National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and the first question is from Mark Reckless.

I thank the Member for the question. The M4 relief road proposals are currently subject to a statutory decision-making process. As finance Secretary, I will provide advice to colleagues on the funding implications of the scheme. Details of all the Welsh Government’s planned capital funding, including borrowing draw-down, are as set out in our draft budget for 2019-20.

Cabinet Secretary, in April, you asked the Treasury for more borrowing powers to fund the M4 relief road. Yet, when they agreed in the budget, you attacked them for disrespecting devolution. Now we hear the vote may be delayed, yet in your manifesto you said, and I quote,

'We will deliver a relief road for the M4'.

Cabinet Secretary, have you any intention of keeping that promise?

Well, Llywydd, the Member is wrong in his interpretation of the letter that I sent to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Luckily enough, I have a copy of it in front of me, in which I said to her,

'I want to signal now that I will be seeking an increase in the Welsh Government's annual and aggregate borrowing limits as we move into the next spending review in order that we can deliver our investment priorities for Wales'.

That includes the M4, but it is not a letter about the M4, which is what he said in his supplementary question. It is a letter about the totality of our borrowing requirement and the totality of the investment priorities for Wales. That was my objection to what was said in the Chancellor's speech—that he attempted to hypothecate any increase in our borrowing requirement for a particular purpose. That is quite outside the statement of funding priorities, and we look for an increase in our borrowing limit because of the many investment priorities very often advocated on the Member's own benches that are important here in Wales.

Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the Welsh Government has the power to issue bonds to raise funding for major capital projects, such as the M4 relief road—if they decide to proceed with it—in much the same way as Transport for London had the ability to raise bonds, which they did for Crossrail?

I thank Mike Hedges for that supplementary question, and it's an issue that he has pursued regularly in the Finance Committee and here. I'm happy to confirm to the Assembly this afternoon that we have had good co-operation with UK Ministers in relation to the bonds matter. The UK Government has confirmed that it will lay the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Variation of Borrowing Power) Order in the House of Commons. It's expected that that will be debated very shortly and, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, it will come into force at or around 1 December this year. As Mike Hedges regularly reminds us, the ability to issue bonds does not increase our ability to borrow; it simply allows us a new way in which we are able to do that, should the UK Government increase the interest rates charged through the national loans fund.

I thank Dawn Bowden for that. Across the United Kingdom, the proportion of the population of working age is projected to fall. The Office for National Statistics' work in this area does not provide forecasts in the conventional sense. The figures simply project into the future the patterns of the past, without any reference to new challenges or opportunities.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. The chief economist's report, which accompanies the Welsh budget, highlights the risk to the Welsh tax base if the working-age population continues to decline in Wales, especially when compared to the forecast rise of this age group in England. The chief economist's report goes on to say that this could mean £150 million a year less in the Welsh budget by the end of the next decade, and the problem of course grows in each year throughout that period. To what extent can the devolution of Welsh taxes help us to offset this position and to ensure that our Welsh tax base can continue to deliver the public services that we require?

I thank the Member for that. She makes a very important point in linking working-age population projections with the impact on the Welsh tax base and, indeed, on the block grant adjustment that affects the amount of money we get annually from the Treasury. The important point here, Llywydd, is the one that I mentioned a moment ago—that these are straight line projections from the past into the future. And there are many factors that can affect the comparable working-age population changes in different parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, at a sub-Welsh level, there are variations. In Merthyr Tydfil, for example, the sub-national projection shows a smaller decline in the population aged 16 to 64 than across Wales as a whole. The point that Dawn Bowden quoted from the chief economist's report is this: that if our working age population grew more slowly than other parts of the United Kingdom, that could easily translate into a smaller tax base and that would affect the funding we get from the UK Government. There are many things outside our own control that will have an impact on those figures in the future, as there are things highlighted in the Welsh Governance Centre report that show the things that we can do ourselves to make a difference in that area, and, by taking those actions, we can mitigate the problems that Dawn Bowden identified. 

But, of course, one of the keys to growing our tax base is ensuring that, one, we get more people into work, and, two, that they are able to earn a better standard of living, a better wage, so that they can then put that back into the economy. That, in turn, generates the cash for us to spend on health, education and all the other myriad public service requirements that we have. And, so, the working base is actually picking up quite a hefty burden.

So, my question to you, Cabinet Secretary, is, as we need that working base to grow, and we need them to be able to earn more and better money, what assurances can you provide that that taxes proposed in your leadership manifesto will not disproportionately hit Welsh businesses, and thereby hamper economic growth, because those businesses need the cash within the business to employ more people and to expand their businesses.

Well, I understand the point that Angela Burns makes about the need to make sure that as many people as possible in Wales are in work and earning good wages. But she will understand as well that the question raised by Dawn Bowden was: what if there are fewer people of working age in Wales in the future? Even if all those people are working and all earning good money, if there are fewer of them, then the implication of that is that that would lead into a smaller tax take in the future. A strong economy is really important, but so is the number of people we have of working age. That's what the population projections focus on. 

I agree with the more general point she made, that, as we think of using our fiscal powers for the future, we need to do so in a way that supports our economy and finds ways of helping that tax base to grow. 

Cabinet Secretary, the Office for National Statistics' forecast for the working-age population of Wales presents a real challenge for us. By 2035, the proportion of adults living with a limiting lifelong condition is expected to increase by 22 per cent, while, at the same time, there will be 48 people over the age of 65 for every 100 people of working age. Cabinet Secretary, what steps is your Government taking to ensure that Wales can afford to care for its ageing population?

The ratio of people of working age to people who have retired is a very important one for all western economies. The Member will I'm sure be aware that, 50 years ago, people drew attention to this issue and said that the ratios were moving in the direction of there being more people of retirement age. There were five people of working age to every retired person 50 years ago; we're now closer to a ratio of 2:1. And, yet, we have managed to create an economy that allows us to celebrate the fact that people are living longer and that we are able to go on supporting them. So, the problem is not insurmountable. There are ways in which we can continue to grow the size of the economy, albeit that there are fewer people of working age within it, in a way that allows us to go on providing for that higher number of people in the population who will be beyond working age. There is a whole series of ways in which we've succeeded in doing that over the last 50 years and we must take some confidence from that, challenging as the issue is, that we will find ways of continuing to do that into the future.  

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Steffan Lewis. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Last night, of course, it was revealed that the draft text had been agreed between the UK and the EU on the UK separation from the European Union, and the political fallout is well under way. I suspect that I know the answer to the opening question but, for the record, is the Cabinet Secretary able to tell us whether or not the Welsh Government has had sight of the draft text? And has there been a conversation between the Prime Minister and the First Minister on the contents of that draft text, either overnight or today? 

Llywydd, neither the Welsh nor the Scottish Government have had advanced sight of the text so far. I was in London yesterday for the latest meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations and was able to discuss the content of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and, indeed, the explainer document that is to be published alongside it, with the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and with Scottish Ministers as well. I understand that the First Minister is speaking with the Prime Minister later this afternoon.  

I thank him for that answer. Of course, yet again, it's disappointing that the so-called respect agenda, one that the Cabinet Secretary himself said that he hoped would begin as a result of the agreement between his Government and the UK Government on the withdrawal Bill, and one that would see a shift in attitudes and patters towards discussions with devolved administrations—. And, again, Wales seems to be treated with the same old contempt. Apparently, there are reports that the Government of Gibraltar have had sight of the text. I wonder if he could confirm whether that is indeed the case, and whether he thinks it's acceptable for one government, that's not even in the United Kingdom, to have sight of the draft text and for governments within the UK not to. 

I appreciate the fact that, without the detail, it's very difficult to be specific, but one of the rumours emanating from the draft text so far is that, under the draft text, Northern Ireland will remain effectively in the EU single market for goods. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that that would give Northern Ireland an unfair competitive advantage, making Wales less attractive for inward investment? And, if so, isn't that basis enough for the Welsh Government to oppose the draft withdrawal agreement? 

Well, Llywydd, as Steffan Lewis said, I'm yet to see either the withdrawal agreement draft or the political declaration. I don't think it is sensible for me to speculate on aspects that may or may not be included in it when we do get to see it, nor, I'm afraid, do I have any knowledge of whether the Government of Gibraltar has had any additional insight into the content of the documents. What I can say is that both I and Mike Russell, on behalf of the Scottish Government, made the first point that he made and made it forcefully with UK Ministers yesterday: other governments of the United Kingdom ought to see these documents before they are concluded and discussed at the UK Cabinet level, not afterwards. 

I appreciate, again, that the lack of detail does make things difficult but we do have a clear indication of many aspects and, of course, we are able to use the Welsh Government's own position in 'Securing Wales' Future' and to contrast it and compare it with what we do know from the draft text as things stand. We know Wales will not have full participation in the single market, we know we will not maintain our membership of the EU customs union, and we know that Northern Ireland apparently will effectively be staying in the single market and that it's likely that a new customs border will therefore appear in the Irish Sea with bad consequences for Wales. And, in addition to all of this—the detail and the actual ground consequences—politically nobody wants this deal. No remainer wants this deal and no leaver wants this deal; nobody wants what is apparently on offer. There is no mandate from anywhere or anyone for this form of Brexit.

The political context here in Wales, of course, is very important. The Cabinet Secretary, in the next few weeks, may well become the most senior elected Labour politician in the United Kingdom. What he thinks and what he says and his clarity on this matter is very, very important indeed and will have lasting consequences. So, can he tell us whether or not his own position is changing on this matter? Will he now finally come out and say that the only way to resolve this mess and avoid a bigger mess and a disaster is through a referendum of the people? No more pointless general elections, no more repeated parliamentary impasses, but a people's vote to resolve this and avoid disaster.

Where I do agree with what Steffan Lewis said is in the initial point that he made—that the tests that we will apply to this agreement are the tests that we set out in the White Paper that we published jointly with Plaid Cymru, 'Securing Wales' Future'. 

Now, he has not seen the agreement and neither have I, but he wants to draw conclusions without seeing it. I'm not in the position to do that, but the tests that he outlined—whether it involves our continued participation in a customs union, whether it gives us full and unfettered access to the single market, whether it includes a sensible resolution on migration—all of the tests that we set out in that document are the tests that I will apply when we have sight of the agreement itself. He has drawn some conclusions as to what the outcome of that would be and I dare say there will be people who say that his conclusions are not unreasonable, but I will wait to see the document and then I will apply the tests that we jointly agreed ought to be applied to any form of leaving the European Union.

Where I don't agree with him is that there is only one way in which all of this could be resolved. The first way it could be resolved is for the Prime Minister to do a deal that does measure up to the tests that we have set out for her—a deal of that sort was there to be done; that's why we set it out in our document. If the agreement, when we see it, does pass the tests that we have set, then we would no doubt wish to support it, so it could be resolved in that way.

If the Prime Minister does not do a deal of that sort, and if she is not able to secure support for her deal on the floor of the House of Commons, then, of course, there should be a general election. The House of Commons will have failed to discharge the most significant responsibility that will lie at its feet during this Assembly term—pardon me, during this parliamentary term. In any previous set of circumstances, a Government that failed to secure support for its most significant course of action would go back to the country and allow the country to decide in a general election. Now, the Member will say, and I've heard other people saying it, that that won't happen. Well, nothing can be written out of the script, given the febrile state of politics around this issue.

If there is no general election, then I agree with him: then there must be a people's vote. If the House of Commons cannot resolve it and there is no general election, then a third way must be found. And, in those circumstances, I agree with him: the decision must go back to the people and the people must be allowed to decide.

Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to ask you about funding available to the local government portfolio and vis-à-vis to our local authorities. As you're well aware, Welsh local authorities have been less than satisfied with the local government settlement this year, citing £262 million of budget pressures. Meanwhile, the First Minister has claimed that local government will be front of the queue should there be extra money from the UK Government's budget and the Welsh Government has also said that local government will be a key priority should there be that additional funding. As the UK Government is providing additional funding to the tune of £550 million over the next three years, how much of this will be allocated to Welsh local authorities? 

Well, Llywydd, the Member knows perfectly well that when he quotes that figure of £550 million, that is not free money, that is not money just available to be allocated—£365 million of that was pre-announced back in July of this year, and it now turns out that, of that £365 million, UK Ministers have spent over half of it before a penny of it crosses the border to be allocated in the National Assembly for Wales. I am giving very careful consideration to what remains of the consequentials from the budget—consequentials that have to last for over three years, consequentials that include capital, financial capital and revenue components. So, not all of this money is money that will help local authorities meet the pressures that they, quite rightly, report to us.

The First Minister has said, as Nick Ramsay said, that local government is at the front of the queue. There's a clue in that formula: they are at the front of the queue, but there is a queue. There are many other things that we know we would like to do in Welsh public services as we enter the ninth year of austerity. Many of those things will no doubt be advocated by members of his party on the floor of the Assembly this afternoon, asking for more money for this, and more money for that, and more money for something else again. What I have to do is to use the very limited amount of money that came to us in the Chancellor's budget to balance those competing priorities, but I repeat what I have said and what the First Minister has said: the needs of Welsh local government are first in our thoughts as we go about that difficult business.

So, I think we can read from that that 'front of the queue' doesn't necessarily mean first in the queue. Cabinet Secretary, whether we're talking about £550 million—you think it's a lower figure—I think the point is that there is additional funding. I think we can be agreed on that. There is additional funding through consequentials as a result of that UK budget. I'll give you this: you are consistent, to say the least, about your arguments on austerity. Yet, today, the Cabinet Secretary for public services has released a statement outlining that councils are sitting on around £1.4 billion of usable reserves. Furthermore, in spite of the Welsh Government's claims about austerity, he notes that the evidence shows that, in recent years, the levels of reserves held by some local authorities have continued to increase. For example, Rhondda Cynon Taf is holding onto £152 million of usable reserves—nearly one and a half times the size of the reserves held by Cardiff, and eight times the size of the reserves held by Monmouthshire. RCT, of course, has the third highest settlement in the draft budget. Cardiff council, which had the best local government settlement under the draft budget, has increased its usable reserves by 17 per cent since 2016. Meanwhile, Anglesey, Conwy and Monmouthshire, which had among the worst settlements under the draft budget, have the lowest amount in usable reserves. Do you think this is indicative of a fair or unfair local government settlement, and what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services to do something to address this issue?

Well, I thank the Member, Llywydd, for that. First of all, let me correct what he said. When I say that local government is at the front of the queue, I do mean they are first in the queue. I'm simply pointing out to you that there is a queue—a queue behind them. Now, I anticipated that the Member for Monmouth might have wanted to ask me this afternoon about support for small businesses through small business rate relief. It's a subject on which he corresponds with me with assiduity. But apparently he's not worried about them this afternoon, because the largest sum of money that we get in the—[Interruption.] The largest sum of money we get as a consequential is for small business rate relief. If his advice to me this afternoon is that I should give all that money to local government and do nothing for small businesses in Wales, I'd be grateful to know that that is his advice to me.

Turning to the question that he raised about reserves, when he says 'usable reserves', what he is confusing is the fact that the largest component of those reserves is money held for things that are already committed: in other words, important schemes in housing, in education, in transport, where local authorities are planning ahead; they've got a scheme they know they have to fund—absolutely properly, they hold money in their reserves in order to be able to fund those important priorities into the future. Nevertheless, the point made by the Cabinet Secretary for local government, and echoed in Nick Ramsay's question, is that some local authorities do have a rising amount of unallocated funds in their reserves. And in very tough times—and I absolutely recognise the challenges faced by local government—just as I have to manage the reserves of the Welsh Government and to release money from my reserves to make sure that we can do the things that we need to do, it's incumbent on local authorities to make equally sensible use of reserves that they are holding that could be deployed to support public services in their area.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I could, of course, have asked you about support for small businesses, and we know that there was around £25 million as a result of the UK budget—that, across the border in England, money is being used to reduce business rates for businesses with a rateable value of up to £50,000 by a third. And I'll keep that one for another day. [Interruption.] But you may well—[Interruption.] I'm trying to establish whether or not you agree with the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, because he certainly has changed his tune somewhat on the issue of reserves. Last year he said that he would always hesitate before he would seek to impose upon local government. Now he's stated, in his written statement, that local authorities with high levels of reserves to their spending should review the purposes for which these are held, and that the purposes for holding the reserves, particularly where they are increasing, should be communicated clearly. So, that's not just me saying that, or this side of the Chamber; that's your colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for public services. So, isn't it fair to say, Cabinet Secretary, that, in light of potentially large council tax increases in some local authorities, council tax payers will be wondering why there is so much held in reserve, and, if this issue was sorted out, then—yes, it is a small cake at the moment, and you're right, there have been difficult challenges for local government, but perhaps if some of this money was used then there wouldn't be such a burden on other areas.

Well, I don't disagree with the point that the Member is making. These are very difficult times for local authorities. I will do whatever I can with the money we received in the budget to mitigate some of the challenges that they face. Where they have other sources of funding available to them, it is right that they should think very carefully about how they can put that money to work to support local services, and I've no doubt, in the way that my colleague Alun Davies said, their local populations will look carefully to see that they are making good use of all the funds that are available to them. I think that's something that our local authority colleagues do all the time, but, in a moment when pressures are particularly acute, it's right to point to the fact that, as well as money that they get from Welsh Government, there are other sources of funds available to them, and that they have to think of planning their expenditure in the round.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, if I could take you back to the Brexit issues that you were talking about a few minutes ago, in September of this year you said, speaking about workers' rights, that, and I quote:

'In Wales we have always said, since the referendum, that all the rights we've won through our membership of the European Union must be protected. If the Tories cannot deliver a Brexit that guarantees that will happen, then the people must decide.'

End quote. Now, you clarified a few minutes ago, responding to Steffan Lewis's questions, that, under certain circumstances you would support another referendum, but, if there is another referendum, then that raises the prospect of full membership of the single market and in turn puts free movement of labour back on the table. But free movement of labour is something that doesn't seem to have been supported by Jeremy Corbyn, according to statements that he's made within the last two years, when he's said that there should be no more 'wholesale importation' of low-skilled workers from central Europe, because this would help to destroy working conditions in the UK. Therefore, thinking about those comments, would the Cabinet Secretary accept that, if the Welsh Government is to support another referendum on EU membership for the supposed reason of protecting workers' rights, then it would in fact be threatening workers' rights and, moreover, undermining one of the main reasons why working-class people in Wales voted to leave?

Well, the approach to migration that is advocated by the Welsh Government was set out in detail in our document, 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People'. It's an elaboration of the section in the joint paper that we published with Plaid Cymru on that matter. Welsh businesses, Welsh public services and Welsh universities depend upon their ability to go on recruiting people from other parts of the world who we are lucky enough to have attracted to come and make their future part of our future here in Wales. When I discuss this matter with the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations, the point that they make to me all the time is that it is the jobs of people who are already here and living in Wales that depend upon their ability to attract people from elsewhere to come to be part of that workforce. If you are running a hotel in sparsely populated mid Wales, and you are employing 80 people who live locally already, but your hotel needs 20 other people in order to be able to run successfully, if you can't attract the 20 people from elsewhere, it's the jobs of the 80 people that are put at risk, not the jobs of the 20 people, and that's why fair movement of people is not simply good for the people who might come from elsewhere to make their futures here, but it's good for us all. That's the sensible approach to migration, and that's the approach that is advocated in our document on fair movement.

