National Assembly for Wales

I call the Members to order. 

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

Yes. I am committed to investing in better transport services and infrastructure in Merthyr and Rhymney, and I understand that good progress is being made with the new Merthyr bus station.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Transport and infrastructure investment does obviously remain a high priority in my constituency. Irrespective of the Brexit process, I'm clear that improvements to be delivered through the metro system, progress in the next phase of improvements on the A465 Heads of the Valleys, along with the bus station that you've just mentioned are all causes for optimism in the years ahead. So, can you therefore just confirm that these key infrastructure projects are now to be delivered with urgency and pace, so that my constituency continues to see further positive changes in line with that which was outlined in 'Our Valleys, Our Future' programme?

Yes. Can I thank Dawn Bowden for her question that covers three areas—the metro system, the A465 and the new bus station? Progress is being made at pace on all three key components of our intervention within the Valleys region. First of all, I can say that, with regard to the A465, we are making good progress in terms of the orders. We're going to be in position to be able to move forward with the next sections of the scheme. Construction is planned to start early in 2020 and will take approximately three and a half years to deliver. This is a huge undertaking, an infrastructure project valued at almost £1 billion for the Heads of the Valleys. And in terms of Merthyr bus station, £10 million is being committed under the Wales infrastructure investment fund to help develop that particular piece of infrastructure, and the local authority, I'm pleased to say, has submitted a further application to the local transport fund for 2018-19 for the construction of the bus station. So, officials are currently assessing the application. 

In terms of the metro system, as the Member is aware, the south Wales metro will deliver four trains per hour from Merthyr to Cardiff Queen Street from 2022, and from 2023 for Rhymney services. Transport for Wales will introduce new metro vehicles—if you like, tram trains—on the Merthyr line in 2022, and that will mean that there are 600 more seats in morning peak times, and 1,000 more seats during evening peak times, and journey time between Merthyr Tydfil and Cardiff Central will fall from the current one hour to approximately 48 minutes from December 2023. All of these interventions are designed to remove the key barrier of lack of decent, modern, affordable public transport that people need in order to access jobs.

Minister, improvements to the A465 Heads of the Valleys road are critical to the social and economic regeneration of communities such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. You will be aware, Minister, that concerns have been expressed about delays and the increased cost of the dualling of the A465 between Gilwern and Brynmawr. Given that the next stage of improvements, between Dowlais Top and Hirwaun, is due to commence this year, can the Minister confirm that this project will commence on time, and what lessons has he learnt to ensure that the delays and costs overrun experienced previously will not occur again in this instance? Thank you. 

Can I thank the Member for his question? As I outlined to Dawn Bowden, we expect construction to begin in 2020. The phase of the scheme that the Member refers to, in terms of the cost pressures, has been an extremely difficult challenge for the contractors. We are, of course, managing cost overruns. It's our intention, though, to make sure that the entire project is delivered as soon as possible for the least quantum of investment, and so that people can find their communities regenerated across the Heads of the Valleys region. 

Thank you. In line with our economic action plan, we are supporting indigenous businesses across Wales to expand and grow by providing advice, support and finance through Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales.

I thank the Deputy Minister for his answer. We are very good in some places at being able to help people start up businesses. In my constituency, and particularly in Port Talbot, we have sufficient numbers of start-up units available for businesses to get into and spend their first year or two as they start to develop and grow. But what we are finding is, as they want to grow and expand, the next size of units—the 5,000 sq ft type of units—we're short of, and therefore businesses tend to actually expand and leave the area as a consequence of that. Now, it may be that this is down to the responsibility of local authorities—I appreciate the concept—but what are you doing to work with local authorities to ensure that we're able to ensure that businesses can start, grow, stay, and expand the workforce and keep the employment in the areas?

Thank you. The growth of indigenous, grounded firms is a central plank of the approach we're taking on growing the foundational economy. It's a well-recognised problem in the shape of the Welsh economy that we have numerous small and microbusinesses but that many struggle to grow to medium, and then beyond that. So, we'll be looking at a range of interventions to tackle that. One of those is the availability of property. As the Member will know already, in Port Talbot, using the European regional development fund-funded property infrastructure fund, there are two projects that are being developed to create some 6,000 sq m of new business premises, providing accommodation for up to 34 SMEs. And we're also in discussion with the Development Bank of Wales to examine the potential for a new commercial property development fund that will help also to provide additional premises.

Tourism is one of those parts of our economy where there is still plenty of scope for expansion, particularly for small enterprises. Actually, I'm just thinking of the Afan Valley, as it was David Rees who asked the question originally. A huge scope here for our indigenous businesses to grow here. Unfortunately, of course, some of our small businesses don't see themselves as part of our visitor economy, and I'm hoping that Welsh Government can give us some steer on this. In particular, I'm wondering if you can give us some information on how the Welsh Government is engaging with the whole process of the UK tourism sector deal. I think the consultation is due to come to an end fairly soon on that. We're quick enough to moan when VisitBritain, for example, doesn't help us on this devolved matter, but if we can get some advantage from this, then that's got to be good news for our small businesses.

Thank you. Yes, tourism remains one of the focuses in the economic action plan of the foundation sectors, and we've been working closely with the UK Government to see what advantages we can draw out of their work, and bringing our work together. We have the tourism infrastructure fund as well, which is proving successful, and I can assure the Member of our continued commitment in this area.

I had the pleasure last week of visiting an engineering company, BICO in Beaumaris in Anglesey, which does superb work in the area of engineering in very specialist technical areas. It’s a company that I’m sure we could see growing in years to come. You will be aware that I and my party are in favour of the regionalisation of economic development in order to ensure that economic prosperity is something that happens across Wales. Would the Government agree with me that there is scope to develop 'grow locally' campaigns, as a central part of that kind of regional approach?

Absolutely. I think a regional economic focus is essential, and the economic action plan puts this front and centre of our approach from now on. We are currently aligning the teams within the Welsh Government to make sure that the expertise and the capacity is there to take this forward. And it is also important to be engaged with local authorities in a spirit of mutual respect, working together, to take their view on how their regions should grow, and we work alongside with them, rather than imposing on them what we think the best interests of a region are. The foundational economy approach is also really important to this—the growth of SMEs and grounded firms—and how we can use the near public sector, the scattered array of small companies that depend on the public sector for much of their work, and how we can use procurement to make sure more value is captured locally and doesn't leak out. And we'll be making some announcements over the coming weeks about starting work in this area, and I'd be very keen to work with the Member to develop those thoughts, building on the joint announcement we made in the budget of our £1.5 million fund to develop the foundational economy with Plaid Cymru.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. How many premises will be enabled for fast, reliable broadband under phase 2 of the Superfast Cymru scheme, and at what cost to the public purse?

As the Member knows, we are planning to extend superfast to 26,000 premises by March 2021, at a cost of nearly £22.5 million in Welsh Government and EU funding through the flexible roll-out of fibre. It should also be noted that this is not a devolved area. This is an area that the UK Government has responsibility for. Left to the market alone, only some 45 per cent of premises in Wales would have superfast coverage. As a result of action this Government has taken, that has now increased to 95 per cent. We have spent £200 million in making sure the gap left by the market and the UK Government has been filled. But, clearly, this is something we can only continue to develop if we work closely with the UK Government to try and fill that gap. 

Thank you for your answer, Deputy Minister. You've announced the £22 million that has been allocated. Your predecessor last year announced £85 million would be allocated to phase 2. So, can I ask you—my calculation is that that's £62 million remaining—how you plan to spend that £62 million in regard to phase 2?  

That's a perfectly fair question, and I think it's fair to say that we are still thinking through the implications of how we do that. One of the problems we have is the diminishing appetite of the private sector to engage in this area. There is more profit available for the private companies in providing faster speeds to people who already have broadband than there is in reaching those who have no broadband, and that is a market failure. So, we need to think about how we can creatively fill that gap, working with as many partners as we can to make sure that what is now a key utility is available to as many houses as possible. 

I think really what needs to happen is the UK Government needs to recognise that broadband and fibre and digital are now a universal service, and there should be a universal service obligation, just as there is in other key utilities, so that we don't simply rely on how much profit can be generated or how much additional funding we can find to fill that gap. But that is something required by providers to make sure that nobody is left behind. 

I thank you for the answer, Deputy Minister. Of course, Superfast Cymru is a Welsh Government scheme, and there are some elements of other schemes that you announced last year and in previous years, which I do welcome, but they're not going to cover and be relevant to all premises across Wales. Now, if we look at phase 1, there were areas across Wales that, after the end of phase 1, were the worst broadband coverage areas, and they included the Presiding Officer's constituency in Ceredigion, mine in Powys, in Pembrokeshire and in Carmarthenshire. They were the worst areas for broadband coverage across the entirety of Wales.

So, you would have thought phase 2 would be entirely focused or prioritising, at the very least, those areas—priority for those areas. In fact, the complete opposite has happened and attention has been spent on the areas that are already serviced well. This is the frustration for many people across rural parts of Wales. Now, if I take the example of Pembrokeshire, of all the premises that were left at the end of phase 1 without a connection to Superfast Cymru, only 4 per cent of that number is now going to be covered in phase 2. That is what is so disappointing, and that's the frustration for many people across rural Wales. So, can you accept that this approach to delivering fibre broadband is flawed, and what are you going to do about the 67,000 premises that are still going to be left in the lurch in two years' time from now? 

Well, I entirely share the frustration. We have made significant funding available to tackle this issue, which, as I repeat, is a non-devolved area. We're not getting a Barnett consequential for this. We're doing this out of our own budgets because the UK Government and Ofcom are not meeting the needs of Wales, so we have stepped in. But there are limitations to the impact we're able to have. 

In any telecommunications revolution, we have seen parts of Wales difficult to reach. Rural Wales was not at the forefront of having tv signals or fixed telephone lines, so it's no surprise that, because of the topography, we have challenges getting full fibre roll-out into all rural areas. We are not deliberately focusing on these easy areas. What we've done is—. We've heard the Member and his benches constantly urging us to work in partnership with the private sector, which is what we are doing. The private sector have decided that it's easier for them to only bid for some of the money available to deliver the returns that they expect for their investment. So, we've been left to their judgment of which work they want to tender for and which we've been able to award. It has left a gap, which we are anxious to fill and we are looking at creative ways we can fill that. But, as I plea again, if the party opposite would speak to their colleagues in Westminster and make the case for a universal service obligation—[Interruption.] Russell George says it's a Welsh Government scheme. It is a Welsh Government scheme, but it shouldn't be up to the Welsh Government to fill this gap. This is a non-devolved area. The UK Government has responsibility for digital infrastructure across the UK. They are the ones who should be making sure that all parts of Wales are reached. They have failed to do so—they have failed to do so. We have stepped in with Welsh Government money to fill this gap, working with the private sector. The private sector is not interested, frankly, in reaching all the properties available, and so, we are looking for ways to fill that, and we are committed to doing so. And I'd appreciate his help rather than just his cheap shots.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Sayed.

Thanks. I wanted to ask the first question as to whether you've made an economic analysis of the potential cuts to higher education. I appreciate that this is primarily in relation to the education portfolio, but if we look at this in a holistic way, any job losses—be those in Bangor, be those in Carmarthen, or be those in Cardiff, with a £21 million deficit in its budget announced recently—are going to affect the economy of Wales. It's pretty ironic that, in the week that is termed 'HeartUnions', potentially, trade unions in Wales are having to mobilise for compulsory redundancies here in Wales. What economic analysis are you making of the potential to our communities of these job losses?

