National Assembly for Wales

I call the Members to order. 

I wish to inform the Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, that the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 was given Royal Assent today. 

The first item on our agenda, therefore, this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, and the first question is from Dawn Bowden. 

Yes. The Welsh Government supports a wide range of events and festivals across Wales. In 2018, we have confirmed funding for 24 sporting and cultural events, including major international sporting events such as the Volvo Ocean Race, and home-grown cultural events such as the Machynlleth Comedy Festival and the Steelhouse Festival.     

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary, and outlining what is clearly an impressive record of investment by Welsh Government. Many of these local festivals, of course, provide an opportunity to showcase our heritage and our history. I'm sure that you would want to join me in congratulating the team behind the recent Merthyr Rising festival. Over five years, they've steadily developed a growing success for the town around the festival, which builds on its radical history. But if we're to use our heritage alongside these festivals to develop local economies, how can we ensure that we keep open to the public historic structures like the Ynysfach engine house, which was so integral to the history of the Merthyr rising but which has been mothballed to the public since the beginning of the year? 

Can I thank the Member for raising this important question? I also applaud the organisers of the Merthyr Rising festival. It's absolutely vital that we use major events and smaller musical, cultural and sporting events to showcase and celebrate our history, our heritage and our culture, and the Merthyr Rising festival did just that. I'm pleased to say that, in terms of going forward supporting other community-based sporting and cultural events, we are also funding the Merthyr Tydfil challenge, which is receiving funding from Welsh Government under the regional tourism engagement fund, and that is specifically targeted at improving opportunities for activities in sports-related events in the area. 

In terms of ensuring that we maximise the opportunity that the visitor economy presents, it's absolutely crucial that we look at how we can maintain sustainable business models for all heritage and cultural assets, including those that have been identified by the Member. I'm keen to make sure that, along with my colleague, we look at the sustainability of historic and cultural assets across the country. We've invested very heavily in recent years in our museums, in our libraries, in the Cadw estate, and I'm keen to make sure that, as we move forward, we utilise our precious capital resource to maintain and enhance the visitor experience at those facilities that attract people to communities such as those that are served by the Member for Merthyr. 

Good afternoon, Minister. Festivals in Wales are a great opportunity for attracting tourists and boosting local economies. For example, Abergavenny Food Festival has grown to be one of the largest food festivals in the United Kingdom, attracting more than 30,000 visitors to Abergavenny and generating an estimated £4 million for this local economy. What discussions has the Cabinet Secretary had with Cabinet colleagues to support food festivals, such as Abergavenny, to increase tourism and the economy across Wales, please? 

Well, can I thank the Member for his question? He makes a very important point about the value of the food and drinks sector to Wales and, in particular, in attracting visitors to Wales. The Abergavenny Food Festival is amongst many, many food festivals in Wales that are growing strong. We support a huge number of food and drink festivals now in Wales, because they don't just support in turn small and micro businesses in that sector, they also attract many visitors in to Wales. So, in addition to congratulating the organisers of the Abergavenny Food Festival, I'd also like to congratulate those organisers of other festivals where food and drink take centre stage, and also organisers of festivals where food and drink acts as added value. We should note that the Hay Festival has just taken place and was another huge success. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the organisers for that particular event. 

The Member will be aware, of course, that food and drink is now one of our priority foundation sectors, and, as we develop enabling plans for each of the foundation sectors, I'm absolutely certain that the role of festivals in showcasing our produce will become very important.

The 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and the economic action plan set out the actions we are taking to improve the economy and business environment across the whole of Wales, including the Swansea bay region.

Thank you for that answer. I want to highlight the importance of the university as an economic driver, creating highly paid and highly skilled employment. We know the importance of cities as drivers of growth. I ask that, in conjunction with the university, the Welsh Government looks to create both a business park and an entrepreneurship centre that will provide a founder and incubator platform for students, ex-students, young entrepreneurs and investors in the region.

I think universities do have a crucial role in fusing their work with up-and-coming businesses, particularly in the tech sector. I think that the Swansea bay region is showing world-class expertise in the development of exciting new companies in the tech sector. I think it's fair to say that the Be The Spark methodology emphasises the importance of true stakeholder collaboration. University collaboration in business activities is absolutely vital. It drives economic growth and I think it shares more fairly prosperity across a country. So, in support of this, I recently announced a £5 million enterprise hubs tender, which will create the incubation spaces that the Member has described and which will stimulate collaboration and entrepreneurial behaviour right across the country.

Of course, the universities are key partners in the city deal, but there's more to the city region and the city deal, and all of us here, I hope, recognise it as a great visitor destination—we're all familiar with Gower and some of the more popular attractions, including the Afan valley. But the heritage and landscapes of the Neath and Dulais valleys are very under-celebrated, and their local authority is struggling to maintain assets in its ownership and, of course, it has no tourism team. If you want visitors to come and stay or to come back, they need to feel that they're missing out on something. So, how can the tourism potential of these valleys be more visible in Welsh Government promotional campaigns, but also in the Valleys task force activities?

I'm very, very keen to see both the regional plans that are being drawn together at this moment in time and the enabling plans for the foundation sectors, of which tourism is one, to ensure that we identify all communities and all of the assets that can drive the visitor economy. Those particular destinations, which the member has just identified, are clearly opportunities. Yes, they may be viewed during an age of austerity as being something of a burden on the local authority, but, in the longer term, I'm confident that historic assets—heritage sites that have struggled in recent times—can become a more important feature of the visitor offer that we develop, and so I can assure the Member that, as the regional plans are developed and as the enabling plans are developed for the foundation sectors, we're going to look at how we can use tourism, food and drink, retail and care to share prosperity more equally across the regions of Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, as the economy grows, obviously one aspect within that is transport. I know that there's a south Wales metro being proposed by Mark Barry, which highlights the future role of the transportation system within the south Wales area and the Swansea bay city region in particular, but part of that proposal is possibly the removal off the main line of Neath station, which is in my county borough. Can you give a categorical denial now that the Welsh Government will not support any proposal for a metro system within that area that will either close or take off Neath station from the main line, to ensure that the people in that area can commute across the region totally freely and knowing that their station will still be there?

Can I thank David Rees for this very important question for the entire region, but particularly for the community that Neath station serves? Let me be absolutely clear: regardless of who recommends what, Neath station is staying on the main line. Moreover, Neath station won't just be protected; Neath station will be enhanced as part of the franchise agreement that we've reached with KeolisAmey, ensuring that £194 million is spent, on every single train station in Wales, including Neath station.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Having full access to the European single market through membership of that market, including the customs union, is crucially important for businesses in Wales. Sixty per cent of Wales’s exports goes to the EU. We’ve heard this week that the European Union has started to advise businesses in Europe to think twice before using car components from the UK from now on. The motor components sector is still an important sector in Wales and this advice within the industry on the European continent has the potential to be extremely damaging. Do you agree with me, therefore, that the Conservative Government’s attempt to withdraw the UK from the customs union is likely to be very damaging in terms of the car components sector in Wales?

Can I thank the Member for his question and say that our position is very clear and is based on our trade White Paper? We need a customs union with which to do business, and I am deeply concerned about the future not just of the automotive sector, but all sectors that rely on smooth customs arrangements. Now, of course, there are opportunities for the automotive sector in terms of the UK single market, but there are also major threats that the Member has highlighted.

You gloss over it somewhat, but you did reiterate what the Labour Party position is there, which is that, upon leaving the EU, we should have a customs union as opposed to the EU's customs union. This really isn't about splitting hairs—you're talking about a new customs union that would have exemptions from certain EU laws. Now, I'd argue that that is just about as unworkable as Theresa May's famous 'max fac' option. It would be inconceivable, in my mind, for the EU to accept the situation where a non-EU country can enjoy the full benefits of frictionless trade with the EU whilst not following all the rules of the EU. Now, simply put, the Labour Party position, to my mind, doesn't do anything more than the Tory position to protect, in this case, the car components sector in Wales. But, moving on, membership of even the customs union alone wouldn't achieve frictionless trade. Membership of the single market is also needed for that. Does the Welsh Government still believe that the interests of the Welsh economy are best served by being a member of the EU single market?

Well, again, we've been entirely consistent in saying that we believe that we will need access to the single market on our exit from the EU. With regard to a customs arrangement, we've also been very clear in saying that we have to have a consistent regulatory environment across the UK and Europe to ensure that we can have smooth passage of goods and services, and that we also need smooth, seamless customs arrangements.

Again, you gloss over certain terminology: 'access to the European single market'. Again, this is not about splitting hairs. The House of Commons next week will have an opportunity, as you know, to defeat the UK Government on a number of amendments that could protect the interests of the Welsh economy. One of those will be on a Lords amendment to keep the UK in the single market through European Economic Area membership. Now, if Labour MPs, along with Plaid MPs who will, supported the amendment, a Government defeat would be likely, forcing the Government in effect to deliver what could be seen as a soft Brexit, more helpful to the Welsh economy. Jeremy Corbyn, though, has ordered his MPs to abstain on the vote, opting instead for his own equally unfeasible, I think, idea of asking the EU to let the UK have its cake and eat it—the kind of fantasy politics that I don't think we can gamble the Welsh economy on. Now, on what will be one of the most defining votes for a generation in the interest of Welsh jobs, wages and industry, what advice will you give your Labour colleagues at Westminster to persuade them to back EEA membership and to dissuade them from going down in history as the enablers of a hard Tory Brexit? 

We've been entirely consistent, and the Member here accuses me of glossing over what might be semantics. Actually, we've been very clear in our approach and we will not budge in our approach. And that will inform every position that we take in terms of informing and encouraging Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. We wish to see access to the single market continuing and we wish to be a member of a customs union. The Member highlights the biggest gamble. Right now the biggest gamble as we exit the EU would be for Wales to also exit the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What is crucial right now is that we maintain—[Interruption.]. It is true—it is true that the biggest gamble that could take place now would be independence for Wales as we exit the EU. We need to maintain right now good, strong relations with the rest of the United Kingdom and we need to protect the economy of Wales, just as the economy of the UK needs to be protected too.

Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, the coming new wave of technological advances in electric vehicles will potentially present Wales with a raft of new economic opportunities. You have previously said that the Welsh Government's new economic action plan is not going to be prescriptive, but do you agree with me that it would be wrong if it wasn't prescriptive in some sectors in order to maximise the potential positive impact of new technologies, including electric vehicles, on Welsh jobs and on growth?

The Member raises a crucially important point, in that automation is probably the biggest challenge for many, many sectors of the Welsh economy, and will continue to be so for many years, if not decades to come. Business would not wish us to be overly prescriptive in the way that we support their future development, but what we have done is created a calls to action, essentially five points in the criteria that we have set for businesses to draw down our direct support, which are matched to the five factors that will drive productivity—and, of course, one of those key enablers is the embracing of automation and artificial intelligence.

I think it's absolutely vital that we recognise that many small, micro and medium-sized businesses are actually nimble enough to be able to adapt to the age of automation, whereas larger companies can take longer to steer, even though they're able to future scan, in some respects, better. What I'm keen to do is to ensure that the calls to action apply equally to SMEs and to our anchor and regionally important companies as well. It's vital that all companies of all sizes, right across Wales, embrace automation rather than try to resist it. 

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary, but on my previous criticism, I do think the economic action plan does need to have tangible targets that can be met. But, I understand what you say with regard to not being too prescriptive in terms of what business would want, but that doesn't mean to say that it's not a piece of work that Government can do here. So, what I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, is: what assessment have you made of Wales's existing electricity generating capacity and its existing road network in relation to the ability of that infrastructure to support the introduction of a large number of electric vehicles in the future in Wales?

I have met with National Grid and it's quite clear that significant investment is required to strengthen the grid if we are to see the development of electric vehicles as we would wish, and certainly as we would wish in order to cut carbon emissions. That investment should be provided centrally and it should be provided speedily. For our part, we are looking at developing more electric charging points, but the grid, if we are to see the targets met that the Cabinet Secretary for environment has outlined, then we will have to see a strengthening of the grid.

In terms of transport and the road network, I'm also on record as saying that I would like to see, in the future, trunk road development linked to the potential testing of autonomous and electric vehicles and connected vehicles as well. I'd like to see Wales leapfrog other countries that are keen to embrace this technology, but which are yet to show an absolute desire to do so. 

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. We as Welsh Conservatives recently launched our 'Livable Cities' programme, where we outlined a number of policy commitments in relation to electric vehicles. In particular, we outlined proposals to create a road to prosperity fund that would enable the formation of 10,000 electric car charging points across Wales by 2030 and ensure the creation of a new centre for excellence to support the creation of new electric vehicle technology. So, can I ask you Cabinet Secretary, will you offer your support to these proposals and commit to bringing forward policies to support this ambition?

I'd be more than willing to meet—. I should say I'd be happy to meet with the Member to discuss the proposals, because I think they align quite neatly with our proposals for the Tech Valleys initiative and for the automotive sector as a whole. And indeed, for that matter, they align perfectly with the work that's going on at the moment by Professor Brown concerning automation and digitisation. So, I'd be more than happy to meet with the Member to discuss the exact proposals contained within the report, and to see where we can ensure, together, on a cross-party basis, that we can work together to advance the economy in the way that it has to be advanced in the age of automation, which is to embrace digital technology.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, statistics consistently confirm that Wales has the highest number of families classed as living in poverty, which at 24 per cent is the highest in the UK, yet those who occupy this Chamber and who are in well-salaried employment have decided that there will be no extraction of shale gas in Wales, period. However, in light of the situation highlighted above, is it not time to re-evaluate the extensive evidence that now exists with regard to this industry? I might add that I'm asking this question of you, Cabinet Secretary, because it may have huge economic benefits to this country.

Granted I'm not responsible for energy, but I will answer the question because I think it's a very important question. No, we won't shift our approach insofar as shale gas. Instead, we believe, and it's stated very clearly in the economic action plan, that we wish to see both well-being and wealth improved in the aggregate across Wales, but we also wish to see inequality in both reduced. We wish to see prosperity spread more fairly across Wales, and every aspect of Government can contribute to that agenda. In terms of energy, the Minister for environment and rural affairs has been very clear that, in the future, energy projects must be based and focused on a stronger community ownership ethic, in order to provide cheaper, more accessible, more affordable and more reliable energy supplies for people's homes. It's absolutely shameful that people still live in energy poverty, and we are addressing that by ensuring that community ownership takes centre stage in future energy programmes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that explanation, which, of course, reiterates the same old policies. The United States is at the forefront of the shale gas extraction industry, and it has brought enormous wealth to that country. Many other countries around the world are now seeking to exploit this new resource, including China, Canada, Mexico and Indonesia, as well as countries in Europe, which include Ireland, Poland, Denmark and Germany. 

They're all wrong. 

Gas fuel is far cleaner than any other fossil fuel and, indeed, given recent evidence, possibly far cleaner than the wood chip we use to heat this establishment. The dangers relating to extraction have been extensively exaggerated, as statistics from the USA have proven over a number of years. Surely, Cabinet Secretary, the people of Wales have the right to at least have this huge resource properly examined, especially as the extraction industry has the potential to create many hundreds of well-paid jobs.

I'd argue that, actually, it's renewable energy that has the potential to create more jobs and jobs that are sustainable. And also in terms of renewable, you can guarantee that it will be there tomorrow, whereas once you've drawn out all of the shale gas, it's gone. My belief is that the United States' position is a rather quick fix, here today, gone tomorrow approach to energy, drawing out as much energy as you can or as much gas you can in order to provide short-term economic growth. That cuts precisely against the grain of the economic contract that looks at responsible business practices, and the economic action plan that looks at long-term sustainable growth. So, I would still argue that we should be focused on developing renewable energy, rather than simply going for that short-term quick fix to economic problems, which is what the pursuit of shale gas in the United States demonstrates.

You make an eloquent defence of the matter, as you always do, Cabinet Secretary, but again I reiterate: is it right that we allow a quarter of our population to live in poverty when we have a natural resource worth billions of pounds lying dormant beneath our feet? It is estimated, Cabinet Secretary, that there may be up to 34 trillion cubic feet of gas in Wales, with at least 12 trillion fully accessible. If this resource were to be exploited, we would not require a nuclear power station built by French and Chinese conglomerates; we would not have to see the beauty of our landscape despoiled by huge arrays of wind generators or thousands of acres of green fields covered by solar panels; nor would we need to import thousands of tonnes of liquid petroleum gas, shipped from halfway across the world, and at what cost to the environment? Surely, Cabinet Secretary, it is time for the Welsh Government to put the interests of the poorest people of Wales before political dogma.

I think it's very important to separate the question of energy poverty, and how we solve energy poverty, from the exploitation of natural resources that are here today but if we were to exploit them now they would be gone tomorrow and they'd be gone for every single future generation. We don't support the extraction of shale gas. We will not support the extraction of shale gas. What we will go on supporting is the development of energy development systems that can provide affordable energy and address energy inequality across communities. Of course, projects like the Swansea tidal lagoon are pathfinder projects for Wales, they will be new projects, but they could showcase Wales as the provider of renewable energy for millions of homes, and just as shale gas has temporarily given the United States some degree of energy independence, I believe, in the long term, renewable energy generation through tidal power could give Wales a degree of energy independence as well, as well as affordable energy for the people of the country.

The funding will provide a step change in the development of active travel infrastructure across Wales, and I will shortly announce how I intend to allocate this additional funding.

Would you agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that we do really need a step change? I'm looking at the post-legislative scrutiny of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and it does not make for comfortable reading, because whereas, in 2013-14, we had 53 per cent of children walking to primary school and 2 per cent bicycling, four years later it's gone down to 42 per cent walking and 1 per cent going by bike. We've got a similar reduction in the number of people aged over 16 who are taking at least one active travel trip per week. So, we have a very, very challenging agenda here. So, I'd be very keen to know what outcomes you expect to achieve from this significant investment.

I was obviously disappointed to hear the First Minister say that he didn't feel safe cycling around Cardiff—something I do most days—so what are the outcomes you expect to achieve? On the one hand, would you expect it to be safe enough for the First Minister to feel able to cycle around Cardiff, and would you expect all schools in urban areas like Cardiff to have active travel plans, so that all young people have the option of going to school either by bike or walking safely?

Yes. Can I thank Jenny Rathbone for her question and her continued interest and passion regarding this subject? Broadly, the outcome that we wish to see is cultural and behavioural change insofar as transport is concerned, and in order to accomplish that, we need the right infrastructure and the right support in the form of training, in order to remove the safety anxiety that a lot of people still have, and which particularly parents still have.

The extra £60 million of capital funding will clearly assist in developing safer routes and particularly safer routes to schools for cycling and walking. The apparent reduction in the percentage of children in primary schools who usually walk to school is a deep cause of concern, and so I have extended the active journeys programme, which has seen officials working within schools to encourage the use of bikes and also to encourage walking to schools, whilst offering the right training as well. But, we're not just going to extend it for another year; we're also going to extend the programme to include parents. I think it's absolutely right that we don't just encourage young people to participate in active travel, but that we also ensure that their parents participate in active travel and are confident in allowing their children to take up active travel.

The £60 million funding, I should say, is in addition to the annual funding allocated through the Safe Routes in Communities grant, which is of particular interest to the Member insofar as safe routes to schools are concerned. Also, it's in addition to the funding that's allocated to active travel schemes and the pre-work through the local transport fund and, of course, the substantial amounts that we spend ourselves, on our own projects on trunk roads. So, overall, we expect to see something in the region of £92 million spent on active travel infrastructure in this and the following two years. 

But, it's also important that we go on supporting training and courses that encourage people to take up active travel. This is an issue that I'll be raising at the next active travel board, which I believe is taking place this week. It's something that members of the board have been particularly keen to discuss, especially the split between revenue and capital, which determines the extent to which we're able to provide training courses for young people and for adults.

Cabinet Secretary, perhaps you'd like to join with me in congratulating the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, Colin Riordan, who launched today their sustainability strategy and how they're going to help the staff of the university and the students to cycle between facilities—and he cycled to the barrage, where they launched this policy—and that's what we need. We also need the ability for people to cycle around and between their communities, not just between a community and the centre of a large urban city, so that we do have good access via cycle routes to key community assets such as schools, shops and amenities, and then we will normalise—in a city like Cardiff, which couldn't be better designed, really, for cycling—this as a preferential way of getting about.