Which was always covered by visas.

Labour seems to have moved into a position whereby it's coming up with the philosophical justification for cheap labour. Now, if there is a shortage of workers, workers can be attracted by increasing wages. This is a simple relationship. As you know, it's an economic relationship. You seem to be saying that you prefer the interests of big business—you cited the CBI—over the interests of working people in Wales. Would you not agree that that's the position you've just elucidated?

It's completely nonsensical, Llywydd—what the Member says. Consultants working in our national health service from elsewhere—they're not low-paid workers in the way that the Member suggested. Researchers working in our universities on projects that put Wales in a world-leading position as far as research is concerned—those are not low-paid workers. Nor is the small firm in Cardiff that spoke to me recently about its inability to recruit IT workers that are essential to that small business, and where they rely on people coming from elsewhere in the world to assist the other people who work here already. Those are not low-paid jobs either. It's a parody of the real position that the Member offers us, and no wonder that he has so little traction here in this Chamber or beyond.

The example you just raised yourself two minutes ago was of hotel workers. It wasn't of high-paid consultants and high-skilled consultants, it was hotel workers. Would you consider, if you do become the next leader in this place, renaming your party 'Cheap Labour'? 

It's not worth a serious answer, Llywydd.

I thank the Member for that question. The level of non-domestic rates in Wales has not risen in real terms over the past decade. Over the same period, the rates relief provided by the Welsh Government has more than doubled. 

Thank you very much for the reply, Cabinet Secretary. Welsh retailers already pay a quarter of all Welsh business rates and it is becoming increasingly expensive to operate from property. The Welsh Retail Consortium has projected that over a fifth of shops could be lost as the next decade progresses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent autumn budget, made money available to cut business rates for retailers with a rateable value of under £51,000, reducing their bills by a third for two years. Will the Cabinet Secretary consider introducing a similar measure to support the Welsh retail industry and reverse the trend in shop closures on our high streets and all over Wales, please?

Well, I thank the Member for the question, which is a very proper question. I said in my answer to Nick Ramsay that I am looking carefully at how we can use the consequential that we have had to support small businesses in Wales, even as Mr Ramsay appeared to suggest that I ought to be giving it to local government.

But the £26 million that we have received for this purpose—let me just clarify a few points for the Member. First of all, we now understand that, whereas the Chancellor announced that this was a two-year scheme, he has only provided a one-year consequential for us in Wales. We know it's £26 million next year. We've got no figure for the year after.

And it turns out that the scheme that the Chancellor advertised in his budget speech is not a national scheme at all. What is now clear to us is that he is relying entirely on the discretionary powers of local government to implement his scheme. So, it will be for every local authority in England to decide whether or not to use the money that they will get from this scheme for this purpose.

We don't need to mirror what is going on in England, because we already have a high street relief scheme here in Wales, which they don't have in England. We introduced it the year before last in discussion with the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, where we agreed on the joint parameters of the high street relief scheme in Wales. We've continued it this year. I hope, using the consequential for next year, that we will be able to make it more generous for businesses in Wales than we've been able to hitherto. We will design a scheme that meets the size, the distribution and the value of the non-domestic rates base in Wales, which is different to that in England, to make sure that the money goes to the places where it is most urgently needed.

Cabinet Secretary, the high street, so-called, in many of our isolated communities in our Valleys or our rural areas may only consist of a single retail premises. That single shop, actually, is the lifeline for many communities, especially if public transport disappears after 5 o'clock in the evening. Will you consider looking at the opportunities you can provide for relief for those types of businesses, which, without that relief, may lose the income they have and basically end up in debt and consequently shut down? They are a lifeline to those communities. If there's no bus transportation, people can't go anywhere else and they can't get at those needs there.

Well, Llywydd, the Member makes a very important point and he gets right to the heart of what is, I think, one of the weaknesses of our current scheme, 75 per cent of Welsh businesses benefit from small business rate relief here in Wales, 50 per cent of them pay no small business rates at all—they get it whether that sum of money is necessary to their business or not. There is no test in the system that we have, or indeed in any part of the United Kingdom, as to whether or not that money is doing real good in that business. The point that David Rees is making is whether or not we ought to consider, in the way we distribute the money, whether we should put more money in the hands of those businesses for whom this relief is genuinely making a difference to their survival or not.

There's been work in Northern Ireland and in Scotland on this. I think it's a sensible idea. It's difficult to bring off because of the scheme that we have inherited, but it's a scheme that indiscriminately provides help to those who need it and those who don't. You could say it's not the very best use of public money when we know that there are some parts of the high street in some communities where the help that we could offer through the scheme, if it was more targeted on those who really needed it, would go further to sustain businesses in some very disadvantaged parts of Wales. 

The draft budget for 2019-20, published last month, allocates more than £500 million extra for health and social services compared to the current financial year. Of the £365 million consequential from the UK budget announced in July, more than half has already been spent by the UK Government in pay and pension changes.

Cabinet Secretary, you're already aware of my outright opposition to Hywel Dda Local Health Board's plans to downgrade Withybush hospital to a community hospital and centralise services to another site. I remain deeply concerned that no commitment has been given to the construction of any new hospital in west Wales. Given the desperate need for the health board to plan its service delivery for the future and recruit vital medical professionals, can you as Cabinet Secretary for Finance at the very least confirm that funding will be made available for any new hospital site so that people living in west Wales can be sure that the health board's plans are affordable in the first place? What discussions have you had with your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on this particular issue?

I can assure the Member that I have discussed the whole issue with the Cabinet Secretary for health. It will be for the health board to put forward the business cases required to deliver its preferred strategy. Of course, given the controversial nature of some of the proposals, it is possible that Welsh Ministers may be called upon to take final decisions on the plans. I have to be careful in what I say, as I know very well from my days as health Minister in that context. What I can say to the Member is this: if it is possible to reach an agreement on a way forward on health services in that part of Wales, then the Welsh Government will look positively at our ability to support the health board in developing those business cases to put that agreed plan into practice. 

Cabinet Secretary, in discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services in committee last week, examining the budget proposals, it was highlighted that the data that we currently have on the prevalence of people with mental health problems in Wales is not necessarily robust, and the Cabinet Secretary was able to outline plans that are in place to improve that collection of data. If, as he indicated, it turns out that the current estimates of prevalence are, in fact, a lot lower than the real need, would you as Cabinet Secretary for Finance give consideration to any request he may make for additional resources for the health budget to enable that high level of mental health need to be met?

I thank Helen Mary for that important question. I think it's been a shared ambition right across this Chamber during the devolution period that we do more in Wales to recognise mental health needs and then to try and supply services to meet them. One of the reasons why prevalence figures are changing, you might hope, is because the stigma previously associated with mental health is reducing, and people are more willing to come forward and make their needs known. We spend £675 million in the current financial year on mental health services. It's the single largest item in the budget controlled by my colleague Vaughan Gething. We will provide £20 million more for mental health this year and £20 million on top of that again next year, as part of the budget agreement between your party and my party. And as patterns of need change, so I would always be willing to work with the Cabinet Secretary responsible to make sure that we find the money necessary to align with the pattern of need, in physical and mental health, in the Welsh community. 

I thank Vikki Howells for that question. The draft budget provides revenue funding of £25 million in 2019-20, together with a £55 million capital programme over two years, to improve flood and coastal defences. This will support flood risk management across Wales, including the investment we have made, for example, in Cwmaman in the Member's own constituency.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As you will know, authorities around Wales, including my own of RCT, have already had to stretch budgets even further to cope with the effects of storm Callum. In RCT, £100,000 was spent immediately on tackling the floods, and a further £100,000 from reserves has been earmarked for investigative and clearance work. Bearing in mind the impact and cost of future flooding incidents, how have you met these possible financial challenges within the budget allocation to local government?

Well, Llywydd, in the current year, we have increased by some 30 per cent, albeit from a low base, the money we provide to each local authority as part of their annual flood risk management revenue grant, and I intend to sustain that grant at its higher level again next year. Vikki Howells, I know, will be aware that correspondence has been received from the leader of her own council on behalf of local authorities across Wales identifying the additional costs that they have had to sustain as a result of storm Callum. As part of my ambition to assist local authorities in the dilemmas that they currently face, I've made it clear to Councillor Morgan, the leader of RCT, that I will be doing everything I can to assist local authorities with the additional revenue and capital costs that storm Callum has given rise to. We continue to be in correspondence with local authorities to refine those figures and I hope to be able to say something positive on that over the next few weeks. 

Cabinet Secretary, one area that is very vulnerable to flooding is the Old Colwyn promenade in my own constituency, and you'll be aware that the sea defences there are particularly vulnerable. There was a report, which was commissioned by Conwy County Borough Council back in 2010, that estimated that the failure of those defences would happen five years after that report was written. We're now three years beyond the time in which the failures were predicted, and we're already beginning to see significant problems, with that road having to be closed each time there's stormy weather and, indeed, parts of the railway embankment having collapsed in the past as a result of the erosion of it.

You'll be aware that there's vital transport infrastructure that is protected by those defences: the A55 and the north Wales railway line in particular and, indeed, the main sewer for the whole of the bay of Colwyn. Can I ask that you work with the other members of the Cabinet to ensure that defences like this are prioritised so that those vital pieces of transport infrastructure, which are the main arteries of the north Wales economy, do have the protection that they need, and that this is not lost sight of in your budget for next year? 

I thank the Member for those important points. I know that he has been a very regular advocate of the need to address problems that have affected his own constituency over recent years. I can give him absolutely that assurance: that in the £150 million programme that we now have in Wales for flood defences—coastal flood defences in particular—that I will discuss that with both Ken Skates and Lesley Griffiths, who share responsibilities in this area.

The mutual investment model will be used to boost investment in essential Welsh infrastructure. It will allow us to take forward vital plans in health, education and transport, which cuts to our conventional capital programme would otherwise put at risk.

The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has been informed by Capital Law that a private finance scheme like the mutual investment model only becomes effective when put to schemes costing more than £200 million. With that in mind, what are the risks of using the model to fund band B of twenty-first century schools?

I thank the Member for the question. I know that he attended a technical briefing with officials on this matter, and I'm grateful to him for doing that. The way in which band B of twenty-first century schools is brought within the mutual investment model is through aggregation. Individually, those schemes would not meet the test that he has set out, but, by bringing them all together under a single Welsh scheme, cumulatively the spending across Welsh local education authorities meets the threshold that he has identified, and thus allows us to apply the mutual investment model in that field.

I thank Mike Hedges. The second bidding round for the innovate-to-save fund was launched on 19 February and 20 new bids were received. A total of seven have been shortlisted for the next research and development funding phase that will last until the early summer of 2019. Initial research workshops to take forward that phase are currently being established.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer? I'm someone who's long advocated an innovate-to-save scheme as a means of getting people to do something different, which can create great benefits. All of them won't succeed, because if all of them succeeded, we'd be back to invest-to-save where we do the safe. But, some of them will succeed, and some of them will make substantial savings for organisations. How does the Cabinet Secretary intend to promote the successes so that others can copy and benefit from innovation? It's long been said that good practice doesn't travel as well as it ought to in Wales. 

Llywydd, can I thank Mike Hedges for his continued support for the innovate-to-save fund? He will know that partly in order to make sure that we promote the work that's done within it, the fund is run through a combination of the Welsh Government in partnership with Nesta, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and Cardiff University, and we rely on the wider networks of those three other organisations to spread news of the fund and to make sure that its successes are widely advertised. There will be a workshop held next week, on 22 November, led by Nesta and the Welsh Government exactly to disseminate learning to date.

I've been encouraged by the fact that in the second round of bids for innovate-to-save funding, we've attracted bids from a wider range of organisations than in the first round—we've had bids from the health service, we've had bids from local authorities and we've had bids from the third sector. That does suggest that news of the fund, and what can be achieved through it, is beginning to make its way out there into the relevant organisations in Wales.  

And finally, question 8, David Rees. 

Llywydd, our analysis of the consensus view from mainstream researchers and academics is that moving to World Trade Organization rules could result in the UK economy being up to 10 per cent smaller in the future. That is why our evidence-based approach in 'Securing Wales' Future' proposed full and unfettered participation in the single market.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. On Monday the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee had a briefing session on the World Trade Organization and the rules and, clearly, the complexities that exist within those rules shoot down the arguments many had in the referendum of how easy it was to simply transfer over if we needed to. I understand the UK Government actually put a schedule forward to the WTO for consideration in July, which many countries have come back with deep concerns about. They've also put forward a schedule in October relating to the tariff rate quotas, which, again, they had assumed would be easily shared. Again, many countries have come back, and when you consider that New Zealand has a tariff rate quota with the EU on lamb, it is a big, important issue. Has the UK Government had discussions with the Welsh Government on these schedules to ensure that our interests and our exports are considered as they are putting them forward?

Well, Llywydd, I know that my colleague Ken Skates has certainly been in discussions with the UK Government on the issue of tariff rate quotas, and David Rees is absolutely right: we were told by those members of the UK Government who advocated leaving the European Union that certification of UK schedules at the WTO would be a simple matter of asking for it—you'd put it in the post and it would be back the next day. It couldn't be simpler, we were told. Clearly, that is absolutely not the case. More than 20 countries raised objections to the UK treatment of tariff rate quotas at the first opportunity that they had available to them, and the UK has now had to decide to open negotiations on tariff rate quotas with other WTO members. Those things will not now be concluded before we leave the European Union. And, from a Welsh perspective, of course we are concerned about the negative impact of any modifications to TRQs on sensitive sectors in Wales—in the production of farm-based products in particular—and we continue to press the UK Government to make sure that we are consulted in advance on these matters, given the complexity that we now know is involved in reconciling them.  

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. 

Item 2 on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip. Question 1, Dawn Bowden. 

We are building on our tackling hate crime programme and expanding our community cohesion work across Wales to mitigate any rise in hate crime. Our hate crime criminal justice board is an effective forum, bringing together key partners to co-ordinate our work in this area.

Thank you for that, leader of the house. First of all, can I thank you and what the Welsh Government have been doing on this important issue? The scale of the problem was recently highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission report that we debated last week, and it's an important question for all Assembly Members to consider, and even more for all of us to acknowledge that the language that we choose to use in the Senedd shapes the messages that we send to the people of Wales. So, would you agree with me that what we say and what we do in this place plays an important part in encouraging an atmosphere that can help to reduce the current levels of hate crime in Wales? 

I completely agree with Dawn Bowden when she raises this very important point. Yesterday, I had the privilege of addressing the multifaith forum meeting over in the Pierhead, and they were about to do a walk through of all of the various faith communities of Cardiff. Unfortunately, due to Plenary commitments, I couldn't join them, but that was all about stressing the need for individual responsibility, individual action—the importance of each individual's actions in the sum of the whole in terms of our culture, and I really endorse that absolutely. 

Here in Wales, we want as leaders to represent all of the communities that we represent fairly, openly, with honesty and respect, because all of our communities deserve that. And it is a fundamental point that the way that we talk about each other and to each other very much matters in the ethos that we set here in Wales. 

Leader of the house, incidents of anti-Semitism have been on the rise across the United Kingdom. In the first six months of this year, 727 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded by the Community Security Trust. It has been reported by The Jewish Chronicle that one of your Welsh colleagues questioned whether anti-Semitic hate crime was 'real', and whether the threat is all 'in their own heads'.

Leader of the house, will you take this opportunity to state clearly that anti-Semitism is a hate crime, and will you join me in condemning these comments, which totally fail to recognise the threat faced by our communities, especially Jewish communities in Wales?

Yes. On 17 October, the First Minister issued a written statement to confirm that in adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of anti-Semitism in May of last year, we included the 11 examples from the outset in full and without qualification. So, I am very happy to make it absolutely clear that anti-Semitism in any form will not be tolerated here in Wales—or any other form of racist language, action or attitudes. The Welsh Government is committed to encouraging victims of anti-Semitism to report it. We are working hard with our partners to protect and support victims of anti-Semitic abuse and violence and to hold perpetrators to account. We are determined to ensure that Wales continues to be a friendly and tolerant place in which to live, study and work, a country where anti-Semitism has no place in our society—or any other form of racist or intolerant language or abuse.

Leader of the house, I welcome the actions you are taking to tackle hate crime. However, this is a growing issue, particularly online. Many young people are subjected to a constant barrage of hate, hate speech and online bullying, from which there is no escape. Leader of the house, will you outline how you and the Cabinet Secretary for Education, in conjunction with the UK Government, are working with the technology sector to stop the spread of online hate speech and cyber bullying in Wales?

Yes, it's a very important point that the Member raises. Obviously, social media is a growing part of our culture and language, and we ought to have the same standards of conduct and respect and tolerance and inclusion for each other in social media as we do everywhere else. It's particularly unfortunate that people feel that they can be anonymous there, and there's a piece of work for all of us, I think, to take forward in developing rules as the twenty-first century unfolds around anonymity in these sorts of forums.

The Welsh Government provided £5,000 again this year to each of the four Welsh forces and Victim Support to actively support National Hate Crime Awareness Week in October and to raise awareness of hate crime throughout the year, and that includes in the digital space. I also work very closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Education in supporting our be safe on the internet week, which was only very recently, and in supporting our digital pioneers and young internet cadets right throughout Wales in both recognising bullying for what it is, whether it's online or not online, and actually in learning the skills and techniques to ensure that they and their colleagues are safe and that they learn how to look out for each other both in the physical space and in cyberspace.

Thank you. Question 2, Siân Gwenllian.

Yes, indeed. Although we do not hold information specifically relating to Arfon, I can confirm that the Superfast Cymru scheme provided access to fast fibre broadband to over 58,440 homes and businesses in Gwynedd, delivering average speeds of over 102 Mbps and investing over £16.2 million.  

Thank you. The quality of connectivity to broadband in Arfon is inconsistent, be that in urban or rural areas. For example, in the Menai business park in Bangor, businesses are placed at a significant disadvantage because of the lack of quality of the connectivity. Many constituents have given me examples where a handful of homes are exempted; although fibre to the premises is provided for most of the premises the work hasn't been completed. There are some homes that have been left behind in Waen Pentir, Nebo, Nasareth, Tregarth and Tal-y-bont. Is this a sign of a lack of planning for the work and for that planning to happen appropriately? And, by the way, I do look forward to welcoming you to the Arfon constituency on 29 November, where we can air some of these problems in full.

