We believe that the planning system in Wales should reflect the need for appropriate housing in the right places, in accordance with local need, and that the planning system should give a greater voice to communities in terms of developments in their areas. Also, the planning system should enable holistic planning at the appropriate level.

In turning to the Government motion, placemaking—and I see that that’s where the emphasis is, on placemaking—that can mean a number of different things to different people. What’s important in our view is securing a balance in the planning system. We need more than warm words about the future well-being of people and communities to ensure that the system works in a way that delivers that. In order to deliver placemaking that improves the long-term well-being of people and communities, you need a balance in the planning system, between developers on the one hand and communities on the other. You also need a balance between giving guidance to local planning authorities at a national level and, on the other hand, securing a strong voice for our communities.

This is true in all areas, but Plaid Cymru has taken this opportunity today to table an amendment that emphasises the role of the Welsh language and the position of the Welsh language within the planning regime. At the moment, there is a lack of guidance from the Welsh Government as to how the Welsh language should be dealt with within the planning system. There is an opportunity with the national development framework to show clear leadership in planning. From the point of view of the Welsh language, the new framework should include a clear statement on the importance and relevance of the Welsh language in delivering spatial planning. The Welsh language needs to be there at the top of the agenda in all policy areas so that it will be truly meaningful. If we are to safeguard and promote the Welsh language through the planning system, then we need to be aware that that isn’t an easy issue for local authorities because there isn’t much information or expertise available in this area.

Joint strategic planning between local authorities is a means of sharing expertise and resources. The joint local development plan by Gwynedd and Môn, adopted in 2017, was contentious in certain aspects, but it does deliver a policy on a local housing market and it lists specific areas, usually where there’s been major development in the past or where there’s a high percentage of holiday accommodation, and in those areas there are planning conditions on new homes in order to restrict their occupation to people with strong local connections. The opinion of a number of planning experts is that this is an innovative policy and that good practice should be shared, as should the methodology and processes used by Gwynedd and Anglesey, with a view to rolling out this policy more broadly.

Turning specifically to TAN 20, yes, there is a need to reform and amend TAN 20 as a matter of urgency, because it is unclear and, according to some experts, contradicts what is in the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. So, Plaid Cymru is calling on the Welsh Government to amend TAN 20 urgently in order to make it clear that assessments of the impact of individual applications on the Welsh language in specific circumstances need to be carried out and also to make it clear that it’s possible for local authorities to carry out assessments of the impact of individual planning applications on the Welsh language on all occasions if they choose to do that.

Finally, in discussing the Planning Inspectorate, and accepting that you may need some further persuasion in order to deliver this over the next few months—not this afternoon; I don’t have time to persuade you this afternoon—the four nations of the UK do have separate legislation and policies for planning, and Scotland and Northern Ireland have systems that correspond to the England-and-Wales Planning Inspectorate. With planning legislation in Wales continuing to develop, I do think that it’s time to create a separate planning inspectorate for Wales, so that the inspectorate can develop expertise—the kind of expertise that David Melding mentioned was necessary. If the system is changing, then the expertise needs to change too, and we could do that in a Wales-only planning system. I look forward to continuing this discussion over the next few months. Thank you.

I very much welcome this debate. I think that planning is something that impinges on everybody's lives and I've actually seen petitions coming in where more people have signed the petition in a council area than voted in the previous council election. It really does—it's an issue that gets to people. I don't think that anybody who's sat as a councillor would not be able to tell you of the literally hundreds of letters they've had, and petitions, opposing a planning development somewhere or other. 

Of course, until 1948, or 1 July 1948, you could build what you liked where you liked as long as you owned the land. And that was a major success. I often speak very highly of the 1945-51 Labour Government, but that was another one of its successes—one of the ones that is less heralded but probably has had as much of an effect on people's lives as anything apart from the health service—when owners could just build what they liked where they liked as long as they owned the land. We've got to remember there's still land today that had use prior to 1948 where that right still exists, it hasn't been extinguished, and every time the local development plan or the old county plan goes there, they keep that in. There was land in Swansea East that was designated for coal duff pre 1948, and they kept that planning permission until the 1990s and it was only extinguished when the land was used for housing development.