I couldn't agree more. I think the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University is to be commended on the scheme and also to be commended for being a keen cyclist. I think it's vital that we look at the development and the delivery of projects contained in the integrated network maps as an enabler for people to move not just between places of home and work but also in terms of their social life—being able to access cinemas, restaurants, shops and any other form of service that they may wish. I think, therefore, it's vital that we look at the planning of social infrastructure through a more clear lens of the active travel that can be provided in order to get people from their homes to social infrastructure.

I think the comments of the First Minister, whatever his personal circumstances, were unfortunate, because it kind of adds to the myth that cycling and walking are dangerous and the car is safe when, in fact, it's the car that is the dangerous thing in our communities and in our cities. 

You've been asked enough about cycling, so let me ask you about walking. What in this new £60 million will be allocated particularly to encourage people to walk, which is the easiest alternative to the car, and is certainly the best way to get some exercise as well? And, in doing that, will you actually put targets on what you expect from this money and expenditure, because to go against the decline, for example—as Jenny Rathbone has pointed out—of walking to school, we need actual active targets as well as some money behind those.

The Member's absolutely right in terms of numbers. The number of people who are currently walking, while significant, could be far, far greater, particularly for very short journeys. And the Member is absolutely right as well that it's safety anxiety that prevents people currently from walking small journeys instead of taking cars.

The £60 million capital funding will be provided for projects that deliver against both walking and cycling objectives, but, in terms of the encouragement that the Member highlights as required for people to walk more, the active journeys scheme within schools will encourage young people to walk as well as to cycle. Likewise, the active journeys scheme that will be rolled out to include parents will equally encourage parents to walk and to cycle as well.

Moving forward, I need to discuss with the active travel board what new arrangements can be made for encouraging and supporting people not just to cycle but to also walk more often as well.

Yes. The road safety framework for Wales sets out the actions we and our partners will take to achieve our casualty reduction targets. In April, I announced funding of over £4.5 million for north Wales through our transport grants, to improve safety, reduce congestion, create economic growth and promote active travel.

Thank you. Between April and May of this year, in just two weeks, seven individuals have lost their lives on the roads in north Wales. Last week, sadly, there was another fatality. Now, despite the recent launch of the annual Operation Darwen summer motor cycle safety scheme in north Wales, at least five motor bikes have been involved in these tragic incidents, each one absolutely devastating for the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives. BikeSafe is an extremely good scheme and has been running in north Wales for quite some time. I was just wondering, Cabinet Secretary, given these highly publicised deaths that we've heard of—I was just wondering whether you would consider improving the funding for the BikeSafe scheme so that training may be provided for free across mid and south Wales, because, of course, when accidents of this nature happen, it isn't always north Walians who sadly lose their lives; this actually affects the whole of Wales. I just feel that when you have such a good initiative as BikeSafe operating in north Wales, with a little extra funding, it may be able to provide a reach so as to minimise the impact of death on our roads in north Wales, but so too across the whole of Wales.

Can I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those who have died on the roads of north Wales in recent weeks? We have seen a significant number of, particularly, motor cyclists who've died on the roads of north Wales this year to date, and I'm keen to make sure that we use the mid-term review of the road safety framework to enhance not just the provision of GoSafe cameras on the roads of north Wales to ensure that motor cyclists are riding safely, and that drivers are also driving safely, because it's not always the fault of motor cyclists when accidents happen—. Now, the mid-term review of the road safety framework showed that good progression—good progress, rather—was being made with the targets for an overall reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured, but there was one particular statistic that stood out that was deeply alarming, and that concerned the continued rise of death amongst motor cyclists.

I can inform the Member that, in addition to the BikeSafe scheme, we have now begun discussions with a national not-for-profit road safety organisation about the potential for their Two Wheels motor cycling courses to operate in Wales, and we're also looking at working with the education department on the potential to include road safety within the health and well-being area of learning and experience. It's vital that we don't just look at solving this problem today, but we look at solving the problem for many years to come, and so the shorter term objective will be to drive down the number of motor cyclists that are killed or seriously injured through enhancing the provision of courses. Longer term, we wish to ensure that young people, once they reach an age where they can ride on a motor cycle, have had the right education and training that should enable them to ride safely.

Residents have been campaigning for the speed limit along Fron Park Road in Holywell to be reduced to 30 mph for some time now. They've been campaigning for it for the sake of the safety of residents and pedestrians and road users. The road's a residential road, with parking along it adjacent to schools and in a number of side roads. It's a daft situation, to be honest: the speed limit heading into that area of Holywell is at 30 mph leading into the town, then it goes to 40 through the top of the town and then it changes to 60. Now, I know that—. The speed limit was recently reviewed, and the limit's been left at 40, which really, really doesn't make any sense to the residents, and it didn't make any sense to me either. The wrong decision was made there, and it's the residents who have to live with it. I know you won't want to comment on a specific case, so I'm using Holywell as an example, but, as a matter of principle, do you agree with me that residents should have the final say on the speed limit along their road?

It's absolutely vital that residents, under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, are consulted on matters that relate to their safety and well-being, and that includes, of course, speed limits within their communities. This Welsh Government is supportive of the implementation of 20 mph zones and, where appropriate, the reduction of speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph, for example, outside of schools. Now, I am aware of the area that the Member refers to. I am aware of the variation in speed limits within a very close proximity. I'll take the matter up with the local authority, because it was not our responsibility, it was the local authority's responsibility, to take this work forward. I'll report back to the Member with an explanation from the local authority of why that particular decision was made and to review whether there will be a further analysis of speed limits within the area in the coming months.

The national transport finance plan, which was updated in 2017, sets out our programme for the next three years and beyond.

Can I thank you for that answer? Most movement in the Swansea bay city region is within the region, not out of it. I believe there is a need for the cycle paths to be completed, railway stations such as Landore to be reopened, and bus-rail interchanges to be created. What progress has been made by the Welsh Government on these types of schemes to improve transport within the Swansea bay city region?

Well, can I thank Mike Hedges for his question? I'm pleased to say that huge progress has been made within the Swansea bay area in terms of enhancing the provision of public transport and improving the provision of roads for motorists, relieving congestion. We've asked Transport for Wales to develop a detailed traffic model for south-west Wales, which includes the Swansea bay area, and it's essential that we fully understand the problems that need to be resolved to ensure the best model is developed. We've provided £1.4 million for the Safe Routes in Communities programme, and almost £2 million from the local transport fund for active travel schemes in this financial year, and an additional £1 million has been allocated to the Swansea bay city region specifically for pre-works on active travel schemes, to develop a pipeline of active travel projects. Of course, the £60 million that has been made available could be utilised for some of those projects, and I'm also very pleased to be able to inform the Member today that we will be putting forward Landore as one of the possible options to be considered as part of the exercise of opening up stations. 

Cabinet Secretary, the Swansea bay city region gives us an opportunity to improve transport links right across the city region. That, of course, includes Pembrokeshire. As you know, I'm an avid supporter of dualling the A40 in Pembrokeshire, and you've made it clear in previous statements that you'll be developing a programme in due course, alongside other priorities that are identified in the national transport finance plan. Can you therefore provide an update on where the Welsh Government is in making this scheme an actual reality?

I'll write to the Member with the specific time frame and the details of what parts of the A40 will be dualled.FootnoteLink It was a clear manifesto pledge that we would look at dualling parts of the A40, and we now have the pinchpoint scheme, as well, that will enable that to happen. I'll do that as soon as possible.

Turning back to the Swansea bay city region and travelling in and out of that region, we’ve concentrated a great deal in the past few days on the rail franchise, which is in the hands of the Welsh Government but, of course, there is still important transport into Swansea, and Carmarthen also, with First Great Western and companies coming into Wales, and Network Rail still owns that. The suggestion has been made by people such as Stuart Cole that now pressure should be put on to speed trains up to 100 mph along those routes, and to make that journey from Swansea to Cardiff, for example, a 40-minute journey. Is that something that the Government is proceeding with in terms of negotiations with the Westminster Government?

Yes, it is. We've been clear that we expect to see improved journey times between London and Cardiff, and also between Cardiff and Swansea. It's a fact that it takes longer today than it did in the past to get from London to Cardiff, and therefore London to Swansea. This is appalling, considering how much funding has been made available over the past decade or more for the rail network elsewhere in the UK. So, we're particularly keen to ensure that journey times reduce, but I should just say that we are not so keen on seeing stations bypassed by any main line services. I think it's absolutely vital that communities across south Wales have access to the main line, but that, in between stations, improvements should be made to signalling, for example, that reduce journey times between those communities.

My sympathies go to those affected by this disappointing decision. The Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs has requested an urgent meeting with the company and our Business Wales service has made the appropriate links to support those impacted by the closure.

Thank you for that response. Of course, I’ve looked back at the 'Prosperity for All' action plan that you have, and that talks about foundation sectors. Food is one of those, and you mentioned that you’re working across the Government to have the greatest possible impact in that particular sector. Now, we know how crucial milk processing is. Andy Richardson said in a report four years ago that more needs to be done to grow that sector; it creates jobs, it adds value, it brings value in terms of labelling and environmental benefits, rather than having to transport produce from one part of the country to another to be processed.

But the truth is that we're not growing processing capacity in Wales. It is shrinking and, in light of Brexit and what we're facing, adding value to food has to be a clear priority. So, I would urge you to leave no stone unturned. Of course, you mentioned the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs. She has a role, but you, as a Government, of course, have supported other investments across Wales, and I would be eager for you to consider all possible options in this context because it is important that we not only safeguard the almost 100 jobs that will be directly lost, but also the wider dairy sector in north-east Wales. 

I think the Member is absolutely right. The food and drink sector has shown strong growth in recent years and is growing towards the target of a £7 billion contribution to the Welsh economy. But, in the future, the processing issue will be a major consideration not just of my colleague Lesley Griffiths but also of the enabling plan that's being developed for the food and drink sector. I think it's vital, in the short term, for the people that work at this particular facility, that we look at every opportunity there may be to save those jobs, and I am aware from news reports that the company may be considering alternative products for the site. I'll be meeting with taskforce members who are being convened this month to discuss the future of the site and options for us to be able to support either the existing business in diversifying, or another business in taking over operations, if that is at all possible.

Clearly, the distance for producers between the proposed new site and their sites will make them additionally vulnerable. At the end of your previous comments you also referred to the reports I've also seen that Arla is to retain the existing Llandyrnog site while they explore other opportunities. What actions will you therefore be taking in your dialogue with them to further explore and potentially support those opportunities and the products that might be involved, and how that might provide security for the workforce and their families currently working at that site?

Well, I think, first of all, we need to understand exactly what it is that Arla may be able to provide as an alternative to the products that are being produced there at the moment, and then we'll be able to, if at all possible, put together a bespoke package of support that could include, for example, skills retraining or skills training programmes that could include facility development support. We don't know exactly what those proposals are at this moment and how serious the company is about alternative products being developed at the site, but I can guarantee that we will look at every opportunity to protect those jobs and, if it all possible, help grow the company and maintain its presence in its current facility.

Thank you very much. Since I took these responsibilities, I've sought every opportunity to increase and strengthen partnerships between various aspects of my responsibilities as part of Government, namely heritage and culture, as well as the arts, sport and tourism. We saw very clearly just last week how people travel within and outwith Wales to major festivals as a crucial part of our tourism.

Thank you for that response. As I have said previously in posing questions to you, this sector is very important. Recently, I went to the Resolven miners centre to see what they're trying to do to renew that centre. It will take quite a bit of work, not just funding but also actual physical work from local people. Without having emergency funding to try to renew it, it will potentially close because they need to submit bids that take a great deal of time in order to get the long-term funding in place. So, the appeal that I have for you on their behalf is that you look into the possibility of short-term funding in order to keep the place open until sufficient funding is available to sustain it within the community locally. Also, I have written to you to invite you to come and visit the local people—and I’m happy for that to be a cross-party event—so that you can see what’s happening in the area, and to generate a renewal of that centre.

Thank you very much. As you know, I am now very cross-party, so I am more than happy to visit Resolven, and I hope that we can make those arrangements quite swiftly. I have visited a number of projects that relate to monuments, and the relationship between that and our industrial history is very important to me. The industrial heritage of Wales celebrates our past and the historic arts of Wales, and I’m certain that supporting that kind of development would be useful. But the first thing that the local people need to do is to ensure that they have discussions with our officials, in Visit Wales and Cadw. I can promote that; I just need the details and addresses.

And finally, question 8—David Melding.

The 'Mapping the Social Business Sector in Wales' report notes that the sector is now worth an incredible £2.37 billion to Wales and provides jobs and volunteering opportunities to around 100,000 people. I’m sure you would agree that the sector in Wales makes a huge contribution, not just to our economy but to society as a whole.

Cabinet Secretary, I note from the Wales Co-operative Centre's last annual report that they helped develop four housing co-operative schemes, and I really believe that this is a sector that needs further development. Now, we know that shared ownership harnesses innovation, and innovation accounts for 70 per cent of long-term economic growth in the UK, and I do think the use of co-operatives in this area would give many people a new housing model based on rentals. Moreover, they could be using smaller plots of land, using SME companies, driving up skills levels and jobs for local people. It does seem to me an area rich for growth and potential innovation. 

I couldn't agree more with the Member, and I'm sure that my colleague the Minister for Housing and Regeneration would firmly agree as well. I think the innovative housing programme that the Minister has already detailed provides a huge opportunity for social enterprise to participate more in the building of new homes and also in the regeneration of communities as a whole through making use of properties that are currently empty. I think that, in particular, within urban landscapes—towns and especially high streets—there's a huge opportunity to develop new housing within those environments in order to drive prosperity levels within towns.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Dawn Bowden.

The Member will be aware that the First Minister recently launched the Fair Work Commission, which builds on the work of the fair work board, which identified the right to be heard through participation in decision making in the workplace as a key principle. The work of the commission will build on that and will examine more closely the levers we have to deliver fair work in Wales.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. You'll know that the Wales TUC has asked our colleague Mick Antoniw—he has just gone—to chair a group looking at ways in which pay bargaining can be extended across the Welsh public sector and also in those sectors where companies receive grants from the Welsh Government. Given what you've just said, can you outline the support that the Welsh Government will be giving to explore these options with employers and trade unions?

I welcome the work of the Wales TUC in regard to this, and the work that they project with the former Counsel General Mick Antoniw. The Welsh Government works in partnership with the Wales TUC routinely in relation to our shared commitment to improve working conditions for the people of Wales, including in relation to access to work. She will have heard the statement that the leader of the house made yesterday in the Chamber, for example, in relation to the Better Jobs Closer to Home initiative, which shows what can be achieved by that sort of partnership working.

The fair work commission, which I mentioned, is due to report in spring next year, and will look at the consideration of the powers that Ministers have to develop fair work, including around pay progression in the workplace more broadly. I look forward to contributing to the work of the commission in relation to that. As Counsel General, it's part of my role to make sure that the Welsh Government always acts within its powers, but equally acts to the extent of its powers when it needs to do that to meet its policy objectives.

She'll be aware as well of the work being done in relation to ethical procurement across Government. All organisations in receipt of public funds are expected to sign up to the ethical procurement code of practice. And the Cabinet Secretary for economy has just been answering questions as part of his new initiative around the economic contract. Pay and participation and progression are key elements of that contract as part of the broader fair work agenda, and the work of the commission will be influencing that as well in due course.

The second question is from Bethan Sayed.

I thank the Member for that question. The inter-governmental agreement on the EU withdrawal Bill agreed with the UK Government at the end of April provides a sound basis for our future working relationship. The agreement respects established constitutional conventions and, consistent with those, there is a commitment from all parties to seek to proceed by way of agreement.

Thank you for that answer. The exact parameters of what will be devolved and what will become newly reserved in terms of common framework policies under the terms of the EU withdrawal Bill have not been formally established, and what we do know is that the 24—now 26—areas acquiring common frameworks could increase without our consent. Wales has, of course, the courts to deal with these issues if they become the subject of litigation in future, but, under the joint jurisdictional arrangement, it is unclear where cases should be commenced and whether lawyers based in Wales will even be instructed by the parties in any future disputes. What steps are you as Counsel General taking to prepare for what is probably inevitable litigation?

Well, I take issue with the Member's assumption that this Assembly will not be required to consent to the matters that become the subject of framework discussions between the Governments. As she will know from previous statements that the Welsh Government has made, there are additional extra powers coming to this Assembly as a consequence of the agreement that the Government has reached, and there is a consent mechanism that is laid out in the inter-governmental agreement.

One of the issues that needs to be resolved in future discussions between the Governments is the content of the common frameworks that she mentions in her question. One of the dimensions of that is how disputes between Governments, as equal partners to that set of frameworks, are resolved in future. The mechanism for resolving those disputes is one of the issues that remains to be agreed between the Governments. The existing arrangements are not fit for purpose, and I'm sure she would agree with me wholeheartedly in relation to that.

She'll be aware of the new ministerial forum on EU negotiations, which exists for all four Governments to contribute to the negotiating position in relation to future EU discussions. And she may also be aware of the current review of the existing inter-governmental arrangements under the memorandum of understanding. That is now a document that is coming up to 20 years old and is in need of reform, and all four devolved nations are participating in that review. Our ambition is that we move to a shared governance model. She will be aware of the Government's position in relation to the creation of a UK Council of Ministers, which would exist to avoid disagreement where possible and to resolve disagreement where it arises. Again, fundamental to that is a question of a secretariat to support the work of the Council of Ministers, and a dispute resolution mechanism.

This is a matter that my officials have considered. The position is that Welsh Government-owned land is classified as Crown land and, as such, cannot be acquired under compulsory powers by another Crown body without the consent of the Welsh Government.

Okay. Thank you for that. It is helpful, because we are given to understand that the current position in terms of Welsh Government-owned land is that you've made a decision not to allow Baglan Moors to be developed for a new prison. Of course, we welcome that. The legal advice that we've received as an office states that the UK Government could enforce compulsory purchase, but from my recollection, that advice didn't state that there needed to be Welsh Government approval for them to do so. Just to confirm, therefore, although it is Crown land, in law, there is a requirement on the UK Government to facilitate a process where there would be a dialogue, or so there would be something in statute, to ensure that you would have that discussion, just to ensure that, if this issue arises once again, we should understand that all processes are properly in place.

I try to answer the questions when I can, by the way. The powers available to the UK Government on compulsory purchase emanate from Acts, and there is nothing in the Act that's relevant here—there are no powers that extend to Crown land. But, ultimately, this kind of question arises in the courts frequently, and what's important to bear in mind is that, if there was a proposal for compulsory purchase, the ability of the UK Government to do it would be something for the court to decide upon. If a Crown body, such as the Welsh Government, objected to that, our clear view is that the law in that context would insist that that Order would have to be rescinded.

I thank the Member for her question. The application of Assembly Acts and Welsh subordinate instruments of the Crown is an issue that forms part of the Government’s consultation on the draft Legislation (Wales) Bill. The consultation is open until 12 June, and I would encourage Members, if they haven't yet, to respond.

Thank you, Counsel General. As you will know, currently, the Crown is automatically exempted under laws passed in this place unless the provision is explicitly included. In the draft Legislation (Wales) Bill there is a proposal to reverse this so that the Crown and all its property will be automatically subject to Welsh law. Can you explain the rationale for this proposed change and if you still intend to proceed? 

It is a matter on which I'm consulting, and it's a matter that I think is worthy for us to pursue. I'd be interested in hearing the views of consultees on the matter. This is a step that was taken, for example, in Scotland in 2010. As the Member rightly says, generally speaking the default position is that an Act does not bind the Crown unless it expressly states that it does. The Crown in that context is the Crown and also Governments, including the Welsh Government. Several Acts of the Assembly do, of course, expressly bind the Crown—tax legislation, for example, and the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016—and others are silent, and when they're silent you can assume that the Crown is not bound. 

The rationale for consulting and advocating this position is that it would put, beyond question, whether an Act binds the Crown and would create a new situation under which the law would, by default, apply to the Crown just as it applies to citizens, as the Member in her question implies. The rationale for doing that, firstly, is clarity, because if you approach an Act and have to know that it only applies to certain categories of organisations and citizens, that is not a clear and accessible reading of the Act. But that assumption, if you like, that the law applies to all is a common-sense assumption, and in a democracy we would all assume that all organisations and all parts of the state are subject to the law unless the law says otherwise. 

What I would like to make clear, though, is that in individual statutes in the future it will obviously be open to this legislature to reverse that presumption, and I would expect it to do that where circumstances require that as the right outcome. 