It's my understanding that these are fully autonomous organisations and so, decisions on budgets the universities make.

I think that's pretty blasé, I'm sorry, Minister, because this will affect people on the ground—their livelihoods, where they spend their money, how they spend their money, the jobs that they will be able to go to and the skills that we will have in our communities. So, I'll ask you again: what economic analysis will you have on a Wales basis as to the impact of the cuts to our higher education sector? Notwithstanding the fact that they may not have other jobs to go to because of—[Interruption.]—I'm hearing from the sidelines the education Minister saying, 'What cuts?' We've heard in the media in the last few days that Cardiff University are going to move to look to have compulsory redundancies because of the financial deficit in the higher education sector. What impact will that have on the Welsh economy?

No, sorry, we just have to clarify: what are the cuts? This isn't about cuts coming from Welsh Government—from the department for education and skills. This is about decisions being made by universities, based on the way that they manage their own affairs. This is not based on cuts from Welsh Government. 

I'm not saying that it's based on Welsh Government cuts; I'm saying that it's based on what analysis are you making of the potential for those cuts, taking place here in Wales, where jobs will be lost. We are hearing that from meetings that all of my colleagues have been arranging across Wales. So, instead of putting your head in the sand, what are you going to be doing about that so that we can ensure that the higher education sector can be successful? 

I did want to ask a question also on regional skills partnerships here today. The former Deputy Minister for skills outlined plans for further education as part of Welsh Government plans to improve the skills and training sector. Many of those regional skills partnerships are not funded sufficiently, and we were told that there was going to be an independent adviser commissioned by the Welsh Government into those regional skills partnerships. Can you give us an update on that and whether you are still following on with that plan that Eluned Morgan had in relation to regional skills partnerships?

I first of all thank the Member for acknowledging that there are no cuts to higher education from Welsh Government. I think that's very helpful to clarify, and I think, in reflecting on that very fact, I should also say that we have been relentless in fighting for the higher education sector, just as we have been relentless in supporting the further education sector as well. But we are still fighting against nine years of biting austerity.

Now, in terms of the regional skills partnerships, I'm pleased to be able to say to the Member that I have asked for an independent external review to be carried out into the RSPs. Meanwhile, we are supporting our RSPs with £5 million specifically of apprenticeship funding to align apprenticeship provision with what businesses in the respective regions require.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd—[Inaudible.]—difficulties faced by Cardiff commuters in gaining access to the city, could the Minister outline Welsh Government plans to alleviate these problems?

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the first part of the question.

Okay. Given the great difficulties faced by Cardiff commuters in gaining access to the city, could the Minister outline the Welsh Government's plans to alleviate these problems?

Absolutely. The plans are captured within the vision for the south Wales metro, and will be paid for with a huge sum of capital investment, more than £700 million. Key to the infrastructure within Cardiff will be new parkways and the development of a new Cardiff bus station, and we hope, with UK Government support, should it be forthcoming, the redevelopment of Cardiff Central station.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I lately had the misfortune to have to use the southern access road known as Rover Way. Whilst I understand that this does, for some unknown reason, not constitute a trunk road, and therefore falls outside your direct remit, the road is in such an appalling condition that it cries out for some sort of government intervention. Surely, Minister, there is some form of financial assistance that the Welsh Government could implement so that Cardiff city council can give this vital artery into our capital city a major overhaul.

Can I say that we are supporting local authorities with additional resource to address potholes, and we also offer funding through the local transport fund to ensure that local roads remain of adequate quality? I think what's most important for Cardiff as it continues to grow is that it gets a twenty-first century public transport system, and in that regard, the development of the metro, and, of course, radical reform of local bus services, will be very important indeed.

Again, I thank the Minister for his answer. However, this indeed could be a candidate for the mutual investment model, or. again, is there a possible intervention by Cardiff capital city region? Surely, Minister, it is not beyond your considerable expertise to find a suitable funding mechanism to address this dire situation. This road is in an appalling condition. The money given to potholes is not going to solve the problem, and it is a very busy and very important access road into Cardiff.

Well, I'd have to consult with the finance Minister as to whether the mutual investment model could be adopted for such a purpose, but, of course, even if it could be, it would be a decision for the local authority and/or, as the Member suggests, the Cardiff capital region. As a Welsh Government, we're doing all we can with our precious resource in order to improve transport infrastructure not just within Cardiff, but across the whole of Wales, and decisions must be based on the need to invest fairly across the whole of Wales. We would encourage our local partners in local government to ensure that all roads are kept up to a minimum standard, and to utilise the additional resource wherever possible, which we've made available through the pothole fund.

Yes, the economic contract has been very well received since its launch in May. We've agreed over 120 contracts with businesses across Wales and, later this year, we intend to apply the economic contract principles to a wider range of settings, including, I'm pleased to say, our sponsored bodies, and also infrastructure contracts.

Diolch, Minister. Earlier this month, I was very pleased to lead a short debate with cross-party support on a contract for better mental health first aid in the workplace. I know that the Minister is very passionate about this issue, just like I am and many others in this Chamber are. I'm sure he believes that it makes sense, both from a human and financial perspective, to ensure that we protect mental health within the workplace in the same way we do physical health.

Llywydd, most of us spend more time within the workplace than we do in our own homes, and this week, personally for me, I've struggled with my own mental health. I struggle simply to get up and face the world, and I'm sure I'm not alone. We simply must do more to support well-being within the workplace.

Minister, will you agree with me that campaigns such as Where's Your Head At? are vital in ensuring employers look after the well-being of their workforce by aiming to make it compulsory to have mental first aiders in work? Finally, Minister, would you agree to meet with me to see how we could support such initiatives as part of the Welsh Government's economic contract?

Can I thank Jack Sargeant for his question? I'd be delighted to meet with him to discuss how we can further utilise the economic contract for this purpose. This is an issue that he and I share a very keen interest in. It's an issue that causes almost £100 billion of damage to the UK economy in terms of lost output per year—the estimate is between £74 billion and £100 billion. Indeed, Llywydd, for businesses themselves, the cost is incredible. An independent study recently suggested an annual cost of between £33 billion and £42 billion to UK employers, because of poor mental health in the workplace. More than half of that figure can be attributed to people coming in to work but not being able to face a day's work without mental health issues. It was one of the reasons why I thought it was so important to include mental health as one of the four criteria in the economic contract, and I have to say that we are already seeing behavioural change within many businesses. We are seeing examples of very best practice such as at GoCompare and Bluestone and Wockhardt. I don't wish to be prescriptive through the economic contract as to how businesses improve well-being and mental health in the workplace because there are a huge number of businesses already showing great creativity and innovation in this field. I'd like to see their best practice diffused and disseminated across the economy. 

Minister, I was pleased to see the new economic contract, given the hostility to private enterprise displayed by the UK leadership of your party, particularly the shadow chancellor. Minister, will you confirm that the key to economic success in Wales is true partnership between the public and private sectors, and Government providing the best environment for private enterprise to thrive?

I would very much agree with the Member that social partnership is essential in driving inclusive growth in making sure that we do all put our shoulders to the same purpose. That means involving Government. It involves the public sector, it involves business, and, of course, it also involves our colleagues in trade unions. I am delighted that the UK Labour Party have recognised the value of the economic contract in driving inclusive growth, and I do hope that it will be adopted when the Labour Government is formed at Westminster.

Minister, I think that the economic contract is a positive step in terms of broadening the intended impact of Welsh Government support for smaller Welsh businesses. Can you clarify, Minister, what form of financial assistance will be given to Welsh firms, in terms of financial support? Will this assistance be delivered through a loans arrangement, and if so, what is the Welsh Government's strategy in terms of loans, going forward?  

Well, in terms of the support that's available, I think the Member is referring to the support that might be required in order for businesses to reach the point where they've successfully signed the contract. That would be provided through Business Wales, both in terms of potential financial support, but more importantly, I think, probably, the advisory service that can be offered. In terms of loans versus grants, this is something that has occupied minds and debate in this place since the dawn of devolution. I'm still keen to ensure that we move away from a high dependence on grants towards greater utilisation of loans through the Development Bank of Wales and, where we do use grants, we align them more closely with our priorities, making sure that grants are utilised in geographical areas where there are higher instances of unemployment or where there is a greater need to skill up the workforce. In terms of grants generally, we should be applying the economic contract more widely. That includes across Government departments and within local authorities, and also through the procurement process.

Yes. The Development Bank of Wales manages a number of funds for the Welsh Government, which it invests in Welsh businesses to enable them to grow and to prosper. The returns received from these investments are either recycled within the fund for future investments or repaid back to Welsh Government.

We were delighted on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee to conduct our annual scrutiny of the Wales development bank last week. Last year, I hosted a lunch at the Assembly for Giles Thorley and a number of his senior team. I've been very impressed with their capability, and optimistic as to what the bank is going to achieve, building on Finance Wales. The Minister set out the two possible things that might happen if the bank, as we hope, makes more money from interest and equity investments than it may lose on those loans where there's a degree of risk, and not all will succeed. However, what is the Government's policy as to what proportion of those moneys are going to stay with the bank versus come back to Government to fund other priorities, and will that depend on how successful the bank is?  

Can I thank the Member for his question, and also say how grateful I am for his support of the development bank? As an opposition Member, it would be very easy—and I'm sure it's very tempting at times—for him to be critical, simply because he's an opposition Member, of anything that the Welsh Government does. I do recognise his support for the good work of the development bank, and I look forward to seeing the EIS committee carry out a thorough investigation or inquiry into the work of the development bank and the benefits that have been accrued so far.

The Member raises a very important point about how we use money, what proportion is recycled and what proportion is returned to the Welsh Government. And when an individual fund reaches the end of its life, any realised or accrued capital is generally dealt with in one of two ways. First of all, we've got financial transactions capital. That has to be paid back to central finance and, ultimately, back to Her Majesty's Treasury, and repayment schedules are agreed with the Development Bank of Wales to this effect. However, on the other hand, we have core capital that can be recycled within the fund on an evergreen basis, and it's our desire to see as much of that recycled as possible. But it should be stated—and this may sound obvious, but it should be restated—that there are rules relating to the use of returns from EU funding, which state that it must be used for similar purposes as originally intended. So, again, it can be continued to be used for ongoing investment in small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Can the Minister state how much of the investment in the Welsh development bank comes form transaction capital, Europe, borrowing on the open market and other sources, including recycling money?  

Well, since the launch in October 2017, the Member will be aware of various new funds that have been announced. There was the Wales flexible investment fund, which is a massive boost—a £130 million boost. Then, in May, I launched Angels Invest Wales, which is the Development Bank of Wales's new business angel network. And alongside this, I launched the new £8 million Wales angel co-investment fund. I think the point that the Member raises about the proportion of money that is raised through financial transaction capital can be answered. I will write to the Member and provide a copy of the statement to all Members in the Chamber.FootnoteLink  

Yes. Transport for Wales anticipates new rolling stock to be provided by May 2019, if not earlier.

When James Price gave evidence to the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, he indicated that there would be additional rolling stock by May this year; if not by May, then possibly by March. Peak time, particularly coming home at peak time, on the Cardiff to Rhymney line is terrible. Seating is very hard to come by. This improvement in March/May would be very welcome. Can you provide an update on how progress is being made, what extra seats would likely be provided, how many extra seats are likely to be provided, and what further progress would be made by the end of this year? 