I recognise that high-quality, well-designed developments and places are essential to the long-term health and well-being of the people of Wales, but we also need transportation. There are estates built continually—and I can think of one in Rebecca Evans's constituency, I can think of one in my own—that are almost isolated in terms of public transport. If you haven't got a car, you're in trouble. 

We need homes to be built. We need industrial and commercial development. Can I just praise something the Welsh Government did well before I came here, which was the Swansea Vale development, which was a Welsh Development Agency and Swansea council development where housing, commercial and industrial development have been built in the same area very successfully? If you drive through it, you probably wouldn't know about some of the industrial development and commercial development because they're down little side streets and they are all well covered with trees to such an extent that, unless you know where you're going, you wouldn't know what was down there.

Of course, we have the major planning dichotomy: local residents oppose a development; the landowner wants the development—the land is going to make people large sums of money. The planning committee decides. If it ended there, residents would generally be happy. While other local government decisions can go to the ombudsman, can go to judicial review, planning decisions have this intermediate step. I've never understood why we need this intermediate step of a planning inspector. They come in, they make decisions, they don't know the area—they make decisions that are quite often baffling. They allow developments that cause serious problems. They don't have to come again. They don't have to live with the problems they've created. A little problem in the ward I used to represent—a single house was knocked down and it had enough room for two houses. They built three. The three houses have never been sold. So, I think it really is very important that we do have decisions made locally. I would abolish planning inspectors tomorrow if it was up to me. There's no rhyme or reason for them, and I don't know anybody who would actually—[Interruption.]—actually can argue why is that. They're an intermediate step, which—judicial review, if you don't like it.

As a county councillor, like others here, I was involved in creating a county structure plan that designated land for different uses. The district councils then produced district plans, similar to the current local development plans. Areas could be designated across the county for housing, but others could be designated for forestry or mining at that time. So, you designated areas so you knew what was happening in each area. Individual councils are too small; the county councils were, in many respects, too small for making decisions on that regional basis. That's why I support decisions made on the city regions and north and west Wales regions because that would mean that we have this integration. This isn't something that Alun Davies wants to merge, actually, but a development at Trostre had a serious effect on retail in Swansea—[Interruption.]—a serious problem with retail in Swansea. So, I think it really is important.

Can I just turn to Plaid Cymru on their view? I think it really is important that the Welsh language is treated exactly the same as the environment and, instead of technical advice notes, we have a language impact assessment, in the same way as you have an environmental impact assessment. I would hope that that is something that people would look at. See how the language—. There's a difference between building 200 houses in Caernarfon and building 200 houses in Chepstow in the sense of the effect it has on the language. I know what Caernarfon's like. I've spent a substantial amount of time there, and it's one of the places where Welsh is spoken by so many people that it becomes the natural language of the community. I speak Welsh most of the time when I'm in Caernarfon, because it's the language of the community. I think, when you've got 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the population speaking the language, it becomes the community language. When you've got under 50 per cent, you know that the chances are that, when you speak to somebody, they won't speak Welsh so people don't go ahead with it.

And I'd just finally say that I'd love to hear an argument for why we need planning inspectors—why judicial review and the ombudsman, which is good enough for every other decision made by local authorities, isn't good enough for planning.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. There is a phrase, a particular phrase that we're using here today, and that is 'placemaking'. It's a pretty phrase, but we do have to make sure that it actually means something. The Welsh Government's chief planner recently spoke about planning needing to take a holistic approach so that planners can shape places that are attractive and sociable. Yes, we do need a holistic approach—that's beyond doubt—but often it seems that, at the moment, there is no really holistic approach to planning.

Mike Hedges made some very valid points just now. He was talking about a particular area in Swansea, Swansea Vale, I believe, but the problems that he highlighted there are probably endemic. We have in Cardiff similar issues of many new residential estates being built that are far away from employment opportunities and also there is a lack, in many cases, of public transport. So, we need to be building residential areas with access to jobs.