Of course, the law also relates to Crown lands in Wales, which are held by the Crown Estate, which is not devolved in any way, and is a further complication in that regard. The Crown Estate raises some £0.25 billion a year from its estate in Wales, which refers back to the argument that we had about fracking. If fracking happened in Wales, much of it would happen on the Crown Estate, and there wouldn't be a penny coming to the Welsh Government, if truth be told, or to the people of Wales, indeed. Is it about time that we had this broader debate on the work of the Crown in Wales, the Crown Estate, the Crown lands, and laws related to the Crown? And is it time for the whole Assembly to have a debate on how we proceed, in a way that is appropriate for the twenty-first century, in our dealings with the Crown and the funds raised through the natural resources of Wales and should be available for the people of Wales?

As the Member knows, I've just answered the question with regard to the consultation on Welsh laws for the future. I look forward to receiving the Member's response to that consultation, which will enable me to respond further to his question.

Counsel General, in your answer to Bethan Sayed, you made it quite clear that the Crown couldn't make compulsory purchase orders for land, but if they got a reversal that treats the Crown as the same as an individual, are you in a position to say that, actually, that could change that, or are we still in a position where the Crown cannot purchase that land?

I thank the Member for that question and the opportunity to clarify the answer that I gave. The reversal in the legislative presumption, which the consultation sets out, would not affect the situation that I described to Bethan Sayed. The Bill would not change the meaning of the term 'Crown', for example, and it wouldn't have an effect on existing law. Just to reiterate: it reverses the presumption so that, in future, in order for the Crown and Government to be bound by statute, the Act will need to spell that out.

Thank you, Counsel General.

The next item is the topical questions, but no topical questions have been accepted.

We therefore move to the 90-second statements. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Llywydd. At the start of June, competitors from across the world gathered in the Portuguese city of Guimarães. They were there to compete in the fifteenth Aerobic Gymnastics World Championships. During the preceding age-group championships, team GB competitors included 11-year-old Seren Jones of Aberdare. This talented young gymnast was part of a team who made history by securing the AG1 silver medal. Their final score of 19.0 was the best ever group result for team GB. Congratulations to Seren and to her team mates: Lola, Bella, Molly and Nancy. 

Another aerobic gymnast from Aberdare, Emily James, also competed as part of another team and also qualified for the finals. Coming in sixth, they didn't receive a medal, but I also want to recognise their achievement in making sporting history for the British team. 

Whilst celebrating the success of these Cynon Valley girls at the 2018 championships, I also want to note their remarkable talent and the training and dedication that enable them to excel. When we regularly hear about the problems of children and young people, girls in particular, not taking part in enough physical exercise, it is good to be able to praise these first-rate role models. I hope these gymnasts compete and win in future championships and I hope you will all join with me in offering them our congratulations and best wishes. 

Thank you.

The next item, therefore, is the Welsh Conservative debate on urban renewal and I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Indeed, I am delighted to move the motion and open this debate this afternoon. For the first time in history, most of the world's population live in urban communities. In 2010 it was calculated that around 66 per cent of the Welsh population lived in its urban areas and this percentage has continued to grow year on year. This really should be no surprise to any of us as cities and towns are centres of enterprise, innovation and learning. They generate wealth and improve living standards, while providing the network and interaction that make us more creative and more productive.

The concentration of talent and creativity makes cities engines of innovation and engines of economic growth—places that we should celebrate, and it is in this spirit that we've brought forward point 1 of our motion this afternoon, which seeks to recognise the importance of Wales's urban areas. For that reason, I'm rejecting the Welsh Government's amendment, which we consider, for this afternoon's purposes, to be too broad. Rural areas certainly need full treatment, and complementary treatment, but that primarily comes through rural policy, and today I really want to focus on the urban challenges and opportunities that are before us.

I would say that, in towns and cities in Wales, we're not yet receiving the level of vision and ambition that we need from the Government to drive our country forward to reach its maximum potential. We in the Welsh Conservatives have recognised this, and we've put forward our vision to create towns and cities that are fit for the twenty-first century. We believe that it is essential to create liveable cities and urban areas that are good for the economy, socially inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and are built on the principle of the health and well-being of our citizens. They need to offer the quality of life and opportunity that not only makes citizens want to live in them, but also make businesses want to invest, and for those businesses to come from near and far.

We have the opportunity to attract highly skilled young people who are currently squeezed out of London and the overheated south-east of England. I really do believe that both the cities along the south Wales coastline but also the urban areas in north Wales have a great potential here when there’s so much talent that is just not going to have the level of economic and social opportunity that they would want in London and the south-east. It is a great opportunity. It’s one of the world’s most overheated economic areas, and we should be seeing it as a resource, as many cities in the north of England are currently doing. We’ve got a wonderful environment in cities like Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, so the great cities of Wales must be centres of excellence for our young people, and tomorrow’s social, creative and business entrepreneurs. We can build new, modern, state-of-the-art, twenty-first century cities that then set the bar for other cities in Europe, Asia and America, if we have a really ambitious vision. Given the optimum size, in many ways, of our cities, we can really stretch the standards that we want to see for modern living.

In Wales, however, we are still yet to see the significant economic growth that has materialised in many other cities across the UK. I’ve already mentioned London, but, more particularly for us, Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh, but also I could mention Leeds and Sheffield. These cities are not really our competitors—I think there are so many opportunities there—but they have shown more enterprise and ambition in the way they are moving forward, and we do not want to be left behind.

Now, it is the case that with the advent of the Cardiff and Swansea region city deals, and that co-operation between the UK and Welsh Government, we are seeing greater opportunity and greater ambition, and I do very much welcome that. But whilst these deals are highly significant, and obviously welcome, they also present big challenges, because we need to revamp our urban policy and our vision so that we see the sort of growth that we really want to energise and fully benefit our citizens, and also be sustainable.

Would the Member give way?

Sure.

I thank the Member. I’ll have some kind words to say about what he is proposing later on, but just on this particular issue—he’s mentioned the city deals. Doesn’t he see that the city deals that are being promoted by his own Government in Westminster actually don’t really take into account the sustainability agenda that this debate and, to be fair, the paper that has been published try and address?

Well, it needs to be at the heart of that vision, and I certainly think that the greater scope it offers for planning and regional development is very, very important. But our vision is, as you say, set out in that paper, and we think it’s fully compatible with the co-operation we’re seeing between the UK and the Welsh Government.

But we have seen, perhaps to highlight the concern reflected in Simon’s comments, that in many cities around the world a lack of innovation and sustainable planning has too often left the blight of deprivation, overcrowding and urban sprawl. So, we do need more effective planning policies, and I know that that’s a subject of policy development at the moment, which we are going to play an active part in developing.

So, as I said, our cities need to belong to all the people of Wales, which includes those in the rural areas, and there need to be these engines of growth, creativity and learning, and above all, they must be putting people first. Our White Paper puts forward our policy proposals to transform our communities by enhancing the great urban inheritance that we have had passed to us, but, to add to that, a new sense of ambition for the future, and I use this concept of liveability as being at the heart of an effective urban strategy, and our document is titled 'Liveable Cities: a strategy for Welsh urban renewal'. It introduces 25 policy proposals to transform our urban environments. 

Thank you for giving way. I certainly support the liveable cities agenda, but there is a thorny public policy dilemma we need to engage with. There's good evidence to show that cities grow often at the expense of outlying areas. It often is a zero-sum game. So, what is the thinking on what can be done to help the left-behind areas?

We've not just published a strategy for cities; it's very important that we emphasise urban areas and you can look at the south Wales Valleys area as being, potentially, a more interconnected urban area. If you're looking at Swansea and then stretching across to Llanelli and beyond, it is very important. I accept that there is a danger you can suck too much into the core of these city regions, and that's something that certainly good planning must ensure that we avoid.

So, anyway, our policies cover the short, medium and long term and address four key themes of lifestyle, transport, housing and design. I should say that that detail on our housing policy will be fleshed out in a separate strategy document that we'll publish in the autumn. But, anyway, the areas that we've look at include parks and green spaces, internet connectivity, cycling and walking, electric vehicles, energy efficiency in housing, and increased tree coverage and green roofs. I was delighted that, in Cardiff University's sustainability strategy, they emphasise the need for greater biodiversity across their estate, not just in the green areas and their gardens but in green roofs. So, that's something that we want to see our universities leading in many respects.

As to the heart of the commitments that we have—as I said, there are 25—perhaps the core ones could be taken to be to make Cardiff the UK's first carbon neutral city. I do think that by marketing Cardiff in this way and leading the way, rather than waiting 10 years and then do what we have to do because of public pressure and what other cities are doing, we can really be ahead of the game and use it to project Cardiff's image as a forward-looking city. We want to pilot a city-wide single-use plastic ban in Wales and we're open to offers of where that should be. We want to ensure that all commercial developments over 1,000 sq m must have green roofing for at least 50 per cent of the total roof area of the development. A lot of cities around North America and Europe are now doing this and I point to Sheffield in the UK as a leader in this area. We want publicly owned urban brownfield sites to be provided at a discount to develop urban eco quarters. These would be housing developments with shared gardens that are high density, sustainable and provide for a mixture of tenures. I talked earlier about co-operatives, and this would be a key area for them, I think. We want to develop clean air zones in Newport, Swansea, Cardiff and Wrexham. And finally, can I just say that we aim to co-ordinate our urban policies so that more of Wales's busiest streets can become pedestrian zones?

So, that's our strategy. Can I just say that I think we've provided a very coherent vision of the way forward? And, therefore, I will not be supporting Plaid Cymru's amendment 2, but I will support amendment 3, which does touch upon a very important issue relating to urban strategy. We're happy to incorporate that as we find it constructive. So, I'm delighted to initiate this debate this afternoon, Llywydd, and I look forward for Member's contributions. 

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

I call on Simon Thomas, therefore, to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd. I start, despite our amendment, by welcoming the debate that we’re having this afternoon. I don’t think it’s appropriate that we formally welcome a paper produced by any party, but I do welcome the debate and I welcome what’s contained within the paper, and I have nothing that I would personally disagree with.

There are a few areas where I would go further, particularly in terms of renewable energy, but I welcome the fact that we are having an integrated debate on how these various elements build into a healthier urban environment, and an environment that’s more beneficial for our citizens. And I do want to emphasise the 'urban'. The title of the paper talks about cities, but we don’t really have cities in Wales; we have large towns, to all intents and purposes. The people of Cardiff may disagree, but, in terms of the pattern of the development of western Europe, we have large towns in Wales, but, more importantly, through south Wales and in parts of north Wales, we have a series of towns that are interlinked, and the connectivity between those towns and retaining the environmental balance under the well-being of future generations Act is crucially important in that context. There are some ideas in this paper that are new and some old. There’s nothing wrong with old ideas and, if they haven’t been implemented already, then do recycle those, of course, until they are implemented.

The main criticism I have of this—and I will get this out of the way before being more constructive—is that it’s suggested by a party that has been in Government for eight years in Westminster and hasn’t made any progress on some of these points. So, the overheating of the city of London still goes on under the macroeconomic system of the party of Government. The complaints and solutions on developing electric vehicle infrastructure are clear, but we haven’t seen any development or hardly any investment in Wales from the Westminster Government in this regard. And the gulf between the ideas in this paper and some of the actions of the Government and the Conservative Party in Government in Westminster is something to behold. But I would just note that so that people can take a view on it and come to their own conclusions.

As the main Plaid Cymru amendment suggests, we want to add—and I’m pleased that David Melding has accepted that this is a constructive addition—a broader clean air Act in Wales, which would affect all parts of Wales. There are aspects of the paper that I’m pleased to see. Just to take one example, the paper talks of monitoring air quality outside nurseries and schools and so on, which I support and have raised previously. The question is: what do you do once you’ve monitored? What steps will you then take to ensure that the air is cleaned? Because I would suspect that if we monitor real life in real time, we wouldn’t see the monitoring that we see in the figures published. There is very poor air quality outside some of the areas where our most vulnerable people go—young people to schools and older people to hospitals, and so on. But what do you do to improve that? And that’s why we talk of the need to introduce a clean air Act for Wales more broadly, not only to create the clean air zones that David Melding mentioned, but to give rights to communities to insist on having that information and to use that information to seek improvement in local air quality.

We also need to ensure that local authorities, who are very reluctant in Wales to introduce a charge for parking or travelling through cities at particular times—. This isn’t addressed in the paper, although David Melding has alluded to it in the past in the Chamber. If we are truly to tackle some of these issues, then we immediately must get to grips with the fact that large diesel lorries travel through city centres at a time when children are walking to school. We have to stop that somehow, or it has to be penalised in some way until alternative economic options are found. So, that’s why we want to encourage a broader strategy on clean air in that context.

I will conclude by blowing Plaid Cymru’s own trumpet, as you would expect in such a debate. I am pleased to hear the Conservatives discussing these things; Plaid Cymru has talked of many of these things for many years. But, more than that, we are content, although an opposition party, to have discussions with the Welsh Government on the provision of funding to resolve some of these problems. So, £2 million has been allocated for the development of electric vehicle infrastructure throughout Wales and £0.5 million has been allocated for tackling plastic pollution, particularly through a deposit-return scheme. I do think that actions of that kind are very important in politics. And, as for the party that’s proposed some of these good ideas, I would ask them to also consider what their party is doing as they are in Government themselves.

First of all, can I welcome the debate and the way David Melding brought it forward? I hope it's going to be part of a series that the Conservative group are going to bring forward in a constructive manner, as David has today. 

It is absolutely true that we need to acknowledge the importance of Wales’s urban areas as engines of economic growth, learning and activity. More specifically, it is the large urban centres that generate large-scale employment and wealth. We only need to look at London or, on a world scale, New York and Tokyo, or to look at much less well-known cities across Europe, places like Mannheim and Aarhus. This is why I am so keen on the creation of city regions. Whilst the economy of Cardiff city region involves substantial movement from surrounding areas into Cardiff, the Swansea bay city region involves a lot of movement into and out of Swansea and the other parts of the region.

Successful towns and cities have always been at the heart of economic development and the creation of prosperity. Whether as marketplaces or as centres of enterprise, knowledge, culture, learning and innovation, the economy of the country depends on their success. All urban areas should achieve their economic potential and enjoy substantial growth and rising prosperity. However, fairer sharing of prosperity should be ensured, and that's something we lack at the moment. Wealth and opportunity often exist side by side with poverty and isolation, often within the same cities.

The diverse skills and backgrounds of all people should be used properly, enabling everyone to fulfil their potential and excluding no-one. This is important for a caring and inclusive society to be created. This also makes sound economic sense as it will help to increase the long-term growth potential of the economy. Successful places need to be able to attract and retain businesses, based on understanding their requirements. An analysis of successful and less successful places suggests several factors that are crucial to the economic prosperity of towns and cities. The following four factors are the key to economic success: firstly, a culture of enterprise and innovation, where places adapt quickly to new opportunities and everyone can share in the possibilities and rewards of business success, and this includes embracing the opportunities presented by the revolution in information and communications technology, artificial intelligence and also in life sciences; private investment, including access to venture capital, essential for businesses to start up and grow, and to deliver jobs and opportunity for all; people equipped with the skills employers need, and with motivation and opportunity to work—a culture of lifelong learning, enabling people to fulfil their potential and maximising employment opportunities enabling a flexible response to changing opportunities and encouraging companies to come to, and remain in, towns and cities. Far too often, we have companies coming in, taking the grants and then moving out. Also, an efficient and reliable transport system, enabling efficient delivery of raw materials to industry and of goods to market and providing efficient access to jobs, making towns and cities better places to live in and helping tackle social exclusion.

So, what does this mean specifically for the Swansea bay city region? Economic and transport planning needs to be based on the region. We need to build on the strengths of the university. Too many students, including many from the area, move away the day after they graduate, or the month after they graduate. We need science parks attached to universities so that we can use them as innovation hubs and specialise in key economic sectors, life sciences and ICT being two that have great opportunities for growth. We also need an entrepreneurship and innovation centre that can provide a founder and incubator platform for students, young entrepreneurs and investors to get together and ensure that we grow our economy. We need to provide opportunities for businesses to start, but when they start they need access to capital, not just at the start-up stage but at the two important growth stages of small to medium-sized enterprise and then from medium to large. As we know, too often, medium-sized enterprises sell up to companies outside the area and the economic benefits for our area are reduced. Working with the universities and further education colleges, we need to upskill our population.

Finally, transport, which could be a debate in itself and would keep me going for well in excess of the five minutes I'm allowed. But, briefly, we need to reopen railway stations, and I welcome the comments made by the Minister, or the Cabinet Secretary, earlier today. But we need to have bus-rail interchanges. Far too often, the bus stops in one place and, to catch the train, you've got a 10 minute walk—quite nice on a day like today, but days like today are unusual. When it's cold and it's wet, it becomes an unpleasant journey. We need to have safe cycle routes. It's no good having cycle routes that cover 80 or 90 per cent of the journey; they have to cover the whole 100 per cent of the journey. It's a nice safe cycle route as long as you forget about the 100 yards you've got to go on the main road. 

Will you take an intervention, Mike, if you've got time? 

Certainly, yes. 

Would you also agree with me that when it comes to bus services—and I've found this myself from my own experience coming to Cardiff sometimes—that it's one thing having the bus to get you there in the morning, but you've got to make sure there's a bus service back then after 5.30 p.m., otherwise you're stuck and then you have to rely on taxis and other forms of transport? 

Absolutely. That's what I was going to say: we need bus services linking residential areas, work and leisure, going at the times people want to go to the work and leisure.

In conclusion, to grow our economy in south-west Wales, we need to develop and expand the economic opportunities in the Swansea bay city region and we all need to work together. So, thank you, David Melding, for bringing this debate.

According to the latest census, more than two thirds of people in Wales live in urban areas. As more people cram into our cities, problems of bad planning, overcrowding and poor accessibility become more evident. The challenge we face, therefore, is to create cities where people want to live: places where shops, jobs, social facilities and open spaces are easily accessible; places where planning takes account of social, economic and environmental development. This is why I welcome the proposal contained in our strategy for Welsh urban renewal or urban development. A successful city must balance social, economic and environmental needs. It must put the needs of its citizens at the forefront of all its planning activities. Poorly managed urban settlements will be unable to keep pace with urban expansion, bringing with them more poor health, poverty, social unrest and economic inefficiency.

Environmental hazards are responsible for the most common causes of ill health and morbidity among urban poor. Foremost amongst these is air pollution. In 2016, Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Port Talbot and Chepstow all reported illegal and damaging levels of air pollution. Deputy Presiding Officer, over 143 deaths per annum actually happened in Cardiff in 2013 due to air pollution. Five English and four Scottish cities are leading the way in introducing clean air zones. The considerable cut in emissions seen in Berlin—which is a German city—over 10 years ago demonstrates what can be achieved because now that is one of the cleanest cities in the whole of Europe. We should make improving air quality a priority by introducing clean air zones in Wrexham, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, and we should go further to protect the health of our children. All schools and nurseries should have air pollution monitors on the busiest roads within 10m of their premises.

Easy access to urban amenities by walking, cycling and public transport can remove the need to use cars and further reduce air pollution levels. One of the biggest barriers to cycling is the safety issue: the lack of cycling lanes. In the United Kingdom, Deputy Presiding Officer, in 2013, there were over 1,700 deaths on the roads, which is totally unacceptable. We propose to develop infrastructure to facilitate growth in cycling through the provision of additional bike lanes in urban areas. Our target is to double the length of cycling routes in urban areas by 2040. A community cycling fund would enable local communities to fund and design their own cycling networks with the aim of accessing local amenities.

Greater use of pedestrian-only streets reduces people's exposure to excessive levels of noise and air pollution. A study in Denmark reveals it can also provide a welcome boost to the local economy and retailers. We already provide concessionary bus passes for travel for our elderlies. I believe young people also need the support required for them to access education, jobs and training. That is why we propose introducing a new green card scheme to provide all 16 to 24-year-olds in Wales with access to unlimited bus travel freely in Wales.

Green spaces are essential to improving quality of life in our cities. Green spaces are essential to protect our environment and to improve the health of our citizens. We need an open space strategy that puts parks and the reclamation of derelict and underdeveloped land at the heart of urban regeneration. This would include a commitment to planting more urban trees. Urban trees not only improve the look of an area, they also produce the benefits of lowering urban temperatures and improving air quality.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the proposals contained in this document are about improving the quality of life of those who live in our cities, and we should be at the forefront in the United Kingdom to give our citizens the best possible clean life to live in. They are about enhancing the economy and ensuring a clean and safe environment for our citizens and our future generations. I believe they deserve the support of this Assembly and of the next generation to come. Thank you.

Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate. We broadly support what they're calling for today. The motion itself is a little vague, but it does refer us to their White Paper, 'Liveable Cities'. The White Paper is interesting and it focuses on, among other things, the nitty-gritty areas of transport and housing, to which I think they should have also added the related issue of employment. And Oscar Asghar in his contribution just mentioned that issue, so clearly you're aware that that is part of the tapestry you're trying to weave here as well.

You do cover a lot of policy areas in 'Liveable Cities', so I will have to confine myself to commenting on just a few of the areas that you go into. There are proposals relating to undeveloped land becoming parkland, anti-littering initiatives, a plastics ban—all pretty good stuff that we, again, would broadly support—and then there is the encouragement of more cycle routes and more walking. Well, we would all here generally tend to support that kind of aspiration, but the problem is how we achieve it.

The Welsh Government have their own active travel programme that aims to expedite these very things, but the problem is actually turning fine objectives into meaningful action. Cycling was just mentioned in the last contribution. With cycling, there is a problem of space, as Oscar mentioned. Cyclists don't want to ride on busy roads for the very reasons that were just described: the danger of too much traffic on the roads and also heavy goods vehicles among them, which I believe Simon Thomas mentioned earlier today—possibly in this debate. So, because of these issues, cyclists often tend to take to the pavements—understandably so.

Cycle paths in cities tend to merge with footpaths, so then then cyclists are mixing with pedestrians. I do a 50-minute walk to work every day, and back, along a route that is also used as a cycle path. As a pedestrian, I do actually object to having to be put at risk by cyclists who are going too fast without using bells. [Interruption.] I couldn't hear that, Jenny. I do agree with the aim of getting more people cycling, but I don't really, if I'm honest, actually want to be sharing the footpath with them.

I just want to emphasise that whilst cyclists might pose a risk to a pedestrian, that is nothing as compared with cars. So, I think dangerous driving is far more significant an issue than poor cycling.

Yes, the point was made by Simon Thomas earlier, and I would agree that the biggest danger is caused by the cars. I think the point I'm making is that the three different things don't really mix at all. Cars, cycles, pedestrians, the difficulty is trying to find a viable way of cyclists and pedestrians becoming more active and using that mode of transport without everything interfering with the other thing. So, this, I do find, is a genuine difficulty as a pedestrian. I know you cycle a lot, Jenny, so I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of a pedestrian. So, I think there is a difficulty. I think the problem is: where is the space for all of these different modes of transport to be viably promoted?

A major issue is that there are now too many cars on the road. Our current towns and cities were not designed for this amount of cars, so we do need to reduce the number of cars on the road, which takes us on to one of the Conservatives' ideas, which is about encouraging the use of buses, which, again, Oscar was describing in his contribution.

There is a proposal to make transport free for 16 to 24-year-olds on the buses. This would be a bold move. I can see that this might lead to a culture change, and it's worth thinking about this. In the long term, there could be a massive theoretical gain. The problem is, in the short term, what would be the budgetary cost to the Welsh Government of providing this kind of facility. Such a move, if it was made, could encourage many young people not to use cars all the time. It won't encourage all of them, because some of them won't envisage using buses because buses are not cool. The ones that do use the proposed bus cards, these cards will also encourage them to walk from their homes to the bus stop, so it could also encourage the idea of walking, because at the moment a lot of youngsters are only interested in walking, unfortunately, from the couch to the car parked outside the house. Within a few short years, many of these same youngsters could be obese and will be a drain on the NHS, so we do have to look at the long-term potential cost savings. Surely, this is the kind of long-term thinking that tends to be encouraged by our future generations commissioner, so I wonder what she would think about your policy of free bus travel for the young. I wonder, of course, what the Government Minister has to say about it today. Of course, we also need to cost this and think about how on earth it would be funded.

I think I've come to the end of my time. There was a lot of stuff to cover. We broadly agree with the Conservatives; on the Plaid amendments, the one about clean air we do support. We know you're doing a lot of Government initiatives, but we do wonder about the effectiveness of them, because the active travel Act, there are lots of doubts about how effective it is, so we are opposing your amendments today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I think there's plenty to like in this strategy, but what's particularly attractive is how immediately relevant it is to my own, primarily urban, region of South Wales West, and so I'm going to start, rather bravely, I think, with one proposal that I think could be improved upon, if I don't incur the wrath of David here.

One point three billion pounds is lined up for the Swansea bay city deal, and that's all about economic growth, learning and economic activity, as it says in the motion. That includes investment, specifically, in an internet-themed test bed to support innovation with 5G mobile connectivity. So, I'd like to suggest that the wider metropolitan Swansea area, rather than Cardiff, should be one of the first places in the UK to roll out 5G, because the plans have already started to be developed. The money is there, and of course it reaches beyond the city itself. We are talking about urban, and urban is not the same as civic, which is a point that others have made today.

Part of the thinking behind a digital city region was a reduction in traditional transport needs, and that will be true to some degree, but people will still want to connect with their wider physical environment, I think, which is becoming a less pleasing experience in Port Talbot and Swansea—part of my region—not least due to that industrial pollution combined with nitrogen dioxide from traffic that, as we've heard, has reached illegal and, of course, pretty damaging levels. I know we've discussed it before with the environment Minister.

This isn't just a problem for the very heart of the city. I think it's going to be interesting to see whether the Hafod bypass, for example, reduces the impact on Pentrehafod School, or whether the fact that the trains are left idling for 10 hours or more at Landore wipes out the effect of that piece of urban planning. So, I'm pleased to see the Plaid amendment as well regarding a clean air Act, but I think we could actually get cracking on clean air zones now, as suggested by the strategy.

Connecting with the wider environment means our walking environment too, and the plastics ban, of course, is a very valuable approach to the problem of littered streets, but I was particularly taken by Cardiff's plans for targeted cleaning of frontages and doorways, and gull-proof bags. I'm pretty confident that Swansea's herring gulls have absolutely no idea what a herring looks like. They can get into Styrofoam burger cartons faster than an under-10s football team and most of them seem bigger and far more insolent than the average 10-year-old as well. That's an issue in itself, because we know about rats and rubbish, but when it's nesting time or when it's time for the chicken-nugget-fed chicks to learn to fly, adult seagulls just become dambusters, and they become very dangerous as well. The only positive side to this is that they particularly like cyclists on pavements, but that makes two of us.

Now, before people lose their rag on that, why do some people cycle on pavements? Sometimes it's genuine ignorance and sometimes it's just pigheadedness, but very often it's because of the road surface being too dangerous, as well as the traffic, which we all know about, and, very often, because retrofitted cycle lanes are in the wrong place or because the local authority thinks it's more important to have a bed of New Zealand flaxes in the middle of the road, rather than using that space creatively to create a safe cycling area.

This is why I'm drawn to the community cycle fund—Oscar mentioned it earlier—because it's a fine example of co-production in the first place, because it means that it's local communities who design their own cycling networks and infrastructure like secure bike parks. It also gives cyclists the chance to make a claim for use of some—but not all—existing pavements and pedestrianised areas, because some can be used safely for bikes and pedestrians if the use of that available space is well designed, although I recognise Gareth's point that shared space isn't always great. It's much better if they're designed separately in the first place.

On the point of pedestrianisation, I think we do have some lessons to learn from the past. We have got some great examples in Cardiff, complete with convenient quality parking where it invites shoppers and other visitors to stay for a long period of time and walk—and sometimes cycle—in the area, but there are terrible examples as well, like Bridgend. As well as the impact of the internet and retail parks, the high street there is slowly closing down because of overpedestrianisation. It's become beloved of chuggers. These previously very busy streets are cut off from their clientele, if you like—the top-up shoppers, people going for haircuts, quick coffees. The car parks aren't very central and the busy through-roads cut off residents who might be tempted to actually walk into the town centre, which brings me, then, to the residential space. I don't have time to give this the attention is deserves: intergenerational living, the location and so on. I'll leave that for another day.

I just wanted to mention the green spaces. The well-being effects of those are so well documented, and it's one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to understand Swansea council's determination to build a school on Parc y Werin—the one such town centre green space in Gorseinion—when there is more than one alternative site for that school. 

Most importantly and finally, we must plan with vision not panic. Building nothing for years and then pushing out these huge estates miles away from the urban facilities that Oscar mentioned distorts communities and leads to life in a car, not cycling and walking, when we could be actually living in liveable cities. Thank you.

I very much welcome the debate brought forward by David Melding, and I think there are lots of really interesting ideas in the paper he presented to his own party's conference. Decarbonisation, I'm very pleased to say, is a key priority of the Welsh Government's economic action plan, so I think there are lots of exciting ideas that we can pick up on in delivering what we absolutely have to do to meet our climate change obligations. We've seen what can be done if we're ambitious, as with the recommissioning of the Wales and the borders rail service, which has many environmental features, including some of the lines being 100 per cent eco, and I think that that is a really important indication of what we can do. I absolutely agree that Cardiff is of an optimum size, and we definitely don't want to see it growing into some sort of ghastly urban sprawl, which is what will happen unless local authorities and the planning Act prevent that happening, because certainly that would be what the developers would like. So, we need to fiercely enforce the green belt around our capital city if we're going to avoid the sort of creeping urban sprawl that would simply eliminate everything that we celebrate about Cardiff.

I would love to make Cardiff the UK's first carbon-neutral city, and I think it's fantastic that David Melding is articulating that ambition. I think that the green routes on at least 50 per cent of commercial developments is definitely something we should be aiming for. The flats that have been built above St David's 2 in the city centre are a good indication of what can be done with proper advance planning, because there are gardens in the sky that the residents of those flats are able to enjoy, even though they're in an area that's obviously completely concrete, as it's the middle of the shopping district. But I think that that's the sort of thing we should be expecting of any other further city centre developments—[Interruption.] Yes.

I agree with what you just said about developments like St David's 2. What's also great about that type of development is that the car parking areas, which are very useful at the moment, are built in such a way that in the future they could themselves be converted into flats; that could all be residential space. So, it's important to futureproof buildings as well, and make sure that that is in the planning system to cater for the world tomorrow, not just today.

That's a fantastic idea. I hadn't appreciated that, but I'll get onto that immediately, because one of the problems we have in Cardiff is that we've got over 1,000 city centre parking places, which is obviously allowing people to do absolutely the wrong thing. They should be coming in on public transport or park and ride, rather than trying to park in the middle of the city centre; it's absolutely crazy. Clearly, there needs to be parking for the people who reside in those flats, but they are very small in number.

I wanted to just talk a little bit about the eco-town planning policy that was launched by the last UK Labour Government in 2008, which was designed to provide both additional housing and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Unfortunately, tragically, the coalition Government that succeeded it tore this up—the famous codicil to the autumn statement in 2015 by George Osborne, where he slipped through abandoning the zero-carbon building regulations that we could otherwise be enjoying today. I do hope that the Welsh Government will look seriously at introducing this so that we're not having to retrofit the houses that we're building tomorrow with further environmental cladding when we shouldn't have allowed them to build at such poor quality in the first place.

I think, three years after that disaster, there are several towns around the UK that are looking to new ways of developing sustainable urban places. For example, Solihull has got a new sustainable urban quarter around the high speed 2 interchange near the M42, connecting Birmingham Airport, the National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham International station and the new HS2 station with a completely automated people mover, which is being delivered by something called the Urban Growth Company. In Bristol—closer to us—they've got Grow Bristol, which is not your average farm. It's run out of recycled shipping containers, uses innovative ways to sustainably farm fish and salad vegetables to sell directly to Bristol's consumers and to the city's restaurant trade clients. 'We’re talking about food metres, not food miles', says one of the company's founders. This is something that I know that some of Cardiff Council's cabinet members are looking at closely, because this is a hydroponic, aquaponic system to grow leafy greens and farm tilapia, with the waste from the fish used to feed the plants. Councillor Michael Michael, the cabinet member for the environment, is looking at a similar scheme here in Cardiff because we need to do this sort of thing. With Brexit coming along, we are potentially at huge risk of losing most of the vegetables that we currently import from Europe. So, we need to think very quickly about this.

I appreciate I've run out of time, but I think we have the expertise here in Cardiff, through a lot of the sustainable development expertise at Cardiff University, both to build sustainable housing and sustainable food programmes. So, I think we need to think outside the box and really take forward our climate change obligations.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in this debate, and I congratulate the lead speaker on bringing forward such an interesting and dynamic policy document, which seeks to address many of the posed questions that we, as elected Members, get from our constituents if we represent cities like Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, or indeed our larger towns such as Newtown, Wrexham, or Barry as well. Because, actually, a lot of the thinking in this document doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively in the urban area; it can carry into our larger towns and our market towns the length and breadth of Wales. One thing that jumps at you straight away when you read the foreword to the document is that nearly 70 per cent of the population of Wales now live in an urban area. 'Define "urban area" and discuss', you could say, but most people have an image of Wales—and rightly so have an image of Wales—as a green and pleasant land, because the vast majority of Welsh land is green and pleasant. But, when you put it on a population basis, this affects a huge number of our countrymen and women who are looking to their politicians to alleviate the blight of many poor decisions that have been taken by previous generations, especially in town planning, especially in the brutality of the 1960s and 1970s, where concrete jungles were created and the solutions that we today say should be put in place for transport measures were just completely discarded, when there was far greater scope to clear sites and create that urban space, that liveability, that David talked about in his opening remarks that we now should grab the mantle of and actually drive forward.

I do think that it is incumbent on the current Welsh Government, and on all political parties, to come up with the solutions and come up with the route-map that this document clearly identifies as, certainly, the Welsh Conservatives' offer to many of these pertinent questions and, indeed, timeline the solutions that you'll put in place, because the document maps out a timeline between 2025 and 2040 of when we, as Welsh Conservatives, would very much like to see a lot of these policies in place to make the difference. Let's not forget that we are falling behind because of the metro mayors and the city mayors in England, right along Offa's Dyke, from Bristol up to Liverpool and Manchester and Birmingham in between—a lot of the city mayors' electability at the ballot box is to make these big improvements, both economically and environmentally, in the city cultures that they preside over now. It's not a central Government policy now to deliver most of these initiatives on the ground; it is for those metro mayors and city mayors to do that.

So, the Welsh Government really does have to get to grips with devolving responsibilities out to our urban areas so that they can utilise the dynamics of the local economy and the local solutions that can be put in place for some of the quick and early wins that we need to achieve, and then the more long-term solutions that need to be put in place with a more joined-up planning system. Time and time again, when I look at the planning environment around Cardiff, which I've had the pleasure to represent in this Chamber now for nearly 12 years—. It's not exclusively Cardiff; the Member for Llanelli touched on the point in his intervention a little earlier about 'what about the outlying areas?' You only need to drive up the A40 in the morning to see the commute into Cardiff, and then drive the other way back and see the commute out of Cardiff, to show that the cities are the engine for growth for the wider region that encompasses that area. So, we must have a planning system that isn't fit for the 1950s and the 1960s, but is fit for the twenty-first century and the third decade that we're going into now of that twenty-first century.

I've sat in this Chamber over the last 12 years and heard various planning Ministers, from the wonderful debates and statements that we used to get from my namesake, Andrew Davies, and the spatial planning—whatever the thing was called. It used to torment us, to be honest with you, the amount of debates that we used to have.  

The Wales spatial plan.

The spatial plan—wherever that went to. Then, all of a sudden, we're getting various announcements now about how the Government is being progressive in its thinking around the planning system. Well, actually, there doesn't seem to be much progress, I would suggest, that residents, certainly in the west of Cardiff, are pointing to at the moment to say that they feel that their voices and their needs are being listened to and we are getting the modern cities that have the environmental solutions, such as the green spaces on the tops of roofs. This document highlights that, in Singapore, for example, there are 100 hectares of green space on rooftops in Singapore. That's 240 acres for the old imperialists in this Chamber like myself, who measure things in acres. That, in the middle of one of the most densely populated cities, shows what can be achieved if you open your mind to some of these solutions.

We can be at the forefront of breaking some of this technology and developing that technology, and I really do hope that the Minister in her response will offer a road map of where the Welsh Government is taking some of these tricky questions and putting answers to those questions. Because, actually, the amendment today gives an indication that there is a lot of activity going on, but like a swimmer who is kicking like hell under the water but not really moving very far forward— that certainly is the sense that I feel when I look at much of the activity coming from the Welsh Government on many of these issues. Yes, there are many groups that you can point to, and think tanks that are advising, but we are not seeing the game-changing solutions put in place, and we need to see that because, as I said, 70 per cent of the population of Wales is written up as living in an urban environment and, if we are going to be a successful and dynamic economy for the twenty-first century, we have to develop those urban environments that have that liveability, that have that economic dynamic, and, above all, are beacons of excellence that other countries look at for the problems that they face. That's why I urge the house this afternoon to support the motion that is down in the Welsh Conservatives' name.      

Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans?

Thank you very much. I do welcome the debate today and the spirit in which it was brought forward by David Melding. I don't think I have enjoyed a debate as much as the one today for quite some time, because we have heard some really constructive and thoughtful contributions. 'Prosperity for All', our national strategy, makes it clear that communities are a national asset, and we will invest in them, both urban and rural, as our amendment to the debate makes clear. So, we'll be ensuring that communities across the length and breadth of Wales are attractive to live in, work in, invest in, study in and to visit. To do this, it does require the kind of joined-up cross-Government place-based approach that we're pursuing through our economic action plan, our £100 million targeted regeneration investment programme, our Valleys taskforce delivery plan and the national development framework that we are consulting on. So, these are the kind of game changers that Andrew R.T. Davies was looking for in his contribution. It does require close working with our partners, including local authorities, city and growth deal regions, housing associations, Transport for Wales and the Development Bank of Wales. 

But our focus today in this debate is on our urban communities, and in seeking to understand the challenges and the opportunities facing our town and city centres, it's important that we engage with research and expertise. Earlier this year, I enjoyed a really useful discussion with the Carnegie UK Trust discussing their international research 'Turnaround Towns' also their Wales-specific report, which looks at the challenges and opportunities facing our urban areas here.

The challenges are well rehearsed, and many relate to our changing patterns as consumers, but there are opportunities too for our towns and cities to capitalise on areas that can't be fulfilled online: our desire for experiences, for leisure, for culture, our desire to engage, our desire for the personal touch and for excellent customer service, and our need to access good quality affordable housing in a place where we live and work. With our support urban areas can adapt and they can evolve: closed banks into pubs, empty shops into homes, and derelict land into green open spaces.

We know the importance of those green open spaces and delivering nature-based solutions including green infrastructure. This is one of the national priorities in the Welsh Government's national natural resources policy. It's central to our vision for a Valleys landscape park, which has the potential to help local communities use their natural and environmental resources for tourism, energy generation and good health and well-being, and it's why we're investing in our Green Flag awards scheme. It's why evidence on urban tree canopy cover is being shared by Natural Resources Wales with public service boards to influence their local well-being plans.

Liveable urban spaces that promote good health and well-being should be well kept, and the Welsh Government is acting on several fronts to address the use of plastic. We're a world leader in recycling and we want to be the world's first refill nation. We're investing £6.5 million in our circular economy investment fund and, more widely, in the Year of the Sea, we're proud to sign the UN Environment Clean Seas plastic pledge, and a Wales clean seas partnership has been established to create a long-term legacy from our hosting of the Volvo Ocean Race to turn the tide on plastic. 

Liveable urban spaces that promote good health and well-being should also be easier to walk and cycle in, and also to use other forms of sustainable transport. We recently announced an additional £60 million of funding to enhance local walking and cycling networks and Vibrant and Viable Places funding is also being used with active travel in mind. As Simon Thomas said in his contribution, we're investing £2 million in additional electric charging points for electric vehicles with a focus on rapid chargers, and we will seek sustainable private investment for charging points to maximise and build on this public investment, as part of our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. Improving air quality is a priority for the Welsh Government. We're consulting on clean air zones, are taking action to reduce emissions in the most polluted locations and we've introduced a new £20 million clean air fund to support improvements needed at a local level. Our wider clean air plan for Wales, which will be about more than road traffic pollution, is planned for later this year.

As Minister for Housing and Regeneration, I'm passionate about housing-led regeneration. Our Vibrant and Viable Places programme has been successful in delivering this in a number of communities, but I see the potential to scale this up through our new £100 million targeted regeneration investment programme. Alongside this, we're investing £90 million in our innovative housing programme— 

Minister, will you take an intervention? 