Yes, I'm very much looking forward to coming. I find it very useful to go around Wales talking specifically to individuals and their communities about why we are where we are now and what can be done to specifically address their individual and community issues. We know that it's frustrating when you're one of the people who've been left out of the previous programme. It did deliver 733,000 premises for connectivity, but, of course, if you're one of the people who's in the remaining few per cent it's very frustrating indeed, and that's indeed why I'm doing the tour—to try and understand exactly what we can do. We have just done the procurement for lots 1 and 3. That's complete; the successful bidder is BT plc, and a grant agreement was in fact signed yesterday, as it happens. We will be now looking to clarify with them exactly which premises are included in their roll-out plans, and as soon as we have that information, we'll be able to convey it to local representatives, so that they can ensure that people are aware. And also then, of course, we will know who isn't included, so that we can come forward with a large number of other schemes that we plan, to get communities together, to have individual bespoke solutions, to look at how we can adapt our voucher schemes, and in general find a solution for those people who are not included. So, that's the way forward, and I'm very much looking forward to discussing the specifics in your constituency when I come.

Thank you. Joyce Watson.

No.

No. Okay. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Responses I received from Openreach on behalf of constituents from Arfon and Anglesey, across to Flintshire and Wrexham, after the Superfast Cymru project ended on 31 December last year, all had the line 'deployment work has stopped completely on any projects that have not been finished'. On 23 October, in your statement to the Assembly, you confirmed that lot 1 north Wales for the successor programme was now complete, that work on the underlying network to support the project would begin shortly, and that evaluation for east Wales was ongoing. It would be helpful if you could clarify where the north Wales and east Wales borders begin and end. But constituents have subsequently asked whether jobs that remained unfinished following the end of BT's contract last December will receive priority in north Wales, as we now go forward under lot 1.

The superfast website has the map outlined—I can send the link again to the Member; it shows exactly where the lots are, and what's included and not included. As I said, we're in the process of negotiating exactly which premises, because we very much want to learn from some of the experiences of the communications in the first superfast scheme, around giving people certainty about where they are in the programme, and what they can expect, and also giving them certainty that they're not in the programme, so that we can address issues in that way. We are actually still in conversation with Openreach about what are called stranded resources—the investment that they put into the ground that wasn't complete. I just want to make it very clear once again, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we have not paid a penny towards those stranded resources; the conversation is about whether they want to put their commercial money behind that, or whether it wants to be included in this lot, or whether there's some other arrangement that we can meet around the gain share in order to connect those premises up. But it's their commercial outlay—they invested the money to put that down; it's not being done with public money, and it's a commercial matter for them in the end.

Thank you. We now turn to spokespeople's questions. And the first this afternoon is the Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I ask the leader of the house why she is withholding information on phase 2 of the Superfast  Cymru scheme?

I'm not withholding any information that I'm aware of. As I said, we've let lots 1 and 3. We're still in negotiation with lot 2. I'm very frustrated about how long that's taking, but as soon as I am in a position to say what's happening with that, I will of course do so.

Well, I do share your frustrations, leader of the house. I did table written questions to you over a week ago. The due date for answer was yesterday, and I do wonder why there is a delay. Is it to avoid scrutiny in today's questions? Also, you did suggest in yesterday's business statement that you were waiting until today's questions to make some kind of announcement about lot 2, or phase 2, of the Superfast Cymru scheme. Now, like many Members across this Chamber, I have inquiries every single day from constituents so frustrated about the lack of information, complaining about the lack of information, and the delays on the implementation of the next scheme. So, I would question why this information about lot 2, and other information that I have asked for, hasn't been released at the earliest opportunity. You will be aware that some premises that were under review in the first Superfast Cymru contract did not receive superfast broadband. How and when will it be known whether or not these premises will be part of the contract to provide superfast broadband, and what comprehensive strategy will there be to enable unaddressed premises to have superfast broadband?

I'm sorry about the written answers. You've actually had an answer today, which won't make you happy at all, saying that we just couldn't get the data together in the time available. So, I've asked officials to just tell you that. I was actually hoping to be able to give you the information in the answer, in the time period, but it hasn't been possible to do. So, I'm sure in your inbox, at the end of this session, you'll find something from me apologising for that. The answer simply says we don't have the data available at the moment. I am as frustrated as you are by the problems we're having with the lot 2 contract. As soon as I am in a position to tell you something about it, I will. You can hear that I hope daily to be able to do that. I'm deeply frustrated by not being able to do so. There have been a large number of difficulties that I am more than happy to share with the Chamber as soon as I am able to do so. 

Thank you. I am pleased to hear that your frustrations are as mine, and my frustration are borne out of the inbox that I receive from my constituents. I appreciate that you are waiting for this information from officials, but I do question why this information isn't already available, but I thank you for getting that information to me as soon as you do have it available.

You know my views with regard to phase 1 and phase 2. There should have been a seamless transition between the two schemes. There was an open access market review that would have given an indication of which premises need to be in phase 2, or which premises would not have been completed in phase 1. But my final question is in regard to new and recently built premises, which may not be in scope for this second contract. What method is there in place to ensure that such premises get included as swiftly as possible without having to wait for another protracted next generation open access review?

For what it's worth, I share your frustration. Many of your constituents write directly to me as well. So, I still have a very large postbag of people whose frustration I entirely share. And this is, without rehearsing the same old arguments, a function of the way that we are restricted in doing this. It's not regarded as infrastructure. It is regarded as a market intervention in an existing market. So, each time we intervene, we have to show again that we are covered by the state aid rule exemption. We have to do that through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK Government, and through Broadband Development UK. It's a long and tortuous process. We have continual conversations with them about how to speed that process up. We have had many conversations. My colleague the Minister for housing and I, and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for planning have had numerous conversations with new build and house builders across Wales about including at least the cabling out to the road when the road is adopted and so on, so that when broadband comes along the highway outside it's an easy connect and so on. There is an agreement for builds over 30 houses, but the rest is still up to the market. And then, each time, I have to prove a market failure.

So, I hope you can hear that I'm as frustrated with this situation as you are. It would help if the UK Government would be able to move forward its universal broadband obligation, and if we could understand exactly how that is to be moved forward, so that we could piggyback on that. We're in extensive conversation with them about how to do that, and as soon as I have any information on that, I'm more than happy to share it. But, in the end, this is still being treated as a luxury product, when, in fact, it is an essential infrastructure, and we have to have a change in that attitude in order to be able to move this agenda on. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Leanne Wood. 

Leader of the house, your list of responsibilities includes human rights in relation to United Nations and European Union conventions. Can you explain how you work with other departments and Ministers, in particular the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, to ensure compliance with human rights in relation to UN and EU conventions?

Yes. I have a series of meetings, bilaterals, as we call them, one-on-one with each Cabinet Secretary and Minister of the Government on a rolling programme. I've just completed my first year in this portfolio. I've met all of them at least once, and with some of them I'm on the second round. And the purpose of that is to go through their portfolio responsibilities and to talk about how we ensure that the underlying principles of the conventions, the UN and human rights and, actually, all equality issues are included properly in their portfolio and brought forward to the front. I'm just doing the same thing for the gender review, actually. I'm just at the end of the set of meetings in which I'm doing the same thing for that. 

Okay, thank you for your answer. Your colleague and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport is listed as the keynote speaker at an arms fair in Cardiff to be held next year. This event will involve the sale of weapons to regimes with appalling human rights records that are involved in serious armed conflicts, including Saudi Arabia, a country that were it not for its oil interests would have been regarded as a state sponsor of terrorism, as any honest analysis would conclude. Can you explain how your colleague's explicit endorsement of this bazaar of brutality is compatible with compliance with human rights obligations?

I did not know that my colleague was scheduled to speak there, and I will be more than happy to take that up with him. 

Well, thank you for agreeing to do that, leader of the house, because there are 14 million people in Yemen that are on the brink of famine, thanks to the war, which our arms trade is supporting—one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent years. The Saudi regime remains a regime that heavily oppresses women, restricts basic freedoms and assassinates its opponents overseas. It's heavily linked to the growth of the Taliban, as you know, in the 1990s, and the only reason that our Governments deny this is because of the influence of big oil, BAE Systems and UK politics. How can your Government possibly justify this? 

As you heard the First Minister say, in First Minister's questions yesterday, he's more than happy to look into the comments that were made about the possibility that that arms trade is being helped by any Welsh Government money and report back to the Chamber. And I'll make sure that I'll do the same thing in talking to colleagues who are supporting anything of that sort. 

Thank you. The UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As you know, leader of the house, I have often been complimentary about the success of the Welsh Government's digital roll-out in Wales. But, leader of the house, I'm sure you will agree that digital exclusion is where a person is not a regular internet user. This can come about for a number of reasons, not just lack or not of physical infrastructure. It can be as a result of inadequate finances leading to the inability to pay, either for the hardware or indeed the internet connection fee. This could be particularly applied to the poorest in society, and we all acknowledge that as technology rapidly evolves digital exclusion can be a barrier to a person living a fulfilling and productive life. This issue is placed into sharp relief when we consider the unemployed. If you are actively seeking work, being able to use the internet is, or is very close to, being an essential tool to search for job vacancies and for completing applications for vacancies. Can the leader of the house indicate to us any interventions currently in place that might mitigate this exclusion? 

Yes, we fund a number of programmes in this space: we fund Digital Communities Wales and, in fact, we are about to increase the size of that to £6 million to include health digital inclusion activities. We know from the national survey for Wales that about 60 per cent of people aged 75 or over and about 26 per cent of disabled people do have digital exclusion issues. So, the programme is particularly targeted to ensure that those communities can access health and social care services in particular, and also universal credit services.

We run a number of other programmes including business exploitation programmes. So, as the superfast programme rolls out, a team of people comes behind it, which is entirely aimed at increasing take-up and making sure that small businesses in particular in the area of the roll-out are able to get the benefit of getting online, and that they don't simply transform their old paper systems digitally, but they actually understand what that digital exploitation might look like and how they might increase their business in that way. We also run a whole series of digital pioneer programmes in our primary schools and secondary schools. And, of course, our twenty-first century schools programme is a collaboration, which includes strategic capital investment for our education estate to ensure digital inclusion in all of our curriculum. 

I thank the leader of the house for her answer, and you have pre-empted part of my third question. The most recent survey for Wales indicated, on page 7, that 10 per cent of unemployed people are not regularly internet users and this exactly matches the previous year's figure of 10 per cent. Now, whilst this does show some positive aspects in that the figure has not increased year on year, it does appear that the interventions you outlined earlier seem to be having little effect. So, leader of the house, is it not time to revisit some of those strategies now in place?  

Yes, I quite agree with him, and that's exactly why we've just looked at how we can change the way that we do the Digital Communities Wales programme. And when that programme comes to an end, at the end of this financial year, it will be re-procured on the basis of a doubled-sized programme to take in the people who are reliant on digital services, such as he outlines—people who have universal credit issues, but, actually, those who have much more specific issues around health and social care, because we do know that most of the people suffering that kind of digital exclusion are people over 75 and are more likely to be involved in health and social care, and people with disabilities also are more likely to be involved in health and social care.

Again, I thank the leader of the house for an honest answer to that question.

Can I move on to another aspect, which I indicated earlier that you had alluded to? I was pleased to see that a survey for Wales showed no significant gender differences in personal internet use for ages 65 and below. However, for the ages 65 to 74, the survey records a somewhat puzzling statistic: that 75 per cent of men and only 68 per cent of women are regular internet users. However, a far more telling statistic, and one that you did mention earlier—one of perhaps greater concern—is that, for ages 75 upwards, only 40 per cent are internet active. Now, given the fact that many services are now being moved to deliver online, including financial and medical services, is it not time to redouble our efforts to get all of the people more engaged with the internet and, indeed, the digital revolution being played out around them?

Yes. As I say, I completely agree with him. There is definitely an age divide here. Obviously, those people who grew up in the digital world, grow up with competencies that older people have to acquire later on in life, and that can be more difficult as the world changes around you. But Digital Communities Wales works with a wide range of organisations best placed to reach digitally excluded people. They offer training and support to embed digital inclusion within other organisations as well as help to train and place volunteers. So, they work with a number of organisations that also work with people likely to be digitally excluded. This includes, for example, libraries, where there is free access to and support for the internet for those who need it most. So, it overcomes the issue that David Rowlands raised about being able to afford internet provision at home. We’ve just extended that, whilst we look at doubling the programme to include health and social care.

We now return to the questions on the order paper. Question 3, Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you for that. A range of activity is under way in Islwyn and throughout the wider borough of Caerphilly relating to digital. This includes Welsh Government’s significant investment in the new, state-of-the-art high school in Islwyn through our twenty-first century schools programme, and increasing broadband availability through the Superfast Cymru programme. 

I know that the leader of the house has herself been instrumental in ensuring that the Welsh Government's Superfast Cymru programme has already transformed the digital landscape across Wales, with more than nine out of 10 premises now being able to access superfast broadband. How important, then, does the Welsh Government believe it would be for the communities of Islwyn that decent broadband would be available on an open network with a choice of providers?

Yes, I absolutely agree that it's absolutely essential. The entire programme has been done on the basis that we provide the base infrastructure and that the person who ends up providing that—so, BT Openreach in the case of the first superfast programme—provides that as an open-access network, and every ISP who wants to have access to that can have access to that.

In some areas of Wales—not Islwyn, I have to say—there are some restrictions around the number of ISPs offering services, because we have the highest penetration of fibre to the premises anywhere in Europe—coming up for 49,000 premises—and ISPs are taking a little while to catch up with that. But as the programme rolls out, more and more ISPs are coming online and the price is going down, as you'd expect, exactly as it did when broadband first rolled out and the ISPs caught up with that programme. So, yes, the entire programme is tendered on the basis that the Member outlines and it's a fundamental tenet of ours that that publicly provided infrastructure is available for all ISPs.

Many people in Islwyn would like to access digital employment opportunities in and around Newport, and both the UK and Welsh Governments have supported the creation of these. We have the Office for National Statistics Data Science Campus ,and I'm pleased to hear that Ken Skates will be visiting the next-generation data centre—the largest in Europe—on Monday. But, for many, the biggest challenge is transport, and because the M4 is clogged with through traffic, instead of its original purpose of a northern distributor road for Newport, it's harder than it would be for many in Islwyn to access those opportunities. Will your Government actually deliver on the M4 relief road that you promised in your manifesto?

That is not in my portfolio—the M4 relief road—so I'm not the Cabinet Secretary who should be asked, but, obviously, the point of the broadband programme is to enable people to work in better jobs, closer to their home and not to have to commute on polluting forms of transport to destinations far away. So, a very large part of the reason that we've put this investment in throughout Wales is to allow very well paid jobs to be delivered closer to people's homes in their communities so they don't have to suffer the commute that the Member so eloquently outlined.

Thank you for that very important question. We are determined to make all parts of Wales hostile to slavery. We are working with police and crime commissioners and with our multi-agency partners to protect vulnerable people and put an end to this heinous crime.

Thank you. The Welsh Government's anti-slavery co-ordinator has stated that raising awareness of modern slavery is key to tackling the issue. What do the latest figures on the number of cases reported tell us about the scale of the problem and the awareness of members of the public in recognising slavery and also in more victims coming forward? As we know, modern slavery does increasingly exist in our society both hidden and in plain sight, sometimes in mundane establishments such as nail bars and car washes, but equally in agriculture, catering, hotel trades and caring professions, and, of course, prostitution.

Yes, indeed. The latest figures on the reported cases of slavery in Wales are telling us that we are now beginning to understand the true scale of this problem and that our multi-agency approach to gathering intelligence and raising awareness is, indeed, working. In Wales in 2017, there were 192 people identified as potential victims of slavery and referred into the national referral mechanism, which is operated by the National Crime Agency. But, just in the first six months of this year, 116 people have been referred into the national referral mechanism and there's no sign of a slowdown in this year-on-year increase in referrals. Of the 116 referrals this year in Wales, the highest number of referrals were UK nationals, and that was 42 women, men and children, and the other main sources were countries from all over the world, in fact. They included 46 women and 70 men; 65 were referred for adult exploitation and 51 for exploitation as a minor.

The Member made an excellent point about it being in plain sight, because a large number of these young people, in particular, have been caught up in the county lines crime, particularly teenage boys who are UK nationals, but we are also dealing with girls as young as two who have been rescued from sexual exploitation.

Currently, labour exploitation is, however, the main form of exploitation, followed by sexual exploitation and domestic servitude. From the reported cases, we know that often people are held in that kind of captivity in plain sight. A large number of people knew that they were there but hadn't recognised the symptoms. So, the Member's quite right to say that we can all play our part in tackling slavery by raising awareness of what the signs are, what to look out for and how to report that into the mechanisms.

Can I commend the work of the St Giles Trust, who presented yesterday to the all-party group on looked-after children about the county lines project that is running in co-operation with a project in Gwent? We heard really alarming evidence of how these drug rings use looked-after children, care leavers and, of course, lots of other vulnerable people, and it's really important that those trapped in this sort of criminal activity realise that if they come forward as victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, they'll be supported and it'll be the larger, vast crime of their imprisonment in some terrible way—and we've heard some of the examples that are used—by these gangs that the police will focus on and prosecute.

Yes, indeed, and we've done a lot of work. The Gwent police and crime commissioner, who's a well-known and regarded previous colleague of ours, has been very active, and members of the leadership group. And now, actually, all of the police forces of Wales have active groups in this area, but he was very much at the forefront of that and he funded a number of anti-slavery awareness-raising conferences, and he jointly hosted the event that my colleague Joyce Watson AM held at the Senedd, which was called 'making our collective commitment to eradicating modern slavery and human trafficking', which was attended by a number of Assembly Members, including David Melding. That was making that exact point, and I've also made that point to a number of UK Government Ministers when I've met with them. But what we have to be sure of is that we don't have any unintended consequences that prevent people from coming forward, thinking that they will be prosecuted themselves for some minor involvement in whatever activity and masking out the bigger problem. That is a very good case in point that he makes—the one where you've been involved in some kind of drug issue and, therefore, you think you're liable to prosecution and don't come forward—but there are many others where people think that they are falling foul of the immigration rules or a number of other things, and we've been at great pains to ensure that people see the bigger crime behind the front and also see the crime ring behind the individual who is caught up in it.

Yes, indeed. The Superfast Cymru scheme facilitated superfast broadband access to over 77,000 premises across the region, with average speeds of around 77 Mbps, investing over £19 million. The successful bidder for lot 3 of the successor project is indeed BT Plc, and the grant agreement was signed yesterday.

Thank you very much. I think we might be in a ha'porth of tar position, in that case, because I raised some time ago with Openreach directly, actually, its refusal to provide full roll-out to particular businesses in Bridgend, persuading them, if you like, to sign up for more expensive packages than otherwise they would have. But now I'm hearing from residents in Bridgend about inconsistency of the roll-out of broadband in their area—in a single street. I'm thinking of one particular street in Litchard, where there are houses that have been advised they can apply for broadband now, which is great, whereas, doors away, the occupiers are being told that they can't do that, 'pending technology', whatever that means, or, 'situations are being explored'. Again, I'm really not sure what it means and neither are they. Obviously, this discrepancy is surprising in itself because we are actually talking about next-door neighbours here. It's hugely frustrating for residents and businesses. So, if I provide you with the details, would you approach Openreach for me to see if I can get a quicker answer, and then Bridgend residents will hopefully have a satisfactory answer to the problems that affect them?