Yes. Can I thank the Member for his question, and just say how much I value the pressure that the Member has placed on me and Transport for Wales to ensure that his constituents get the best possible services through Transport for Wales? They are requiring five class 769 trains for the Rhymney line. I said that we aim to have them on the tracks by May of this year, but it's my hope that we could see them delivered next month. I think it's important to reflect on the fact that capacity on the network at the moment is severely stretched, and so I'm pleased to say that capacity will be increased from 212 to 292 seats on those trains that are going to be brought into use. 

I believe the Minister and Transport for Wales have suggested we may in due course see tri-mode trains on this line, with both overhead electric, diesel and battery operation. How firm is that policy, because I'm aware that some concerns have been raised as to the added weight of the battery and, despite the advantage of that for coming through the Caerphilly tunnel, whether that added weight elsewhere in operation may make the trains overall less efficient? Not everyone is agreed that this is necessarily the right technical solution, given that we haven't really seen it elsewhere in the world.   

They are tried and tested, the tri-mode trains, and they will be used on the Rhymney line from 2023. They use a mix of diesel power, overhead electric and also battery power. In terms of battery power, huge strides are being made in terms of the development of new lighter, smaller batteries, and I think, whilst there is some disagreement amongst experts at the moment, there is recognition that, as technology advances, the weight of battery units in trains and in cars will go on falling and, therefore, those units and vehicles will become more efficient and be able to cope with more passengers as well.

The whole point of our procurement exercise was that it was mode-agnostic. We were driven by the objectives, and the objective was to ensure that we could deliver as many services as frequently as possible, carrying as many people as possible, and the market assessed what would be best for each and every line, and determined that on the Rhymney line a tri-mode solution was the most appropriate.

Well, we're moving forward with our ambitious vision to reshape public transport infrastructure and services right across Wales and, of course, including local bus services, rail services, active travel and the south Wales metro.

When the details of the new train franchise were announced, it was revealed that the new headquarters would be located in the Treforest area. Now, I'm of the view that this was a missed opportunity to locate a major employer in an area where jobs, particularly well-paid jobs, are even more scarce than they are in Treforest. The Heads of the Valleys area in my constituency, places such as Maerdy, Ferndale, Treherbert, are examples of places where the new transport headquarters would have made a big difference to the local economy, and gone a long way towards rectifying decades of neglect. Since you earlier welcomed pressure from Members, I would like to know what other opportunities there may be to ensure that the communities that I represent in the Rhondda benefit from the new rail franchise. Can you tell the people that I represent how, in the future, the Rhondda can directly benefit from employment opportunities under the new rail franchise? 

Well, as a not-for-profit organisation, there will be huge opportunities for local businesses to benefit from the new franchise. Transport for Wales will be looking at utilising stations to ensure that they can be used by businesses and start-ups, but I have to say to the Member that Rhondda Cynon Taf is the single biggest beneficiary of the next phase of metro. Transport for Wales, as the Member is already aware, have several imminent improvements planned for rail services in the Rhondda. I should just repeat them, though: by the end of this year, we'll be introducing a number of newer-class trains operating on the route, as I said to Hefin David, increasing capacity from 212 on the older trains to 292; there'll be an increase in the frequency of Sunday services between Cardiff Central and Treherbert to one train per hour; a deep cleaning programme will be in place at all stations in the Rhondda as part of an initial refresh; and automatic ticket machines will be in place at all stations within the Member's constituency as well that do not currently have these facilities. And in the longer term, the Rhonda will directly benefit from Transport for Wales's hugely ambitious transformative plans for the south Wales metro. That includes opportunities for businesses to exploit in terms of supply chain opportunities as the infrastructure of the south Wales metro is delivered.

Apposite to that, I think the major regeneration for Porth town centre, which is currently being considered by RCT council, includes a new transport hub and station quarter, and that would link into the south Wales metro. We know that we have many cases in Wales where bus and rail stations are in separate locations, timetables are not synchronised and there are restrictions on taking, for example, bicycles onto public transport. So, what support are you giving to RCT council in schemes like that transport hub for Porth, where all is under one roof? And how quickly will we hear some of these announcements?

Well, I'm pleased to be able to say to the Member that officials are currently considering an initial report from Transport for Wales on options for extending metro services into Rhondda Fach from Porth. I'll be updating Members as soon as possible on those considerations. But in terms of the hubs, we're looking at being able to support as many hubs across the metro region as possible, particularly where there are currently barriers that passengers face in going from one mode of transport to another.

Thank you. The Valleys taskforce are working closely with partners in Caerphilly, delivering a number of commitments within the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' delivery plan, including the development of an integrated transport hub and strategic master plan, and developing a discovery gateway site as part of the Valleys regional park.

On 27 November last year, the Cabinet Secretary for local government made a statement on that very delivery plan in this Chamber. He's since been promoted to the back benches—[Laughter.]—and the Deputy Minister is now responsible. With that in mind, one of the things that the Cabinet Secretary promised to deliver was a £25 million capital fund to support seven strategic hubs over the next two years. One of those hubs is in Caerphilly. Does he fully endorse the statement made by the Cabinet Secretary last November and, in particular, that commitment?

Of course we're committed to spending £25 million on the taskforce developing the plans around the hubs. What I'm trying to do is to take stock of the delivery plan and the views of the partners of the best next steps. I've met the taskforce and had a very frank discussion about where we go next. I've met also with AMs representing Valleys constituencies. I'm meeting with more in the coming weeks, and I'm also going to be meeting with all the council leaders. I think as we pass the halfway stage of this Assembly term and as this was a commitment we gave in the last manifesto, it's important that we now try and focus on what we can deliver over the next two years that will make a tangible difference to communities across the Valleys.

In terms of precisely what shape the hubs take and how that money is spent, that's something I'm currently thinking about, and I'd be grateful for the Member's thoughts on where we go next.

Minister, in July last year, the Bevan Foundation expressed concern about the Valleys taskforce's ability to deliver for communities such as Caerphilly. They said that the taskforce's proposals were too small to make a difference, citing a lack of focus, a failure to address the big problems and having too small a vision. This view was echoed by Professor Kevin Morgan, who said,

'The model of development will not deliver even if the targets are rendered more ambitious because Government cannot possibly deliver.'

Those are his words. In the light of these criticisms, has the Minister set clear targets to ensure that the Valleys taskforce delivers tangible benefits for communities such as Caerphilly, please?

Well, I don't think anybody is under any illusions about the scale of the task ahead of us. There has been over a century of economic decline across many of these communities, and it's going to take a multigenerational approach to tackle the deep underlying causes of that. The Valleys taskforce has performed a really important role over the last couple of years. I pay tribute to my colleague the Assembly Member for Blaenau Gwent for the work he's done. And a lot of it has been under the bonnet within Welsh Government, which is not terribly sexy but is essential for delivering the next stage of reform. The bringing together of the different parts of Government with a focus on the Valleys and getting them to think about how they can deploy programmes in the Valleys to address these projects has been going on with some results, and the master planning I mentioned and the development of integrated strategic transport hubs are examples of something that'll take many years to pay off, but it's work that's happening now, started by Alun Davies, that is going to be essential for the level of change we need to see over the coming decades.

In terms of what we can deliver over the next two years, as I've said in answer to Hefin David, I do think there are some tangibles that we need to focus on. There is a comprehensive set of proposals in the delivery plan, which we're looking at how we can prioritise. I also think that one of the exciting bits of the delivery plan is the work around entrepreneurship. I've been speaking to a number of experts in the last couple of weeks about how we can build upon that, and I'll be holding some workshops in the coming months to see how in particular we can grow businesses in the Valleys through that work.

Yes. The stage 2 assessment process has taken longer than planned in order to ensure that the right candidate stations are taken forward to the next stage, but the exercise will be completed this month, and it will allow me to make an announcement on the stations that will be considered under stage 3.

I'm very grateful to the Minister for his answer. I'm sure he'll understand that, for example, the residents of Carno in the region that I represent have been a bit frustrated by the continuing delay. I'm very grateful to you for assuring us that the delay is coming to an end. Could you provide a bit of an explanation as to why the delay occurred and why it's taken as long as it has?

Yes—simply because of the volume of work that's been required to be undertaken during the assessment programme. I think it's important to say that there's no point in moving schemes to a detailed business case level unless we are completely confident that there is potential for them to result in a sound business case, and that's why the work has been so extensive. But it is also worth stating that there are no indications from UK Government, as yet, of any new funding streams to introduce new stations on our railway network. I am still fighting for additional resource to be made available, but it will be down to UK Government to make the money available to Wales.

The Minister will be aware of my wish to see a new railway station serving Abertillery and the Ebbw Fach valley in my constituency. I share some of the concerns that were outlined by Helen Mary Jones in terms of the process used to make these determinations. The current model appears to me to give a result that will always be biased towards areas of much higher population in the cities of the M4 corridor rather than allow us to take decisions that will enable us to build and develop new stations and new infrastructure in the small towns in the Valleys, and Abertillery is an example of that. Will the Minister consider revisiting the current model and form of assessment to ensure that all of our communities have an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of having stations that will, in the case of Abertillery, serve the whole of the Ebbw Fach valley in my constituency, and to ensure that these are all linked to the new metro and can become hubs for transport and for employment opportunities?

Well, I'd dearly like to change the funding formula and the criteria, but, as the Member is aware, the extent of benefit-cost ratio is an important factor in determining whether the UK Government would fund a new station, because funding of new stations is in the UK Government's hands, and therefore we have to apply the funding formula and the assessment criteria that will ensure that any stations that are put forward, or any proposals that are put forward for new stations, have the best possible opportunity of success when they reach Whitehall. I do appreciate—particularly as a Member representing a rural area, I appreciate that it is a major issue when it comes to delivering improvements in less-populated areas. Until and unless we have devolution of responsibility for rail infrastructure, and with it a fair funding settlement, we'll have to ensure that we work by the UK Government's formula. If we get devolution of this particular set of powers then, of course, rail schemes can be prioritised against a broader range of measures and objectives and they will be in our hands.

I was delighted to mark the beginning of the construction phase on 17 January for this significant infrastructure project in north Wales, and, providing there are no unforeseen issues, construction will be completed by November 2021.

Thank you very much, and therefore I hope that I won't have to ask that question again in this Chamber. Another aspect of the work, of course, is the impact on the local economy. What work have you as a Government done to ensure that the local workforce and local businesses get the maximum benefit from this important proposal?

Well, it's £135 million that are being spent on this particular piece of infrastructure. Through the procurement exercise, through agreements with contractors, it's our intention to ensure that local businesses gain maximum opportunity to benefit from the scheme. We're also engaging with the local authority and with Sustrans to ensure that—whether it be on the business side or whether it be in terms of active travel—there are opportunities for as many people and organisations to benefit from the Caernarfon-Bontnewydd bypass as possible.

Finally, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. As you said, and when you cut the first sod on 17 January, you anticipated completion by autumn 2021. What contractual safeguards have you secured regarding that, and, given the concerns raised by some significant local businesses, when the first two initial preferred routes were announced, that there hadn't been a local business impact assessment, what dialogue have you had with them over potential mitigation measures to minimise any negative impact upon them?