Yes. 

I'm grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Do you recognise that the best way to get the best solutions on regeneration, especially in a local environment, is to devolve as much responsibility down, when it comes to regeneration, to those communities and local authorities and businesses so that they can determine what's important in their own areas, rather than the very centralist model that you currently operate? 

The targeted regeneration investment programme is very much about locally led solutions for local regeneration. It's undertaken on a regional basis, but those discussions are undertaken amongst those local authorities within the region and it is for those local authorities to use their local knowledge to decide how to spend that £100 million. Welsh Government won't be directing how that money will be invested; it will genuinely be decided on the basis of local decisions and local knowledge and intelligence that our local authorities have.

So, alongside our investment in innovative housing, we are using that programme to support schemes that will stimulate the design and delivery of new, quality affordable homes to increase supply as part of our 20,000 new affordable homes target, and also to speed up the delivery of homes to market. It's also allowing us to trial new housing models and methods of delivery that address issues such as the pressing need for housing, fuel poverty, demographic change and climate change. For the first time, I've opened this fund up to SMEs and also the private sector, but I know it will be particularly interesting to SMEs, which have a strong track record of taking risks and of being the first people to innovate. That, alongside our stalled sites fund and our property development fund, will support them to return to house building in a way that they haven't been able to before recent years. It will be particularly important within our urban areas in infill sites and windfall sites, for example. 

We're also supporting a £27 million town centre loan scheme to assist in bringing empty sites and buildings back into viable use across 34 town centres. I've already seen some fantastic examples of use of this funding, bringing about real change. The exciting thing about this investment is that it can be recycled many times over, supporting more great regeneration projects over a 15-year period.

Business improvement districts enable local businesses to work together and bring additional private sector funding and investment into our urban areas. There are currently eight BIDs across Wales, and they will generate over £500 million of private investment during their term, which is a really significant return on our £240,000 investment. I recently announced funding of a further £270,000 to support the development of up to nine new BIDs. This is really exciting because the business community is well placed to be leading regeneration and economic development in their local areas, working closely with wider partners in a spirit of creativity and innovation. 

Will you take an intervention? It's on that specific point about BIDs, and it's a key point. I know that they work very well in many areas, but certainly in my area, I know that Abergavenny was given the option of having a BID and rejected it. So, would you agree with me that, when you're setting up a business area like that, it's important that you get buy-in in advance from the local businesses and from the local people? Because if you don't have the buy-in of the people it's supposed to help, then you won't really get anywhere with it.

I agree that it has to be locally led and locally delivered, which is why it's important for areas that have the opportunity to become business improvement districts to look at the success that has been generated in other parts of Wales, where the local members and local businesses have decided to opt in.

I can see that time is running out, so I will bring things to a close by talking very briefly about the fact that we continue to use EU funding in support of regeneration activity through our £50 million Building for the Future programme. Their first project was announced recently in Pontypridd and I look forward to making further announcements soon. It's really important that we don't try to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to regeneration. Every place is different and everywhere will require a bespoke approach. Our support is flexible and it does enable just that to happen. So, in that context, it must be undertaken in partnership and that was really well recognised in the Carnegie work, which I referred to at the very start of my contribution. Promoting strong, urban centres can't be done by national Government alone. Although we will show leadership, it does need to be owned by the communities involved, and that is the spirit very much in which we will continue.

I now call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Minister was very generous there in taking my intervention, given that I was just about to stand up. Feel free to take some of my time, if you want.

No, I think the Deputy Presiding Officer was more generous in allowing it to happen.

Of course, yes. Thank you.

I'll get on with my comments. David Melding's highly constructive introduction to this debate set the tone for this debate—and can I thank everyone who has contributed? You spoke in a fine fashion, as ever, David. You used a number of key terms such as 'cities as urban engines' and 'centres of innovation' and you spoke about the need to boost urban renewal, and also to recognise the importance of the city region as not just about the urban core, but about everything around it as well. I think it was Lee Waters's intervention on you where he raised the point about the need to make sure that everything is not sucked into that urban core, but that, in this modern age of the city region, we recognise the importance of it as the heart of the area, but not the ends of it.

David referred to our urban renewal policy, launched recently, and some of our key objectives to make Cardiff a carbon-neutral city. We can do that; we can really set the agenda. We can get ahead of the curve with regard to Cardiff and setting that new tone. If you are going to be forced to do that in the future anyway, then why not try and set the agenda here in Wales? And Welsh Government will have our support in trying to do that.

You also mentioned the idea of how people in the future—. We often talk about the problem of housing and the shortage of housing. In the future, people don't necessarily need the same types of housing and the same types of urban spaces as they had in the past, and certainly the idea of higher-density homes with shared gardens would certainly suit not all people, but would certainly suit young people, particularly some younger people who want to get on the housing ladder.

Look, whether you support the Welsh Conservative policy in this area or not—and I got the feeling from the debate that many people did—I think that all Members agree this was a debate that was worth having. We've had this debate in various forms over the years, and this is another aspect of that, and I know that all parties have their ideas and their policies and their strategies, which can all dovetail with the Welsh Conservative policy in this area and really get on with the job of what we want to do, which is to make our urban areas a better place for those who live in them.

I think one thing is clear: we cannot simply leave urban areas to get on with it themselves and hope that somehow they will magically develop in the best way possible. We saw back in the 1970s and 1980s the first signs of what will happen if you did that—in the United States with cities like Los Angeles, and Californian cities in particular, where the car became king and you ended up with doughnut-type cities, where you had retail developments on the edges and then, eventually, nothing in the middle at all, a kind of wasteland. And we started down—in fact, we did start down the line in some of our towns and cities in Britain in that, but we made sure that we stopped along that way to disaster and we tried to improve things. We need to make sure in the future that that certainly doesn't happen again.

So, key themes: planning, public transport, air quality. As Suzy Davies said in her contribution, planning with a vision. The announcement of the new Transport for Wales franchise recently can, of course, be a key component in this renewal process. There are some very good objectives in there; we need to make sure those objectives are actually delivered on. But, certainly, the direction of travel with regard to Transport for Wales is a good one. And transport is key. I intervened on Mike Hedges, because I've tried myself—. I would dearly love to travel from my village in Monmouthshire to the Assembly by public transport, which I can actually do very easily by bus from Raglan to Newport, then by train from Newport to Cardiff. But you try getting back after 17:30 from Newport to my village. And I'm not out in the sticks; it's on the A449. But it's virtually impossible to do. So, there are areas here where planning and Welsh Government really can make a difference in the future.

I appreciate that time is short, Dirprwy Lywydd, and you have been very generous with me today, so I will not witter on. But take this debate—

No, please don't. 

I knew you wouldn't let me. Take this debate where it comes from: it is, as David Melding said at the start, an attempt at a constructive contribution to a debate that I know we all want to have, we all need to have, and let's get on with the job of making our urban areas in Wales a better place for everyone who lives in them.

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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on establishing a publicly owned energy company. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion—Simon.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can’t recall when was the last time we had a debate in the Assembly led by two papers, one published by one opposition party and the other published by another opposition party. This debate emerges from a paper that I published around a year ago on the proposal to establish an energy company for Wales. As I said in the previous debate, if you have an idea that is a good one and has yet to be implemented, then there’s no disgrace in recycling that idea. Therefore, I'm not going to apologise for bringing this debate back to the Assembly, although we have discussed the idea in the past.

I bring it back in the context where there may be a major decision to be made on the future of energy in Wales, with not only the possible investment in Wylfa, Wylfa B, but also the proposed possible decision of not investing in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. I will come to that in a few moments, because it’s very relevant to the concept put forward by Plaid Cymru in its paper and in today’s debate.

I’ll give you some context first of all. Wales is a nation that is rich in energy. We produce, or collect, I should say, more energy than we use, therefore, we are an energy exporter. But yet, energy prices in Wales are among the highest in Europe, and that demonstrates the situation that we’re in as a nation. Energy poverty is particularly damaging to low-income households. There’s a tendency to have ad hoc payment systems for energy, and they can’t access the best tariffs. Also, in west Wales we have a number of areas that are not on the national grid, so they depend on gas or oil that is imported. It is also true to say that although we generate electricity, we have the capacity to produce far more, particularly in terms of renewables. There are 5 million acres of land in Wales where we could produce on our coastline and on the mainland. The Welsh economy demands a great deal of electricity—we still have manufacturing plants and steelworks—and therefore we need that energy.

Creating a national energy company for Wales is an opportunity to get to the core of the issue of energy poverty, by investing in infrastructure, by coming to joint agreements and by using the power of a national company, research and development in energy, and the creation of commercial opportunities for the benefit of the people of Wales and the environment. Fracking isn’t the solution for using energy for the benefit of the Welsh economy, but a major concept such as this one that uses the whole range of the natural resources of Wales.

We’re also facing a very real threat to humanity because of climate change. Indeed, 2016 was the warmest year since records began, and we’ve just had the warmest May ever since the month-by-month statistics started to be gathered a century ago. If we are serious about a cut of 80 per cent in emissions by 2050, as is set out in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and to reach the target that all parties agreed on in this place of cutting carbon emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, which is what the Paris agreement expects of us, then it means that we need to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions from homes, businesses and transport, and it also means that we need to produce energy from cleaner and renewable sources.

Our vision, therefore, is an environment where Wales reduces its carbon emissions, harnesses its natural resources sustainably and takes opportunity in the low-carbon and circular economies. The link between energy and climate change is clear. However, unfortunately, we are still in a position where we have to wait for Westminster to give us some crumbs from their table when it comes to a matter of powers over energy.

Decisions in terms of most financial incentives for renewable energy and the future of the gas and electricity grids are mainly made in London, although we have powers to plan energy under 35 MW now. The fact is that where the grid works and where the money goes is what’s driving developments. The fact that we can permit planning—that, at the end of the day, in a way, is only a tick in a box. The decisions are made far earlier.

Now, what would a national energy company be able to do for Wales, therefore? Well, the remit of a possible company would include a reduction in unit price for energy to homes and businesses in Wales, a reduction in the quantity of energy used in businesses and homes, and helping users to make best use in terms of smart metres and so on. The task of Ynni Cymru would be to finance and install solar panels on a broad scale, on homes and businesses, on lampposts—businesses—to overlap, perhaps, a little with the discussion that we just had a moment ago here. This would be done by local companies under the national umbrella, starting, perhaps, with public buildings and social housing. The company could harmonise and facilitate the use of public land for renewable energy. It could pay for procurement and enhanced large-scale storage. It’s a chance for Wales to become an energy storer as well as a producer. It could ensure that Wales becomes self-sufficient in renewable energy, and that it exports renewable energy too. Plaid Cymru is of the view that we could do this by 2035, and that is our target.

The task of developing a national network of regional companies or local companies could be through community ownership, or on a local level. Now, this is very important. Since the Welsh Government—and this is reflected in the Welsh Government’s amendment to the debate—rejected the concept last autumn of a national energy company, as we had proposed, they have said, ‘We need community ownership of wind turbines and renewable energy developments.’ Well, how are you going to achieve that? How are you going to achieve that without local communities being misled, if you like, or ripped off, by the major energy companies—the multinationals not just the national companies. Well, Ynni Cymru, or a national company, working for the benefit of the local community and in the name of the Welsh Government, could ensure that that didn’t happen, and that community ownership could become a reality in Wales.

We would be way ahead, therefore, of some of the developments that local authorities have in England at the moment, in developing their own energy companies. And if anything, the decision to leave the European Union and of course the internal energy market in the European Union is very important—it’s not discussed a great deal. Leaving that market takes us one step further away from the fact that we can use interconnectors, share energy, share ideas, and share the same ambitions and aspirations. All of that means, in my view, that we should hasten the process of becoming self-sufficient in terms of energy. And Plaid Cymru is strongly of the opinion, as I have said, that that could be done by 2035, as well as using renewable sources to that end. All of this brings us to the situation that’s likely to arise this week.

So, we do have a very real example now this week, it seems, because it's widely reported that this week the Westminster Government will reject the proposal to have a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. We still wait for that. [Interruption.] Just a second, if I may. I think they're trying to get what they call the good announcements out first—Wylfa, Heathrow—and then the tidal lagoon will creep out as an announcement of the weekend, possibly. I don't know, maybe Jenny Rathbone has news on that.

I do. Basically, I'm sure I share your enthusiasm for the project, and do you agree that the £200 million that the Welsh Government has put on the table, as long as the UK Government is prepared to match the strike price that they've offered to Hinkley Point, is a very good way of proceeding forward on this important project? 

Sorry, I was just about to come to that. [Laughter.] And I agree, and I was just about to use it as a good example of where this national energy company could help. Because how would the Welsh Government do that? Does it just give £200 million to a private company? Please, I don't think so. If you're going to give Welsh taxpayers' money to a company, which I wouldn't oppose, but let's do it together, co-financing—. I think £200 million is a serious offer, but it's the starting offer—maybe more is required—but in which case you'd want to take some of the profits, you'd want to be part of the technology, you'd want to be part of the profits that might come from spinning off the technology for future tidal lagoons. You need a body to do that, don't you? Well, what body do you then have to do it? When you were faced with Wales and borders franchise arrangement, you set up Transport for Wales, a non-dividend body to do that work on behalf of the Welsh Government. Surely this is an example of why we do need a national energy company to do precisely this.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I supported and welcomed, when the initial announcement was made, a co-investment kind of model—£200 million wasn't mentioned there. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Finance knew how much money was in the pot, but it wasn't mentioned. Now we have a figure. I think the figure is a serious opening offer. If it's going to be upped at all, then we need to take stakes in the company, stakes in the technology, stakes in the future development.

But let's put one thing to bed—the tidal lagoon is not an outrageously expensive proposal in this context. The Secretary of State for Wales has made some dreadful mistakes over the last few years, including the reneging on promises of investment for electrification for Swansea, for example. His mathematics are all to pot, I have to say. To say the tidal lagoon is asking twice as much as nuclear—no way. The tidal lagoon project specifically asked for a 90-year contract at £89.90 per MWh. It sounds a lot, but in 90 years' time, that's not a lot of money at all. That compares to Hinkley Point, which is £92.50 per MWh. The tidal lagoon would have installed capacity of 320 MW, providing power to over 150,000 homes, and as everyone knows, it's designed as a pathfinder project. That is more expensive, because the technology itself is not new, but it's the application of the technology that's new. It's not innovative to have a turbine in water, but it is innovative to put it in a wall that goes around a big tidal range. That's innovative. So, the application is innovative, not the technology. You compare something like a tidal lagoon with a nuclear power station—both have high capital costs, both of them, but over a 100-year period, which is in effect the tidal lagoon period, you get decreasing costs of production, whereas our experience with nuclear is that those costs are rarely maintained at that level. That's why they want 35-year contracts for those costs. 

So, the lagoon would provide energy security, and as the Hendry review, which was the independent review that the Government set up to look into this, said very clearly, both nuclear and tidal lagoons are UK sources of generation, but nuclear relies on imported uranium, and as other technologies move on, and as China might take up more uranium, the price of imported uranium might well rise. What the tidal lagoon gives us is Welsh generation using our own natural resources. I think that in itself is something that we support. Not only do we support it, the public support it—76 per cent supported wave and tidal energy, and 38 per cent, in that poll done itself by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, supported nuclear. 

I don't want to set up one against the other, and that's the dangerous thing that the Secretary of State is likely to do here, and say, 'Well, on Monday we gave you Wylfa, and on Friday we won't give you the tidal lagoon.' If we're going to have a proper energy mix, then we need all sources to be applied and we need in particular to see the tidal lagoon to be given the assistance of the Westminster Government. I can't put it any better than to conclude by quoting what Hendry himself said around the tidal lagoon:

'To put this in context, the cost of a pathfinder project...is expected to average around 30 pence per household per annum during the first thirty years. This seems to me an extremely modest amount to pay for a new technology which delivers those benefits and which has clear potential to start a significant new industry. Moving ahead with a pathfinder lagoon is, I believe, a no-regrets policy.'

I believe the lagoon should be supported on that basis. I believe a national energy company could be the vehicle for the Welsh Government to invest and be part of that significant new industry. We here will either take a decision this week to invest in the tidal lagoon and be part of that, or we will find ourselves supplicants once again, when, in 10 years' time perhaps, a Chinese company comes in and says, 'I love your tidal range, let's have a tidal lagoon.'

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Minister for Environment to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Formally.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw.

Can I first of all very much commend the work that Simon has done in this area on energy, and also the work the various parties on the various committees have looked so much at on the issue of community energy? This is an issue that isn't going to go away, and we are on a path where we will inevitably end up with community energy and the renationalisation or the re-public ownership, in whatever form, of energy, as we will with the other public services. My contribution, to some extent, is to talk about this within the concept of public ownership, because without public ownership there isn't public accountability of what the key services are that we all depend on that are essential to life.

I think what is very, very clear is that privatisation in all the areas of public service has been an absolute disaster. It's been a mechanism for the legalised mugging and robbery of members of the public. I'm not aware of any public service—and I'm a user of all the public services, as we all are—. I look around to find any of those public services—water, gas, electricity, even transport—and say, 'To what extent am I any better off as a result of privatisation?' I'm faced, as everyone else is, with systems of payment for energy and public services that I don't understand. I can't work out what they actually mean to me. I can certainly not see that I'm any better off. What's very, very clear is that in all our public services, and energy being an absolutely fundamental one of them, there is a need for a new approach to public ownership in whatever form, whether it would be not-for-profit, whether it would be co-operative or whatever.

The legacy of what the Tories have delivered us in terms of privatisation has actually resulted in some quite remarkable political changes. In terms of energy, 77 per cent of the population of the UK now want to return to public ownership of energy. They are sick to death of the system of confusion, the lack of accountability, never knowing who's in control, who is in charge. And maybe that was always part of the purpose of privatisation: to take away the route to, actually, at the end of the day, being able to hold public accountability, and maybe it is also an explanation as to why there has been such disillusionment in politics, because no longer are you able to say who you hold to account for those key services. 

Five point one per cent of energy only is renewable in the UK. Real-term prices are 10 to 20 per cent higher due to privatisation in energy, 10 per cent live in fuel poverty, and public ownership would save an estimated £3.2 billion per annum, which roughly offsets against the actual profits that are extracted out of the industry on a year by year basis. 

Countries are now returning to the concept of democratisation of public services. Germany's now moving back to a system of 15 per cent public co-op community ownership. In doing so, I think the area that we probably do need to explore much, much further is how this needs to fit within a UK-wide strategy in terms of the grid, and in terms of the actual production of energy, as well as the distribution and supply.

You have to ask why the Tories have consistently resisted and opposed the re-ownership, the re-democratisation of energy, water and so on. Well, we know it's because, for example, solely in the energy sector alone, David Cameron received £2.6 million in donations from the energy industry, and before that general election received £3.4 million. So, clearly, the energy companies know where their own vested interests lie in terms of protecting the privatisation. Nine senior Tories had second jobs on boards of directors or as consultants of the energy companies, so the whole system has been corrupt and incestuous. 

That is why it actually has to happen. We see the same with water, raised this week at the GMB conference. The bosses of the five or six main water companies are paying themselves £58 million a year in salaries, a 40 per cent increase in pay over a period of several years—the chief executive of Severn Trent Water, £2.45 million; United Utilities, £2.3 million—and all of these are companies that make significant donations to the Conservative Party. 

We see again what's happening within the NHS—£4.1 billion privatisation budget of the NHS in 2009-10, which I don't agree with, but is now £8.7 billion. Theresa May couldn't even answer that statistic. We look again at the system with the railways, the buses, telecomms, postal services and housing. So, you're heading in exactly the right direction. I think this is a road we have to go down, and I take some comfort from reading out a quote from The Spectator, a Tory-supporting magazine, which says that 

'Pragmatism will conclude that privatisation has been a failure and that continuing to defend it is beginning to look like an ideology of its own.'

So, Simon, carry on the good work. I think there's very little in terms of what we disagree with on this, and we are inevitably moving to a system where there has to be a restoration of—I don't care whether you call it public ownership or whatever—the democratisation of those services that our lives and the people of our country actually depend on. 