We also need to be thinking about where the jobs are actually created. In and around Cardiff, there are plenty of places where jobs have been created in the past 30 years that are not particularly accessible. There are factory units in an area known as Wentloog, and informally as 'the Lambies'. A few years ago, I was having a look at job vacancies down there, but it was pretty much impossible as I didn't drive and there weren't any buses going over there. I've just had a look at the Cardiff Bus route map today, and there is more development down there now in terms of employment—we now have, for instance, a major film studio down there—but there are no buses going down there still; it's a complete black hole as far as public transport's concerned. So, we do still have these problems.

Business parks are a particular issue because they're often built far away from residential areas, so I think it really would be a good idea to think about embracing this idea of the Swansea Vale-type development where you do have the employment opportunities close to the new residential areas.

There are other things that could help in urban places. For instance, in Cardiff, we don't have many circular bus services. It seems that everything has to go into and out of the city centre. So, if you have a business park on one edge of the city and you have a new housing estate on another edge, you have to get a bus in, let's say from Pontprennau—40 minutes into town—and then a bus out to St Mellons business park, which is another 40 minutes, when they're only three miles apart. London has plenty of circular bus services, but in Cardiff we don't really have them. We're having this whole debate in Cardiff about the local development plan, which will see lots of new housing developments in the west of the city, without the transport infrastructure to back it up. So, we have to wait for the south Wales metro to turn up at some point in the future. In the meantime, until that arrives, we are heading for traffic gridlock in the west of the city.

We've been talking a lot about strategic planning recently, and again today, and there doesn't seem to be any real strategic thinking there. Now, the placemaking system, we're being told, is being reworked, to take account of the well-being of future generations Act, but the well-being goals are coming in the midst of a massive concreting over of the green belt. The bus station in Cardiff has disappeared; we now have a lovely collection of shiny new office blocks in Central Square, which means more people coming into the city centre to work. Why? Jobs are going from the edge of the city, such as the tax office in Llanishen, so that more people can work in the middle of the city. Again, this doesn't appear to be great planning. And many of these jobs are public sector jobs, like HMRC and BBC Wales. We seem to have no control in this place, or perhaps in any other place, over decisions that are taken on these issues, even in major public sector organisations.

Mike Hedges makes lots of points on these issues. Now, he's raised again today the county plans. I'm very interested when he raises them, because, essentially, it seems that when the Welsh Office scrapped the county councils, in the mid 1990s, so that we had unitary authorities, nobody seemingly thought to replace the county council strategic planning functions. So, I'm rather intrigued as to why nobody thought of this, because we didn't get the Welsh Assembly—maybe Hefin can enlighten me when he speaks in a minute—until a few years later. So, certainly, it wasn't the intention at that time that the job of strategic planning would be moved up a level to the Assembly, because the Assembly didn't exist. So, I await to be enlightened, and I'm sure it will be very interesting.

Looking at the motion, we in UKIP agree broadly with the motion today regarding placemaking, but we hope that the process we end up with will be more than just platitudes—we hope there will be meaningful change. Of course, we do like the idea of local referenda when there are major planning decisions affecting people in their neighbourhoods. We do broadly support the opposition amendments. There are issues with the Conservative amendments. We don't really want—. Of course we want housing, but we don't want major developments that aren't welcomed by the established residents. We share doubts over planning inspectorate Wales; we may be replicating mistakes that led to the creation of Natural Resources Wales, with expertise being lost. So that's certainly an issue. We do agree with the broad thrust of what Plaid Cymru are generally saying. Yes, there is a role, theoretically, certainly, for—. Welsh speakers have struggled in the housing market in parts of rural Wales, but we know there are differing opinions, even within Plaid, as to how far local housing and planning decisions should be and can be influenced by Welsh language considerations. But of course Siân is right, it is a major consideration; we have to think about these things.