Yes, indeed. If Suzy Davies wants to provide me with the specifics—. We need specific postal addresses or telephone numbers in order to give specific information back. I will say, though, that, quite often, when you ask your current internet service provider, ISP, 'Is this available?', they'll say 'no'. What they actually mean is that they don't provide it and not that it's not available at your address. So, we do ask people to check online the number of ISPs available in their area, and try them all, because some ISPs simply won't give superfast broadband in particular areas because their particular network is at capacity. So, shopping around is the answer sometimes. But if you provide me with the details, we'll be able to come back to you and tell you the specifics.

The UK Government has been urging Welsh businesses to apply for their gigabit broadband voucher scheme. I'm sure you know what it is, but it's a scheme where SMEs were given £3,000, but it's now been reduced to £2,500 because it's had such a big uptake, for SMEs to have fibre broadband installed in their businesses where they require that support. But, to me, it was quite shocking to find that, to date, only 58 businesses in Wales had been issued with a voucher, compared to 418 in Northern Ireland and over 300 in Scotland. So, this disparity is something that I'm concerned about, given that businesses come to me quite often saying that they can't get access to broadband. This would, it would seem to me, be an ideal place for them to try to get that funding. So, what are you doing to encourage Welsh businesses, and businesses in my area in South Wales West, to utilise the scheme before it ends? Because I understand, from reading an article online here today, that they are thinking of ending it earlier than planned because of such a large uptake across the rest of the UK. But that doesn't help Wales because we don't have enough people applying. So, what are you doing to get Welsh businesses to apply to this scheme?

The scheme is available in Wales, but it crosses across our own ultrafast voucher scheme. So, a large number of Welsh businesses have gone through the ultrafast voucher scheme, which is in the same space but a little bit different, and, actually, officials at the moment are working very hard to see if we can make the two schemes marry together. Ours is more generous, but what we're looking to do is to see if we can get the UK Government voucher scheme to cover off some part of it and then for us to top up the Welsh businesses so that, actually, they have a more generous offer. So, what's happening there is that it's crossing across an existing scheme that we had that businesses are also able to access. We are in the process of trying to make that a simplified set of schemes. It has been quite difficult to get details about longevity, and so on, out of the UK Government so that we can do that piece of work effectively.

Yes, indeed. In our continued roll-out of fast fibre, we have identified around 8,554 premises across the region that could potentially see connectivity coverage under the new initiative. Our mobile action plan also sets out priorities for improved mobile connectivity across all of Wales, including Pembrokeshire.

Leader of the house, your recent statement on broadband confirmed that one of your priorities is developing community-based models and solutions for tackling notspots. You made reference to schemes in Michaelston-y-Fedw between Cardiff and Newport, and Llanddewi Rhydderch in Monmouthshire. Whilst this work is welcome, it's important that your officials are looking at ways of working with communities outside of south-east Wales too. Therefore, can you tell us what specific work your officials have undertaken in Pembrokeshire to develop community solutions for tackling broadband notspots across my constituency, so that communities like Mynachlog-ddu, which I know you're aware of, are able to actually receive sufficient broadband services?

Yes, absolutely. I very much enjoyed coming down to his constituency and meeting the residents there. My understanding is that my officials are in touch with a number of the residents who attended. Joyce Watson also invited me to a meeting down in Pembrokeshire and officials are in touch with residents who got together there to form a community group. There was a meeting with Elin Jones in Ceredigion, actually, where a similar thing has happened.

What we've been doing—and this is very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, part of the publicity for this—is asking people to come forward, and, if AMs know of any other communities that will be prepared to come forward and do that, we are very happy to facilitate any structure that can come forward. There are existing schemes up in the Llŷn Peninsula, for example, and all over Wales—those are just the two that have got the most publicity. We're looking to see what publicity we can give to the other schemes across Wales so that people can see that there are a large number of models that can be brought forward. It doesn't have to be the model in Michaelston-y-Fedw; although there is nothing wrong with that model, it doesn't suit everyone. So, there are a number of options available.

Once we've sorted out the lot 2 position, then I will know exactly how much money is left over in the £80 million pot that we've talked about for a long time, to facilitate those community schemes on a faster programme. Part of my frustration with not knowing what's happening on lot 2 is that I'm not able to say, definitively, how much money that is, but we know that it'll be a substantial amount of money and we're very happy to facilitate that for any community that wants it.

Leader of the house, physical infrastructure is obviously crucial to small businesses in counties like Pembrokeshire, which, of course, is a county of lots of small towns. The physical infrastructure is crucial, but we also need cultural change if we're going to achieve a really full digital renaissance. We also know that our small businesses—our small retail businesses—are very much under pressure from the really big online giants like Amazon. The Federation of Small Businesses has come out in their recent report and suggested a network of digital town-centre managers who could work with small retail businesses in a particular town to develop a sort of whole-town offer online. That could be a really interesting and innovative way of enabling some of those small businesses that haven't got time or the skills to develop a really strong online presence of their own. What consideration has the Welsh Government given to the suggestion from the Federation of Small Businesses, and is there any way in which you can work to promote this idea, which seems to me to be a very positive suggestion?

Yes, indeed. We're very keen on promoting it. In fact, if you visit Llandrindod Wells, you'll find that all the shops there have come together. You can log on to their internet as you go into the town and it tells you all the offers available and what shops are open and all that sort of stuff. There's a little closed WiFi area network that allows all of those businesses to come together. There are others around Wales—that's just one that's popped into my head as one I recently visited. We're very happy to facilitate that kind of collaborative working in order to make the best of the online presence. We also have a business exploitation team that follows the superfast Cymru roll-out. A big lightening bolt appears on your village green and people are asked and we have had very good take-up of that across Wales. That is aimed at ensuring that people don't just digitise their paper system, but that they actually understand the benefits of going online.

And, Deputy Llywydd, if you indulge me just for one moment, I'll just tell the story of a hotel in Wales that was very happy that they could just put vouchers—you know, wowchers and all those sorts of things—online to increase their capacity, but, actually, as a result of the business exploitation team, became aware that they could have all kinds of other digital experiences for their guests, that they could allow streaming from GoPros, that they could allow uploading of pictures and all the rest of it, and download Netflix, et cetera, et cetera, from their connection, and are very happy indeed that their business has gone from strength to strength. But it's not something that they would have thought of unless the exploitation team had gone in and shown them what could be done. And then, of course, it opens people's imaginations right up. So, we have a team specifically dedicated to doing that, and, if you want to put me in touch with any of the people you think would be interested, I'd be more than happy to follow that up.

Thank you. And, finally, question 7, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Yes. The Welsh Government is committed to driving forward the goal of making Wales a more equal nation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new report, 'Is Wales Fairer? (2018)' provides important evidence and demonstrates there is much more to do. We will take careful notice of the report and its recommendations.

Thank you, and thank you for pointing out the EHRC report, 'Is Wales Fairer?', highlighting some very concerning statistics on levels of female participation in Welsh society. In Wales, women continue to be severely under-represented in public roles. In 2015-16, only 14 per cent of local government chief executives in Wales were women, despite making up 73 per cent of overall local authority positions. In our emergency services, 33 per cent of chief fire officers and deputies were women—that's 50 per cent workforce—whilst just 29 per cent of all police officers are female. Furthermore, the report also highlights that gender inequality is increasing, with seven out of 10 mothers in Wales reporting to have had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience after returning to work from maternity leave. Such negative experiences may go some way to explain why women are so under-represented in our public services. Ruth Coombs, the head of EHRC in Wales, has argued that it is now time for the action to be taken by the Welsh Government, and that you need to take a lead. Therefore, could you outline exactly what actions you are taking as a result of that report, and how are you showing strong leadership in that regard?

Yes. We're very committed to working with EHRC and others to ensure that women do not face discrimination in the workplace in relation to pregnancy or maternity. The Welsh Government has itself signed up to EHRC's Working Forward campaign, which not only benefits women in the workplace, but makes good business sense to support staff in the workplace. The Member will be very aware that Chwarae Teg is currently leading on delivery of phase 2 of the gender review, building on the work they completed in phase 1, and by summer of next year we'll have a clear road map for achieving gender equality in Wales. The work will continue beyond the end of the project to ensure we're doing the things to achieve this goal. I did issue a written statement on the review earlier this week.

We have a number of other actions, which I've discussed with the EHRC in my regular meeting with them, and I also had an additional meeting specifically to discuss the 'Is Wales Fairer?' report. We fed that into our new 'Action on disability: the right to independent living' consultation, and I would urge everyone in the Chamber to respond. We've sought the views of disabled people and worked closely with disability stakeholder organisations to co-produce that new approach. On race, we are funding the Ethnic Minorities and Youth Support Team Wales to deliver an all-Wales BME engagement programme over the next three years, in order to understand the views and issues facing those communities in Wales, because what's quite clear, and the Member read out some of the statistics, is that the more protected characteristics—or intersectionality, as the jargon would have it—that you have, the more likely you are to experience those kinds of inequalities. So, we also give an equality and inclusion equality grant for organisations representing gender equality, race and LGBT issues, and we fund three inclusion projects: the all-Wales hate crime report and support centre, the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller advice and advocacy service, and the national support services for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants—all with a view to ensuring that people have the right attitudes to work. My colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, has been working very hard, as part of his economic action plan, to drive those kinds of equalities into the ask from companies as they sign up. And my colleague, the Minister for public services, is very engaged in this space with local authorities and we've been actively, together, considering what we can do to change the composition of local authorities, both for the councillors and representatives themselves, and indeed for the workforce that supports the elected representatives.

Leader of the house, will you report on action taken to close the gender pay gap following Equal Pay Day on Saturday? A recent ONS report said that the gender pay gap for full-time workers has fallen to a record low of 8.6 per cent. It's good to see it's fallen, but it still shows what a long way we have to go.

Yes, indeed, and, again, as part of the economic action plan in the private sector, and as part of our ask from our main companies in Wales, we are asking that people sign up to the eradication of the gender pay gap. We're working very hard to ensure that the Welsh Government has no such pay gap, and, again, with my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for public services, to include other public services in that. I've had extensive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for health in order to drive the gender pay gap out of public services in Wales, because we should be the exemplar employers in this field; we ought to be able to show the way. But we have of course included it in our economic action plan to ensure we have the right ethos in Wales, and we have signed up, as I said in response to Janet Finch-Saunders, to the EHRC's Working Forward programme as well.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Assembly Commission. Questions 1 and 2 will be answered by the Llywydd. Question 1, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. According to NHS figures, 534,000 people—

Can you ask the question, please? 

Sorry—

Assembly Commission questions, question 1.

Regarding the proceedings—recorded proceedings—if you could make a statement on how they are going to improve our recorded proceedings, is my question.

Quite close.

Yes: what plans does the Commission have to improve the broadcasting of proceedings in the Senedd? Llywydd.

Thank you. 

We have a continuous plan for improvements to broadcasting and AV services and this has recently seen infrastructure changes that have significantly improved reliability. The introduction of a Senedd.tv clipping tool has received universal praise. In the future we also plan to make proceedings more accessible by using technology such as voice-to-text transcription.

Thank you. As I mentioned, 534,000 people in Wales suffer with hearing loss. I also in Aberconwy have a very large demographic of older people, and it has come out recently—I had an ageing well conference on Friday, and I was approached a number of times by people who actually do try to tune in to Senedd.tv, but those with hearing difficulties are experiencing some problems. I raised it during the last term, and there were going to be some improvements made such as subtitles, but, in terms of the hearing, I've even had staff in my offices complain that they can't always hear it, even on full volume and things. Senedd.tv itself, the actual recording—it has been raised with me a number of times that it is quite problematic, so I'm just wondering what steps the Commission is taking to ensure that there are subtitles, and that consideration is given, particularly so, to those with hearing problems.

Thank you for the supplementary. You've raised two points there, one which is new to me—not raised with me before—about the quality of the audio ordinarily on Senedd.tv, and if that's not audible then it's not good enough. So, I'll make sure that we review that and ensure that it can be heard, certainly.

Then on the issue more generally of subtitling, subtitling retrospectively and live subtitling, we are investing in the infrastructure that we have and in the video capacity that we have to make subtitling more straightforward in the future. Live subtitling, though, especially live subtitling of two languages spoken in this Assembly, is quite challenging in terms of the technology, but also in terms of its accuracy of what we say, and it needs to be accurate in order to be respectful of what's said by Members here. So this is obviously something that would be of benefit to many people in our society, and generally a good thing to do, so we are looking both to invest and then to develop and use the technology of subtitling so that more people are able to access with ease what we say and do and decide in this place.

As you will know there is very limited green space on the Assembly’s estate as much of the area is paved or tarmacked, but within these limitations we have introduced a number of environmental initiatives to provide habitats for wildlife and to increase the presence of pollinators in Cardiff Bay. The most recent initiative is the beehives set on the Pierhead roof, apparently.

I thank the Llywydd for that response. Last month I attended the event to launch the Commission's annual environment report and I was thrilled to be taken to the roof of the Pierhead building to see the two beehives the Commission has installed there in partnership with Cardiff University, whose aim is to make Cardiff the UK's first bee-friendly city. So, that's fantastic that we're contributing to that from here.

But one of the issues raised with me was the lack of bee-friendly plants around the Assembly estate, and I wondered if the Commission could consider some of the land that is not used and may not belong to us, but is actually surrounding this building—whether some sort of bee-friendly flowers or plants could be planted there. There was a scheme a couple of years ago to plant in the car park. There was an area of the car park, and staff took part in that and did it in their lunch hours and tended the flowers. So, I just wondered if that was something we could look at, particularly in view of the fact of this wonderful progress—this wonderful project of having the bees.

Unlike you, I've not been brave enough to visit the roof of the Pierhead to see the two beehives, but I'm very pleased that we're able to take part in that project. As you've suggested, there are a number of places around the estate where there has been planting of bee-friendly pollinators, and that includes the car park, and those plants and flowers remain in that car park. Also, around the Senedd building, you will have noticed the pot planting in the garden outside the Senedd cafe. We've had a recent meeting—our officials—with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to look as well at what can be done to attract more wildlife, and birds in particular, to the estate by means of nest boxes and a mini pond, possibly. Don't get excited at the prospect of a mini pond at the moment, but we're looking into a number of these issues—.

Can we have a swimming pool as well?

No, you can't have a swimming pool. [Laughter.] And as you've said, these are important contributions that we can make at a small scale in Cardiff Bay. But, obviously, we need to play our part so that we are putting our estate to some better natural and wildlife support than it probably has been in the past.

And question 3 is to be answered by Commissioner Joyce Watson. Question 3 is from Helen Mary Jones.

Thank you for the question. The Commission offers a wide range of flexible working policies, and that means that our staff at all levels are utilising both formal and informal flexible working arrangements. And these policies have contributed to the Assembly being recognised as one of the top 30 employers for working families in the UK.

Thank you very much for that answer, Joyce Watson, and I'm sure we'll all be very proud of that recognition and we would want to continue this institution's reputation as one of the best family-friendly employers.

One of the consequences, as you will know, historically, is that women taking flexible working practices have faced issues in terms of promotion. I would be very surprised if that were the case here. However, it has been the case in Scandinavian countries, for example, that where equal opportunities are offered and men and women start to take up flexible working practices, it can be the case that men end up being discriminated against because, somehow, it's more culturally acceptable for a woman to work shorter hours because she needs to spend time with her children than it is for a man to make a similar decision.

Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that would be happening here, but can I ask if the Commission will consider looking at the sex balance between men and women in terms of who is taking up those flexible working practices? And I would imagine that we are probably doing better than many employers and that we probably have got more male staff taking those opportunities. But could you also take a look at what levels those people are and whether, over time, there is any effect on people's career progression, men or women, if they choose to take flexible working practices? I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but having seem some evidence from elsewhere, I think that we would want to be sure that we avoided any unintended consequences from what is, in itself, very good practice. 

You're absolutely right, we wouldn't want to create a situation that had unintended consequences, ether for workers' progression or for the gender of those of those feeling that they are comfortable taking up the opportunity of flexible working.

Now, we do have some figures that tell us that—. Our latest diversity and inclusion annual report shows that 20 per cent of staff have formal arrangements. And that's the formal arrangements to work part time. And of those, it's 30 per cent of women and 10 per cent of men, across all grades, whatever those are. Fourteen per cent of our top three grades—that's executive bands 2 and 1 and the senior staff—also have formal agreements to work part time. It is spread across all other grades as well.

What we don't have, and I think we need to put our hand up here, is the information on the informal agreements, because there are a number of informal agreements that people accept through their line managers, and we don't keep the information on that, which would add to this picture that I've just described. So, I'm quite happy to take this back to the Commission on your behalf and see if we can incorporate more cohesively and comprehensively the data that you require. There is no suggestion at all—for anybody who is accepting flexible working, however that is, whether it's part-time working, working at home or compressed hours—that that is actually affecting their status within the organisation. But, again, without fully gathering all of that information, we can't be 100 per cent certain, and I think that's where we would like to be. I thank you for your question.

Thank you very much.

Item 4 is topical questions, none of which have been accepted this afternoon.

So, item 5 is the 90-second statements, and the first up this afternoon is Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. This year, Social Enterprise Day falls on Thursday, 15 November. The day is a chance to raise awareness of social enterprises, those businesses committed to a social or environmental mission. It is also part of Global Entrepreneurship Week. Something of the scale and scope of the sector in Wales is suggested by the report on social businesses in Wales: the state of the sector. This was produced by the Wales Co-operative Centre and funded by the Welsh Government and appeared in 2017. It paints a picture of a vibrant sector, contributing around £2.37 billion to the national economy. Also, one that employs in the region of 48,000 people.

It noted that social businesses are predominantly found in areas of social deprivation. In these areas, they play a key role, supporting communities and offering jobs and training. They also provide those fundamental services that the public and private sectors could otherwise struggle to maintain. Social Enterprise Day is an opportunity for us all to consider the positive impact that social enterprises have in our communities and in our economy. I am proud to be working with the Wales Co-operative Centre to promote Social Enterprise Day 2018 here in Wales, to help raise awareness of these amazing organisations and the work that they do putting positive social and environmental values at the heart of the economy. Thank you.

Last weekend, we had the opportunity to give thanks for our people's sacrifices during war, and to acknowledge those people who continue to serve in our armed forces today and in the future. Today, I'd like to celebrate the life of one of Shotton's bravest residents, Harry Weale VC. Harry was just 16 when he came forward to fight for and protect his country. I, for one, could not imagine how Harry felt, leaving home for the unknown to fight for the very first time in a foreign country. His courage alone was displayed from the very fact that he joined our armed forces, and he joined the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and it is no surprise that he returned home to a hero's welcome.