I think, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's worth saying that there was extensive consultation that was undertaken as part of the programme of assessment of which route was preferred. The bypass as it is now planned—the 9.7 km of new road—would remove through traffic from a number of communities. Those communities have called for this investment to be made. I do appreciate that some—some—businesses have raised concerns over the adverse impact that could be experienced as a consequence of removing traffic from roads within those communities. However, from what we've been able to ascertain from those businesses during the consultation process, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that those businesses would be severely undermined as a consequence of the bypass being built. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that this particular scheme does have overwhelming support within the area.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 2 is questions to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister in respect of his Brexit Minister responsibilities, and question 1 is from Paul Davies.

The Welsh Government has been considering the implications of Brexit across Wales, and acting to plan and prepare for all eventualities.

Counsel General, you will be aware that the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee published a report in August 2017 on the impact of Brexit on ports here in Wales. One of the recommendations of that report was to ensure that there were constructive discussions taking place between the Welsh Government and their counterparts in Ireland, and, indeed, with the other nations of the European Union. Can you tell us, therefore, what work has now taken place since the publication of that report, particularly on the impact of Brexit on ports in my constituency?

Quite a bit of work has been taking place as regards the risk to ports in Wales generally and in the Member's constituency, as well as in Holyhead and in the north. We’ve been working with the United Kingdom Government and local government and the port operators to ensure that we model the risks to ports generally. And, generally, the ports in Fishguard and Pembroke Dock are likely to have greater resilience than that of Holyhead. Having said that, we are keeping a close eye on this in case the assumptions under those models change.

Constituents have raised concerns with me about the provision of medical supplies in south-west Wales, particularly some very practical things like incontinence pads, but also access to insulin, certain rare radioisotopes that are necessary for some cancer treatments. Can the Brexit Minister update us on the discussions that Welsh Government has had with Hywel Dda health board to ensure that particularly our rural hospitals and some of the smaller hospitals have access to these kinds of products in the event, which, of course, we all devoutly hope will not happen, of a hard Brexit?

Yes, certainly. Of course, there have been discussions with the health boards. The health Minister is in continuous discussions, really, with NHS bodies to ensure that they have preparedness plans in place and to test some of those assumptions. The question that the Member asks relates to the provision of medical devices in particular. As she may know, there's been a specific piece of work undertaken to ascertain supply chains for those devices particular to Wales and to inform the Welsh Government's position about the extent to which it will collaborate and co-operate with the systems that the UK Government is putting in place and the extent to which we need to put our own arrangements in place in relation to supply chain issues here in Wales. 

One of the key issues, of course, is to ensure distribution across all parts of Wales, including perhaps in the remoter communities, of some of the sorts of medical devices and consumables that the Member refers to in her question.

In his oral statement of 22 January, the Minister for Economy and Transport detailed our contingency plans for heavy goods vehicles delayed in Holyhead. Welsh Government officials have identified more than one option, and are in discussions with the Roadking truck stop facility, which we are confident will have a positive outcome.

Thank you for that answer, and I hope you get well soon.

HMRC has now announced transitional plans, which will be in place for a year, where EU goods will be treated as they are now, to minimise disruption in the event of a 'no deal'. What support will the Welsh Government be providing to the port, and how will that be communicated with businesses?

Well, there are very well established discussions with the port operators and with HMRC, the UK Government and local government, in particular. The Welsh Government recognises the risks around delays to the port in Holyhead. Regardless of the decisions that the UK Government is taking, the Irish Government, as part of the EU, will be imposing the full suite of EU law on traffic through the Irish ports. There have been extensive discussions, as I mentioned, to ascertain—should there be a need for HGV vehicles to be located outside the port, for suitable locations to be identified in relation to that, and those discussions are ongoing.

In his 13 January letter to the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales invited the First Minister to attend meetings of the new EU exit preparedness committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, when relevant issues to Wales were on the agenda. They also stated: 'I have asked officials to share with you the experiences around the recent exercises in Kent, and similarly it would be helpful if you were able to share your conclusions around work in Holyhead and the Pembrokeshire ports.' What response, if any, therefore, has the First Minister, or yourself on his behalf, made in response to that request?

A response has gone to the Secretary of State for Wales, indicating that most of the issues on which an invitation has been extended to the Welsh Government relate to where matters have been devolved to Wales. Obviously, there isn't an equivalent in terms of the work we do here, because we don't deal with reserved matters here, but I know the First Minister has also indicated that he has asked officials to share information on certain projects with the Secretary of State for Wales.

Thank you very much. I’ve been on the HMRC website today, looking at what would happen in terms of customs arrangements if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. It’s incredibly complex. It starts by explaining that simplified customs procedures are what is set out. There is nothing simple about this, and, of course, there’s a way of keeping it simple, and that’s to remain within the customs union and the single market. But what steps will the Welsh Government take in a 'no deal' scenario to collaborate with HMRC to ensure that the port of Holyhead doesn’t come to a stop?

Well, the Member emphasises a very important element, namely that whatever can be done in a 'no deal' situation, the problems in that context would mean that—. We don’t have the relevant actions available to ensure that doesn't happen. Discussions are taking place, as I say, with the UK Government and HMRC on this, based on the modelling of various scenarios and ensuring that steps are taken generally to deal with that situation as best we can. I should say that collaboration with the UK Government in this field has improved over the recent period.

We turn to spokespersons' questions, and the first person this afternoon is the Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, can you tell us whether the Welsh Labour-led Government wants a second referendum on the UK's membership of the EU or not?

The Welsh Government's position is very clear on this. 

Is it?

It is. I may not be able to convey it very loudly today, but—. [Laughter.]

Was that your second question, I take it? You just said, 'Is it?' Was that your second question?

It was a polite gibe, given the polite gibe that came back to me.

Well, perhaps ykeep your polite gibes, then, and I won't be confused as to whether it was a question or not.

I note your comments.

Counsel General.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Our position as a Government—

I'm sorry; I can't hear.

Our position as a Government is set out in 'Securing Wales' Future'. The kind of deal for a post-Brexit relationship we would like to see is set out in that. If that sort of deal is not available and can't be agreed, then—

I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I did try these earlier. 

It does work. The floor amplification will work. 

I was trying it earlier; I couldn't hear. 

Do you want to ask your second question?

I couldn't hear the answer to the first one. 

If that sort of deal is available, then the Welsh Government recognises that another referendum is a means of breaking that deadlock. 

It would help if Members in the Chamber could keep the noise down. The Counsel General is struggling, and so, if we all can keep quiet, then we'll be able to get through this next set of questions. Darren. 

I listened to what you said. I'm still not clear on whether you want a referendum or not. We voted in this Chamber just a couple of weeks ago, and the Welsh Government seemed to support preparations for a second referendum, but it didn't expressly indicate whether there was support for a referendum or not. And I think the situation is such that you should be changing your Labour Party website address to Confused.com because I think lots of people out there find it bizarre that we're in a situation where the Welsh Government votes to prepare for a second referendum without actually demonstrating whether it supports having one or not. That seems to me to be a very strange situation indeed. Now, we know that the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, wrote to the Prime Minister last week and he indicated in that letter that he's abandoned his six undeliverable tests and replaced them with five new demands on Brexit. In his letter, he didn't mention the prospect of a second referendum, and the reason he didn't mention the prospect of a second referendum is because the leader of the opposition isn't prepared to ask for one. Do you accept that it's utterly futile for the Welsh Government to seek to prepare for a second referendum given that your own leader in Westminster isn't prepared to ask for one and there's no prospect of one coming? 

Well, the letter from the leader of the opposition described the sort of deal that the Labour Party in Westminster would be prepared to support. And we recommend that the Prime Minister engages fully with the leader of the opposition to see if that sort of deal can emerge from discussions in Parliament. She's failed to do so so far. 

The reality is, of course, that the Labour leadership in Westminster wants out of the EU. Footage was revealed in the last few days of Jeremy Corbyn back in 2010, calling for the EU to be, and I quote, 'defeated', accusing it and the IMF of being, and I quote,

'utterly united in deflation, suppressing the economy and creating unemployment'.

And, of course, in a book, which is currently being serialised in a Sunday newspaper, it's been revealed that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and Seumas Milne, Jeremy's Corbyn's closest adviser, both voted to leave the EU. Given this, do you accept that instead of playing politics around a second referendum and preparing for one when there's no prospect of one coming, and no prospect of the Labour frontbench in Westminster calling for one, that you ought to get on with supporting the Prime Minister and supporting the deal that she has negotiated and the changes that are going to be necessary to deliver a deal, with appropriate changes to the backstop?

Whilst I envy the Member's ability to project across the Chamber, I won't take any lessons from him on playing politics on this issue. Our position is completely clear, and the best means of resolving this and avoiding a 'no deal' situation is for the Prime Minister to drop her red lines and seek to achieve a consensus across Parliament on the sorts of the principles that there could be a broadly based coalition, not the narrow coalition she's trying to establish at the moment. 

We turn to the Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Returning to the question raised by my colleague Helen Mary Jones, has the work that you referred to in identifying the medicines and medical equipment that are at risk of becoming scarce if there were a 'no deal' Brexit been completed? Is that work completed? How many medicines and what medical equipment have you identified on that list? Is it less than the 31 identified in the most recent analysis by the European Medicines Agency, and do you intend to publish that list so that GPs and the public are aware of the possible risks that they may face, so that, as far as possible, they can make contingency arrangements?

That work is not complete, and that work is taking place jointly between the Welsh Government and other Governments, including the Westminster Government. The work is ongoing at present. What is important is to ensure and be clear with people that they don’t need to behave in any different way at the moment. We are not asking the NHS to respond any differently to GPs, as in giving people longer prescriptions, and we’re not asking pharmacists to do so either. We will be keeping an eye on the situation.

May I ask the Minister, with just a few weeks to go, isn’t it going to be a cause of concern for people that that work hasn’t been completed? We’ve known for some time that there was a possibility of a no-deal exit, and, with just a few weeks remaining, we still don’t know what goods and medicines we are talking about.

May I also ask him whether he is aware of any contingency plans by the police forces in Wales to put police officers on standby to respond to any civil disputes, or disputes in our ports should there be a 'no deal' Brexit? And if you have had those discussions, could you give some details on the number of officers we are talking about? Do these contingency arrangements include responding to crises in other parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland? Can you tell us whether local authorities, other emergency services and any other public sector bodies are involved in this planning work?

Yes, those organisations are involved in that work, through the local resilience forums, and the four police forces are also involved in those negotiations. As the Member will know, there are already arrangements in place in terms of mutual assistance, and all of this takes places within the civil contingencies framework, which has been established for all kinds of situations. We don’t have any specific intelligence about civil unrest on a wider scale, as it were, but the negotiations and discussions are taking place with local authorities, with the police, with the health service and with other Governments in the United Kingdom.

Could I ask the Minister just to confirm that the police forces in Wales are going to be put on standby in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, as has been reported, for example, in England and in Scotland? In February of last year, we received confirmation that the Government was considering the concept of free zones, or free ports, if we were to leave the European Union. Can the Minister provide us with an update on that work? And can you tell us which ports, or airports, or other areas, are being considered by you at the moment, and whether you as a Government intend to support any application for a free zone or free port status?