We're not actually disagreeing with anyone today, but we do need to get beyond platitudes, and to get to a planning system that actually works for local people. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm really pleased to be able to just contribute a few minutes on this, having spent my previous life working through, on the Conwy County Borough Council planning department, with them and their LDP. It was a nightmare. We had to take so many evidence sessions, we had to prove the Welsh Government wrong when they sent two Government officials up, and told us the numbers of houses we had to have. It wasn't about placemaking at that time, and we're now living—. It was a previous Welsh Government Cabinet, but we're now living with some of those problems. And the annoying factor is, not only have we deposited our LDP here, applications are now coming in thick and fast for areas that have never been identified in our LDP, and of course the finger of blame is pointing to TAN 1. When you speak to some constituents of mine, they probably think TAN 1 is about a particular shoe leather colour, but when you actually look into the actual implications of TAN 1, it has turned around what we had, which was an 8.1 year supply, I think, now, to three, and it's all about residual building house numbers. I won't bore you with the detail, but if ever you want a one-to-one lesson on TAN 1, and the mess that it is at the moment—. And the Cabinet Secretary, to be fair, has said to many questions that I've raised on it that she is listening and that she's going to be looking at it in some further detail.

On larger planning applications, we've heard, 'Oh, brownfield sites must be used first', but yet, we still see this good agricultural land, good-quality grade agricultural land, coming forward, and the policy of where it shouldn't threaten the well-being of the farm. All that seems to be is that we say one thing here in policy, but in real terms, it doesn't apply. And the latest application—in September, I'll be speaking at a planning inquiry again. That should have been in March, then it was put off until May. And this is an application that has raised well over 1,300 objections. It has local councillors, it has the ward members, cabinet members—it has everybody saying, 'No, no, no, we cannot take any more infrastructure on this particular piece of land.' But when planning members were trying to defend it, they were trying to use the Welsh language and make relevance to it in policy, and actually wanting assessments. And on the ground, literally, it's not coming through. As stated in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales' edition,

'when identifying sites to be allocated for housing in development plans, planning authorities must follow a search sequence, starting with the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within settlements'.

It isn't happening. I've raised countless times in this Chamber about the changes to methodology for calculating the housing land supply. This was proposed in 2014. Seventy-nine per cent of planning authorities, including Conwy, disagreed with the proposals, with those opposed favouring the past build rates methodology instead. As a result of the subsequent changes to the methodology outlined—as you can see, I'm keen to get this on the record—under TAN 1 guidance in 2015, many planning authorities have seen their housing land supply figures absolutely skewed now. And this is placing a huge amount of pressure on the local authority planning officers, and it's actually setting them at a disadvantage with elected members. And let's not forget, in a true democracy, it is the elected members who are there to represent their constituents, who should really be able to be part of the decision process.

I know that there's been strong sentiment here today about getting rid of the Planning Inspectorate. I've even been asked recently on some applications that have gone forward why there is a planning inspection for failed developments going forward that could be overturned at planning inspections, but there's not an appeal process for people who have things granted that they don't agree with. So, maybe that needs to be looked at. There needs to be some balance to the planning process full stop.

'Planning Policy Wales' paragraph 2.14 states that if

'policies in an adopted LDP are outdated for the purposes of determining a planning application...local planning authorities should give the plan decreasing weight in favour of other material considerations such as national planning policy'.

TAN 1 paragraph 6.2 states that

'Where the current study shows a land supply below the 5-year requirement...the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with development plan and national planning policies.'

Now is a very timely moment for you to be looking at this in a most strategic manner, Cabinet Secretary. I'm fully behind and back a lot of the proposals in the well-being of future generations Act, and I think that the planning policy of our communities is a really good way to start to implement a lot of not just the aspirations, but the goals and ambitions of that Act. So, thank you, and just make sure you listen about TAN 1. Thank you.

For some time since I was elected, there's been some distance between my view and the Welsh Government view. And, in recent days, Janet Finch-Saunders will be glad to know that the Welsh Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, has gone some way to bridging the distance between us, and I'm very pleased—and I'll elaborate on why in a minute—that the Cabinet Secretary has taken the steps to do that. I've long felt that planning policy delivered through the mechanism of individual local development plans has been skewed too far in favour of the big housing developers and too far against local people and SME house builders, which I've mentioned before. The market has created a gap between local democracy and planning policy. We need to change that market, and we need to use market intervention to change that market. 