Deputy Llywydd, we should all remember that, without people like Harry, generations to come would not have had the choices, opportunities and freedoms that we have today. It is for those privileges that I am grateful and I'm sure we all are grateful here today too. So, we must never forget. One final thing I would like to say is:

'At the going down of the sun and in the morning / We will remember them.'

Thank you.

Next, we move to a motion to elect a Member to the Assembly Commission. I call on the Chair of the Business Committe to move the motion—Llywydd.

I move the motion.

Diolch. Does anybody wish to speak? No. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Again, a motion to elect a Member to a comittee. I call again on the Chair of the Business Committee to move the motion formally.

I formally move. 

Diolch. Nobody wants to speak. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, that motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is the motion to approve the Assembly Commission's budget for 2019-20, and I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion on behalf of the Commission. Suzy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the Commission's budget motion for 2019-20 and ask that it be incorporated into the annual budget motion.

As you'll have seen from the draft budget, the Commission is seeking a total budget of £57.023 million, comprising £37.076 million for Commission services, £16.197 million for the remuneration board's determination and £3.75 million for non-cash items broadly over which we have no control.

The increase requested in the budget is within the amount recommended by Finance Committee last year and in line with the increase to the Welsh block. In the context of ongoing work around Brexit and Assembly reform, this has meant strict and better evidenced prioritisation of projects. Some prospective activity could take us into new territory, of course, and in the event of a second phase of Assembly reform involving an increase in the size of the Assembly, we were grateful to the Finance Committee for at least leaving the door open to a supplementary budget, should we not be able to meet the demands within the current budget.

The Commission exists to support the Assembly and, of course, its Members, and the pressure on Members remains significant. Given our relatively small number and complex issues, which we are addressing now, notably Assembly reform, the impact of the UK leaving the European Union, we need a budget that provides the right level of resource to support Members through this period.

Our strategy outlines the budget for the remainder of this the fifth Assembly and the first year of the next Assembly. One of the strategic aims is to engage with the people of Wales and champion this place, helping our constituents understand what we do and why it's important that they understand what we do and to have them participate in our democracy. And we are about to have our first election to the Youth Parliament. Voting is open, and the results will be known in December for this new and exciting chapter in our history. And it flies, I think, in the face of the perception that young people aren't interested in politics when you hear that 450 candidates across Wales are standing for election and 23,000 young people have registered to vote against our target of 10,000, and that's more than some constituency Assembly Members get. [Laughter.] It really is a momentous step in democracy in Wales.

The Assembly also has new legislative powers, which it must use to best effect in delivering a strong, sustainable democracy for the benefit of the people of Wales. So, we think this is a fair budget that challenges the Commission to use resources wisely—that's another strategic goal—to an even more acute degree. So, I would like to thank the Finance Committee for its scrutiny of this budget and its continued commitment to improve the transparency of Commission funding, whilst pushing us to become more efficient and effective in the work that we do.

We note that the committee is content with the draft budget proposals as they are and welcome comments that changes introduced in the 2019-20 budget document contribute to transparency in our budgeting process. We aim to continue demonstrating the openness that we have shown to date and we are committed also to continuing to work with the committee to ensure that budget submissions year on year provide information that the committee, on behalf of the whole Assembly, would like to see.

The committee made eight recommendations, all of which we have addressed in our response. Three of the recommendations requested further information and clarity on particular areas of the budget, including the cost of the Youth Parliament, and, certainly, in due course, we will have a much clearer picture of exactly how the recurring costs will look, and those will be absorbed into future service plans rather than standing alone in the budget as they do at the moment.

Two recommendations concerned staffing: one touched on the findings of the capacity review and whether a voluntary exit scheme for Commission staff would achieve an effective reconfiguration of our staff resources within the cap on headcount for the future; and the other looked at continuing work being done around sickness management and managing staff churn. This work is ongoing and, as ever, the Commission needs to ensure it has the right skills in place to continue delivering all of our priorities and support services.

Another recommendation encouraged the Commission to determine a consistent way of presenting the numbers and the increase in the budget for future years, and this is a principle that we actually share as a Commission. The budget is presented differently this year, reflecting requests made of us by Finance Committee in the past. So, we don't want an ever-changing presentation either, because it makes year-on-year comparisons difficult, not just to make, but to explain as well.

The final two recommendations were concerned with Assembly reform, specifically the financial impact of proposed legislation—our legislation—and an associated financial impact assessment of progressing this work. The Finance Committee requested sight of our outturn figures on this work, and how it might differ from the actual budget provision, and of course we'll be happy to provide that information when it's available. As an AM myself, I certainly welcome detailed and well-evidenced and well-explained financial impact assessments.

The major change in the presentation of course has been—well, not just the presentation—the use of the remuneration board's determination figures. And where the full amount of the determination is not spent, then it will not be drawn down on other Assembly priorities; it will remain in the block grant. The flip side of that, which actually was something that the Finance Committee concluded itself, is that if there are any unexpected determination costs, they should not be met from the Commission's operational budget. So, if unexpected costs do arise, and the determination spend exceeds its allocated budget, if we cannot manage that within an operational budget—if it's a very small amount—we will seek a supplementary budget.

We are, as ever, open to suggestions on how to improve our budgeting process, and willing to answer any questions that Members may have. In the meantime, I am happy to put this budget forward on behalf of the Commission, and reiterate our commitment to working in a way that is open and transparent, delivering the best possible value for money for the people of Wales.

Thank you. Can I now call the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to speak in today’s debate. As a new member, and new Chair, of the Assembly Finance Committee, this is the first time I’ve been involved in the scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget in this way, but I do understand that the Commission has been subject to thorough scrutiny by the Finance Committee over the past few years. Members were keen to ensure that our report did reflect the fact that we feel that there is a culture change happening within the Commission, ensuring a much more transparent approach to budgeting, and we want to commend the Commission and the chief executive on that. Turning, therefore, to some of our specific recommendations.

One of the areas that has drawn criticism in previous years has been the approach to funding projects, as we've just heard really, through utilising underspends from the determination to top up the Commission's budget. This year, the Commission has changed the way it budgets, with clear separation between the budget of the Commission and the determination. So, rather than utilising the underspend from the determination to fund projects, a project fund has been included, and a specific budget line for the remuneration board's determination.

In light of the recent changes to the determination, the Commission would have seen a likely reduction in the size of this underspend. However, we are pleased to see these changes. These changes have resulted in some presentational issues with this budget, in the way in which spending is detailed, and our first recommendation asks for consistency in budget presentation, and the Commission of course has accepted this recommendation.

The committee made recommendations in relation to specific workstreams, namely the projects under public information and engagement, and the Youth Parliament costs. The committee thought these areas lacked clarity. We requested the final budget be updated in relation to public information and engagement, and, whilst further information has been provided to the committee, I am disappointed that the actual recommendation to update the budget documentation has not been implemented. The Commission's response provides additional costs on the Youth Parliament; however, it remains unclear how these costs have been established. I note that costs will be updated after the first residential meeting of the Youth Parliament, but we do remain concerned that the basis for the costs identified seem to lack a substantive evidence base.

The budget refers to a possible voluntary exit scheme in the final quarter of 2018-19. The committee recommended that staffing decisions should be given serious consideration, and any voluntary exit scheme should clearly link to the capacity review. The response still doesn't provide clear links. However, I do recognise that this may relate to sensitive information in relation to staffing. And on staffing, of course, we have previously requested that the Commission doesn't increase the head count of staff within the Assembly, and we are pleased that the head count has remained at 491. We recognise that there have been, and will continue to be, challenges ahead, but we welcome the commitment from the Commission to only revisit the cap of 491 in exceptional circumstances.

Recommendation 4 of our report referred to the costs of the Legislative Workbench software. And I am pleased that the narrative surrounding this has been updated to clarify the resource committed by the Welsh Government and that committed by the Commission. This is clearly a hugely important area to us as a legislature, and clarity, of course, in that respect, is very, very welcome.

We note the possibilities for potential in-year supplementary budgets, and recognise that these relate to pension scheme changes, and changes to accounting rules as well. We welcome the early notice of the possibility of those supplementary budgets coming forward.

Finally, the committee has previously recommended that the Commission's budget doesn't exceed the increase in the Welsh block grant, and we've commended the Commission on budgeting within 1.6 per cent for 2019-20. However, the response of the committee states that they will ensure that the Commission's operational budget increases in line with the Welsh block grant. The 'response of the Commission', I should have said. And as a committee, we're a little bit concerned that there is an assumption there that the budget should automatically increase. The budget, of course, should remain within the block grant, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Commission should automatically assume that their budget increases at the same level. So, I very much hope that the culture change that I referred to at the beginning of my contribution continues, and that our recommendations as a Finance Committee can contribute positively to the continued strengthening of the Commission's budgeting process. 

I welcome the budget proposals. Yes, the settlement will be difficult for the Commission to work within. I have no doubt they'll have to make some very difficult decisions. Welcome to the world of the rest of the public sector. It cannot be immune from the problems and difficulties caused by austerity as the rest of the public sector is facing. I said last year that the Commission's budget could not be immune to the real-term cuts in expenditure that many public sector bodies, which we all rely on, which we all have a very high opinion of, and which we all need, are facing.

I'm very pleased to see the end-of-year underspend in the remuneration board's determination because there was a level of inevitability about that underspend, in that the budget was based on people being paid at the highest point on the grade for all staff, and anybody who was joining was starting at the lowest point. So, there was a level of inevitability about that, which was not good for budgeting for the Assembly and didn't hold us in the best light.

I'm very pleased to see that the budget has been produced to mirror the increase in the Welsh block grant. Llyr Gruffydd wasn't there last year, but one of the things we said was that we didn't want it to exceed that. I think the expectation was that 'not exceed' meant equal it. I think that's the view that was held by the Commission as well, that that's what our view was—that we would expect it to move in the same direction. But there are pressures on the Commission budget. We keep on asking them to do more and more, but we don't want give them money for it. But I'm sure there's not a local authority leader in Wales who would not be saying exactly the same thing. So, it is difficult, and I congratulate both the Commission staff, the chief executive, and the Commissioners, for bringing a budget in like this. It's going to be difficult, it's going to take managing, but I think that we cannot treat ourselves differently to the way we treat the rest of the public sector in Wales. And, so, I would urge Members of the Assembly today to support this budget. 

Thank you. Can I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate?

Thank you very, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to hear, Llyr, that you appreciate the work that we have been doing to respond to the committee's concerns. 

I'll just turn straight away to the Youth Parliament. Of course, this is the first time we've done it, and it's the first time anybody in an Assembly of this size has done quite what we're doing as well. If you remember, the way that we are constructing this is quite different from existing examples with the UK Parliament, and even what Scotland is attempting to do. So, I hope you will bear with us in giving you specific figures. I think it would be perhaps unfortunate to expect us to update you week-on-week on how we're spending on this. Please come back and scrutinise us in PAC next year, when we will have actual figures to give you. And, of course, the figures aren't actually plucked from thin air. They are taken from examples, well, estimates, of how much work individual members of staff here will need to do in order to work in the various constituencies, and with the bodies who aren't constituency—

Will you take an intervention?

By all means.

Thanks, Suzy. David Rowlands and I and Mohammad Asghar visited the King Henry VIII Comprehensive School in Abergavenny regarding the Youth Parliament to speak to some of the new candidates and I was really impressed by their attitudes. So, I think we fully understand the pressures on the Commission in trying to do something totally new. So, there was no suggestion within our report that innovative areas like this shouldn't be pursued by the Commission. I understand that, as Mike Hedges said, times are tight, but something like that is well worth pursuing, so we fully understand where you're coming from in terms of problems with budgeting. 

Well, I'm absolutely delighted to hear that, Nick, because, of course, this is one of the major steps forward for this democracy that this place has actually voted for. To think that we're actually bringing it in in its inaugural year for £100,000 with running costs after that of about £50,000, I think, from where I'm standing, that actually sounds more than value for money. Obviously, there's a pressure on us now having budgeted for those figures to make sure that we stick somewhere pretty close to them anyway, and we look forward—if that is that the correct phrase—to answering questions on that next year. 

Regarding staffing and the voluntary exit scheme, any decision is related to the capacity review. It's one of the things that gets taken into account in the prioritisation of just about anything now, because I think we would all accept that the skill sets needed within the Commission staff now to help support us, as Members, in what is going to be a completely different institution from 1999, are considerable. There would have been an argument, I would say, for saying that we did need additional staff for this, but having made the commitment to stick to 491, how those 491 are utilised is a considerable challenge actually, and I'm hoping for Assembly support in the way that we're doing that. 

Sticking to the Welsh block grant, I think our commitment was not to exceed it; it wasn't necessarily to match it. But I think we've done pretty well to come in on this, bearing in mind, as a couple of Members have said here, including you, Mike, how difficult this is, and I'm hoping you'll be employing the same level of scrutiny and the same arguments about bringing things in on a sixpence to the other 99.7 per cent of the budget that will be affecting this place, and I'm sure you will. 

The other thing perhaps I might have mentioned in my opening remarks, and I just want to raise it here, because you mentioned it, Mike, is that we are no longer budgeting for 100 per cent of the remuneration board's determination figure for reasons that have been put forward very persuasively by the Finance Committee in the past. So, I thank you for acknowledging that, and a similar figure has been included for churn within Commission staff as well, so that it's not just Assembly Members and their staff that are being treated in that way. We are—. The Commission staff are treated in the same way.

So, I'm glad you recommended this budget for acceptance. I obviously do as well, and I'd be grateful for all your support later on at voting time. Thank you. 

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

Item 7 on the agenda this afternoon is the debate on the Finance Committee's report on its inquiry into preparations for replacing EU funding for Wales, and I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee to move the report. Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure again to be able to contribute to this debate today as Chair of the Finance Committee and to look at our inquiry into the preparations for replacing EU funding for Wales. Although I was not a member of the committee during this inquiry, I have read the evidence with great interest and I’d like to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee during the inquiry. I’d also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for Finance for his response to our report, and particularly the fact that the Government has accepted all of our recommendations, which is always a help to get any praise from any committee in this place, I’m sure.

We also received a written response to our report from the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the committee was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not fully engage with the committee on this important matter. If Brexit is to be a success for Wales, engagement from a UK level will be vital and this includes the opportunities to be able to do scrutiny work, which is something we didn’t have to the extent that the Members would have wished in this case.

Wales currently receives about £680 million in EU funding per year, and in terms of a per capita comparison this is by far the highest of the devolved nations and the English regions. Most of this funding comes through the structural funds and the common agricultural policy. The committee believes that securing post-Brexit funding will be vital for Wales and they found strong support for the Welsh Government’s position that Wales should be not a penny worse off after Brexit.

The UK Government has announced that structural funds will be replaced by a UK shared prosperity fund. And even though a consultation on the fund is due to be launched before the end of the year, very little detail has been given on how this fund will operate. The sources of funding coming to Wales will change in the wake of Brexit, but, of course, little change has been seen in the reality behind the needs-based assessment that determined those funds. According to a wide range of evidence and economic data sets, there is a clear rationale for continued investment in Wales, including GVA per head in the poorest parts of Wales, which is half the UK average. These needs, of course, will not have gone away, whichever approach the funding takes, so in our report we highlight how the fund might be shared between the four nations, and we present a strong case for Wales to receive at least the same funding post Brexit. But equally important, of course, is for the moneys to continue to be managed and administered here in Wales.

Over the past 20 years, the Wales European Funding Office, WEFO, have managed, administered and spent EU funds directly, and in the process they have built up considerable expertise and established partnerships, and they have the necessary structures in place to deliver successful programmes. The UK Government has committed that all decisions made in Wales will remain in Wales, and we expect this commitment to be honoured. We recommended that the Welsh Government should install a central unit equipped with the necessary expertise to deliver a coherent programme of funding post Brexit, and I’m pleased to say that the Government has confirmed this intention, as well as its moves to co-ordinate this work across Government.

The committee believes that the Welsh share of the UK shared prosperity fund should provide multi-year funding, ensure partnership working and also, of course, to continue to mainstream equality in Wales. Also, the Welsh Government should continue to focus on promoting equality, tackling poverty and on human rights when administering the fund. In addition, the committee believes that the move to the new fund should be taken as an opportunity to simplify administrative arrangements and to use approaches such as those proposed by the Cabinet Secretary for trusted partner organisations.

The other main tranche of EU funding comes from the common agricultural policy. The CAP is vital to farming in Wales. In 2016-17, over half the farms in Wales either made a loss or they required a subsidy to avoid making a loss. Now, there are clear opportunities to improve on the CAP for Wales and to ensure that post-CAP funding is better aligned with the specific needs of Wales. But it is essential that these funding decisions respect the devolution settlement and that they give the Welsh Government the maximum possible flexibility to enable it to make decisions that support the specific needs of the Welsh land management sector through made-in-Wales policies. To this end, I am pleased that the response from the Government confirms that agreements with the UK Government mean that Wales, and I quote,

'will not be constrained in its design of new schemes and will be able to implement what is best for Wales.'

At present, the funding that comes to Wales under the CAP is double its UK population share, and this reflects the importance of the agriculture sector to Wales. It’s essential, therefore, that this level of funding is protected post Brexit and guaranteed for a number of years.

We welcome the fact that the UK Government is launching an independent review into post-CAP funding levels across the UK, but we remain wary of possible outcomes of that that may provide a sting in the tail for Wales. But, certainly, we’ll be continuing to keep an eagle eye on that process. We urge the Welsh Government to be a strong voice during this process to ensure that any mechanism the review recommends is consistent with the recommendations of this committee and, of course, that it meets the needs of Wales. 

Wales has also benefited greatly from other EU programmes such as Horizon 2020, especially in the higher and further education sectors, as well as the European Investment Bank. We recommended that the Welsh Government urges the UK Government to maintain a relationship with the EIB to ensure that Wales remains able to benefit from continued investment and infrastructure projects, and I’m reassured that the Welsh Government continues to press the UK Government on this, but the lack of progress and clarity provided by the UK Government remains a concern.

We also support the decision to seek continued access to Horizon Europe, but we believe that should such access not be possible, the equivalent funding should be provided to the UK science and research budget.

In addition to the initial post-Brexit funding level, it’s also important to consider how such funding will evolve over time. In this, we share the concerns of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee that a one-off adjustment to the block grant, while acceptable in the short term, may pose risks in the long term. We agree with the recommendation that 

'the Welsh Government ensures that funding is'

futureproofed

'and examines the merits of an objective needs-based formula'

that is agreed by all nations of the UK.

The committee heard evidence that simply uplifting the baseline of the block grant by an equivalent amount to EU funding would have a severe impact on Wales over time. It should be a priority for the Welsh Government to ensure a sustainable, long-term solution that allocates funding across the UK based on needs as a replacement for the Barnett formula and its in-built squeeze. I’m pleased that the Government agrees with this.

It’s clear, therefore, that a great many of the important decisions relating to post-Brexit funding for Wales are decisions for the UK Government. But as I said at the outset, the committee is disappointed by the lack of engagement received to date from the UK Government. However, we do recognise the role the Welsh Government will play in negotiations between the Governments.