Finally, following reports this afternoon that Ford have told the UK Prime Minister that they intend to shift production from the UK if there were to be a 'no deal' Brexit, can you tell us whether there will be any similar discussion between Welsh Ministers and Ford? And can you also tell us whether the Welsh Government has spoken to each of the 52 anchor companies over the last three months to ask them about the possible impact of Brexit on their businesses?

As regards the free ports, of course, from our point of view as a Government, we want to be in a position where we can have a close relationship with the single market, and within a customs union. And it’s difficult to see how the free ports, or free zones, could exist within that framework. And so we have a strategic challenge in that context.

As regards discussions between Government and the major employers or companies, those discussions are ongoing. I was in that meeting with Ken Skates earlier this week with business representatives—with the economic sector more generally—and the kind of discussions you're alluding to are happening on a regular basis at present. 

Thank you. We turn to the UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Counsel General will have seen that Olly Robbins, the Government's chief negotiator with the EU, let the cat out of the bag yesterday in Brussels and revealed Theresa May's true intentions. She has always said that she doesn't want to extend article 50 or to have any delay in Britain leaving the EU beyond 29 March. But Olly Robbins said that his task, or the Government's task in the House of Commons over the next few weeks is to get MPs to believe that, in the week beginning at the end of March, the extension is possible, but if they don't vote for the deal then the extension is going to be a long one. So, on the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that there won't be an extension, but the man actually doing the day-to-day negotiations is saying that their tactic is to extend the membership of Britain in the EU beyond 29 March if MPs don't agree the deal.  

Yes, I saw that as well. Our position, as a Government, is that the Prime Minister should request an extension to article 50 at this point. The later that is left, the more risky it becomes and the more challenges there may be to securing that. It seems to us that almost any scenario from now on requires an extension to article 50—an extension to the exit date. Even if a deal was possible at this point, the practical, logistical exercise of getting legislation through Parliament in order to make that happen already takes us in almost any realistic scenario beyond the current exit date.  

Well, I'm sure the Counsel General would agree with me that this resolves, ultimately, into a question of trust in Government, which is a vitally important issue. Here we have, on the one hand, the Government's chief negotiator being overheard in private, in circumstances where he didn't know he was being overheard, saying one thing, and the Prime Minister in public denying what he said. Which does he believe is the more credible approach? 

I'm not sure it's for me to speculate on potential discussions within the UK Government between negotiators and the Prime Minister. All I would say is that we've been very clear about the kind of deal that we think should be put before the House of Commons, and I think the Prime Minister should take all the steps she can to make that a reality. 

Well, as the deal that Theresa May has put on the table gives the EU all it wants—the £39 billion, detaching Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, a continuation of regulatory alignment without a voice or a vote in the EU, and with no unilateral right to leave, which we currently enjoy under article 50—effectively what the Prime Minister is proposing is very largely what the Welsh Labour Government itself wants to see. So, is he encouraged by this confirmation of the Prime Minister's duplicity in negotiating a deal that she claims is a means of exiting the EU whilst knowing it is actually designed to keep the UK indefinitely within it? 

Well, I'm certainly conscious of the limitations of being in the EU without a voice, but I would just say that the deal that the Prime Minister has put forward to the House of Commons falls very short of the kind of deal the Welsh Labour Government, together with Plaid Cymru, has described as the kind of post-Brexit relationship we should have with the European Union. It doesn't, for example, include a permanent customs union; it doesn't, for example, include a single market in services; and it certainly doesn't include the kind of fair movement migration policy that we feel is the best in Wales's interests after Brexit. 

Well, I take issue with the Counsel General on much of what he has just said, because, effectively, the basis of the deal that the EU has extorted from the Government is Britain's membership of the customs union and, indeed, the single market in effect because regulatory alignment is part and parcel of it, and there is no end date. So, in those circumstances, then the EU has no incentive to improve its offer because it's got everything it wanted on the table already. So, why should it agree to allow Britain to leave the EU in due course when it's actually got us where it wants us—actually within the EU but without a voice and a vote? And, therefore, that means, in effect, permanent continuation of Britain's membership of the EU—exactly what the Labour party wants to see. 

I also believe that seeking renegotiation of the deal with the EU on the basis of the Prime Minister's current red lines is a very, very optimistic strategy on her part. Of course, we know that the EU said that if she moves from the red lines, other options are available on the table, and, once again, I'd encourage the Prime Minister to take that up. 

We recognise the importance of the automotive sector to Wales and continue to press the UK Government to rule out a 'no deal' outcome whilst providing advice on mitigating actions. We are also in very close contact with the Welsh Automotive Forum and UK-wide sector bodies on Brexit. 

I do hope that the speculation on an overheard conversation in a Brussels restaurant or bar with Olly Robbins is correct and that, indeed, the Government has ruled out a 'no deal', it just isn't telling us that it has ruled out a 'no deal', because the chief executive of the Society of Motoring Manufacturers and Traders has said, in his words, that a 'no deal' 

''would be catastrophic – plants will close; jobs will be lost.' 

Today—this morning—Ford have used the same word, 'catastrophic', to describe the impact of a 'no deal' on the UK and says it will do whatever is necessary to protect its interest in Europe. It's declined to speculate on a report that it is planning to move all its jobs—13,000 jobs in the UK, including in Ford Bridgend—out of the UK in the case of a 'no deal'.

Could I ask the Minister what insight has he had from the Prime Minister and from UK Ministers about the scale of support that the UK Government is going to provide for our car manufacturers in the case of a 'no deal' to persuade them to avoid that situation where plants will close, jobs will be lost, families will see the impact right across the UK, including in my constituency of Ogmore?

I thank the Member for raising this question in the Chamber. It goes to the heart, I think, of the challenge that we face with the sort of deal and the sort of negotiations the Prime Minister has been pursuing, and in Parliament. It completely fails to take account of the sorts of risks to our economy that the Member has outlined in his question.

As a Government, we have taken steps to support the sector here in Wales, but in the context of a 'no deal' Brexit, the tariff barriers and the non-tariff barriers that would come in the context of that, could potentially be devastating for significant parts of the sector, and also, if I may say, the supply chain, which stretches right across Wales—I don't think the impact on supply chains has been appreciated as fully as it needs to be as well.

Obviously, we're still waiting with bated breath to know whether Ineos will be bringing its new vehicle to Bridgend, perhaps, rather than Portugal. But it was concerning to hear the other day that, even if this work does come to the UK, it may not be enough to save the Ford plant; it's a plant, of course, that, being Ford, is also affected by the decision of the United States President and what he's doing in America to support industry over there, which is affecting the potential of both steel and car manufacturing here. Can you tell us what work you'll have done with both the economy Minister and the Minister for international relations to identify what other opportunities will be available for car manufacturers in Wales, but, very specifically, what Wales is doing to push what should be our unique selling points about the steel innovation within the Swansea bay city region, for example; our enterprise zones, one of which is dedicated to automotives; and, indeed, just promoting what we're good at when it comes to automotive research? Because it's that that's going to make us attractive to other global partners in due course, despite the threats that we're facing now.

I agree with the characterisation of the threat that the Member describes. I know that the economy Secretary and the Minister for international relations have this as a key priority. The investment that the Government has made, for example, in further upskilling the workforce in some of these companies is a significant dimension to the attraction of businesses to Wales in these sectors, and also in further enabling these companies to compete within their own international networks for resources, which is a key dimension to some of the issues that we face here.

I know that, in terms of the outward-facing strategy of Wales in the future and identifying opportunities for further investment in these sectors, the Minister for international relations has that as a top priority, but I am bound to say that if we end up with the kind of relationship with the single market that it looks like the Prime Minister is prepared to contemplate, that will not strengthen the hand of the Welsh Government or indeed any of these companies in fighting for resources and fighting for opportunities for their workforces.

I'm in regular contact with the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language to ensure that my work on pressing for the least economically damaging Brexit fits in closely with her work to develop our international engagement to support the future prosperity of Wales. 

My much-missed friend and colleague Steffan Lewis was a big proponent of closer links between the Celtic nations. Now, Steffan had a vision that greater co-operation with Ireland and Scotland would be beneficial for Wales in a number of different ways, not least economically. In the post-Brexit political landscape that is changing almost every single day, do you see merit in developing such a Celtic alliance? And, for example, has the Welsh Government considered the possibility of holding discussions about invoking strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, which would allow members of the British-Irish Council to develop bilateral or multilateral arrangements between them? This would allow the establishment of mechanisms to enable consultation, co-operation and joint decision making on matters of mutual interest.

The Member refers to the British-Irish Council, which is an absolutely essential forum in this regard, and I attended it with the previous First Minister at the Isle of Man last year and saw at first hand how important that forum is and can continue to be in cementing relationships across the UK, yes, in the context of Brexit, but also in terms of future relationships more generally. As I've said in the Chamber previously—and I'll take the opportunity of saying again—we regard these relationships as very important, and in particular in the context of the Irish relationship and the coastal relationship, if I can put it like that, between the west of Wales and the south-east coast of Ireland. Of course, that relationship has benefited significantly from European Union funding through the European co-operation schemes and so forth. We've regarded those things as extremely valuable, as has, I know, the Irish Government. We need to look at cementing a range of relationships, I think, in our future, both among the Celtic nations, but also with other sub-state nations across the rest of Europe. We have memoranda of understanding or action plans already in place with Brittany and with the Basque Country, we're about to embark on a similar set of discussions with the Galicians, and we've developed, in particular with Quebec, for example, a memorandum of understanding around the aerospace sector—

Catalans? 

I'm sorry?

Catalans?

So, just to identify these as issues that we regard as being priority issues for us and the relationships need not be simply with Governments and state Governments but also on a sub-state level, both across Europe and further afield.

Of course, this question isn't just about international relations, it's about the Welsh language as well, and we're not unique or the only country having more than one indigenous language. Can you tell me whether any impact assessments have been done about the effects of Brexit on how we engage with programmes in the EU at the moment on supporting minority languages within a range of countries there, and what that impact's going to be on particular communities here in Wales?

I know that work is under way in relation to that. I'll write to the Member, if I may, in relation to that.FootnoteLink

We welcome the evidence provided so far, which highlights the risks to the Welsh economy of any greater friction in trade with the EU. Ken Skates, the Minister for Economy and Transport, provided written evidence in October 2018, and we will make a fuller assessment once the inquiry makes its report.

Thank you for that answer. I wonder if you read the evidence from representatives of the University of Edinburgh, the Institute for Government and the University of Sussex, where those witnesses expressed considerable reservation on any power for the devolved institutions to have a veto over trade deals, and one of the witnesses expressly warned that that was a potentially dangerous process, which was likely to lead to a great reduction in the number of possible trade deals that would be feasible. Now, we clearly need effective consultation—deep consultation—with a thorough mechanism that if a devolved institution is concerned about implications of a trade deal, that that's raised also in Parliament, and there are many processes that would allow that. That would take us along the lines of mechanisms used, for example, in Canada and Australia. But can you tell me whether you are expressly ruling out this nuclear weapon of somehow having embedded in devolved institutions a power of veto over trade deals?

The Member's question goes to the heart of how the devolved settlement and the reserved powers interact with each other. Obviously, international relations is reserved, but in order to deliver some of the commitments made in those negotiations and agreements, that will sometimes intersect with devolved competencies in, potentially, a wide range of areas. So, it's fundamental that we reach a settlement and an understanding in relation to these matters that acknowledge the power of the UK Government to negotiate these agreements but also respect the devolution settlement and give this Assembly and Welsh Government a locus in those discussions. As he will know, the Government of Wales Act 2006 already provides that the UK Government can effectively direct changes in the law to comply with negotiations, to comply with agreements reached internationally.