In 2016, Caerphilly County Borough Council scrapped its LDP after listening to the views of local people. I've not seen stronger views expressed on many other issues, as Mike Hedges alluded to. Part of the problem, the reason that the local development plan wasn't working, was because viability of land meant profitability for the big developers, and land that was not viable, not profitable, wasn't being taken up by developers. There were brownfield sites in Caerphilly's LDP going back to the Rhymney Valley District Council days, which had been in there but weren't developed because they weren't viable. The result of Caerphilly's problem has been speculative planning applications, many of which have been overturned—overturned decisions of the local authority—and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary herself felt forced to overturn one decision last year, which did cause great problems in my community.

When appealing against rejected planning applications, developers have often used the local authority's lack of a five-year land supply as a justification for overturning the original decision of local residents, leading to that great anger. The importance of the provision of a five-year land supply comes from technical advice note 1, as Janet Finch-Saunders noted, set out by the Welsh Government. Therefore, I am delighted to hear that the Cabinet Secretary says she's going to disapply TAN 1, thereby reducing the pressure on local authorities and removing the ability of developers to use the lack of a five-year supply as grounds for overturning the decision of democratically elected local authorities. I note, when it comes to the provision of local development plans in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales', edition 10—and I've underlined the point on page 13—

'LDPs have to be in general conformity with the NDF and SDP and cannot be adopted unless they are.'

I think that the Caerphilly plan, had it been according to that 'Planning Policy Wales' document, would not have been in line with a national development framework and strategic development plan, had one been in place.

Since being elected, I've campaigned for local authorities in south-east Wales to have a strategic development plan, and the footprint that I'm arguing for is alongside the Cardiff capital region. In answer to Gareth Bennett's point, when has this strategic plan been introduced? Well, it was part of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, which the Welsh Government introduced. The Welsh Government had taken proactive action, before we were elected to this Assembly in the fourth Assembly, to introduce strategic development planning, and now it's been reflected in the draft 'Planning Policy Wales' document, which is a good thing. It's received cross-party support, the strategic development plan from the Cardiff capital region, which is something that we should welcome. The disapplication of TAN 1 removes a further hurdle to local authorities being able to get together and work on a comprehensive strategic development plan. What they need now from the Welsh Government is the buy-in and support for the creation of an SDP, and more flexibility in terms of the requirement to produce LDPs. Due to several years of austerity, our local authorities are under increasing pressure in terms of finance and resources, and therefore their individual planning departments are stretched. I recognise point 4 of the motion, and I support it, but in putting our resources into planning policy, the best place to put it, I think—certainly in my area, south-east Wales—would be towards the development of a strategic development plan.

As a result, I'm calling on the Welsh Government to take a more sympathetic view of light-touch LDPs from local authorities, as councils pool their increasingly scarce resources to focus on the common endeavour of producing a strategic development plan. According to 'Planning Policy Wales', the draft edition, SDPs form a huge part of that planning jigsaw, as does the national development framework. The problem we currently have is that we are working from the bottom up, doing our LDPs first, then our SDPs, and then fitting in with the national development framework. The pyramid is upside down; I think we need to start from the other end. Individual local authorities are currently expected to produce their LDPs first, and only after that can they move on to their SDPs. I think that builds the jigsaw the wrong way. I think you need to start with your strategic development plan. I call on the Government to recognise that and not to not have LDPs, but to have those light-touch LDPs. I think we can get this right. As I say, I've been incredibly persistent on planning. I've been described by someone I won't name as a 'planning bore' and I know that the Chamber would not agree with that, I'm sure. [Interruption.] Thank you.

Our planning system can address these issues. I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep on to this. I believe that it's now up to the Welsh Government, and the Welsh Government is taking significant steps, enabling our planning policy to improve.

I think what Janet Finch-Saunders said about policy saying one thing and the reality being something different is very apt. The motion here acknowledges that having strong, national placemaking policies and planning policies, blah, blah, blah—. The reality is that we don't have these things in place. I support the Conservative amendments, saying that the country planning system needs adaptation—it clearly does. I support the Plaid Cymru amendment—the language needs to count and also we need a separate planning inspectorate for Wales. It's basic common sense.

The issue for me with planning, and especially the local development plans, is that our communities in Wales have already been sold out. For people in the west of our capital city, it is too late: 8,000 houses going up and no infrastructure. I dread to think how bad it will be. Local development plans don't work, as my colleague from Caerphilly said—he is completely correct; it's the wrong way around. Every public meeting I go to, of which there are a lot nowadays, housing comes up every single time. Local people cannot afford housing in their locality and the properties that are being thrown up are far too expensive.