I hope that the evidence that the Finance Committee has received and the report that we have produced will form a strong, cross-party Welsh case for fair post-Brexit funding, as well as adding weight to the Welsh Government’s position. I’m pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted in full the recommendations of the committee’s report. That said, I find the Cabinet Secretary’s comments in the Chamber, namely, that he does not for a moment believe that we have received sufficient assurances that the UK Government will respect the devolution settlement, to be deeply worrying, and they highlight the need for the Governments to work hard to ensure a fair, reasonable and long-lasting deal for Wales and its people. Thank you.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate today as a member of the Finance Committee, and to reiterate the views of our new Chair, who actually covered the issues in our report very fully and comprehensively, so I don't need to add much to that. It was clearly an area of enormous importance that we were looking at during our reporting stage.

The issue of how we replace EU funding post the UK's exit from the European Union is something that will affect us all, affect all sectors of the economy. It's an unprecedented situation, and I think we recognised that in the sessions that we had with the Welsh Government. This has not been done before, so you can't expect the Welsh Government to be able to plan everything meticulously ahead, although from the discussions that we did have with officials in the Welsh Government, I think that a lot of good work has been done in a difficult situation.

There is no right way to proceed, so key is recommendation 1, which says that we need the best possible funding deal to ensure that Wales is not a penny worse off post Brexit. We particularly phrased it as 'not a penny worse off', because, let's face it, if we could get some additional money in addition to what we've had—I know that it might be seen as pie in the sky, but if we could get some additional money then that avenue should not be closed down. But the very standard-case scenario that we would want to see would be us getting a pound-for-pound replacement from the new funding arrangements that we get at the moment from Brussels. 

The Conservative manifesto for the 2017 general election committed my party to establishing a UK-wide shared prosperity fund, which the Chair has mentioned, that would avoid some of the costs and the bureaucracy associated with the current funds. And whilst I think we all recognise how much Wales has benefited from structural funds and how much our agricultural industry has benefited from payments from the CAP, I think that all of us would say that it hasn't been a perfect situation and that there have been some administration costs. There are different ways of doing things that this is an opportunity for us to do; we don't have to follow everything as it's been done by Brussels hitherto.  

I appreciate that we haven't seen to many details of this fund, and I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will make comments on this in his remarks later, but I think it is important that we hit the ground running when that shared prosperity fund is up and running. So, aside from some of the issues about not knowing exactly what the details will be, it's important that the Welsh Government puts in place mechanisms so that as soon as the details of that fund do become clear, we can hit the ground running and get on with using that money as it should be used. David.  

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you therefore agree that, actually, what we need is knowledge, because how can the Government actually put mechanisms in place to hit the ground running when they don't even know what it is they're going to be hitting the ground running with? The problem is we don't know. We don't know anything. 

I fully recognise the problems that the Welsh Government have in this regard. I think to say we don't know anything is going a bit further—[Interruption.] Hang on. I've taken one intervention. We don't know everything, but to say we don't know anything at all I think is wrong. We can estimate exactly—not exactly, but we can estimate how the system will potentially look, so certain work has to be done. I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary is aware of that and that officials are getting on with it; they certainly seem to be dealing with some of the concerning issues when we took evidence. 

Turning to chapter 3 and reform of the Barnett formula, well, of course, we've been talking about this for a very long time, but it's developed a new resonance now Brexit is on the horizon. Recommendation 2 recommends,  

'that the Welsh Government should work with the UK Government and other devolved administrations to develop a sustainable long-term replacement for the Barnett formula that allocates funding across the UK based on needs.'

At the heart of this is the widely held view that the Barnett formula will be unsuitable for allocating future funding allocations.

So, yes, we've come a long way. We do have the fiscal framework and the Barnett floor, and we've had modifications to the Barnett formula that will help in the short to medium term, but the committee recognised that in the longer term, particularly post Brexit, a full review of the Barnett formula is necessary. The Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted that the formula does not take account of differences in funding needs or population growth and, if used to determine funding, it could be seriously disadvantageous to Wales.

There were different options put forward that were quite mind-boggling to the committee. An alternative would be the index per capita formula that's used in Scotland or, alternatively, the UK and Welsh Governments may wish to allocate funding differently again using hypothecation and indexing changes over time.  

I appreciate I'm out of time, deputy Chair, but it's been a pleasure to be part of this debate, and also to be part of the committee inquiry into this. It's a very important area, and I look forward to listening to what other Members have to say.  

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this very topical debate, as we move into an even more nail-biting time over our future relationship with the European Union. I'm not a member of the committee, but I did give evidence to the committee as chair of the Wales programme monitoring committee, along with Sioned Evans, the chief executive of WEFO, and Grahame Guilford, EU funding ambassador. The report certainly makes a strong case for the continuation of funding, at least at the level of the present European structural funds. And, in fact, as the Chair has already said in his introduction, Wales receives considerably more structural funds per person than any other part of the UK, so Brexit could hit Wales particularly hard.

Many organisations cited in the report gave evidence about the value of the funds, and many drew attention to the cross-cutting themes that have to be adhered to when European funding is agreed—the cross-cutting themes of equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming, sustainable development and tackling poverty and social exclusion. That is one of the great things, I think, about the European funds that we have had—that these themes have been built into all the projects. Chwarae Teg in particular drew attention to the projects that had been set up to look at women in the workforce and to tackle inequalities. I think it's important to remember that, in WEFO, there is a whole section of staff that is devoted to promoting the cross-cutting themes and ensuring that they're embedded at the beginning in all of the projects that are agreed to have EU funding. I think it is absolutely essential that, in any future funding that comes through the shared prosperity fund, these themes are also built in. We must make sure that tackling inequality is one of the main issues of these themes. I think it is also important to remember, as the Chair of the committee also said, about the huge amount of expertise that has been built up in Wales over nearly 20 years of EU funding—and that is recognised in the report—because the Welsh Government has been responsible for managing EU structural funds since April 2000 and, of course, has an in-depth knowledge of local views, local situations and local partnerships. It is vitally important that this is not lost, and it cannot be replicated by a Whitehall-down approach.

One of the most striking things in the report that struck me reading it was how it highlighted what an unequal country the UK is. I was particularly struck by the bit in the report that said that:

The UK currently has the largest regional economic disparity in GDP per person of any of the 28 EU Member States',

with Inner London West having a GDP per head of 611 per cent of the EU average, while West Wales and the Valleys has a GDP of 68 per cent. I think it is very worrying that there are such extremes of wealth in the UK and that we have such an unequal society across the UK, because an unequal society will never be a cohesive society, and obviously the financial crash and austerity, which has followed, has made the gap between rich and poor get even wider.

But it was very good to hear in the committee report the strong support for the view that Wales should not be a penny worse off than it would have been within the EU, because this was, after all, one of the 'leave' campaign's promises to voters before the referendum.

Now, I know there have been pre-consultation meetings between different organisations in Wales in the Wales Office ahead of the formal consultation on the shared prosperity fund, which I'm told is planned to start before Christmas. It was interesting to hear in First Minister's questions, when I asked the First Minister about a meeting that was supposed to take, that did take, place last Friday—this was a meeting with third sector organisations and I know there was some concern amongst the third sector about who was being involved and who wasn't being involved in discussing the shared prosperity fund, but the First Minister said that his officials here were informed, but only the day before. So, I think, in response to Nick Ramsay's comments, that we only know a little bit and pretty late in the day. So, I think it is a matter of great concern. I think there is concern amongst organisations, and particularly organisations working on promoting equality and helping women to achieve and prosper are very concerned that there may be any change of emphasis if the UK Government controls the levers of the shared prosperity fund. So, I am very pleased that the Welsh Government is quite clear that anything that comes from the shared prosperity fund to Wales must be controlled and made in Wales.

Can I join the Chair in thanking all those who gave evidence to the committee and to the clerking team of the committee as well in producing the work? It's crucial that we do that. Can I also agree with Nick Ramsay—it's probably the only thing I will agree with him on this afternoon—in that in fact the Chair give a very detailed review of that report. I want to express my huge disappointment that only one person—oh, Andrew R.T. has now just appeared; two people—who actually supported Brexit are in this Chamber to listen to this important debate, because it discusses the future funding for Wales. And UKIP have disappeared. They all wanted this, but when it comes to the actual realities on the ground they don't want to know about it. I think it's disgraceful.

Dirprwy Lywydd, last year, the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee published its report on the future of regional policy in Wales post Brexit, and that report highlighted the issue of funding for that future and the challenges that were posed as we no longer became beneficiaries of European funding. During the 2014-20 round of European structural funds, Wales has been earmarked to receive £2.1 billion in funding. I'll repeat that: £2.1 billion. Given that every year Wales receives £375 million of funds from the European structural investment funds during that period for the purposes of regional economic development, it was clear to us as a committee then that we needed to look at these issues in more detail, and I'm very pleased that the Finance Committee took on the role of looking at this in far more detail. The loss of access to these funds could result in a funding black hole for a number of investments in areas such as skills and apprenticeships—Jobs Growth Wales, we know, was funded by European funds—research collaboration and excellence—we've talked about Horizon 2020 and its successor, Horizon Europe—infrastructure and innovation. Indeed, we stand to lose more money than any other nation in the United Kingdom if European structural funds are not replaced. Julie Morgan's highlighted the fact that we get—I think it's 458 per cent of the UK average in Wales. The next one closest to us is actually Northern Ireland, at 197 per cent. So, we are way in the lead in the benefits we have from European structural funds. It's hugely disappointing that we have not yet got clarity on what will replace it.

Now, the principles underpinning the current system of support from EU to member states are based on fairness and need. Regions that have a per capita GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average qualify for that maximum level. There are actually only two in the UK that actually met that status: that's Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and west Wales and the Valleys. And we know that, if we had remained in the EU for the next period of the MFF, we would have actually had either equivalent funding or the minimum of a transition funding. Now, we've not been given any notification as to whether that will happen. All we've been told is there will be a shared prosperity fund. I'm sorry, Nick, that's all we've been told. Estimates and guesses—we can guess things, but it's nowhere given us in detail as to how that fund will work, what will be in it, who can bid for it. Is it a bidding scheme? Is it an allocation? What will the criteria be? It seems to be that the UK Government has taken the view, 'Well, that's not our priority'.

Will you take an intervention? I don't disagree with you, Dave. I think it's not an ideal situation. I'd like to see much more detail of the shared prosperity fund myself. The only point I was making was that there are certain assumptions that can be made, and I know full well that the Cabinet Secretary's officials have been looking at different options; of course they have. So, there is something that we can do, but I don't fundamentally disagree with you. We would not choose to be in this position.

I agree. And, yes, there are some assumptions that can be made, but, of course, as Julie Morgan pointed out, with the news today as to what's happening in Cabinet right now, all those assumptions could be thrown in the air and discarded, because we just haven't got a clue. And that's the biggest problem: there is no commitment to any aspect of this. The high-level abstract definitions say absolutely nothing. And Julie's also highlighted the concern that we've also had in the past—and we've raised this with the Cabinet Secretary on other aspects of Brexit—is the engagement with the Welsh Government. Julie highlighted the fact that there was a meeting last week, preparatory to the consultation, but it was organised through the Welsh Office, not the Welsh Government, and George Hollingbery came to our committee to talk about trade and he was having exploratory discussions with stakeholders, so he said, organised through the Welsh Office, not the Welsh Government, on aspects of business in Wales. It is clear that the engagement with devolved institutions is atrocious, and it's something that really needs to be taken up at a much higher level— if you can, Nick, if you've got any influence at No. 10, please tell them that they need to engage with the Welsh institutions. [Interruption.] It's very important. They could tell us as well, yes.

Now, the report does highlight, once again, that lack of engagement, and I think we need to address that because we have representation for communities, deprived areas. Those communities benefit from European funding. They're going to lose out, and yet the UK Government doesn't seem to have an interest in helping us help them. We do know that Wales will lose funding; we do know that some of our most deprived communities will no longer get the opportunity to have financial investment and support; we do know, to date, that there are no identified replacement programmes. It's time for the UK Government to move ahead with the promises to the Welsh people of no loss of funding now or in the future.

I think it's a very good report, and I think the recommendations are very good. I just want to focus on a few comments with regard to my concerns over the shared prosperity fund.

But, within the context of the shared prosperity fund, it is—. It's nice, actually, to see Nick Ramsay struggling and squirming, trying to explain what information whatsoever has been given from the Government. You did the best you could; I think that's probably a fair comment. But what I do get annoyed about is, certainly from the Secretary of State for Wales, in talking about it, and saying, 'Well, of course, the past system hasn't worked very well'—I have to tell you, in Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the Pontypridd and the Taff Ely area, it has been phenomenally successful in a constituency that's suffered from deindustrialisation. We had the £7 million of money for the lido, which connected with the £10 million for the pedestrianisation. We had the £100 million for the Church Village bypass, which has made a massive transformation. We've now got the £119 million for the rail enhancement part of the metro, £27 million of which is within the Taff's Well area, and, of course, the announcement more recently—I think an excellent announcement from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance—in respect of the £100 million in respect of further research and innovation. Those things, together with the way in which Welsh Government has moved Transport for Wales into the Pontypridd area, and the engagement and the partnership—it's actually transforming and regenerating. It has been vitally important, vitally useful, and a really serious consequence from not having it.

But my reason for going on about the shared prosperity fund—. Sometimes you make these glib comments, you know, that the Welsh Conservatives and the Conservative Government has been sharing prosperity ever since it was elected in 2010. The only problem is that it's been sharing prosperity with the people who are already prosperous, not with the people who actually need it. But the Secretary of State for Wales, when he's been asked about this and been challenged about this in Westminster, this is what he said on 24 October 2018:

'The UK's exit from the European Union provides us with an opportunity to reconsider how funding for growth across the UK is designed and delivered. In our manifesto'—

I presume that's the 2017 manifesto, coming up to two years ago—

'we committed to engaging with the Welsh Government on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, and that work is under way.'

Well, from what I can see, that's been a manifesto commitment that's been broken from day one. There is no engagement, there has been no sharing of information, and there is no realistic work that is under way. And no doubt the Cabinet Secretary will say that's wrong. But more importantly than that, of course, is that the Secretary of State for Wales, who apparently seems to be confused about what his role is, or, in fact, that if he actually has a role that delivers any benefit to Wales whatsoever, he says, in an event that he had that, as far as I'm aware, was done without the engagement with Welsh Government:

'The creation of the UKSPF creates several risks and concerns. Will it be devolved? If yes, how will the governance and management work? Who will decide the investment priorities? Perhaps a UK Common Framework would work better for Scotland’s third sector? Will it be less money than we have now? Will the sector have a voice?'

Now, those were the questions that were being raised in the event at which he was the main speaker, and I think it raises the concerns that we all have, and we have to speak completely openly about, that what we are seeing is a re-centralisation of UK policy, a clawing back on devolution by using the finance—the so-called finance—that will go into the shared prosperity fund to actually control the political direction within Wales. We can have all the powers we want in this particular Assembly, but if we don't have the finance to enable us to implement them, then that power becomes sterile, and that is my real concern.

In a situation where the UK Government is telling us nothing, is clearly breaking its promises for engagement, will not give any commitment whatsoever in terms of how much money we will need, even if it's to guarantee that we will not get less, what it is actually talking about is how it will control that finance, how it will use that finance, to redirect policy, and even a question as to whether it will be devolved at all. That is the challenge I see, and, in a Conservative Government that is so abysmally divided, that it is in danger of, on the brink of, a general election any day now, it is a real concern that we have no idea, no capacity whatsoever, to plan for the future in terms of the so-called shared prosperity fund. There is only one commitment that will satisfy this, and that is that we will not have less money than we had before. And then there was a second commitment—it wasn't just the one; there was a second commitment—and that is that it will not be in any way used to undermine devolution, that those resources will come here to this place, the local, democratically elected Assembly of Wales, to decide how best it can be used. The decisions taken in my constituency have been very wise, prudent and are bearing fruit, and there's no reason to expect that not to happen in the future, unless there is a recentralisation policy, a secret agenda that the Tories have in the UK, to actually undermine devolution and recentralise power.

I'd like to thank the Finance Committee for their report.

Over the past two decades, Wales has been the beneficiary of billions of pounds of EU funding, and we are currently receiving nearly £700 million a year. With the UK due to leave the EU in March next year, it is vital that we secure funding from the UK Government that is equal to or greater than the level of funding we receive from the EU.

The UK pays around £13 billion per annum to the EU, and money is then returned to the UK to pay for the common agricultural policy and structural funds. When Wales received Objective 1 funding in 1999, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the economy of large parts of Wales. But still, west Wales and the Valleys remain one of the poorest parts of the UK. Therefore, tackling this inequality, post Brexit, is of paramount importance. 

In 2014, Wales once again qualified for the highest level of structural funds as a lesser developed region, and this concerns me. While EU funding has delivered many improvements to Wales, it hasn’t transformed our economy. Wales remains the poorest part of the UK, and one of the poorest regions in Europe. Post Brexit, we have the opportunity to develop funding programmes that meet the needs of Wales. Structural funds can be developed and designed to meet the needs of Wales. Agri-funding schemes can be developed that benefit Wales’s environment and our farmers.

In order to achieve this, we must ensure that Wales continues to get the same level of funding. I therefore welcome the committee’s first recommendation to ensure that Wales is not a penny worse off post Brexit. In fact, I support all the committee’s recommendations.

The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund must work for Wales, and funds destined for Wales decided upon by this institution. Whatever system the UK Government comes up with for replacing EU funding programmes, it must not be used as a way of circumventing devolution. Devolution is here to stay, and we must send out a clear message that this institution is responsible for funding decisions affecting Wales.

I am pleased that the Welsh Government have accepted all the committee’s recommendations, and by us supporting the motion before us today, we will be sending a clear signal to the UK Government: guarantee the funding and allow us to decide on how best to spend it. 

Thank you. Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Llywydd, for calling me to speak. I speak in full support of the Finance Committee inquiry report; I took part in it as a member. I want to focus specifically in support of recommendations 2 to 7: the importance of the shared prosperity fund; the impact on equalities of the loss of European funding; and the future fiscal framework for Wales in relation to Brexit.

In the Equality and Human Rights Commission Brexit and equalities debates last week, I spoke of the importance of the socioeconomic duty in Wales. Although this isn't featured in the Finance Committee's report, I do believe that this is a vital duty for the Welsh Government to enact. It will play a part in giving us powers to counteract the adverse impacts of Brexit on equality and human rights. It's also important in the funding context in terms of powers and priorities that this Welsh Government needs. We drew attention to the threats to EU funding in last week's debates, the uncertain prospects for the UK's shared prosperity fund. We made it clear that the UK shared prosperity fund proposed by the UK Government should be administered by the Welsh Government to ensure that it's sensitive to local needs and inequalities in Wales. We made it clear, as all speakers, indeed, have done today, that the fund should be targeted at tackling inequality and socioeconomic disadvantage.