Our view as a Government is that it's essential—given that that is the case—that the views of Wales, the views of this Assembly and the views of Welsh Government are properly engaged and taken fully into account in relation to devolved matters, not just at the eleventh hour, if I can put it like that, but throughout the process of negotiation. It's that sort of deep engagement that we seek, rather than the veto that he refers to in his question.

He will know, of course, that we've called for a joint ministerial committee on international trade, to enable a formal system to be put into place to agree negotiating positions and to resolve the sorts of tensions that will inevitably arise in this area. I'm pleased that UK Government Ministers indicated in the House of Lords recently their intention to create exactly that sort of forum. 

In addition to that, a concordat is being developed that will specifically detail how the Department for International Trade and the devolved administrations will work together for future UK trade agreements with third countries after the EU exit, if that becomes a reality.

Can I thank the Counsel General for that answer? It's very important that we address the issue of trade. As David Melding highlighted, the evidence from some indicated that there should not be a veto, but in listening to the news that's coming out from the US today—that in fact the US steel producers are encouraging Donald Trump to put a ban on UK steel in any trade deal we do with them, which would have a devastating effect upon the steel industry here in Wales—a trade deal negotiated by London without our involvement could result in implications damaging our Welsh economy, and we'll have to pick the pieces up as a consequence of that.

Do you therefore agree that it is important that this joint ministerial group you're talking about on international trade should actually have teeth within it so that you have to be listened to and not just put in a corner and them thinking they can put you away? It's important the voice of Wales is heard and responded to to ensure that our Welsh economy, our Welsh industries, our Welsh citizens do not suffer as a consequence of a UK deal.

The Member is right to describe it in that way. This isn't simply about information sharing and so on. What we want is a body that enables these issues to be fully taken into account and the particular dimensions that perhaps apply in Wales to be fully baked into that set of discussions. The sorts of issues that he has identified in his questions go to the heart of the kinds of things that we need to be able to address through that mechanism.

I've raised the potential impacts of delays to movement of goods in discussions with UK Ministers. This is obviously an important area in which discussions are also happening internally and with stakeholders here in Wales. 

I thank the Minister for that response. We recognise that the Welsh Government has rightly been focused on mitigating potential impacts at Welsh ports, but isn't it true that Wales, like the rest of the UK, is actually critically dependent on the Calais-Dover route for medicines, food and other supplies? Now, I'm hesitating before I'm asking this question. What discussions has the Minister had with the UK counterpart Chris Grayling? You can understand why I'm hesitating to do this, after the cancellation of the Seaborne contract for £14 million the other day, despite reassurances a month previously that it was all perfectly hunky-dory. But it is essential that we have those, because medicines, food supplies, all those necessities, are critical to Wales, as to the rest of the UK. It's not only the Welsh ports. Is he reassured by the UK Government's preparations?

Clearly, as he indicates in his question, whilst our principal focus is in relation to ports here in Wales, food and medicines and other materials and goods that come to Wales will—you know, that port is perhaps even more important in terms of the volume of traffic and volume of freight that comes through there. It is certainly going to be the case that, particularly in a 'no deal' scenario, there will be severe disruption in Dover and the Dover-Calais route. That, I think, is absolutely clear. Obviously, he mentions the cancellation of the Seaborne contract, and that's incredibly worrying in the context of reassurances. We know that steps are being taken. They're obviously being led by the UK Government. We're in a process of seeking assurance in relation to steps that are being taken, because, clearly, whilst not devolved, and whilst not in Wales, there is a very, very clear interest for the Welsh Government on behalf of the people of Wales in seeking that reassurance.

Can I ask the Minister what discussions he's had with the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales with regard to the movement of goods and Brexit?

I haven't myself had those conversations, but I will make sure that I write to the Member with a follow-up in relation to that question specifically.FootnoteLink

I have made the Welsh Government's views clear to the UK Government, most recently at last week's meeting of the JMC on EU negotiations. The UK Government must seek an extension to article 50 immediately to put an end to the threats of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal in only seven weeks' time.

No responsible Government would crash out of the EU without an agreement with our main trading partners. That's the view of a BBC reporter, who's job it is to be impartial, so I think that's well established. The question that arises, though, is: is there sufficient time to deliver the legislation required to extend article 50 at this stage were, by some magic, Mrs May able to deliver a deal that met the approval of the majority in the House of Commons? If not, what are the implications for Wales entering into some sort of dystopian limbo land with regard to really important issues like the regulation of food products, things like electrical goods and, indeed, the environment?

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. I referred to a report by the Institute for Government a few weeks ago that describes the challenge in implementing or bringing into law the Bill that is currently in front of the House of Commons in the event that there's no extension sought to the article 50 process. Whatever your view on Brexit, the practical challenges of doing that are absolutely clear, and I repeat the call that the Prime Minister should seek an extension at the earliest possible opportunity.

In relation to the practical point that the Member raises about the impact on Wales of a failure to get that primary legislation over the line in Parliament, I would just say, firstly, that the purpose of the legislative deficiencies programme that we've been undertaking for many, many months at this point is in order to ensure that the statute book remains consistent on the first day after Brexit. So, we've been planning on the basis of a 'no deal' from the outset in relation to that. So, the Member's raised previously with me questions around food standards, as she just has done now—chlorinated chicken and that sort of situation. The purpose of the statutory instruments programme we've had in place is to ensure that, as of day one after exit, EU law applies in Wales as the day before, effectively, but it's incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom. So, from that point of view, that has been the objective throughout, but there will be, if it becomes the case that not all that legislation has been passed by the point at which the UK leaves the European Union, there will need to be a rapid programme of statutory instruments to correct some of those issues in relation to other matters. But the sorts of things that she is asking about in her question have been the sorts of things that the deficiencies programme has been aiming to tackle over the last few months. 

Isn't it also the case that the Minister is seeking an extension of article 50 because he sees it as a step towards blocking Brexit?

I hesitate to say this but—[Interruption.]

Can we listen to the Minister's answer because he's struggling at the best of it? So, if we can be quiet, please.

I hesitate to say this: I didn't catch what the Member asked. So, could you repeat that?

I shall ask again and try his catch his answer as well. I asked the Minister: isn't it also the case that he is seeking an extension of article 50 as a step towards blocking Brexit?

No, it is not the case. I can't be clearer than I have been today. We have been absolutely categorical about the kind of post-Brexit relationship with the European Union the Welsh Government thinks would be in the interests of Wales. I was invited by Darren Millar to take the view that a referendum was preferable to that, and I hope that I was clear then. If the sort of deal can emerge from Parliament that reflects the principles that we have set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', and the principles that the leader of the opposition's letter outlined earlier this week, that is the kind of post-Brexit relationship we would be able to support. If that is not possible, then we fully recognise that the means of breaking that deadlock is another referendum. It's a perfectly pragmatic position. 

The inter-governmental agreement has made the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 more effective in respecting devolution. Importantly, thus far there have been no clause 12 regulations to restrict devolved competence. In terms of correcting legislation, both the Welsh Government and the UK Government have worked within the spirit of the agreement.

Well, I’m not sure what your definition of working within the spirit of the agreement is, because I sit in committee after committee listening to the environment Minister, for example, complaining that there has been no collaboration on developing things such as the fisheries Act of the UK and the UK agriculture Act. In written evidence—paragraph after paragraph saying things like:

'the provisions relating to Schedule 1 were drafted by parliamentary counsel following instruction from UK Government. Welsh Ministers were not consulted on the instructions',

and then going on to complain about the legislation expected of us here in Wales. So, isn’t it now apparent that the experiences of this Government, and the Ministers of this Government, particularly in the context of the two Bills that I referred to, demonstrate that the UK Government has no real desire to collaborate with the devolved administrations in order to develop legislation in this context, and that the agreement, to all intents and purposes, is completely ineffective?

Well, when it was agreed in the first place, there was a great deal of criticism in this Chamber that the Government had agreed, in principle, to secure this kind of agreement, but the agreement has succeeded. I do not doubt for a moment that there have been examples where we would have wished for greater collaboration. That is evidently clear. Things have improved over the latest period, but there was a suggestion that powers would be reserved. That hasn’t happened. There was a suggestion that powers would be frozen. That hasn’t happened. The United Kingdom Government has confirmed that for the second time. So, the Government’s intention was to ensure that we had the kind of agreement that was practical and would enable us to do work in agreeing legislation and frameworks and so on, where they dealt with the devolved issues, and the agreement has succeeded to do that.

I do not doubt for a moment that there have been examples where, in legislation and so on, we haven’t had our ideal solution. Of course that hasn't happened. But that inter-governmental agreement named in the question by the Member has ensured that powers have been retained here, and that we ask the UK Government only to make amendments when they need to do that, when there is no difference with regard to policy between us and the Westminster Government.

May I also say that there is more than one example of us having succeeded as a Government in ensuring that we have had more discussions? And there are more examples where our agreement is interrogated where the matters have not been devolved, but where they impact on Wales in other ways—so, there are examples of the Governments having gone further than the inter-governmental agreement.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. 

Item 3 is topical questions, and we have one to be answered by the Minister for Housing and Local Government. Jenny Rathbone. 

Yes, I recognise there are issues in terms of providing effective resettling services for people leaving Her Majesty's Prison Cardiff. Resources within the Community Rehabilitation Company have been a key issue. I want to see an improvement to the standards and capacity of the existing resettlement services, in particular the CRC. Responsibility for this, however, falls to the Ministry of Justice. I acknowledge that local authorities also have a role to play, and we are prioritising this area with additional resources from the homelessness prevention grant.  

I appreciate that this issue is not currently a devolved matter, but, nevertheless, we should all be concerned that of the 23 men being released on a particular cold day, only 13 of them had a definite place to sleep that night, and there was clear evidence from them that some of them intended to reoffend in order to get back into prison, and the warmth and food that that provides. Now, of course, we're all aware that the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 removed prisoners from the list of vulnerable people who automatically need to be rehoused. Nevertheless, the argument at the time in committee was that anybody without a home to go to must be seen to be a vulnerable person.

I know that the Prison Advice and Care Trust, which is a voluntary organisation that's running the cafe for families in the prison, is actively recruiting volunteers to meet people who are leaving prison, and take them to Dumballs Road, where the housing options team will receive them, as well as getting to the Department for Work and Pensions to sign on and to see their probation officer. But it's unclear to me—and I don't know whether the Minister's able to reassure us—whether things have now improved since this report was finished, because it only relates to the period up to the end of August, or whether we are still getting men released who the prison service have failed to pinpoint where they need to go in order to get the minimum sum of money, as well as a roof over their head for that night. 

Yes, the Member has correctly identified all the issues that we remain very concerned about. The MOJ has long acknowledged that the CRCs are under-resourced, and they have now recently increased resources to them, and that is subsequent to the time period for the report. I'm not sure that I'm in a position to say that that will have solved the issue, but we do know that more resources have gone in since the timescale that the report covered off. 

We've also increased the capacity of the Prison Link Cymru service, which increases the capacity in local authorities for prison resettlement officers, and very shortly we'll be jointly funding housing officers within each local delivery unit of the probation service itself. One has literally just happened and the other one is about to happen, so both of those are aimed at addressing many of the issues that Jenny Rathbone mentioned in her contribution. 