Simon Thomas made reference to the fact that we were reintroducing some of these ideas and we should make no apology for that. I’d like to take this opportunity to reintroduce to Assembly Members some of the findings of the report of the Environment and Sustainability Committee of the last Assembly. The last debate in this place in the last Assembly was on 'A Smarter Energy Future for Wales' and policy priorities for the new Welsh Government. And the first short debate in the current Assembly term was mine, which reintroduced some of the recommendations contained within that report, which includes, of course, the need to establish an entity such as Ynni Cymru.

That report demonstrates the challenge that we’re facing, but all of that in the context of the powers that we already have. It’s not a matter of 'Well, if we have these additional powers, we could do that.' All of the content of that report was based on what the current Government could deliver within the current settlement.

Now, it made reference to Germany, of course, where the ambition is clear: by 2050, ensure that 80 per cent of energy comes from renewable sources, but simultaneously by that point, that they should cut energy use in buildings by 80 per cent, and in light of that, create millions of jobs and also add to their GDP. It is a transformational programme in that nation.

It’s also worth looking at somewhere like Uruguay, which has a population similar to Wales, and has ensured that, in less than 10 years, 95 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. That, of course, reduces its carbon footprint, but also reduces bills for its citizens, simultaneously. It’s not as if we don’t have the natural resources to emulate much of this; we do have the core resources required to be just as ambitious, but, of course, we have to be just as proactive, too, and not just expect things to happen without us doing that deliberately.

We need to be much more proactive, and Ynni Cymru, as we've heard, is one particular vehicle that we can and should utilise to make some of this happen. And, of course, state-controlled energy isn't unfamiliar to the market. It certainly isn't unfamiliar to us here in the UK. I suppose EDF is the most famous company—or infamous, maybe, depending what you think—but it's French owned, or 85 per cent state owned. The French state has that share in the company. But there are wholly state-owned companies as well, such as Vattenfall in Sweden and Statkraft in Norway.

Simon Thomas was talking about the potential that we have in Wales of taking a stake in the lagoon. Well, that is exactly why Statkraft was established: it wasn't just to generate a profit for the citizens of that country, it was actually to protect their natural resources from the exploitation that they were seeing coming from multinational companies, and they wanted not only to protect them, but if they were going to be used, for them to be used sustainably, to generate income and to be used in the interests of their people. And of course they still entered into joint ventures with private companies—of course they did—but that was done on their terms, so the infrastructure, for example, reverted to state ownership after a certain number of years. Any research and development; any innovation; any intellectual property was either owned by the state or jointly owned by the state, so they could then utilise that to pioneer the next generation of opportunities and have that first move and advantage that we desperately want to realise with the lagoon potential here in Wales. Of course, the glory is that it would be the Welsh people who would be the shareholders of this venture.

And that not-for-profit model, of course, in terms of utilising our natural resources isn't unfamiliar to us here in Wales in terms of water, is it? Dŵr Cymru. Welsh Ministers regularly laud that not-for-profit model as one that we're very proud of, and rightly so, so let's replicate that in this context as well.

Now, across England, we see local authorities establishing energy supply companies, not-for-profit companies. There’s been an example in the past from Nottingham, Robin Hood Energy, and of course they offer a tariff to the citizens of Nottingham that is different to the rates paid by others. There are steps being taken in Wales: we’ve seen how Bridgend, for example, has been trying to develop local heat networks, and Wrexham has been in the vanguard in terms of solar energy. Well, why not create a national entity in order to share this good practice, to bring these plans together to ensure that more of it happens, and, possibly, that some of it could happen at a national level, too?

So, the opportunities for Wales in having Ynni Cymru, as we are calling it, are exceptionally exciting: there are huge benefits, economically, environmentally and socially, and they are all very significant indeed. The challenge is set down in this motion and I would encourage you to show the same ambition as Plaid Cymru by supporting the motion.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate? I think Simon ranged far and wide and certainly beyond the wording of the motion, but, I think, outlined this whole area of policy and the challenges and shortcomings he sees in it, and it was very interesting, some of which I sympathise with.

But can I just unequivocally put on record, as I did last year when we debated this very issue—that is not a criticism; this is really important and it's appropriate it's back here—we in the Welsh Conservatives, as indeed the Welsh Labour Government, despite what Mick Antoniw has just said, do not agree with point 3 and will therefore not be supporting the motion? But, we will support the motion should amendment 1 pass.

Can I start by saying that we do share the aim for more efficient energy use and more competitive prices? But it is our view that this can be achieved without heavy Government intervention or nationalisation. The extent of publicly owned networks—I'm not quite sure if Plaid do believe in nationalisation, I'm pretty sure Mick Antoniw does, so we need a bit more precision, I think, in this debate, in what is being proposed. But while it's an important area, and we need to get it right, I do believe that we're on the right path to achieving a solution and a balance that will require a suite of comprehensive measures. 

Will the Member give way? Just for clarity, to make it absolutely clear, I'm very much in favour of nationalised public utilities, but the proposal in front of us today, in the context of a privatised market where we in the Assembly don't have the powers, is just to establish our own national company that could be part of the players within this field.

I accept that, but I think the consequences, practically, of what you are proposing would go far deeper than that, and if I have time, I will touch on those.

I don't talk about this lightly. Energy prices are high and they are difficult to understand, and perhaps there's a place for better co-operation between the state and the private sector. So, reform in this area is certainly required. I'm not sure if I'll be permitted to quote Will Straw—but I'm going to try, anyway—now the associate director of the centre-left IPPR think tank. He argues for more local authority involvement, promoting

'a market that is far more competitive and transparent than the one we have now.'

And he states, and I quote:

'We need a series of market reforms to improve transparency, reduce the market power of the big six and encourage new competitors to enter the market.'

And he continues:

'This could include an important role for local authorities and community groups competing at a local level by generating, offering energy-efficiency services to bring down demand and even providing local supply consortiums to get the best deal for consumers.'

That could certainly be part of a healthy energy market, it seems to me, and I think it's much better to have these more moderated approaches.

This point about local energy generation is an important one, and I do believe that we need to be providing more resources and support in this area. Can I quote Archie Thomas, the energy spokesman for the Green Party? Shall I do that first before I give way, Jenny? He also thinks that: 

'local energy generation is the key—and that it supercedes the issue of whether the power giants are publicly or privately owned.'

And I quote:

'The real future for energy is not private or nationalised energy companies but low-carbon energy owned and managed by local communities.'

People need power over their own energy, and you don't get that in a nationalised system, necessarily. I will give way.  

Whilst I appreciate you're not an enthusiast for nationalisation, would you agree that Germany is hardly a hardcore socialist economy and there, what we have is a flowering of local energy companies that provide proper competition that is lacking in the UK? Would you and the Conservative Party agree that that is a model that we ought to be aspiring to here in Wales?

As we heard, they are moving to a mixed system—more state intervention, but not excluding the private sector. I'm happy to look at the models that work, and as an empirical Tory, I can see no other policy being appropriate than one that is seen to work in practice. As I said, I'm for reform and I think that indicates that the current model dominated by the six giants is not delivering the level of efficiency, competition and fair prices that we would need.

I'm already out of time, but I think you'll perhaps—

I'll allow you for the intervention, but not too long.

I think the real issue is the extent of what Plaid Cymru are calling for: what would it amount to? And I noticed in your spring conference, Adam Price was a bit more candid, calling for a connected Wales, creating an national energy grid with a national energy company connecting locally owned electricity-generating companies in every part of Wales. Now, it does seem to me that this company would be taking over the operations of the National Grid. How can any private energy supplier hope to compete with a nationalised company providing such unfair institutional advantages? These proposals, it seems to me, go a lot further than what you put before the Assembly last week. Now, that's fine, you're developing your policy, and it's your absolute right, but I have to say this vision of the happy salad days of when all utilities were public, and nationalised, most of them, and created effective investment, a good level of service and low prices is, frankly, a load of hooey.

I think it would only be fair for me today to begin to note, again, as Simon Thomas has already said, an enormous missed opportunity we've seen in Swansea bay lately. This isn't just about the energy benefits that a lagoon could have brought, if it is to be rejected, but it's also about another example in a long line of examples where a London Government has ignored Wales, erased Wales out of their minds. Put simply, the tidal lagoon debacle shows that, for the UK Government, Wales just does not matter.

The benefits of a tidal lagoon are positive: long-term, low-cost energy that would have made Wales a world leader in the sector; capital investment in my region of added value that would have been hard to quantify, since we hardly ever get any major capital investment in our country any more, particularly in my region; and, of course, for Swansea bay, as my colleague Dr Dai Lloyd would say, this comes after the insult of losing the investment in electrification by the UK Government too. The tidal lagoon demonstrates that UK Government is simply not interested in Wales.

It's obvious that, if Wales wants to move forward, we have to look at our own skills and create our own opportunities, as Llyr Huws Gruffydd said so eloquently earlier. How can we develop the energy base and skills for the future? Plaid Cymru has been calling for a national energy company for some time, as has been exemplified earlier—lower cost energy and more control, greater investment opportunities and breaking into what is a heavily monopolised sector. When privatisation was first mooted, the point was to allow choice, competition and a view to drive up standards, but, like so many other privatisation drives, this isn't what has happened. Now, here in Wales, despite being an energy powerhouse in comparison to many other places of our size, we have some of the highest energy costs, and it shouldn't be like this.

So, we propose an end to the energy giants' monopoly in Wales. The potential rewards could be massive. Just imagine how we could tackle fuel poverty. In Aberdeen, the city has set up Aberdeen Heat and Power, a not-for-profit energy company, backed initially by local authority loans and guarantees to provide lower cost heating for local authority and social housing tenants. AHP now supplies heating and hot water for flats in 33 multistorey blocks and 15 public buildings. Many of those blocks had very low energy ratings, they were difficult and expensive to heat, and 70 per cent of multistorey blocks in Aberdeen were in fuel poverty. Now, carbon emissions have gone down by 45 per cent, and the cost to tenants to heat and power their homes has gone down by around 50 per cent. There is virtually no fuel poverty now, and this shows what we could do to break the power of the energy monopolies. And, if a city in Scotland can do it, why not Wales? An umbrella body, a national company, would facilitate the community initiatives already in place and would act as a rocket booster for this sector. As has been mentioned by Jenny Rathbone already, the city of Hamburg in Germany, a city of nearly 2 million, is in the process of buying up their city energy grid and moving to not-for-profit services. Ynni Cymru could also act as a supplier and investor in the renewable energy sector that our country desperately needs. We've seen opportunities go by the wayside, and some projects in discussion so long they eventually die a death.

A national energy company could properly invest in solar energy. Research for the Solar Trade Association in 2014 showed that, on a UK level, bold ambition for both large-scale domestic and commercial rooftop solar could support an average of nearly 50,000 jobs a year between 2014 and 2030. Now, that was 2014. Costs are coming down as technology advances and energy production potential increases, but we are missing the boat and not keeping pace with other countries. In Germany, again, about 20,000 households are already part of an initiative that connects homes that independently produce energy. A virtual network allows them to buy and sell excess energy to each other at a reduced cost. There are other micro-grids developing elsewhere, such as in Brooklyn in the United States.

Now, there are some great projects in Wales already, and we need to encourage and support them. Llyr mentioned Wrexham, and I think that's something we have to start. If we can get local authorities to put solar panels on their council houses—I know UKIP would obviously disagree with this, but I think that that would be something that we could see as something positive, so that people could then have lower bills for their energy consumption. I visited the Rhondda tunnel project again this week, and their plans are to develop microhydropower powered by local waterworks in Nant Gwynfi, which would illuminate the tunnel and premises locally, and give income from the excess to, then, the Rhondda Tunnel Ltd, once they become a company.

Now, these are really amazing concepts that we need to be supporting here in Wales. Even when the National Assembly committee makes recommendations, as the energy and sustainability committee did on this issue, recommending a national umbrella energy not-for-profit, the Welsh Government didn't then see a case for action, and I'd question why not. A continuation of the ad hoc small scale ventures is appropriate from time to time, but if they had a national company that would support them and be able to invest in them then this would show a bold vision for our national Government and show leadership in that regard. So, I would urge the Welsh Government to come out of their comfort zone in this regard and to set up this company to show that we do have a vision for Wales and that we can actually keep up with the developments across Europe. At the moment, we are lagging far behind, and we shouldn't have to, because of the wealth of energy that we do have here in Wales.

Firstly, may I say I'm supporting this motion in a personal capacity? My party will have a free vote on the proposals, and my contribution to this debate will be brief and succinct.

I believe it is essential that the people of Wales have the broadest—[Interruption.] I'm sorry. I believe it is essential that the people of Wales have the broadest possible range of choice with regard to energy and suppliers, but I am also fundamentally opposed to our utilities being placed in the hands of private operators. I echo all of Mick Antoniw's comments on public ownership of utilities. I therefore thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate to the Chamber. The establishment of a not-for-profit—

Would the Member give way?

Of course.

Thank you very much. It's often said of economists that, if you ask four economists their opinion, they'll give you five answers. Is the same true of UKIP's position on energy policy?

Shall I say that we are a party that thinks out of the box? [Laughter.] And therefore we're a party of free minds as well.

Well, I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the establishment of a not-for-profit Welsh-based energy company or companies must work in the interests of the Welsh public. Many of the private companies supplying Welsh homes are foreign-owned. This means that at least some of the revenue earned leaves the country, to the benefit of recipients elsewhere. 

Being a not-for-profit company should intrinsically mean that it is able to be very competitive and may even have the effect of driving down energy supply prices, and could of course utilise all the levers of any production mentioned by Simon—although, of course, I would not agree with all the systems of energy production that he mentioned. I therefore echo Plaid Cymru's call for the Welsh Government to establish a publicly-owned energy company.

In my constituency in Arfon, we have three successful community hydroelectricity schemes, with plans in the pipeline for further initiatives. These are exactly the kinds of initiatives that need support, and establishing the Ynni Cymru company, as recommended Plaid Cymru today, could give a significant boost to this sector, on top of the other benefits that have been outlined.

The community sector has witnessed a great deal of change over the past few years: from the time before the feed-in tariffs, when 100 per cent grants were available, to the era of the FIT, when communities were seen to benefit from green energy, to the demise of the FIT and the less stable period that followed.

The future is rather uncertain at present as a result, but Ynni Cymru could give a clear focus to the work of these community initiatives, emphasising the collaboration between Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities, and the communities themselves. If the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is not to go ahead, then the funds should be invested in renewable energy initiatives instead, including community-owned projects.

Ynni Ogwen is one of these schemes. Local people represent 85 per cent of the shareholders, and almost £0.5 million was raised within two months in local shares. We’re not talking about a wealthy area here. We’re talking about a post-industrial community that is relatively poor, but it is a proud community that has seen the value of generating clean energy for the benefit of the local community.

Ynni Ogwen is more than a hydro scheme. It also successfully raises awareness of environmental issues and climate change, and it is the community itself that has generated this clean energy. They own it, and this gives confidence to the community.

Those associated with initiatives like Ynni Ogwen say clearly that more financial investment is needed, as well as greater structural and structured support from local and central Government, including practical support. Community groups often do not have engineering or environmental expertise, and buying in these kinds of expertise can be very expensive. This is the role that Ynni Cymru could fulfil, providing the practical expert support in an accessible manner.

In a series of meetings on community energy held across Wales with the support of Bangor University in the spring of this year, a forum was held to discuss future opportunities and challenges for community energy in Wales. Ynni Ogwen, Awel Aman Tawe and the Swansea community energy scheme played a central role in these events. The discussions led to a number of conclusions. The sector tells us that robust strategic support is needed for community energy in Wales; consistency is needed with regard to the level of support that is available, moving away from the regular changes we have seen; we need to develop a way to facilitate direct trade between local schemes and local businesses and users; local government and health boards must commit to buying energy locally; departments such as the departments for economic development, planning and energy must work together much more; and we also need to give the sector much more encouragement across Wales, drawing attention to all of the benefits. This is work that could be done effectively by Ynni Cymru.

Tackling fuel poverty should be central to the development of community energy. With 23 per cent of households in Wales living in fuel poverty, the focus must be on tackling poverty. The Centre for Sustainable Energy has found that projects tend to emanate, if truth be told, from wealthier areas. As it happens, Ynni Ogwen is an exception to that rule, but we do need more support in those low-income communities to support community energy schemes so that those communities can share in the economic, social and health-related benefits that the projects will bring.

The creation of Ynni Cymru could bring all of these strands together and give a clear focus and direction to the work that needs to be developed over the coming years, bringing the groups together, providing support and expertise the length and breadth of Wales—in rural and urban areas alike. Doing so would allow the community sector to grow quickly, contributing to the creation of a renewable energy sector that is exciting in Wales, allowing us to realise the full potential of our natural resources for the benefit of our nation.

Can I call on the Minister for Environment, Hannah Blythyn?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to welcome the opportunity to reply to this debate today, and I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for proposing this debate today.

I'd like to thank all Members for their interesting and engaging debate today. Simon Thomas, on opening, said he made no apologies for recycling this debate. Well, we have a proud record on recycling in Wales.

The Welsh Government has clearly set out our ambition to transform the energy system in Wales, so that we move to a low-carbon system. By doing this, I believe that we can secure economic advantage and positively impact on the well-being of the people of Wales.

As the motion sets out, the Labour Party established a clear vision for energy in our 2017 general election manifesto, which included actions at both a UK and Wales level. The first step, to take control of energy supply networks at a UK level, has not been taken by the UK Conservative Government. The second step, to establish publicly owned, locally accountable energy companies and co-operatives to rival existing private energy suppliers, can be achieved in a host of different ways, many of which we have been pursuing. Only one method has been explicitly ruled out, and that is the establishment of a Wales-wide energy supply company. The Welsh Government explained our reasons for this in a written statement last August, which built on evidence from workshops around Wales over that summer. Our conclusion was that a strong case has not been made for establishing an umbrella supply company for Wales. This has been borne out by evidence since, which shows that the public supply companies that we studied last year are still reliant on public sector support and have yet to generate revenue. Bristol Energy made a loss of £7.7 million last year, and the break-even date has been postponed to 2021. It also recently lost a contract to supply Bristol council.

The people who contributed to the conversation about energy companies last year gave us a strong steer on their vision for the Welsh Government's role on energy. They asked that we provide a supportive policy environment, co-ordinate activity across Wales and act as an honest, independent and trusted voice, looking at the strategic and regulatory issues that impact on the energy system. This is what the Welsh Government seeks to do.

Plaid Cymru's report 'Ynni Cymru' sets out a vision of Wales reducing carbon emissions, harnessing natural resources sustainably and seizing opportunities in the low-carbon and circular economies. This vision is consistent with the Welsh Government's energy priorities, which were set out in November 2016: to use energy more efficiently, to generate more from renewables, and to derive multiple benefits from the transition. With evidence that our approach is working, we have seen renewable generation in Wales go from 8 per cent of the electricity that we used in 2006 to 43 per cent in 2016. In order that this can continue to increase, we continue to urge the UK Government to restore the support for new onshore wind and solar schemes. Excluding these proven lowest-cost technologies from the energy market mechanism is increasing the price of energy. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary Lesley Griffiths recently met Claire Perry, Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, and reinforced our persistent ask that the UK Government restore support to the most affordable renewable developments. Failure to do so is restricting our ability to decarbonise and is driving up energy costs.

Others today have referenced the current context in which we find ourselves, with the announcements with regard to Wylfa Newydd and potential announcements on the tidal lagoon. The First Minister welcomed the UK Government's announcement on Wylfa Newydd. We will continue to build on the close working relationship established with Ynys Môn council and other key regional stakeholders, with the aim of securing a lasting legacy for Wales. We know that tidal lagoons could also play a part in Wales's energy future. I know that Members will be well aware that the First Minister wrote to Greg Clark this week, offering to consider an equity or loan investment in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, if there was commitment from the UK Government for an appropriate contract for difference.

The Welsh Government does not hold all of the levers needed to tackle low incomes and energy prices, which makes the eradication of fuel poverty a significant challenge. Once updated fuel poverty data is available towards the end of this year, we will involve stakeholders in developing future actions on tackling fuel poverty in Wales. Improving the energy efficiency of homes in Wales is the most sustainable way to reduce energy bills, reduce carbon emissions from our housing stock and improve the health and well-being of occupants. This, in turn, reduces the burden on our public services.