The whole planning system needs a huge overhaul. The system allows speculation. Land has been reclassified and a huge amount of money has been made—billions of pounds. I refer you to the Lisvane land deal, which will go down in history really: £39 million lost on just one deal. The irony of planning is that there is no real planning in the system. What you have is basic anarchy, and the developers rule. We are losing really good agricultural land, as has been said, with farms being built on, and if you look at food security in the future, then that's a huge worry. Also, in terms of flooding in certain areas, that's another issue, as concrete is spewed on top of really beautiful country fields and woods at the minute.

Finally, I think the biggest gap in the whole system is a complete lack of democracy, where you have just one or two inspectors who can dictate to whole local authorities, elected by the people. If you look at our experience in the west of Cardiff, where I have a current interest as a councillor and where we ran a referendum, thousands of people voted—thousands—and all those people were ignored, and it's about time that we had community sovereignty in Wales, where communities are sovereign and they decide what happens in their locality, because the rights of people have been ridden roughshod over by this Government and the policies that they've implemented. It's such an irony, because there is a huge disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what is said here, because they bear no resemblance. Diolch yn fawr.

It is high time that placemaking is placed at the centre of the planning system and I'm delighted also to see it mentioned prominently in the economic action plan. We've seen too many large housing developments created with no local shops, no community centres, no schools—essentially without souls. We've placed the car at the centre of our planning system for the last 30 years and witnessed a dramatic expansion of car-based development. In the time from 1952, cycling, for example, has fallen from making up 11 per cent of journeys to making up just 1 per cent in 2016 and, at the same time, journeys by car have grown from 27 per cent to 83 per cent.

A generation ago, 70 per cent of children walked to school. Levels of walking to school have since steadily declined, sinking to 42 per cent in 2016 according to Living Streets. The planning system and planning policies have supported car-dependent developments, which have been the key drivers behind these trends, and we talk, Llywydd, familiarly about preserving the habitat of wildlife and creating an ecosystem that supports this growth, but we don't talk about planning and preserving a habitat for children to play, for neighbours to meet and for people to walk and cycle.

And today, as we are talking about mental well-being, it's appropriate that we touch upon the loneliness impact of this trend. Seventeen per cent of people in Wales report being lonely today. The Minister for Children and Social Care has recently declared loneliness to be a Government priority. There's been extensive research on the impact of traffic flows on social isolation. A study in Bristol showed that the average number of friends of each resident in a lightly trafficked street was 5.35 compared to 2.45 on a medium-trafficked street, and 1.15 average friends on a heavily trafficked street. Residents on the lightly trafficked street also reported more of a sense of community and togetherness. Yet, we continue to design residential streets that subject residents to constant streams of traffic.

So, it's essential that we place placemaking at the heart of the new edition of 'Planning Policy Wales', and in particular, if I may say in coming to a conclusion, Llywydd, bearing in mind the time of day, the active travel cross-party group has submitted evidence to the review of 'Planning Policy Wales' that points out the paucity of useful guidance and a lack of basic knowledge and skills amongst planners and other built environment professionals regarding how active travel facilities should be designed and integrated within development layouts. We need to build this into the hardwiring of the way we create new communities. It's all very well and good having declamatory statements in our policy documents, but it's the plumbing of it that makes a difference. And for placemaking to really have a practical effect, we need to change the detail of 'Planning Policy Wales' to allow our communities to be friendly to walking and cycling, so that neighbours can meet and talk and children can play without fear of traffic. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd really like to thank Members for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. I think the broad range of topics that we have discussed exemplifies the broad scope of the planning system and how it can affect our lives in many ways. As Mike Hedges referred to, it's often a very large post box that we receive as Assembly Members.

If I could just turn to the amendments first, David Melding will be very pleased that we are supporting both of the Conservative amendments. The reason being that, with respect, I don't think they add a great deal to the original motion, but we are supporting both of them, and I very much look forward—[Interruption.] That's fine. I certainly look forward to reading the document that you're going to bring forward. I certainly won't be at your conference, but I'd be very interested if you would send me a copy of the document.