We know that people who come out of prison have an enormous number of complex things to achieve in a very short period of time, and if they are going into or back into a chaotic lifestyle, then that clearly is very problematic indeed. And so, these are measures that are aimed at making contact before somebody is released from prison, in order to smooth the path and to ensure that the local authority is expecting them, effectively.

We do have some work to do with the local authority—not just in Cardiff, and this report is about Cardiff, but this is an issue for prisoner release everywhere—for the local authority to be sure that they have the right processes in place to make sure that people don't immediately return to a chaotic lifestyle, because we know that that does lead to people thinking they'll be better off in prison, which is not something that anybody ever wants to find themselves in a position to think.  

The Member will also know that we have already committed to looking again at the priority need issue, and as I said recently in Plenary, we're about to commission it, and we're expecting that in April of next year.  

I think it is a matter for the UK Government and the Welsh Government working together, and a particular difficulty, I think, comes from short sentences, and we've seen an increase in the number of people subjected to short sentences, very often for offences that do not include violence against the person, for instance. Obviously, if we use community punishments, there is a much greater chance of ensuring that the housing situation of the person is not affected. And there is some evidence there's a bit of a cycle where some people are choosing to commit another offence and get back in prison because that's at least a secure roof for them. And this is an appalling dysfunction. It serves no-one any interest whatsoever, and we do need a much better, joined-up approach to this. But at least limiting to the very minimum the number of sentences under one year I think is a good start.

Yes, I completely agree with David Melding; there's a big issue with short prison sentences, which we've rehearsed many times in this Chamber. They aren't long enough to get any kind of programme of rehabilitation or retraining or anything else. They're designed, it seems sometimes, specifically to disrupt the person's family life, work prospects and housing. It's very hard to see what purpose they serve in any regard for anyone, to be honest. So, we do need to work very carefully with, in particular, the Magistrates' Association, actually, in terms of very short sentences, and I think there is a widespread view that that is something that needs to happen with some dispatch. Clearly, the options for community service or community payback schemes or whatever need to be thoroughly explored and made available. But also, of course, we need to prevent people from going into the criminal justice system in the first place, and so having some of the upstream measures I've just talked about in order to divert people away from the criminal justice system in the first place obviously would also be beneficial. 

There were a number of disturbing details contained within the report of the independent monitoring board at HMP Cardiff released last week. For example, I was concerned, as others have mentioned, to hear that going back to prison was more attractive for some inmates than staying at the Huggard centre. Now, it must be disappointing for you to read that the lack of accommodation available to inmates upon release was described as not only inhumane but as a major factor in reoffending. The report calls upon your Government directly to review housing policy as a matter of urgency, as well as to review health service provision towards primary mental health care in prisons. So, will you do that? Clearly, this Government has been failing prisoners more widely, and it's failing society actually, because reoffending is no-one's interests at all. Now, clearly, some of the responsibility for this is not devolved, but there are big responsibilities under your Government. So, what are you going to do about it all?

Yes, well, again, I largely agree with the Member—we certainly do need to improve some of the services. There is a particular concern around the perception around the Huggard centre in particular and we have just actually provided them with funding to improve both security and storage facilities at the Huggard, because the Member will know the detail—people are afraid that their possessions will be stolen while they sleep, and they don't feel the security arrangements are sufficient and so on. So, there is a perception issue as well, because I think—[Interruption.] Yes. Obviously, I personally wouldn't want to go to sleep with all my possessions on the bed in front of me and not know that—you know, somebody who just walks past could help themselves. Clearly, locker systems and so on are essential to anybody for basic human privacy and decency. So, we have provided additional funding to the Huggard centre for that, and we know that night shelters can be daunting and not the right option for large numbers of people. They are the right option for some—they have been very helpful for some people for a pathway out of homelessness. But the Member will know that we've been looking very carefully at funding and increasing trauma-centred pathways and the housing first type options for people so that we get people back into decent, secure accommodation as a first step, rather than having to climb a reward ladder, where you get yourself off the street and then you're rewarded with something else and so on, which has been an approach in the past. I think quite a lot of the thinking—. I've been in this post a very short time, but a lot of the thinking seems to have turned, quite rightly so, to learning from the lived experiences of people who've experienced homelessness about what would have worked for them and why it took them so long to get back to having a decent, secure home. And we are very keen on pursuing that.

Going back, though, specifically to prisoners, it isn't all devolved, but some of it is devolved, and what we're looking to do is to make sure that our local authorities that do have prison populations likely to be discharged into them can work closely with the prison to get a better information system going, so that the person who's coming out of prison will understand what's available for them and the local authority will expect them, because that's a big issue as well, because if they're all released on a Friday afternoon at 5.30 p.m., that's clearly going to be problematic and that clearly has been an issue at Cardiff prison, and I know from my own constituency work that it's an issue at Swansea prison as well. So, we are working very hard to make sure that those systems work better.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 4 on the agenda is the 90-second statements. The first one this afternoon is from Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Sport has a massive part to play in inspiring generations and communities as well as having huge positive impacts on improving mental health. They are just some of the reasons why I want to wish local football team Connah's Quay Nomads from my own constituency all the best for their semi-final match against Edinburgh City in the Irn Bru Cup. The communities of Alyn and Deeside are very proud of what the club has achieved so far, but let's hope we can reach that final in Glasgow and bring the cup home.

Deputy Llywydd, I also want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to Newport County AFC in their fifth round FA Cup match against Premier League champions Manchester City. Both matches are taking place this Saturday, so as much as I would like to join colleagues Jayne Bryant and John Griffiths at Rodney Parade, I will be at the Deeside stadium hoping for a Connah's Quay win.

I urge Members and our communities to take part and watch both games as much as possible and however they can.

Deputy Llywydd, from all of us here in the Senedd Chamber: 'Come on, County', 'Come on the Nomads.' 

Thank you. Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, it's February, and tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and we'll be awash with love hearts, as everyone will know, but the hearts I want to talk about are the hearts that give us life and to remind everyone that it's Defibruary as well as just February. Automated emergency defibrillators or AEDs can easily be used when someone has suffered a cardiac arrest. People without any medical training can use them to safely give an electrical pulse once the defibrillator detects that a person has an irregular heartbeat that places them in immediate danger. Once someone suffers a cardiac arrest, the chances of survival plummet by 14 per cent every minute that passes without treatment, and outside a hospital setting it's crucial that some treatment is administered as soon as possible.

Thanks to charities like St John Cymru, often present at football grounds actually, Welsh Hearts, Cariad, British Heart Foundation Cymru, the Red Cross, many businesses, sports clubs, councillors and even other individuals—they've all contributed to making sure that there are more defibrillators and more training available within the community, and you may want to tell constituents about Proactive First Aid Solutions. Have a look at their website, as they're offering a free defibrillator and training worth over £1,300 to organisations, community groups or schools. However, it's no good if a defibrillator is locked up or you don't know where they are, so this Defibruary I'm asking you to take a photograph of yourself next to your nearest publicly available defibrillator, share it on social media with the hashtag 'Defibruary' and encourage your constituents to do the same—one step closer to becoming a nation of lifesavers. Thank you.

The next item is a motion to elect Members to committees. In accordance with Standing Orders 12.24 and 12.40, I propose that the motions to elect Members to committees are grouped for debate and voting. I take it no Member objects.

Good. So, can I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motions formally?

Formally.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motions. Does any Member object? Therefore the motions are agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Llywydd: introduction of a Commission-proposed Bill—Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Llywydd, Elin Jones.

The introduction of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill today sees the culmination of a long period of consultation and engagement with the public, political groups and wider stakeholders on electoral reform, and it takes up the opportunities presented in the Wales Act 2017 to strengthen our National Assembly for the better.

The substance of the Bill, then, is to create a more effective and accessible Senedd and to ensure that the cradle of our democracy is fit for purpose as we celebrate its establishment 20 years ago. As the Member in charge of this Bill, I have listened to a wide range of views on the main elements of the draft legislation—changing the National Assembly’s name, expanding the franchise for Assembly elections, and changing the law in relation to the arrangements governing individuals’ ineligibility to stand for election.

In designing these main provisions, the aim has been to ensure the broadest consensus possible among Members and to build on the mandate given to this legislation by a majority in this Assembly in October 2018.  

What, then, does the Bill entail? Firstly, reducing the minimum voting age to 16 for the 2021 Assembly election—the Commission's objective is to empower and inspire young people to participate in the democratic process. Building on the work to elect Wales's first ever Youth Parliament last year, the Commission is collaborating with partners to expand the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds in time for the Assembly election in 2021. This provision goes hand in hand with the need for political education that will enable young people to understand their political rights and to increase participation in elections. The Commission is working with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate information reaches as many young people as possible before this positive change comes into force.

Secondly, the Bill proposes renaming the Assembly 'Senedd'. Renaming the Assembly will ensure that the institution's name reflects its constitutional status and it will help to improve public understanding of the legislature’s role and responsibilities. The Bill contains a clause noting that the Senedd may also be referred to as 'Welsh Parliament', reflecting the opinion of many that the Bill needed an English explanatory term to reinforce the change in the institution’s status. This is a clear statement that 'Senedd' is now synonymous with 'parliament', rather than 'assembly'. The intention is that the change of name will come into force legally in May 2020 to ensure that the public are familiar with it in good time before the Welsh elections in 2021. This change will bring with it other connected changes—for example, the descriptor that appears after Members' names and the titles of bodies such as the Commission. Assembly Members will become Members of the Senedd—'Aelodau o’r Senedd' in Welsh, for example.

Thirdly, the Bill will reform the framework for ineligibility to be an Assembly Member. The Commission is introducing recommendations made by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the fourth Assembly to change the law on eligibility to stand for election to the Assembly. The purpose of this change is to ensure clarity for potential candidates with regard to their eligibility to stand for election. The change will mean that most people will not have to resign from work before standing for election; such resignations would only become necessary if they are elected. In addition, this clause will prohibit Members of the House of Lords from being Assembly Members, unless they take a formal break from their work in Westminster.

The final element of the Bill proposes changes to the Assembly’s electoral and internal arrangements. These practical changes will introduce more flexibility following an election by extending the deadline for the Assembly’s first Plenary from seven days to 14 days. This will allow more time for the parties to hold important talks in moving towards electing a First Minister and forming a government. One of the other aims in this section is to clarify the Assembly Commission's right to charge for providing particular services to external bodies.

In addition, the Assembly Commission should consider, given that the Electoral Commission has responsibility for devolved elections, changing its financial and oversight arrangements. The Electoral Commission is of the view that it should be financed by and be accountable to the Assembly for its work in relation to the devolved elections, rather than the United Kingdom Parliament. This Bill, therefore, places a duty on the Senedd to consider this change, and should the Assembly recommend support for such a move, amendments may be introduced at Stage 2 to give effect to this.

The Bill will undergo extensive scrutiny in committee sessions and in Plenary. An explanatory memorandum has been made available to ensure clarity and transparency with regard to the financial implications of the Bill. Also, detailed assessments have been completed on the impact the plans would have on the Assembly’s official languages, equality and inclusion, children’s rights, the justice system, and other areas.