Our committees have identified the EU funds that relate directly to equality and human rights, with around 60 per cent of European social fund-funded projects targeting people with one or more protected characteristics. I welcome the actions the Welsh Government has taken to influence this agenda. It's unclear how the UK Government has responded to the positive policy papers that have come from the Welsh Government, starting with the 'Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit' paper, which was published last December. A commitment in that paper to using funding received from Europe to support regional development and reduce inequality, and a commitment to a multi-annual approach towards investing replacement funding to maintain a long-term focus on the structural challenges in our economy and the labour market—how has the UK Government responded to this?

The Cabinet Secretary might like to update us on his last oral statement on the regional investment steering group that's been set up with businesses, local government, universities and the third sector, and £350,000 from the European transition fund to establish a partnership with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to help inform our approach. Welsh Government has been proactive in preparing for future funding arrangements post Brexit, and we've repeatedly told the UK Government that its proposed consultation about the shared prosperity fund must now take place, engaging with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales, with our committees asking for it, with interest arising across the Chamber, as well as from the Finance Committee.

Llywydd, at the Women in Wales For Europe meeting, last week, which I chaired, the Equality and Human Rights Commission alerted us to their forthcoming report. It will be called 'If not the EU, then who? The potential impact of the loss of EU funding on equality and human rights in Britain'. That report's going to be published imminently. It will provide an evidence base for the commission, the Welsh Government and ourselves in this Assembly, to respond to the UK Government shared prosperity fund consultation, and I understand that that EHRC research explores how the new UK shared prosperity fund can be an opportunity to keep equality and human rights as a cross-cutting theme in the way that Julie Morgan has described as being so influential in the use of our structural funds. So, I hope that the EHRC report will be influential with the UK Government as well.

Can I finish by welcoming the Cabinet Secretary's response to recommendation 2, acknowledging the Welsh Government paper, 'Reforming UK funding and fiscal arrangements after Brexit', fully backing the call for the Barnett formula to be replaced with a new, rules-based system that would ensure the allocation of resources within the UK is based on relative need. Alongside the socioeconomic duty, it is vital that we strengthen our powers and resource base for public finance in Wales. The fiscal framework and inter-governmental machinery reform is crucial to that, if Wales is to have a strong voice in not only Brexit, but the discussions of the future of the management of our public finances in Wales. So, I do hope that the Finance Committee's report will be useful to the Cabinet Secretary in his ongoing negotiations on behalf of Wales.

I congratulate the Finance Committee on its very important report and recommendations, Dirprwy Lywydd. We all know that the challenges involved with Brexit are immense, and the uncertainty is great, and that poses all sorts of very, very difficult challenges for organisations, and, indeed, everybody in Wales. Trying to find a way through is very, very difficult, given the complexity and the reach of our membership into all aspects of life.

We've heard mention of some European Union programmes today, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to mention the LIFE programme, which many of our organisations concerned with our environment and nature and biodiversity in Wales value greatly, and have requested that it be highlighted in terms of continuation of funding. It has been critical to nature and, by extension, well-being in Wales, since 1992, when it first started. Over that period, we've had 18 nature and biodiversity LIFE projects in Wales, with a total value of over €65 million—€36 million of which is directly from European Union funds. I would say, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I know many would agree, that money has achieved a lot and has been put to very good use. I think that's very much the view of Welsh Government, given that the Welsh Government's own nature recovery plan for Wales lists several LIFE-funded projects that are critical to the achievement of nature conservation objectives in our country, and it specifically mentions LIFE as crucial to achieving our nature recovery objectives. So, given that centrality of that programme, those projects and that funding to nature, biodiversity and well-being in Wales, I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary might consider calling on UK Government to replace the EU LIFE nature fund with an equivalent dedicated funding programme for nature as we move forward.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. As other Members have done, I would like to start by saying a few words of thanks to the Finance Committee and to Llyr Gruffydd for their work on this report, and to all the stakeholders across Wales who've provided evidence as part of the committee’s inquiry and to everyone who has spoken in so supportive a way during this debate today.

I’m going to use my time to respond to some of the recommendations in the report and to build on some of the points that have been made this afternoon. 

Thanks very much to all those who've taken part in what has been a consensual debate, as was the report itself. I was very pleased on behalf of the Government to be able to support all the report's recommendations. We particularly and obviously support the overarching recommendation of the report to continue to negotiate with the UK Government to ensure that Wales is not a penny worse off as a result of Brexit. As others have said, this was a promise made to people in Wales during the referendum campaign, and the UK Government must live up to that promise.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've always recognised in the Chamber the value of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment to current programmes. The guarantee that he has provided has been undoubtedly useful in sustaining the interest and commitment to that programme, but as the weeks and months go by, it is hugely regrettable, as David Rees said, that we are still no clearer on the UK Government's intentions beyond 2021. The delay in the spending review into next year means that it is now going to be even more difficult to plan effectively for our future outside the European Union and to support prosperity across Wales.

The value of the programmes to Wales has been regularly referred to during the debate. Caroline Jones referred to the money that we get for European structural and investment funds, worth some £370 million annually to Wales. John Griffiths made a really important contribution, I think, in reminding us that, as well as the money we get through its structural funds and the money we get to support agriculture in Wales, there are a series of other really important European Union programmes—Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, the interterritorial co-operation programme, Creative Europe, and, as John said this afternoon, the LIFE programme. All of those strands in European funding have done enormous good here in Wales and allowed Wales to play a part on the European stage. When we say that Wales must not be a penny worse off, we mean continued access to those programmes and to what they bring to Wales, as the report does in, for example, highlighting the importance of the European Investment Bank to us here.

It's essential, then, that the UK Government not only confirms replacement funding for the Welsh Government to protect the livelihoods of our businesses, people and communities, but also that we retain the responsibility that has been here in this Assembly since it was founded in 1999 to decide how that funding is best deployed along with our partners here in Wales.

We set out our policy position in 'Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit'. It was developed through close and open dialogue with stakeholders and it contains those 'made in Wales' solutions to which Members this afternoon have referred. I'm very grateful to the committee for its support of this basic policy position.

We've heard a lot this afternoon about the UK shared prosperity fund. Maybe that wasn't one of the more consensual moments in our debate. Let me say from my perspective, there's very little 'shared' about it, in the sense that we know almost nothing about the plans that the UK Government has for the fund. We raise it absolutely regularly. I raised it at the last meeting of finance Ministers with the Treasury, strongly supported by the Scottish Government. The First Minister raised it again with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish First Minister at the British-Irish Council at the weekend. Frankly, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have more traction with UK Ministers who do not represent Wales in the UK Government than we do through the Secretary of State himself, constantly, as Mick Antoniw said, talking Wales down in a vain attempt to aggrandise his own role in the UK Government.

We reject outright any notion of a UK shared prosperity fund that would take money or decision making away from Wales. The repeated promises that Brexit would result in an increase in powers for this institution have to be honoured in the very practical implementation of any funding arrangements the other side of the European Union. That was endorsed this week, Dirprwy Lywydd, in a report by the all-party parliamentary committee on this matter, which said, yet again, the money that goes to Wales and to Scotland as a result of our membership of the European Union must flow to Wales and Scotland in the future, and the decision making about how best to use those investments must be left as close to where those decisions matter.

Will the Cabinet Secretary take an intervention?

Of course, Andrew.

I'm grateful to him for taking the intervention. I do take the point, and I, as a Member of this institution, want as much autonomy as possible within this institution, but under the EU rules, on the rural development plan, for example, the Cabinet Secretary and her officials would be going back and forth to Brussels for final sign-off. Do you not accept that there is an element, on a UK basis, for agreement around some of the general principles that are best defined in the agricultural field as UK frameworks?

Well, let me answer Andrew R.T. Davies in two ways. First of all, Andrew, one of the major selling points that were put forward by those who supported the idea of leaving the European Union is that we would be free of those restraints in the future and that those decisions would come here to Wales, and that's what I am arguing for in relation to the shared prosperity fund. Those responsibilities have been here since 1999, and the other side of the European Union, those responsibilities should be augmented, not taken away.

You used a very important word in your intervention, which was 'by agreement', and if there were to be a proper discussion with the UK Government on how those funds might best be used—and maybe there are some UK-wide themes that we would wish to agree on with others—I'd have no objection to that. There's been nothing of that, I can absolutely assure you of that. There has been not a single occasion on which we have sat down around a table, with Scotland and the UK Government, to draw out exactly that.

On the new agriculture policy front, we are working closely with the UK Government and other devolved administrations, and it demonstrates that where that takes place, it is possible to draw out those things where we have common ground, and we know now that the majority of the framework that will govern agriculture in the future will be managed through non-legislative inter-governmental co-ordination. So, when it's done by agreement, progress can be made. We see very little sign of that in the shared prosperity fund area.

Very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd, just to mention some final important themes in the report and in contributions. Absolutely, we recognise what Julie Morgan said about the need to continue to secure expertise in the administration of those funds, to simplify those processes, to make sure that we use European Union funds to focus relentlessly on equality and human rights, especially citizenship rights in the Brexit context—a point picked up by Jane Hutt when she talked about the socioeconomic duty. The report talks about the reform of Barnett and we agree, but it's been very difficult to bring others to the table. It seems particularly hard to me to see how Barnett could be used in any emergency budget that might be necessary in a hard-line Brexit.

In conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government accepts all the report's recommendations. Its evidence provides a core part of our negotiating strategy to achieve the best funding deal for Wales. We will continue to adopt an open and evidence-based approach to those negotiations and I welcome the contribution that this report and this debate make to that whole process. 

I now call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Can I thank all Members who contributed to what I thought was an excellent debate? If I had a penny for every time I heard somebody say that we shouldn't be a penny worse off, then I could probably bankroll some of this myself. But, it does underline the fact that this is probably one of the central aspects: that we would like to see the Brexit dividend that was promised to us. Although the likelihood of that is quite remote, certainly in the short to medium term, the reality is that we, at the very least, expect to hold on to what we have previously received.

The other key feature coming through, of course, was the lack of detail coming from the UK Government. I wasn't a member of the Finance Committee when the Secretary of State was initially invited to come and give evidence, but you might want to consider whether the Secretary of State politely declined because he didn't really know himself what the proposals were going to be. Indeed, we look forward, if there is to be a consultation, as expected, or some sort of information dissemination before Christmas, to be made aware of that at the very least.

Of course, it raises again the point made by Mick Antoniw about the lack of engagement, and Jane Hutt and others mentioned the lack of engagement that's such a concerning feature of all facets of Brexit between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Only this morning, members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee were scrutinising the UK Agriculture Bill and concerns were expressed there around how the UK Government seem to be sucking some powers back to the centre in relation to funding as well, and setting upper limits, et cetera. 

We saw—I see the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs in her seat there—in the independent review that's now been started, looking at the way that farm funding is being allocated across the UK, how the Welsh Government didn't have that proactive role in looking at developing terms of reference for that particular piece of work. So, it is concerning, I think, that we're potentially seeing once again on an issue as important as successor funding programmes, we're possibly seeing the same tendency here. 

Of course, David Rees and John Griffiths and others have referred to this risk of a funding black hole that we might see where important programmes, schemes and projects will be adversely impacted, affecting communities, businesses, industry, academia, et cetera, who are very much dependent on a lot of this money for much of their work. 

The Cabinet Secretary reminded us that he's still no clearer as to the UK Government's intention beyond 2021. Well, what he can be sure of is our committee's support for the two key things that he mentioned, in that he demands of the UK Government a confirmation of replacement funding in the first place, but also that we here in Wales retain the responsibility to decide how that funding is deployed. And really, in that respect, I think this is very much a litmus test on whether devolution actually does what it says on the tin, because if that isn't delivered then clearly there will be fundamental questions to be asked. 

Can I, in conclusion, also thank the clerk and the team at the Commission for the excellent support that the committee has received along the way of carrying out this work, and thank Assembly Members who are members of the committee as well for their deliberations? Hopefully this is an important contribution to what is a key discussion and a key factor for the future of this National Assembly, not only in our relationship with the UK Government, but certainly in terms of our ability to deliver the benefits that historically we've been able to deliver through European funding, and let's hope that, if there is a successor scheme that comes, then those schemes, whatever they look like, respect the principles outlined in our report and allow us to continue with much of that work. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Item 8 is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on animal welfare, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move that motion. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's debate relates to various aspects of animal welfare—an important subject, I'm sure we would all agree. And I'm therefore happy to move today's UKIP motion.

UKIP believes that the welfare of farm animals from rearing to slaughter should be an absolute priority for the UK and Welsh Governments. The UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. However, our motion today illustrates how Wales can improve on the progress made thus far and demonstrates our desire to be the world leader for welfare standards.

The points in our motion are supported by professionals and by much academic research in the field of animal welfare. At the same time, we recognise the need for Wales's agricultural industry to continue to flourish and to produce its internationally acclaimed meat products.

The first part of our motion deals with CCTV surveillance. This is an essential tool in slaughterhouses to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. Camera surveillance reduces the possibility of animal abuse and neglect and, where it does occur, the perpetrators can be brought quickly to justice. Currently, 14 slaughterhouses in Wales do not have CCTV surveillance in operation, although most of the larger ones do.

According to freedom of information requests submitted to the Welsh Government, data is not held on the positioning or range of cameras that are operating in slaughterhouses or the number of animals slaughtered without the presence of CCTV. However, the British Veterinary Association estimates that 2 million birds and almost 400,000 sheep, pigs, and cattle are slaughtered without CCTV surveillance each year in Wales. The BVA stated that the potential risk of welfare harm to these animals is increased by the lack of CCTV.

For the slaughterhouses that do have CCTV installation, there is not necessarily any consistency on the whereabouts of cameras within slaughterhouses. There are no consistent specifications over the location or number of cameras. Therefore, even in slaughterhouses where CCTV surveillance is installed, there is no guarantee that the cameras are in suitable locations to capture the footage necessary to ensure high standards of welfare in all cases. So, we do need to look at this as well.

Welsh Government funding to help the Food Standards Agency ensure that welfare standards are complied with only amounted to some £33,000 over a three-year period leading up to 2017. This level of funding is considered totally inadequate by many experts in ensuring that correct procedures are adhered to. In her statement yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, who is of course here today, stated that the Welsh Government is investing in small and medium slaughterhouses in Wales to ensure they are more resilient for the future. She added:

'I will consider legislating to ensure CCTV is in place in all Welsh slaughterhouses. However, I am committed to working with food business operators in a supportive relationship to achieve the same objective. CCTV is useful in safeguarding animal welfare'.

However, in reality, Wales is now lagging behind the rest of the UK. The Welsh Government is dragging its heels in relation to CCTV installation. UKIP's motion today seeks to bring Wales's animal welfare standards up to date by calling on the Welsh Government to legislate on CCTV surveillance and to provide the appropriate funding directly for this purpose.

The next part of our motion today deals with non-stun slaughter. Currently, EU member states have the competence to seek a derogation that allows slaughterhouses to omit the stunning of animals on the grounds of religious practices. The fact that UK law states that animals should be stunned before slaughter in itself recognises that the most humane method is by pre-stunning. Under Islamic law, which relates to halal as a method of slaughter, and under Jewish law, which relates to the shechita method of slaughter, an animal must be considered to be alive at the point of slaughter. Shechita expressly prohibits any stunning of the animal before slaughter. Across the UK, in slaughterhouses where halal slaughter is practised, 80 to 85 per cent of all animals are stunned before slaughter—information from the House of Commons Library. However, this still leaves a significant proportion of animals in the UK that are slaughtered without stunning. There is growing concern that, considering the rapid growth of the halal market, the general public are now regularly consuming both stunned and non-stunned meat.

What do the experts say on this subject? The British Veterinary Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming and the Humane Slaughter Association have all publicly called for the ban of non-stun slaughter in the UK. The BVA has stated:

'pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view'

on the grounds of scientific evidence.

Their research re-evaluated the need to stun calves prior to slaughter. The study reported:

'Consciousness, and therefore the ability of the animal to feel pain and experience distress after the incision, may persist for 60 seconds or longer in cattle.'

I should also point out that non-stun slaughter has already been banned in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand.

What of public opinion on this matter? Recently, the BVA launched a petition to ban non-stun slaughter. It reached over 100,000 signatures, prompting a debate in the House of Commons in 2014.  Farmers Weekly conducted an online survey in March and April 2018 asking the question, 'Should non-stun religious slaughter of farm animals be banned in the UK?' Seventy-seven per cent responded 'yes'.

So, what is the Welsh Government's position on this? Lesley Griffiths has previously stated in the Chamber that she has had discussions with the BVA regarding the pre-stunning of animals. She said that she would take the advice on board, but would not make up policy on the run—this was when she was receiving rural affairs questions from my colleague Neil Hamilton. The First Minister, in contrast to Lesley Griffiths, during First Minister's questions recently stated that he would not support a ban of non-stun slaughter—this was in response to questions from me at FMQs.

What has the position of the UK Government been? Under the coalition Government of recent years, a petition reaching over 100,000 signatures calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter was debated in the Commons. Regrettably, the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to the derogation in the law that permits the slaughtering of animals without stunning.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that both the Welsh Government and the UK Government are willing to ignore the advice of experts in the field of animal welfare. On an issue as important as this, where it has been proven that stunning before slaughter is the best practice for welfare standards, we should not allow religious practices to dictate Government policy.

Turning to today's amendments, there are plenty of things in the Conservative and the Government amendments that we would agree with, but, of course, they are again seeking to delete much of what we express in our points, so we are not supporting those amendments today.

By contrast, Neil McEvoy has put in a constructive amendment, which doesn't delete what we say but adds a good point to it. Neil is raising the issue of third-party puppy sales. Both myself and Michelle Brown have raised questions on that subject from the UKIP side in this Chamber in the past, and we are happy to support Neil's amendment 3 today.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I now call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar—Andrew R.T. Davies.

I think Darren thought he was having to get up and make a speech then. [Laughter.] Thank you, Presiding Officer—it's my pleasure to move the amendment that the Conservatives have put down to today's debate by UKIP, and I thank UKIP for bringing the debate on animal welfare here to the Chamber this afternoon. As I said in yesterday's statement, one of the things that fills most Members' postbags, and, indeed, Government postbags, I would assume, is issues around animal welfare and the concern that the public here in Wales have both for farm animals and for domestic animals as well. What I do think is important to understand, and the leader of UKIP touched on this—our deletion of part of his motion—is that, actually, in the farmed livestock sector it is important to look at the UK frameworks as well, on the basis that a lot of Welsh livestock, for better or for worse, ends up going over into England for processing. You can't isolate Wales on its own, albeit we can use the powers that are available to us to make significant advancements in improvements here.

It was a pleasure to make sure that our manifesto in 2016 actually included mandatory closed-circuit television facilitation across all Welsh abattoirs, and I know that the Government, to their credit, in fairness, are making progress on this particular issue. But what's really important is that access to funding for small and medium-sized abattoirs is secured, because the pressures in that particular sector have seen a huge demise of abattoir availability here in Wales, which, in effect, then knocks miles onto the journey time that stock have to go on to be processed, because, obviously, that local abattoir has had to shut because of cost pressure. So, it is vitally important that the Government do work with the sector to make sure that this mandatory adoption of CCTV in abattoirs is achieved, and that the financial systems, either through the rural development plan or another form of support, is made available to those operators. 