Since 2011, we have invested over £240 million to improve the energy efficiency of over 45,000 homes of those on low incomes who live in the most economically disadvantaged and vulnerable areas of Wales. In this Government term, we have committed to invest £104 million to improve up to a further 25,000 homes. Our investment will also lever in—

Will you take an intervention? I just wanted to ask if you could perhaps comment on some of the ideas that we have brought to you today. I have listed one in Aberdeen. Siân has listed one in Ogwen. Llyr has listed one in Wrexham. If you could give us an idea as to what you think of their potential, so that, potentially, we can try to look at a national company when you think it may be more viable. I hear what you say about Bristol, but looking at one example may not be a picture of how they all would operate. We could do something differently and better, perhaps.

Clearly, this is an ongoing discussion in terms of what works in Wales. Hopefully I can get on to some of that further in the response as well.

Since 2011, Warm Homes Nest has provided impartial advice and support over 98,000 households. Whilst there is no direct evidence, it's likely that this advice has helped to increase supplier switching, which is low in Wales, to a position where 19 per cent of our residents have recently switched, compared to 18 per cent in England.

Our Green Growth Wales service has built on previous success in the last year. The service has provided technical, commercial and procurement support to the public sector to deliver a range of energy efficiency and renewable energy products. The investment committed in the last financial year alone was over £28 million, demonstrating the benefits of our long-term approach to capacity building. Projects supported include a range of street lighting projects, including a commitment of £1.5 million in a Flintshire project and another £3.3 million—

Will you take an intervention? I'm sorry to interrupt, and I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention, but, similar to Bethan Jenkins, I realise that you have a speech to go through, but what do you think? How far do you think Wales could go in terms of pushing the agenda on building a new energy future and being innovative in doing so?

May I thank the Member for his intervention? I'm probably the understudy today. Look, I said at the outset of the debate that this raises many interesting and innovative and creative ideas, and I think it's for all of us to take that debate forward to see how Wales can lead the way in terms of how we approach renewable energy and energy sources in the future.

If I move on to community projects, given the interest in that area, our Local Energy service has pioneered an approach of direct loans to projects that were deemed too risky by the commercial lenders, enabling the construction of community-owned generation, including Awel Aman Tawe’s windfarm, and bringing other renewable developments into community ownership. Our support has enabled community groups to become socially focused developers in regions across Wales. I think concern was raised in terms of how community groups can be sure they aren’t, for want of a better phrase than the one Simon Thomas used, ripped off. The Welsh Government does support community energy projects directly with technical and commercial expertise, and we already have done so through our Local Energy service to help them to understand the commercial and financial models and make decisions on this basis. Indeed, Siân Gwenllian mentioned three community projects in her contribution, all of which, I understand, have had Welsh Government support.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs has set a target for 70 per cent of the electricity consumed in Wales to be from renewable sources by 2030. She also set a target for 1 GW of renewable electricity capacity in Wales to be locally owned by 2030, and an expectation for all new renewable energy projects coming forward from 2020 to have an element of local ownership. We believe that local ownership retains benefit locally. We recently undertook a call for evidence to underpin this position and better understand what is needed to help people in Wales to become more energy independent. We’ll be publishing the responses this summer.

I’m aware I’m running out of time now, so I will quickly round up, but it will be no surprise to Members on the benches opposite that we are working with Plaid Cymru on the energy atlas, and we think that this will be core to delivering the right energy future for Wales, providing evidence and insight to support local decision makers to get on and make things happen. We believe that our focus on support for innovation and local action is the right way to position Wales for a prosperous energy future.

Thank you. Can I now call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I can respond very briefly to the debate and first of all just put on record that, as I've mentioned the tidal lagoon, I am a community shareholder in the tidal lagoon, like many other people have been. It's not a declarable interest, I have to say; it's not that big. But it does show that many hundreds of people in the area have put their own money where the Westminster Government is not prepared to go. We believe in Wales. We believe in our natural resources. We believe this can work. We believe this technology will be there for hundreds of years to come, and we should utilise it. I very much hope that the Westminster Government ultimately will, yes, respond to the offer from this Government, and also respond to the widespread support for the tidal lagoon in Wales.

Can I thank everyone who took part in the debate, particularly those who supported me? [Laughter.] But, also, I'd just emphasise how important I think Bethan and Siân's examples of community investment and community ideas are—and the Aberdeen example is an excellent way of showing how this could be knitted together.

Both Llyr and Mick Antoniw have talked about the fact that this is, in effect, big business. There's a lot of money in energy, and that profit is going elsewhere. It's not coming to me. [Laughter.] That profit at the moment, ironically, is often taken by other Governments who have invested in Wales, and not our own communities. It's the same for Arriva trains and other things as well, of course. So, we do need a better approach to this, and that's why I can't agree with David Melding's position. I understand where he comes from, but his Conservative Government has been nationalising rail left, right and centre—or at least east, west and middle—and the ideology has to crumble away when you're faced with the reality.

What we have in energy—let's just step away from slightly ideological positions here—is that you need some kind of private rigour there to ensure that efficiency is driven through the process, but if you haven't got that, then you have to have something that recognises the market has failed when you've got high energy prices in an energy-rich country. So, you have to have intervention.

If I can conclude by turning to the Cabinet—. Not the Cabinet Secretary, sorry; the Minister, who's speaking for the Cabinet Secretary. Her intervention—I agree with a lot of what she said, but she did say that the consultation refused this idea. Well, yes, 38 out of 72 people said 'no' to this idea. That's a Brexit kind of result, really. But very importantly, what did the consultation also say was missing? What it said was missing is: collective market failures, e.g. running schemes to tackle fuel poverty, encourage renewable generation, close the gaps between local production and local consumption—the Ynni Ogwen model—continue to prioritise demand reduction, including through better energy efficiency and behaviour change, and ensure the energy system and transition works for the citizens of Wales and aligns with the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Some of these objectives could be advanced by an all-Wales energy services company, but maybe not by an energy supply company. In light of the fact of what the Minister said, are these things actually being done, and doesn't she actually think we do need some national strategy to achieve this?

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

Item 7 is the UKIP debate on university finance, and I call on Michelle Brown to move the motion. Michelle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to move this motion on behalf of UKIP.

Many students in Wales are being sold a pup. It may be unpleasant to say it, but it's a fact, and there is plenty of independent research to prove it. Sixth-form students are fed out-of-date figures about the higher earnings achieved by graduates to entice them onto the degree courses. Accurate figures about how much more they could earn in their chosen career if they graduate are often not available, just a meaningless average across the entire spectrum of occupations and professions. The student loans system is costing the taxpayer far more than expected because graduate earnings are nowhere near where the calculation suggested they would be. This is not just because of the economic downturn, but also because many lower-starting-salary occupations that were once perfectly well served by diplomas have now had their requisite qualifications turned into degree courses.

Labour, in their amendment, are trying to turn this into an argument about access to university courses. That's a total red herring. This is not about inclusivity, diversity or access. This is about what happens to those who undertake degree courses. It's about making sure that we're actually treating these undergraduates and graduates fairly, and not misleading them by giving them false hopes.

Last year, student loan debt rose to more than £100 billion for the first time, and the Student Loans Company says that the majority of graduates will never pay off their whole student loan debt before it's wiped off 30 years after their graduation. That's a very big figure, £100 billion. A senior economist at NatWest said student debt was rising at a faster pace than any other form of debt, and eclipsed credit card of £68 billion. The senior economist at NatWest said,

'These latest figures show student debt is becoming a greater priority with every passing year. Student debt is the fastest-growing type of borrowing and is rapidly becoming economically significant.'

He predicts that, over the longer term, student loan debt is likely to double to £200 billion in six years.

We often compare ourselves with countries that we see as being less generous than ourselves. We see that people often compare our NHS to the cost of healthcare in the USA and we assume those countries have a less inclusive higher education system than us, yet the average student debt in the US is £27,000, compared with the UK student average debt of more than £32,000. So, even if the argument is about accessibility, it fails from the outset when we have a higher education system that's less accessible then America's because of the higher debt those students are going to be incurring. Clearly, saddling graduates with a debt that a majority will never be able to pay off is going to have a detrimental effect on their purchasing power and decisions they will make about pensions, investments and buying a house.

The current system, where practically everyone is encouraged onto a debt-laden university path, even for occupations with lower incomes than traditionally those associated with graduates, is a ticking time bomb for the economy, let alone the individual who will find their personal budget adversely impacted for life. The Tory amendment talks about tackling the brain drain from Wales, and I'm not doubting that there is a problem with the brain drain, but the primary cause of that brain drain is the lack of appropriate jobs in Wales. So, it's a little bit off the point, a little bit of a red herring, if I may say so. Whilst I can agree in principle with Diamond's recommendation, incentivising graduates to stay in Wales is largely pointless if they can't find a suitable job in Wales, so Plaid's amendment is a bit of a red herring too.

Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, has claimed that, and I quote,

'Somebody who goes to university will earn on average about £10,000 a year more than somebody who hasn't got a degree.' 

End of quote. But less than a year ago, the BBC reported figures from the Office of National Statistics revealing that where it comes a graduate aged between 21 and 30, the earnings gap is a little less, at £6,000. And a 2014 survey showed that one in four graduates were only earning £20,000 a decade after graduating, when the average salary for all workers, graduates and non-degree holders, was £26,500. It's clearly unacceptable that a quarter of graduates also earned only £11,500 in the first year after completing their degree and only £16,500 after three years. So, these claims that are being made for degree courses, and I've asked questions about this in this place before—you know, where is the analysis of how useful these degree courses are going to be? How much money is each degree course actually going to garner the graduate graduating from that course? Unless sixth formers are given accurate information about what kind of investment they're going to have to make and the return they're going to get from it in terms of salary, then they're operating on pure guesswork, and they're being thrown to the dogs.

The idea that an increase in graduate numbers is proof that we're more inclusive and have increased social mobility is sheer nonsense. We need a drastic overhaul of university finance so that we can keep Wales's brightest in Wales and so that we don't saddle thousands upon thousands of our youngsters with debts that will affect their entire life. The UKIP proposals we've put forward will achieve the results our students deserve and I urge Members to back them. Thank you.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

I formally move.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank UKIP for bringing forward this debate this afternoon? I move the amendment, which has been tabled in the name of my colleague Paul Davies, on the order paper.

I listened very carefully to what Michelle Brown had to say, and I have to say, I agree with a lot of what you said in terms of the need to make sure that we have those jobs here in Wales for people who exit their university courses to be able to go into. Because we've got some very startling statistics, actually, on the brain drain, with tens of thousands more graduates leaving Wales than actually staying in Wales—a net loss, just between 2013 and 2016, of over 20,000 students, which is a huge, huge number, and we want to retain that talent. Forty per cent of the graduates who stay in Wales for work are in non-graduate jobs as well, which I think is also a tragedy, because, of course, they're not putting to use the skills and the knowledge that they're learning while they're in those universities.

So, we certainly need to do more, but it's not just about creating jobs, it's about making sure that we've got courses that are also attractive to employers, which are giving people the right knowledge base and giving people the skills that those employers want. Because, of course, we are receiving people in from other universities from outside Wales who are coming to work here, and welcome as they are, it would be great to have our home-grown talent going into those jobs. So, we know we've got to do more. Seventy-two per cent of businesses that were surveyed back in 2015 said that they found it really difficult, actually, to get people with the right skills when they went to the marketplace looking for individuals. So, clearly, there's a mismatch between what is being delivered by our education system more widely and the skills that our businesses actually need. 

Further education colleges seem to do a better job, actually, of getting that match right, and that's perhaps because of the stronger links that they have within their local and regional economies with businesses. I think that those sorts of strengths within the further education sector perhaps need to be more evidenced in the university sector, in the way that they engage with businesses. I know, to be fair to Universities Wales and the universities that we have here, that there is some good work going on with the private sector in terms of trying to ensure that they're meeting people's needs, but, clearly, the evidence suggests that that work isn't paying the dividends that it needs to. 

So, in terms of the STEM subjects, I was very pleased to note the reference in the UKIP motion to the need to provide free courses for medical and nursing students. One of the things that my party put forward in our last Assembly manifesto, actually, was that there ought to be some sort of bursary scheme for medical students. Of course, we supported the continuation of the nursing bursary scheme as well here in Wales, but you've got to make sure there's a return on that investment for the Welsh taxpayer. So, one thing that we wouldn't like to do is just give that cash and allow them to do the courses and then go and work elsewhere. So, there's got to be an opportunity to retain them again within the Welsh NHS so that we can get some return for the taxpayer, and that's why we've tabled the amendments in the way that we've tabled them today. 

Just in terms of apprenticeships, we've made reference to level 6 apprenticeships in our motion. One of the things that I think is a growing disparity in Wales versus England is that there are a huge number of level 6 apprenticeship courses available over the border that people can access. For some reason, we've been very slow to provide those opportunities for people here in Wales, and we know that those higher level apprenticeships are things that employers are looking for. So, I would be grateful, Cabinet Secretary, if in your response to this debate you could just tell us what particularly the Welsh Government is doing to expand the provision of level 6 apprenticeships. We've done a very good job, to be fair, in Wales in terms of creating those other apprenticeships at level 4, but in terms of getting those up to level 6 and 7, I think we've got a lot more work to do. 

So, in closing, I would urge people in this Chamber to recognise the good stuff that is going on, but just to err on the side of some caution on the lack of engagement, really, between the private sector and the university sector, and the fact that there can be much more focused work on that in order to make sure that our universities are producing the graduates that can go on then to work in Welsh businesses so that we can retain that talent and not suffer from the brain drain that we've suffered in recent years.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. May I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to move the amendment in the name of Plaid Cymru? The topic of the amendment won’t surprise many, I'm sure. It's an issue that we raise regularly as a party in this context. It is a very important issue, and that’s been reflected in the comments that we have heard in the debate thus far, namely the need to ensure that, yes, students from Wales have the best possible opportunities to go to the world’s best universities and to have those important experiences, but also the importance, then, that we do everything possible to ensure that that investment in their future brings some kind of benefit to us here in Wales.

Now, we need to address the issue that we currently have—that net loss of graduates that we've heard about, and also the skills gaps that we have in vital sectors such as medicine and the STEM subjects. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service's data has shown a decline of around 14 per cent between 2015 and 2017 in the number of Welsh domiciled students applying to study medicine for all UK medicine courses, so there is an issue there that clearly needs tackling. And, more generally, we heard reference earlier to the report by the Resolution Foundation think tank back in August last year, telling us that Wales attracted nearly 24,000 graduates between 2013 and 2016, but that over 44,000 left, which was the net difference that Darren Millar referred to—over 20,000 students. Indeed, only two other parts of the UK had a worse figure than Wales, and they were Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east of England. This hasn't been recognised as an issue, I know, and Professor Diamond in his review certainly recognised the need to attract graduates to live and to work in Wales. Indeed, he recommended, as part of his work, that the Welsh Government incentivises students to bring or retain their skills to the benefit of Wales, and he outlined how the Welsh Government should consider maybe looking at permitting partial loan cancellation for those working in jobs in Wales that require a loan payment. But, of course, we're still waiting for definitive action from the Government in that respect. 

Now, Plaid Cymru has supported, of course, the move in terms of the way that funding is given, from tuition fee grant to maintenance grant, and we are very much aware that those upfront costs are a barrier, or the living costs are a barrier to many from obtaining the university education that they want to receive. But we have to tackle the loss of vital skills and knowledge within the Welsh economy, as we see young people leaving to study elsewhere and not, of course, very often returning to Wales.  

Now, I want to recognise that the Government, to a certain extent, accepted the principle that action is needed in this area, because we can see what’s happening in the context of the funding of Master’s degrees over the next year. From what I understand, the Government will provide £3,000 to students from Wales to study in Wales, and that will be implemented in various different ways in different universities in the year to come, and then, of course, there will be a more uniform process across Wales, if I’ve understood things correctly, which will be introduced from there on in.

But we then need to see, therefore—if we accept that principle, we do need to ensure that we learn lessons and identify from the data what impact that kind of incentive has on decisions made by that particular cohort. I would like to hear how the Welsh Government will measure the impact of this assessment on the decisions taken by the students in terms of where they study their Master’s. Then, perhaps, of course, that might strengthen the argument in extending it to a broader cohort in the undergraduate sector as well. And certainly, that is something that Diamond mentioned, as I’ve already mentioned earlier.

But, of course, it isn't just Diamond who's been highlighting some of these issues. In terms of targeting specific skills gaps, the evaluation of the Seren network suggested that, and I quote, 

'The historical downward trend in the number of Welsh domiciled applicants studying for Medicine would suggest that there may be a need for targeted intervention to support students applying for specific, competitive university degree places.'

And that evaluation recommended that consideration be given to agreeing a definitive list annually of universities' departments and courses to be included in the Seren network, which could include all medicine, dentistry and veterinary courses. 

Now, targeting young people for these particular courses, of course, is important, but doing so in conjunction with the kinds of incentives that Diamond and others have been talking about is something that I think we need to pursue. That, of course, would as well strengthen our higher education institutions, of course, in that it would ensure a greater number of students within their establishments. And the more students we can encourage to stay in Wales, then, clearly, not only does that benefit the HE sector, but it benefits the Welsh economy as well. 

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, nearly a third of all graduates, and two thirds of those studying law, end up in jobs paying less than £20,000 a year, and while graduates are less likely to be unemployed, many end up working in sectors where their degree is irrelevant. We have to ensure that the costs associated with achieving a degree do not outweigh the benefits of studying an extra year or so. We also have to ensure that the supply of university courses matches the demand of the job market. Of course, young people should be free to study whatever they wish, but they should be equipped with all the facts, which is why we are calling for HEFCW to review degree courses for expected earnings and to publish the results. Prospective students should be equipped with all the facts to enable them to make fully informed choices.

We should also utilise student finance to incentivise young people to study for degrees in shortage subjects. Wales has a massive shortage of GPs, nurses, radiographers and endoscopists, yet we are not doing enough to encourage more young people into these fields. If we were to abolish tuition fees for medical students, for nursing students and those studying STEM subjects, we would incentivise more people to become radiographers or endoscopists. More young people would consider becoming a doctor or a nurse if they were unsaddled from student debt. Our NHS has shortages in many areas, and by eliminating tuition fees, we could encourage young people to study for an appropriate degree, rather than risk the burden of debt and a low-paid job at the end of years of hard work and study.

We also have a shortage of carers and a range of occupations within our health and care sector for which a degree is unnecessary. We have to reach out to young people and highlight the fact that you don’t always need a degree to get a good job. We have to place as much emphasis upon vocational training as we do upon higher education. Our education system is supposed to equip young people with the skills to enter the labour market. We are doing a disservice to many young people by solely focusing on higher education. We have to equip young people with the right skills and the whole picture when it comes to the labour market. We need more doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, computer programmers and data analysts, not more young people with a law degree, thousands of pounds in debt and earning below the national average for graduate earnings.

I urge Members to support the motion before you today, so that we can take steps to ensure that we incentivise young people to study subjects where their skills will be sought and rewarded. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was mildly surprised, but nevertheless delighted, to receive the text of the motion that has been tabled by UKIP for debate this afternoon because it provides me with an opportunity to promote the Welsh Government's innovative approach to higher education and student finance in Wales, and to highlight the shortcomings of the UK Government's approach to student support in England. It also demonstrates how UKIP would like to turn Wales into a nation that only provides opportunities for those with the most resources, and when Michelle Brown opened this debate by saying it was not about access or equity, of course it's not: it never is about access or equity for UKIP. In fact, I doubt whether they know the meanings of the words.

I am therefore proud, Presiding Officer, to start with a summary of the reforms that the Welsh Government is introducing this September. This was in direct response to an independent review of student support and higher education, chaired by Professor Sir Ian Diamond, and has been welcomed by universities, the National Union of Students, and many stakeholders across the nation.

The new system will deliver the following: a fair and progressive system of support that ensures that students have access to support equivalent to the national living wage whilst they study—under this system, those most in need will receive the greatest help from this Government; universal entitlement to a grant of £1,000 a year for every student, as well as access to a partial write-off of maintenance loans of up to £1,500 when students start to repay their loan; a sustainable funding model for higher education and student finance; and a sensible, sustainable solution to increase funding provision for STEM subjects. Of course, it also offers parity of support for part-time and full-time undergraduates and postgraduate students—the first of its type in the UK; indeed, the first of its type in Europe—and increased funding to the higher education sector, so that it can implement Welsh Government priorities such as expanding expensive subjects, expanding part-time provision, investing in quality-related research, knowledge transfer and widening access to higher education.

The Welsh Government has also recently issued consultations on the support arrangements for medical and healthcare students, and I am slightly alarmed that the Members of UKIP seem to be blissfully unaware of the current NHS bursary scheme that supports not only our nurses, but a wide range of healthcare professionals. And maybe UKIP would like to look at the Government's current consultation on the future of these arrangements. [Interruption.] Darren.