Plaid Cymru's amendment 3, we will be opposing. Technical advice note 20 does provide detailed advice on implementing planning law, and that includes the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, to enable planning authorities to take lawful decisions on planning applications. As you know, Siân Gwenllian, TAN 20 was issued last autumn and it does provide local planning authorities, developers and communities with clarity on how the language can be supported and protected by the planning system. The role of the Welsh Government is to set national planning policies. It's for local planning authorities, who I think are best placed, to develop local policies and take decisions affecting their local areas. I think it needs to bed in, and you talked about a separate planning inspectorate. Again, I'm very happy to keep that under review, and I'm sure we will have further discussions on that.

Last week, we had an early meeting around the national development framework and you know that the preferred option outlines the key issues that that will address, and cohesive communities and the Welsh language, again, are an absolutely central element of the strategy.

What is clear, I think, from everybody's contributions is that we need an efficient, well-resourced planning system in Wales if all these competing issues can be considered in a timely manner by professionals who have the best needs of the communities they serve at heart. There's a great deal of activity happening in the planning sphere at the moment. We're consulting on our national planning policies in 'Planning Policy Wales', as I said in my opening remarks, along with the direction in which our NDF will take the next 20 years and how our new consenting powers as a result of the Wales Act will be implemented. I'll also be shortly consulting on changes to permitted development rights. That will reduce the need for planning permissions in certain circumstances, as well as continuing our work on consolidating planning law in Wales to make it easier to use and navigate. I do accept that making high-level policy changes is a relatively simple task, but what I want to look at is the best way to implement this change in outlook and to make sure that local authority officers and the built environment professions operating in Wales, whether it's in the public or the private sectors, embrace this new way of thinking.

If I can just turn to some specific contributions from Members, in defence of the Planning Inspectorate, Mike Hedges, they are independent, they do take decisions in accordance with both local and national planning policies, and they cannot take decisions perversely. Gareth Bennett made the case for placemaking, about all houses and transport and jobs being integrated and more sustainable, and that's exactly what 'Planning Policy Wales' is promoting. I think a lack of strategic planning is something that I highlighted with all local planning authorities across Wales. I wrote to them back in December about that lack of strategic planning.

If I can turn to TAN 1—and I think Janet Finch-Saunders might have missed this—I did announce my intention to undertake a wide-ranging review of the interrelationships between the LDP process and the monitoring of housing land supply, and to examine the issue in a much more systematic and considered way. Hefin David, I'm delighted that you're delighted. I want to correct that I'm only consulting on my intention to disapply paragraph 6.2 of TAN 1, not the whole of TAN 1, just to make that very clear. But I think it is important that we do help alleviate some of the immediate pressures that there are on local planning authorities when they're dealing with speculative planning applications for housing.

You referred to the south-east Wales strategic development plan. I met with several of the leaders a couple of weeks ago, but I am still awaiting further proposals. But it was a very positive meeting, and, if they can all come together, they need to decide on which local authority is going to lead. But it was a positive meeting, so, hopefully, when the plan does come to me, it will be a very positive one also.

Neil McEvoy referred to local democracy working and that's why it's so important that each local planning authority has an LDP in place. Obviously, we're encouraging strategic development plans to come forward, too. I think Lee Waters makes a very important point about loneliness and the ability I mentioned in my opening remarks to be able to open the door and walk to meet your friend or your family and be able to do things without relying on cars. You mentioned the active travel cross-party group, who have put forward a proposal to the PPW consultation, and I think you called it the 'paucity' of officials in local planning authorities being able to assess the active travel, and that's something that we need to look at too.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I believe the changes in policy and practice we are leading on as a Government can be the start of real change in this sector, and people and places become the foremost consideration in development decisions that affect our everyday lives. Diolch.

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

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will call the first vote. That first vote is on the legislative consent motion on the EU withdrawal Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Carwyn Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, nine against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the debate on the role of the planning system in placemaking. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, no abstentions, eight against. And therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, no abstentions, eight against. Amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment 3: I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 29 against. And therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

A vote, therefore, on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, one abstention, nine against. The motion as amended is agreed.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.