The situation we find in the farmed environment at the moment is radically different from where we were 20 years ago, without a shadow of a doubt, when it comes to animal welfare. We have a consumer who is far better informed today over purchasing the product off the shelf that they wish to consume and, very often through their tastes and demands, drive improvements in welfare at the farm gate. We've seen a plethora of farm assurance schemes come forward in the livestock sector to give that assurance to the consumer when they're making that informed choice—the red tractor logo being one of the schemes, RSPCA Assured livestock, with their welfare badging, is another one, and I could go on because there are many. In fact, one of the issues, I would suggest, is maybe there are too many assurance schemes out there, and if they could be brought together either under one or two labels, that would assist informing the consumer of what they're actually purchasing. 

That leads into labelling, which I do think is an important area for improvement to come forward. I raised in the statement yesterday the example of chicken being purchased here in Wales. On the front of the packaging it said 'British poultry', when you turned it over, it was 'produce of Thailand'. Now, if someone wants to purchase produce of Thailand, that's their prerogative, but when you're looking at the shelf and the front message is telling you that it is domestically produced poultry, that is misleading the consumer, without a shadow of a doubt, and yet the retailer in this particular instance does seem to have got away with it.

So, we do need to work on multiple fronts to make the improvements we want to see—from labelling to improvements in infrastructure and above all, I would suggest, as I said in the statement yesterday, around education in particular. The amendment that we've put down includes the Lucy's law proposal, which I think is vital for us to actually try and progress here in Wales when it comes to domestic pets, in particular—dogs, puppies and kittens—because this is an area of huge concern to the general public, and puppy farming, in particular, regrettably has a foothold in west Wales, in particular, as numerous examples have proven. We have the ability here through the legislative powers that we have and the regulations we can make to actually, once and for all, stamp this process out that leads to such dreadful welfare consequences to puppies and, in particular, kittens here in Wales and beyond, obviously, because those animals are transported great distances to the ultimate market that people are trying to sell those puppies and kittens to.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if she could, in her response, touch on the point about that it's all well and good us talking within this Chamber about regulation and legislation, but what's important to understand is: do the regulatory bodies here in Wales have the ability and the resource to actually enact the legislation and the regulations we've put forward? Very often, trading standards departments are one of the departments that have been hollowed out in local government, and they have a huge pressure and a huge agenda to deal with. And what is vital to understand is that if we are to bring forward proposals such as Lucy's law, such as improvement in transport regulations for farmed animals and improvements in abattoirs, there is the capacity in the regulatory bodies to actually supervise and make sure that the protections that we aspire to put in place, that are rightly demanded of us by our voters, can be policed out there in the industry and in the pet sector.

So, that's why I call on the Chamber to support the amendment that the Conservatives have put down this afternoon, because it doesn't look at Wales just in isolation, it looks across the UK as a whole, and seeks to make substantial improvements not just in farmed livestock, but in the pet environment as well, which is a critical area of concern for constituents.     

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Formally.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 3 tabled in his name. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First of all, this is not a Muslim or a Jewish issue. It's got nothing to do with religious practice, so I don't really see the relevance of that being mentioned earlier. This is a matter of animal welfare. 

The amendment I've introduced is a simple one: it's to ban third-party puppy sales, to end unethical puppy farming. Intensive breeding of dogs can mean hundreds of animals living in very cramped conditions, with female dogs forced to breed multiple litters every year. An early day motion on the issue introduced in the Westminster Parliament in December 2017 achieved significant cross-party support, and the UK Government then went on to announce that it would end the practice of battery farming in England through a ban on third-party sales.

Now, it's not really right that, in Wales, we have dogs living in horrible conditions and being forced to breed over and over again. I was listening to horror stories last night about dogs being left in awful states because of constant breeding. The motive is because it's seen as easy money. Puppies need the best start in life, and that means care for animal welfare rather than dogs being seen simply as a paycheck. I hope we all now vote to have the highest animal welfare standards in Wales, and I would ask you all to please join me in voting for this amendment to end puppy farming in Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

As my colleague Gareth Bennett said, UKIP's debate today is about one thing: improving the lives of farm animals from rearing to slaughter. UKIP has been at the forefront of dealing with animal welfare policy. As a party, we have promoted high standards of animal welfare for livestock and domestic animals. Indeed, long before the changes to the law in England, my party was calling for tougher prison sentences for those guilty of animal abuse and a life ban on any individual found to have caused such animal neglect or abuse. We acknowledge that the UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. However, as our motion suggests today, we can do more. My colleague Gareth Bennett has already stated that there is certainly room to improve the methods by which animals are slaughtered and how the Welsh Government can facilitate greater levels of surveillance to ensure best practices are always adhered to.

Point 3 of our motion addresses the issue of live animal exports. To give this some context, only 1.3 per cent of the total value of the UK's live exports are animals reared in Wales. Therefore, we can be sure that Wales's agricultural industry would not be adversely affected to any great degree if a ban on live exports were to be implemented. We are proud of the international reputation of Wales's red meat sector, and we firmly believe that animals that are reared and slaughtered locally under high animal welfare standards result in the best end product, which leads to increased consumer confidence.

In 2011, the European Commission reviewed its regulations on the protection of animals in transit, and it must be said that these regulations go as far as possible to ensure high standards of welfare by authorising transporters, establishing basic requirements for vehicles and containers, limits to the length of time in transit and requirements for authorised rest stops. However, the Commission's own review acknowledged that severe animal welfare problems with animals in transit still persist. There have been numerous incidents in the UK and Europe where welfare standards have been compromised, leading to injury, dehydration, exhaustion and even death of animals in transit.

Last year, a Bulgarian truck carrying sheep was left for four days with limited access to water and food, resulting in the suffering and death of a number of animals. And in 2012, a vehicle transporting sheep through the port of Ramsgate was declared unfit to travel. The animals on board were found to be sick and lame, resulting in 43 having to be put down. In the case that followed, the High Court ruled that the port could not ban live animal exports on the grounds of freedom of movement within Europe. Although these more severe cases are rare, they illustrate that no amount of regulation on transportation can completely mitigate the risk to animal welfare.

A further risk to livestock exported from the UK is that they're often transported on unsuitable ferries. This is due to large ferry companies banning livestock on their vessels. This problem was acknowledged by a National Farmers Union spokesman, who, in 2016, conceded that the port of Ramsgate and the ferries currently used were—euphemistically, he said—referred to as 'not ideal for this sort of trade.'

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, we have an opportunity to improve the standards of animal welfare legislation in Wales and the UK, particularly where it relates to animals in transit. It is not only in the interest of livestock, but also Wales's prized agricultural industry, to do more to safeguard animal welfare. Every year, the EU estimates that around 4 million cattle, 28 million pigs, 4 million sheep, 245 million poultry and 150,000 horses are transported for more than eight hours within the EU. These numbers illustrate the scale of the problem and a capacity for infringements to welfare standards. We, in UKIP, are utterly convinced that animals placed in transit for prolonged periods of time compromise those welfare standards no matter what precautions are put in place. Upon leaving the EU, UKIP will demand that the Conservative UK Government legislate for a ban, and we urge this Chamber and the Welsh Government to support us in this proposal.

I don't doubt your sincerity in not wanting to compromise animal welfare, but, of course, there is a risk that the whole Brexit process will undermine that. Because we in Plaid Cymru want to see Wales as one of the world leaders in animal welfare and we want to see that continue after the significant challenges that will be posed to animal welfare by Brexit, because the EU regulations, of course, on welfare standards are among the highest in the world and we need to make sure that those standards are upheld and implemented, and it's crucial that Brexit doesn't lead to a race to the bottom on animal welfare standards. And the best way, of course, in which we could protect the welfare of animals in Wales is to stay in the EU or, at the very least, to stay in the single market and the customs union.

Now, nearly 50 per cent of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified elsewhere in the EU. Within meat hygiene services, it's estimated that more than 80 per cent of the veterinary workforce is made up of non-British EU citizens across the UK. I actually think it's closer to—if not actually—100 per cent here in Wales. So, following Brexit, we'll need to ensure a sufficient number of veterinary professionals to safeguard the welfare of both farm and companion animals and this includes, of course, safeguarding animal welfare in slaughterhouses.

Now, Plaid Cymru supports the slaughter and processing of animals as close as possible to where they're reared. This benefits both their welfare and the local rural economy and, of course, has environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions from not needing to transport the animals such long distances. Support will be needed for the food and drink sector following Brexit, and that means from farmers to slaughterhouses to the food processors as well so that we can safeguard animal welfare and that we can make sure that Welsh produce has that strong brand that we all want it to have, which signifies the high standards that we're so proud of.

CCTV surveillance has an important role to play in ensuring conformity with current regulations relating to animal welfare. However, it also needs to be borne in mind that slaughterhouses in Wales tend to be small businesses and that legislating on mandatory use of CCTV would clearly need to be done in conjunction with providing additional support for these small businesses.

A key approach that could secure significant improvements in animal welfare, of course, is informed consumer choice, and this picks up on a point made previously about labelling. The BVA is calling for mandatory methods of production labelling of meat and dairy products and there are currently, I think, seven main farm assurance schemes—a few of them were listed earlier—each having a different criteria, and the lack of clarity, therefore, about whether animals are stunned before slaughter isn't addressed as maybe they should do in that respect.

Now, the BVA's Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey found that 94 per cent of vets believe UK consumers of meat and fish should be better informed about slaughter methods. There's also significant public support for clearer labelling generally: 80 per cent of EU consumers want labelling that clearly shows which farm system was used to produce their meat and dairy product. And, as stated by the BVA, and I quote, mandatory production food labelling

'could offer post-Brexit UK food producers and farmers a unique selling point by providing consumers with the clear welfare labelling they want.'

And I would encourage the Cabinet Secretary to pursue that in terms of where we want to go here in Wales. Welsh farmers can compete with anywhere in the world on standard and on the quality of their produce, and that needs to be reflected in the way that their food is marketed, branded and labelled.

There is a real risk that Brexit will lead to the Welsh market being flooded by lower quality produce, with zero regard, potentially, for animal welfare, and that certainly isn't where we want to go. I'd like to say that we—and as I said yesterday, actually, in response to the Cabinet Secretary's statement on animal welfare—support action on third-party puppy sales, and, in that respect, we certainly would urge the Welsh Government to take decisive action on that also.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Government. We won't be supporting the original motion. As I've stated many times, including yesterday in my oral statement on the same subject, and as Gareth Bennett quoted back to me, I would consider legislating to ensure CCTV is in place in all Welsh slaughterhouses. However, I will initially work with food business operators in a supportive relationship to achieve the same objective.

I want to reinforce other commitments I made yesterday regarding the work to continue to improve standards of animal welfare in Wales. Welsh Government considers animal welfare an area on which we will not compromise. It's very high on my agenda, and it's extremely important we maintain our standards and expectations, particularly when we consider the pressures we could be faced with when we leave the European Union. I do not support amendment 1 from the Welsh Conservatives as, again, the call for mandatory CCTV is premature. I reiterate: I'm working to support the small and medium abattoirs in Wales in the first instance.

Large abattoirs handle the major throughput of slaughter numbers in Wales and already have CCTV, as, indeed, do all abattoirs supplying supermarkets. To support the position that I've taken, the Welsh Government has introduced a food business investment scheme for small and medium slaughterhouses to allow them to install CCTV and undertake other business improvements to make them more resilient. The industry has really responded in a very positive way to this initiative, and more than two thirds of those eligible are already in discussion with our business managers, demonstrating how, with the appropriate support, the industry is taking the lead on improving welfare standards. I was determined to support smaller slaughterhouses to assist them to enable the slaughter of animals closer to their place of production, and I will be monitoring the uptake of the grant in the coming months.

I've always been clear: animals should be slaughtered as close to the farm as possible. I appreciate the trade of live animals is currently lawful, and I will continue to ensure the welfare of animals during transport and at the time of killing continues to improve in Wales. And I should just tell Gareth Bennett that Food Standards Agency records confirm non-stun slaughter does not currently take place in any abattoirs in Wales. Red meat produced in Wales has a long-standing reputation for quality. This reputation can only be achieved by having, and maintaining, robust animal health and welfare standards. Many of the small slaughterhouses also operate local butcher shops and support local restaurants and hotels, and I'm sure everyone can recognise the connectivity and the value this brings to rural communities.

Andrew R.T. Davies raised the issue of the importance of enforcement officers within our local authorities and our other agencies, and, certainly, it's very important that, when we see poor animal welfare, it's dealt with very swiftly, and the days that I've spent with the RSPCA, for instance, and the north Wales rural crime team, assure me that that is indeed happening, but it is very important that local authorities have the capacity across Wales.

In addition, we are also undertaking a major programme of work to define a series of sustainable brand values that will define food production in Wales from the beginning to the end of the food supply chain. Development of these brand values will allow producers in Wales to differentiate themselves from international competitors, and this will allow us to increase the impact of the sustainability message and the awareness of our food and drink in domestic and international markets. It's going to be absolutely crucial for our continued success after we exit the European union.

Further research is ongoing to determine which sustainability measures resonate strongly with trade buyers and consumers, and how the scheme can be accredited so that it can be recognised as a quality standard across all markets. 

In terms of food labelling, the regulations are clear on the information that must be provided to consumers when they buy food and how that information should be presented. As I mentioned yesterday, all fresh, chilled and frozen pork, lamb, goat and poultry must be labelled with an indication of origin, meaning mandatory labelling of the place of rearing and the place of slaughter of the animal from which the meat is obtained. Any changes to food/drink labelling legislation need to be evidence-based and also mindful of how food and drink is traded and consumed within the market as a whole.

A literature review has been undertaken by the Farmed Animal Welfare Committee, and a jointly GB-funded project is under way on the welfare of animals in transport. The findings will be submitted to the Farmed Animal Welfare Committee, and they provide independent scientific advice, not just to us, but also to England and Scotland.

I support amendment 3 from Neil McEvoy. Again, I mentioned this yesterday in the oral statement—I have asked my officials to investigate how a ban on third party sales could address Members' and the public's concerns. Information on the supply chain of puppies is of particular significance, I believe, in this process. It's absolutely essential that we address the root cause of any welfare concerns in changes to legislation, and I mentioned yesterday that I will be launching a consultation in the new year.

My officials are working closely with key stakeholders and also local authorities in ensuring that we have pertinent evidence and data. They will also liaise with DEFRA and the Scottish Government to ensure synergy between approaches to achieve real and lasting improvements. Driven by demand, the puppy market can be very lucrative for breeders and sellers and responsible pet ownership starts with responsible sourcing. So, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to, once again this week, reinforce the Welsh Government's position on these issues, and reiterate that animal health and welfare is a priority for this Welsh Government. Diolch.

I call on Gareth Bennett to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to everyone who contributed to an interesting debate. If I can go through the contributions, Andrew R.T. Davies was telling us about some of the problematic aspects of the motion in that a lot of Welsh livestock actually crosses the border and goes over to England for processing. The Conservatives, in their manifesto in Wales, supported the installation of CCTV in all Welsh slaughterhouses, which goes along with part of our motion today, But he did point out that a crucial aspect is going to be funding to stop more closures of relatively small local abattoirs, and we share the concern. We agree that there does need to be a co-ordinated response, with the Government helping to fund the abattoirs to allow that kind of installation to take place.

Andrew also cited the large improvements in animal welfare that have taken place over the last 20 years and improvements, also, in labelling. But he did raise issues over the veracity of some of the labelling, because of the large number of different labels that are now in usage, so that does, perhaps, raise question marks over how far the labelling can be trusted. Of course, Andrew did cite one specific example where something was actually imported from Thailand.

He does want the Welsh Government to better regulate—the Conservatives do want the Welsh Government to better regulate—puppy and kitten farming, which, as Andrew noted, is prevalent in west Wales, particularly the puppy farming. But he pointed out that we do need the capacity within the regulatory bodies to ensure effective enforcement of any regulations or bans that are brought in.

Neil McEvoy was speaking particularly of the problem of puppy farming. He related the poor living conditions that are often experienced by many of the dogs—and he also mentioned kittens—that are involved in this trade, and another issue being that the welfare of the animals is often poor, because of the need for constant breeding. 

David Rowlands—my UKIP colleague—he concentrated on the issue of live animal exports, and he pointed out that, despite the European Commission regulations, there are still harrowing journeys faced by many animals that are being exported. He noted, or he opined, that even if we regulate in this area, there are still going to be issues that do arise, and the best solution is to simply ban the live animal exports.

Llyr Gruffydd raised many issues with our motion. Of course, he made the points very clearly. He raised the risk that Brexit itself could undermine animal welfare, and he raised the issue that a large proportion of UK-domiciled vets working in abattoirs are actually non-UK citizens—I believe a lot of them are Spanish—so this is an issue that we do take on board, and we will have to address that. CCTV has a good part to play, Llyr said, but he did point out that small slaughterhouses require funding, dovetailing with the point that Andrew R.T. Davies made, so we kind of agree on this point that Government assistance is going to be required to help the small local slaughterhouses if we are going to move towards more CCTV installation. Llyr also pointed out that there is a lot of public support for clearer labelling, again dovetailing with Andrew R.T. Davies's points, and he also supports Welsh Government action on puppy sales, which I think, possibly, everyone is maybe agreeing with.

Lesley Griffiths, the Minister, asserted the need for strong animal welfare standards. That was very good to hear, and I'm sure she is committed to that. She did point out that her Government is against the mandatory installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses. Her words were, It's 'premature'. 'Premature', yes. She said it was 'premature'. She did make the point that there is a need to work closely with food businesses if we are going to move forward in this area. There has, of course, been Welsh Government funding already, which she mentioned. She also stated that non-stun slaughter doesn't take place in Wales. There is also the need to work on the brand values, which she's working on. Again, this relates to the labelling issue, which several people have mentioned. Again, she stated that the Government is also supportive of a ban on third-party puppy sales. So, I suppose that aspect, that amendment, is something that perhaps everyone can support, so maybe we can move forward with that as soon as possible. Thanks again to everyone for taking part in today's debate. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

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

Before we move to voting time, it’s my pleasure to announce the result of the legislative ballot held today. I’m pleased to announce that Darren Millar may seek the Assembly’s agreement to introduce a Member Bill on the rights of older people. Congratulations, Darren Millar.

Voting time is the next item, and unless three Members wish the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to the first vote, which is the vote on the UKIP debate on animal welfare. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour three, no abstentions, 49 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on 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 Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, one abstention, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, no abstentions, four against. And therefore, amendment 2 is agreed, and amendment 3 is deselected.

Which brings us to a vote on the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 49, no abstentions, three against. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. 

No topic was tabled for the short debate, and that brings today's proceedings to a close.