Thank you for taking the intervention, and I acknowledge that there is a bursary scheme that is there, but of course the current scheme does not fully reimburse the costs of young people going to university. I think that's the difference here, and I would urge you, as a Government, to look at the opportunity for full reimbursement of the costs of tuition and any additional costs of young people going to university in return for a training contract. And I think that's the thing: you have to have this reinvestment back in the health service in return.

Well, of course, those signing up to receive a Welsh NHS Government bursary do indeed sign up to a commitment to work in the Welsh NHS, and I am looking to expand that, for instance, with regard to training places for educational psychologists, which we fund. And I would point out, Darren, I'm not about to take any lectures from a Conservative politician about nurse bursaries when we have seen the devastation of nurse education across the border because of your Government's abolition of the nurse bursary system. [Interruption.]

Now, if I could make progress, Presiding Officer. If I could make some progress.

We have also published 'Public Good and a Prosperous Wales—the next steps,' outlining in more detail our proposals for the structure and operation of the new tertiary education and research commission for Wales. This approach is significantly different from that taken by the UK Government for English students. In England, there are no maintenance grants, less overall support is available, and students from the poorest backgrounds are left with the highest level of debt. Not here in Wales.

However, ensuring stability and sustainability for higher education students and institutions is only one part of our national mission of reform to marry equity with excellence in our education system. Our employability plan takes actions in four distinct themes, providing an individualised approach to employment support, underlining the responsibility of employers to support staff, closing the skills gap and preparing for a radically changing labour market.

Individualised support gives advisers the autonomy and the flexibility to address the needs, strengths and ambitions of persons preparing for employment. We will work with universities, colleges, schools and Careers Wales to identify how they can encourage learners to undertake courses that would be of benefit to them and of benefit to the Welsh economy. And we will also explore how we can retain students who are trained in Wales to remain in Wales, or encourage those who train elsewhere to return.

It is important that, prior to undertaking academic or vocational courses, students are aware of the job opportunities and the earning potential at the end of their course. And, again, I am somewhat alarmed that the UKIP spokesperson seems to be blissfully unaware of the longitudinal education outcomes data. In fact, Presiding Officer, I'll send her the link so she can see that data for herself.

Welsh higher and further education has an enormous amount to be proud of and we should take every opportunity to recognise and celebrate success when we see it. The challenges now facing the higher education sector in Wales and indeed, in the rest of the UK, are perhaps the most significant in history. We believe that a planned collaborative approach to higher education is more appropriate to address the social and economic challenges we face in Wales; that's more effective in building on existing institutional strengths and more equitable in delivering outcomes for students and for Welsh society.

Darren, I can confirm that we have made additional resources available to HEFCW to invest and develop higher level apprenticeships, especially in the field of ICT, computing and engineering.

To sum up, Presiding Officer, as a Government, we have a comprehensive, inclusive, innovative vision for the future of higher and further education in Wales that encompasses strengthening the structure, delivery and quality of HE and FE provision; improving our research base and our research capacity; improving leadership and governance at institutional and national levels; a new funding and student support arrangement consistent with our planned approach to provision; and creating a more learner-focused HE and FE sector that meets the needs and the expectations of students and enhances their future employability. I would like to finish by welcoming the UK Government's review of post-18 education, and I would invite the review panel to consider the progressive, the fair and the sustainable approach that we have adopted here in Wales.

I call on Gareth Bennett to reply to the debate. Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thanks to everyone who contributed to what turned out to be a fairly lively debate. It warmed up a bit at the end, but it was interesting all the way through, I must stress that. 

Michelle Brown opened the debate. She talked about the lack of relevant information for prospective students when they're going through the school system and the lack of information regarding things like comparison of courses and the details of likely earnings—the kind of information that you really want prospective students to be able to have so that they can compare different universities, different courses. This is surely a good thing. Obviously, the Minister addressed this point in her contribution at the end, so I will go back to what she said when I come on to sum up her remarks. So, that point was raised by Michelle, who says that there isn't enough adequate information for students going through the system—prospective university students. I'm aware that the UK Government is starting to address this issue, so we will await developments in that direction.

Other points made by Michelle: the student loan system is not financially sustainable because the earnings that many graduates are now making are not what was predicted when these schemes were modelled back in the 1980s, so, effectively, many loans will have to be written off in the long term. Student debt is rapidly rising was another point that was made, and it is now possibly the greatest form of debt that we have in the UK, or at least greater than many forms of debt that were previously regarded as being dangerous, such as credit card debts and so on. We are now reaching those dangerous levels with student loan debt. And the other point that was made was that there are not enough graduate jobs to go around, so we are now having too many students graduating and there are not the high-paying graduate jobs for them to go into. I would add that that's a problem not just in Wales, but in the UK as a whole.

Darren Millar: I think he broadly agreed with many of the points that were made by us. He did also concentrate on the issue of the brain drain—too many graduates leaving Wales. But, of course, that is also related, as I'm sure he made this link consciously, to the lack of decent graduate jobs in Wales, because he cited the statistics that 40 per cent of Welsh graduates who remain here are ending up in non-graduate jobs, leading to the unfortunate term that we have today—he didn't mention the term—of GINGO: graduates in non-graduate occupations. Darren made another good point: he emphasised the roles of FE colleges in their interaction with businesses, because they have better links, traditionally, with the private sector. So, that is an important point. Bursaries for nurses were cited as a manifesto commitment that the Conservatives made in the past, and also the need was made clear for high-level apprenticeships in Wales, which everybody agreed with. That's not in our points, but we do agree with that.

Llyr Gruffydd for Plaid Cymru acknowledged that the issue was, indeed, pwysig iawn—very important. He noted statistics showing that the skills gap in medicine in Wales was growing and that we needed the Welsh Government to make an assessment of student statistics on targeted intervention to see how well that worked. That could include things like dentistry and veterinary courses for extra funding for students, and we agree with those ideas. We would broadly support those initiatives, as indeed we would support the call that Plaid have made in the past for a medical college in north Wales—things like that. These are important things that the Welsh Government should think about. 

Caroline mentioned that we need HEFCW to review all of the information relating to graduates and publish the results so that we do have a transparent overview of the results of graduates leaving courses and what their likely earnings are going to be. Caroline also noted the shortage in Wales of NHS specialists in various disciplines, not just doctors and nurses, and this can be addressed by abolishing tuition fees in these targeted areas. There is also the need to encourage young people, again, into vocational education, and two issues that sprung to mind from Caroline's contribution—the phrase 'parity of esteem', which I know the Minister has used, and other Ministers have used it recently, so that needs to be something meaningful, not just a word form; and I think we need to perhaps review the careers advice that school pupils are given as they go through the system, and we perhaps need careers officers to interact more with the FE colleges and the vocational side, so we do have school students directed in those channels, rather than always being directed towards universities.

Now, the Government Minister, Kirsty Williams, she mounted a rebuttal of our proposals and cited that the Government's policies were working. She cited the Diamond report and its welcome by the various stakeholders in the education establishment but, of course, many of the people in the education establishment like the idea of funnelling more and more students into higher education, so that may have been an element that you missed. She also stressed the fact that the least affluent students will get the most help, but she does seem more focused on getting more students into higher education. The whole point of our debate today is that the expansion of higher education is not working.

We've also had a slight—[Interruption.] We've had a—[Interruption.] We've had a bit of a—[Interruption.] We've had a bit of a dispute—. We've had a bit of a dispute over this issue of transparency of information. The Minister has made a case that there is enough information for prospective students. Darren Millar did challenge that in his intervention, so that is something that we can perhaps investigate at closer detail in another forum. Thank you again, everyone, for contributing to the debate, and diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd.

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

This brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to the first vote.

The first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives debate on urban renewal. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, no abstentions, 34 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1 is next and, if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, one abstention, 23 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 3 is next, therefore. 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, 26 against. As is required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. And therefore the amendment is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, 12 abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on establishing a publicly owned energy company. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, two abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, two abstentions, 11 against. Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, four abstentions, nine against. The motion as amended is therefore agreed.

The next vote is on the UKIP debate on university finance. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour six, no abstentions, 46 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

A vote, therefore, on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

We now move to the short debate—if Members who are leaving the Chamber could do so swiftly and quietly, if you do wish to leave the Chamber, so that we can proceed to the short debate. I call on Neil McEvoy to introduce the short debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Today, I stand here as a Welshman fighting for democracy here in Wales.

Wales needs a people's Parliament, sovereign and legislating in the Welsh national interest. It's an old concept called democracy. In this debate we have direct democracy in action. I wanted the public out there to decide what should be discussed today, so on social media we asked constituents to tell us what they wanted to talk about. There were a load of interesting comments from constituents, and I'd like to thank all those who took part. George Atkinson spoke of the need for devolved media and policing; Chris Piper wants the Welsh Assembly to have more authority with law and order; Matt Davies and Sue Fortune want to see better transport links in Wales; and Joanne Davies is calling for a ban on non-biodegradable products. All were great suggestions. But the most popular comment came from the Welsh Independence Memes for Angry Welsh Teens—and we have a few of those in here sometimes. They wanted to discuss a sovereign Wales.

So, the title of today's debate is 'A Sovereign Wales: Building the proud, sovereign and united country that Wales can and should be'. I would add today, 'the nation Wales will be'. I'm advised by the research department that there is no record of a formal debate on Welsh sovereignty in this Assembly before. Well, it's about time, isn't it? I'm proud to be the first AM to hold a short debate on Welsh sovereignty, and I'm even more proud that it was the public who put this on the agenda today. Grass-roots activism is fundamental to Welsh democracy, and it's why I'm here.

The great fault-line in Welsh politics today is between those who see Cardiff as our pre-eminent capital city and those who see London as that. I know where I stand. Wales has a great history. We were one of the first countries in Europe to have a civil law system under Hywel Dda as far back as the tenth century. Owain Glyndŵr, the great visionary of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, saw Wales as a country with its place in the world, with a Parliament that he set up well before Parliaments were the norm. During the American revolution, there were more signatories to the declaration of independence from Wales than from any other country. The Rebecca riots down west: on this very day in 1839, the tollgate was destroyed at Efailwen. We had the Merthyr rising and the Chartists in Newport—all Welsh people thirsting for sovereignty.

I'm a sovereignist and I want to live in a sovereign Wales, where we are sovereign as individuals, as communities and as a nation. Sovereignty means bringing governance closer to the people, making Government an engine for the desires and aspirations of the people. Good Government, a good democracy, is a way to channel the ideas and energy of us all. It's not some aloof body that merely dictates to people. Everyone here owns a house, but does anyone here let their next door neighbour manage their budget, keep their salaries, put the money in a bank account that you can't access, not allow you to speak to your neighbours, and to speak to your neighbours on your behalf? Of course this doesn't happen on an individual level, so why do we allow it to happen on a national level?

Wales can stand on its own two feet, but, more than that, we have a duty and responsibility to govern our own country. There are 100 sovereign nations in the world smaller than Wales. Five out of 10 of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world have a population less than Wales. All of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world top 10 have populations under 6 million, and seven countries in the European Union have a smaller population than us in Wales. In Wales, because our economy is bad, our young, talented and economically active people have to leave. They are replaced by older, economically inactive people because Wales is a cheaper, more beautiful place to retire.

The best thing that we can do about this is to become wealthy. A sovereign Welsh Parliament here in Cardiff will enable Wales to become wealthy. Sovereignty is a process that has already begun. We must push on and assume more powers, challenging Westminster. A sovereign Wales could have fair taxation, with a land value tax. We could legislate on radical, fair distribution of land. We could generate income on people coming into Wales with a tourist tax. A truly sovereign Parliament could empower people to create businesses and make sure that business is easy and quick to do in Wales. A minimum income could be seriously considered. We could take care of need and not punish people for being poor.

We are such an entrepreneurial people. The first £1 million deal on the planet was done in Cardiff, just a stone's throw from this Assembly, in the old Coal Exchange. In the past, when our children needed education, we were the first to set up schools—Griffith Jones and his famous circulating schools, which by 1761 had made Wales the most literate country in the world. Workers also established institutes across our nation, with theatres and libraries, and ways of helping each other. And who can forget the success in modern times of Tower colliery—people coming together, working together, taking a chance, and being successful. Tower colliery was doomed to closure until workers took it over as a co-operative, and it made profit for years. No-one is going to change Wales for us; we have to get together and do it ourselves.

The post-Brexit scenario for farming in Wales looks bleak. A sovereign parliament could take a lead by making cannabis a new growth industry. There are so many medicinal uses for the plant, and it’s an emerging industry in many parts of the world. A sovereign Wales could control our own natural resources, and crucially derive income from them. I’ve had enough of seeing our natural resources being plundered and given away. Our water is taken away and sold back to us. Our houses are bought up en masse and rented back to us. It’s time for the circular economy, for localism, with an end to neoliberalism and an end to austerity.

Sovereign Estonia has just introduced free travel for everybody in that country. Why? Because 75 per cent of the population voted for it. Sovereignty brings options. In Wales right now, we don’t even have the power to ensure that our children can travel to school safely, because we're unable to legislate on putting seat belts on service buses. A sovereign Wales would have an independent legal jurisdiction. And in a sovereign Wales, everyone would have a stake, every citizen would have rights and responsibilities, with a radical equality for all. Every state in the USA has a constitution, so why not Wales? The criminal justice system could be based on fairness and rehabilitation—no superprisons, fewer inmates, but toughness when required.

A sovereign Wales could have control over energy policy. We're already more than self-sufficient with electricity. We could invest in renewables, tidal lagoons—not nuclear—and we could export electricity, once again deriving a profit. A sovereign Welsh Parliament could usher in a green revolution with energy, clean energy, costing us pennies every month instead of the small fortune that it does. And that would have the knock-on effect of making our businesses and industries more competitive. A sovereign Wales could reinvent and revive mining, but in a virtual sense, with the mining of digital currencies, making a profit in a new, twenty-first century industry.

Wales has so much potential. We are a strong and resilient nation, and the last 800 years have proved that. In these islands, we need to turn democracy on its head—bottom up instead of top down. We should enable sovereign parliaments in Wales, England and Scotland, with further democracy emerging through those parliaments: democratic renewal from communities up, decentralist in nature. On certain matters, it would make sense for our nations to share sovereignty, but it would be for the people of those nations to decide.

I’ll finish with a story about a bus trip I went on in Iceland, where we were passing some mountains. On the left, I could see them, and the guide picked up a microphone and explained that, in 1935, Iceland was the poorest country in Europe. They were so poor back then that people lived in caves in the mountains that she was pointing at. But then, she explained, in 1944, Iceland became a sovereign country, breaking Danish domination. And she said that, in Iceland then, they had a government making decisions in the interests of the people of Iceland, planning for Iceland and not Denmark. She proudly stated that Iceland is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world per head of population. Now, nobody on that bus thought the woman was a nationalist, and she didn't claim to be. She was a normal woman, wanting the best for her family, for her community and her country, just like all of us do who believe in sovereignty for Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

I believe you've given a minute of your time to Llyr Gruffydd. 

Diolch yn fawr. I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, because I believe passionately that the foundations are there for a succesful sovereign nation here in Wales. We've spent the best part of an hour this afternoon discussing how energy rich we are here in Wales. We export electricity. We generate twice as much as we use, yet of course we end up paying more for our own electricity than others do in the UK. Likewise with water; we're a water-rich nation but the water that we export ends up being cheaper for those that use Welsh water than we actually pay for it ourselves. 

We're a nation rich in food as well. Around of 95 per cent of the land surface of Wales is dedicated to food production. We have the climate to maximise that potential, yet we see foodbanks springing up across the country and we see the BMJ warning potentially that the next public health crisis in the UK is going to be child malnutrition—in a food-rich country. Now, what does that tell us about the status quo?

But what, also, does that tell us about the potential we have as a nation? Energy rich, water rich, food rich: the currency of the future. Wars are being fought around this world for those assets, and we have them in abundance, and that means that we can proudly stand up on our own two feet and not have to accept people who tell us that we're too small or too poor.

I call on the leader of the house to reply to the debate. Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There was much I found that I agreed with in Neil McEvoy's speech, which I frankly wasn't expecting. But he listed a large number of things with which I fundamentally agree also, and much that Llyr just said I also fundmentally agree with. But we do have a fundamental political disagreement around independence. I do not agree that Wales would be better independent. I take the view, as does the Welsh Government, that the devolutionary route inside the United Kingdom, and in my preference, inside Europe, is a better route. But I fundamentally agree with many of the ideas that came forward in the speech, and particularly with Llyr's issues around energy and water.

The Welsh Government's very firm view is that the devolution settlement is a process, and that there is much more to do in terms of what Wales should be able to decide here. But I do think fundamentally that being part of the United Kingdom benefits our economy in fundamental ways, and most of the ways that it benefits our economy are because it has always been redistributive. Wales contributed an enormous amount of its wealth to the success of the United Kingdom, and in particular London and the south-east as the trading capitals over the years, and it's only right and proper, in my view, that much of that success should be redistributed back to Wales when it needs it.

I think that's the fundamental political difference. I don't disagree at all with the issues around energy and water. The Government here is very keen to have the powers necessary to do a lot of really interesting, innovative, socially acceptable things with power and water. Neil McEvoy listed quite a few things that I also agreed with in terms of what we could do in Wales, and I would say, actually, that we're already doing quite a lot of the things that Neil McEvoy lists. I'm sure he won't agree with me on that, but I think that, for example, we've had huge success with inward investment here, and a large amount of that success is because of the speed and rapidity with which we respond to business need—one of the things that you mentioned, for example.

There are a number of other successes that we have had, Llywydd, and I think many of the people in this room now, and the wider Welsh public, would agree with that. But the wider Welsh public has not agreed in previous opinion polls—although I agree it hasn't been put to a referendum—that independence would be beneficial for Wales at this time. I think the devolution approach has been brilliant so far. I was firmly in favour of it when it failed back in the 1970s, which I'm showing my age over, and I was delighted when devolution finally took its rightful place here in Wales with the establishment of the Assembly. The journey so far has been a good one. There are issues with the current devolution settlement that we're all familiar with—the ragged edges around energy, some of the water things that people suggested, some of the issues that Neil McEvoy suggested around travel, for example, and some of the issues where the settlement is difficult to understand for the people of Wales, as to why we can and can't do some things. 

I know, Llywydd, that you're very keen on the justice commission that we're looking at. As everyone knows, the Government has asked that we consider the devolution of criminal justice policy in particular, and I am particularly myself interested in that, because what's been able to be done in Scotland around sentencing policy and rehabilitation of offenders is really interesting. So, when you can come away from some of the sentencing policy the current UK Tory Government has, which I think is highly inadvisable and all the evidence shows doesn't work, and come to a much more socially progressive system, you get a much better result for your people. I'd very much like to see that devolved.

But we do have successful things in terms of foreign policy as well—our successful Wales for Africa programme. For more than a decade now, we've had strong reciprocal relationships with countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, and the Welsh Government has supported and encouraged people to get involved with links and projects for our Wales for Africa programme. We are very keen to build on that success and not reject that achievement and start again.

We continue to play a significant part in the union of the United Kingdom and we continue to be active participant in the European union of the future. I hope that we can reach a settlement, and Wales has been very instrumental in the negotiations for this, which will allow us to have a good constitutional framework both in the UK and in Europe. It doesn't mean the constitutional status quo is fine. I don't think the constitutional status quo of our existing relationship with the European Union is fine, for example, and that dichotomy that we had, in Europe or out, as if that was the only choice, is one of our difficulties.

I do think that the fact that this debate is framed in that black and white way is a difficult thing. I think it's a more fluid conversation about what sovereignty actually might mean for bottom-up democracy, as Neil McEvoy said. It's not necessarily full independence for each individual country. He mentioned the United States of America and the constitution of the States, but of course they have come together in a federation to give them strength in the world, and that's the devolutionary settlement, the federal federation settlement, that I and the Government would prefer.

We've set out those proposals many times in this Chamber, so I won't rehearse them now, but we will continue to look forward as a successful part of the union of the United Kingdom and we'll focus our attention, our resources and our abilities for the real challenges like Brexit, which we face in the coming years. I don't think we should deflect attention at this stage in talking about the break-up of the United Kingdom. We should be concentrating our efforts on our ability to stay united together inside the European Union, in my personal view.

That brings today's proceedings to a close.