Of course, this Bill is just a starting point. In introducing it, it is my hope that the Bill will spark interesting and meaningful debate and encourage Members, stakeholders and the wider public to participate in the discourse on the future of our national Parliament. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their co-operation to date. The Youth Parliament has proven to us, in such an encouraging way, that the next generation are eager to play their part. What better occasion than the twentieth anniversary of our Senedd to inspire them and to involve them directly alongside every other citizen in the opportunities that the next 20 years of our democracy and our Senedd will present? Thank you. 

Thank you. Can I call the Counsel General and the Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this Bill, which is another important milestone in the journey of devolution.

The Welsh Government is very supportive of the three main aims of the Bill, as we see them. First of all, giving the Senedd a name that reflects its status as a legislature, secondly, giving young people an opportunity to vote, and thirdly, providing greater clarity for possible candidates as to their eligibility.

Specifically, the Welsh Government is entirely supportive of extending the franchise to young people of 16 and 17 years of age in Part 3 of the Bill. This was a commitment in the Welsh Government’s national strategy ‘Prosperity for All’, and I’m very pleased that we can provide assistance through our officials to produce the provisions in this Part. We believe that the franchise for Assembly elections and local authority elections should be consistent. Specifically, we want to see the Bill extending the franchise to include foreign nationals who are legally resident in Wales, to reflect the provisions that we will introduce in relation to the local government franchise.

In addition to that, the Assembly recently expressed its view that it supports the right of prisoners to vote in Welsh elections. We support that view in principle and await with interest the conclusions of the equality committee’s inquiry.

We believe it is important that the Assembly's financing and accountability relationship with the Electoral Commission is placed on a formal footing, and we stand ready to work with the Llywydd, the Electoral Commission and the Treasury in light of Stage 1 scrutiny, to explore whether we could take this further than the Bill currently provides for.

The Welsh Government also supports the clear demarcation that the Bill provides between those disqualified from being a candidate in Assembly elections and those disqualified from becoming an Assembly Member. We will be giving more thought as the Bill progresses to whether any further changes are needed to the detail of these provisions. We also recognise the objectives behind the provision in Part 5 of a power for the Welsh Ministers to implement Law Commission recommendations about elections. But we do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate for this power to be in the hands of Welsh Ministers, and we would like to explore this further during scrutiny. 

We welcome the opportunity presented by Part 2 to consider renaming this institution to reflect its central role as a legislature in Welsh life. The decision on what the name should be is for the Assembly as a whole to make, but we would urge all Members to bear in mind that the provisions of this Bill will amend the Government of Wales Act 2006—our key constitutional statute. So, it's very important that we make sure that the provisions on the name change, as well as on other matters, are as clear and as accessible as possible. As the Bill is currently drafted, I am concerned that this is not the case. I will be writing to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee shortly to provide more information about the Welsh Government's initial position on the Bill. But I hope that the Llywydd, as the Member in charge, can confirm that she shares my view, and that of the Government, that this Bill, as a crucial piece of constitutional legislation, should, as far as possible, be an exemplar for constitutional reform, and that she will continue to work closely with me, as well as with Assembly committees, other interested Members and our stakeholders, to ensure that this is the case. 

I thank the Counsel General for his comments and for his questions, and may I agree with what he has said in concluding? This is an important constitutional Bill, so it’s important that it is an exemplar of good legislation that this Assembly and Senedd is responsible for. And I very much hope that, in putting forward this legislation and in scrutinising it, we will exhibit that clearly.

There are a number of questions that you’ve outlined, Counsel General, where there is agreement between what has been put forward in the Bill and what you aspire towards as a Government, and I am very grateful for that.

On the franchise, of course, the Government is looking to extend the franchise for local government elections in 2022 to young people of 16 and 17 years of age. And it’s been important that I, as I’ve developed this Bill, have worked very closely with Government officials and with you as Counsel General, and that we do that in a common manner, and in a way that uses the mechanism of this Bill that will look at extending the franchise for the election that will come before us first, namely the Assembly election in 2021.

There are two aspects of this, and you have referred to them, that aren’t included in the Bill, as it has been drafted and presented, to extend the franchise, and that is to foreign nationals and to prisoners. And, of course, there are quite complex issues related to both aspects, and perhaps we haven’t received a full mandate from the Assembly to look at extending the franchise to foreign nationals in putting forward the Bill. But I do very much hope, as we discuss and debate within the committee, and within the full Assembly, that, if there is a way for us to look to ensure relatively early as we extended the franchise, that the franchise for this Assembly and the franchise for local government are aligned. I don’t think that it is advantageous in any way for us to have two different franchises for our domestic elections, in those local government elections and in the national elections. And so, I will listen very carefully to what the committee and others will have to say, as this Bill goes ahead

And on your comment on the Law Commission, it’s very interesting for me to hear the Government saying, perhaps, that they wouldn’t be eager to see the powers that are put forward in this legislation to Government; they would want to see them remaining in the legislature. Perhaps that is again a matter for the committee to consider.

And finally, on your point about the need for this legislation, as constitutional legislation, to be as clear as possible for the people of Wales, and in thinking about the clauses that rename the Assembly as the 'Senedd', there is reference that you’ve made to the opinion that you have about ways that these clauses could be made clearer. There is reference made in the explanatory memorandum as well to the consideration that I gave to changes to the way that these clauses were drafted; because of some issues related to competence, and discussion about competence, the clauses on the name of the institution were drafted as they have been presented. But I’m sure that the committee will, once again, give due consideration anew to the points that you’ve made, and the points that are outlined in the explanatory memorandum.

And so, thank you for your support in principle for a number of different aspects that are put forward in the Bill today. Again, I look forward to collaborating with you, and also about what you said about your support for making the Electoral Commission accountable, in terms of its budget and its general accountability, to this Assembly, rather than to the Westminster Parliament for elections in Wales—local and national.

We welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is an important recognition of the status of the Senedd as a legislature, as the Counsel General also indicated. So, it's an important landmark. And I think that those of us who have served—as you have, in the Chair at the moment, Deputy Presiding Officer—since 1999, it's almost like we've been in this huge constitutional convention, when we started off with, I think, what someone famously called 'Glamorgan County Council on stilts', and then we moved to separate powers, got this legislative competence Order process of legislating primary legislation on sufferance from Westminster, finally to a proper legislature. It has been, sort of, how to get from Cardiff to Newport via Wrexham, but we did it.

I also support the intention to create a more effective and accessible legislature. I think that's the right aim, and we do need that sort of clarity and purpose in our constitutional thinking and law making. 

On the extension of the franchise, I do think this is a matter that requires careful examination, although there are certainly clear examples around the world of the benefits of lowering the age of voting to 16, or the eligibility to 16. That captures that part of the population obviously that are going to live with the more profound decisions that are taken for them, but also in terms of education, training—these sort of basic issues that are essential, really, to the prosperity of the society, and they really impact that age group, and I think you'd have the potential of raising those issues in our deliberations. 

I do think you're wise to look overall at the issue of how politics is taught in schools. The political process is something that's not always well understood, and I don't want to turn all citizens into political scientists but, in the sense that we have a basic understanding of how the criminal law system works and how juries are important, I think that citizens do need to be taught at school for the responsibilities that are ahead of them in terms of citizenship. It's at the heart of democracy. Without citizens, you can't have a democratic system, or certainly not a healthy one. So, I think that's really important.

There's emphatic evidence that, at an early age, if you miss two elections, then you're unlikely to vote at all during your life. It's astonishing, I think, to everyone in here that there are citizens out there—and quite a lot of them—who never cast a ballot in a democracy. So, I particularly welcome that insight that we'll need to do something in schools to prepare our younger citizens, especially if we do lower the voting age to 16. 

The name is obviously work in progress, I'll put it like that. I think there is, at least within the political bubble, an acceptance that the word 'senedd' has really taken hold. It's what I prefer to call us, I have to say, and certainly the people that I'm engaged with—most of our stakeholders—understand that. Obviously, the further we go away, and the more we talk to our constituents, then that common usage is not so well established. I also think the principle of biligualism is important, and 'senedd' is one of those lone words that almost does both jobs, but I think there is a big constituency that looks at the word 'parliament' as that brilliant, splendid, understandable British word. Well, it's French, of course, but you know what I mean—[Laughter.]—and it is what most people call a legislature in the Westminster model, wherever it's applied. If we could, in a more direct way, get 'parliament' in, and I know there've been difficulties about competence, and they'll have to be explored, but I do hope we''ll have an expansive view of this also in terms of how we can interpret our competence under the 2006 Act. I do hope people of goodwill will be able to solve this in committee and beyond. 

Eligibility for election—I think I ought to declare an interest here, Deputy Presiding Officer, because when I was Chair, in the fourth Assembly, of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we did look at this. And, I'm grateful that, as far as I can work out, the provisions are pretty much what we recommended, so that you're not deemed to be illegible, you're deemed to have resigned from something when you get elected, if that was a disqualification or you couldn't hold both offices at the same time. We had a mortifying experience in 2011, in terms of potentially two Members being disqualified. In the end, one was disqualified, one wasn't, and it wasn't very clear to me, ever, how that distinction was made. We just don't want to be there.

But what's at the heart of this, and what was at the heart of the CLAC report, is that we need to extend the range of people who can stand for election to the maximum and we need to restrict the exclusions to as few as possible, and that's what democracy demands and I think this will go a long, long way.

In terms of excluding Members of the House of Lords from sitting in the Senedd—whilst they're sitting in the House of Lords, there will be a provision, of course, for them to stay their membership of the House of Lords. I think the logic of that is that you shouldn't be a member of two legislatures concurrently. And that, for me, puts it in a very different category to membership of a local authority, though many people may believe that's not best practice either—to retain membership of a local authority and membership here. But I do think this will help heighten the importance of our Parliament, our Senedd, and eliminate any hint of a conflict of interest.

Finally, can I just say where I think perhaps some improvement is still possible, and that's on public engagement? I think all around the UK, we need new models. We've done a lot, in fairness, with our outreach unit, but I really think, as we move from a representative democracy to a participatory democracy, that's the challenge ahead of us, and I think recent events shout at us that we must do this. We will need more extensive and deeper engagement with our citizens and the way we do that, through citizens' juries or citizens' chamber—there are many, many models—. But I do think, at some point—if this is not the right vehicle, maybe we'll have a look at it, I don't know—that's a challenge that's ahead of us and one that we will have to grasp very soon.

Thank you to David Melding for his observations on the Bill as it stands at this point. On the matter of votes at 16 and 17, the points that you make about all of education and citizenship awareness within education and young people's education—those were the exact points made by Laura McAllister's independent report in recommending that votes at 16 and 17 should be introduced in Wales, but should only be done so in partnership with a very in-depth look at how we promote information and engagement with young people, whether that's through the formal role of schools and the curriculum—. And it's a matter I've discussed already with the education Minister and we're keen to work together on how we do this in preparation, if this law is passed, for 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote in 2021. And, of course, it can be done in a more informal context, through social media and our work on that, especially with the Wales Youth Parliament, which has proved to be very successful over the past few months.

In fact, the point that you make about how engaged 16 and 17-year-olds are compared to possibly other age ranges is an interesting one. The evidence in Scotland—and, of course, Scotland have had at least two examples of using voting for 16 and 17-year-olds, for the independence referendum and then for their Scottish Parliament—was that 16 and 17-year-olds were far better versed in the mechanics of voting, and how to vote and where to vote, than the age range that follows them, the 18 to 24-year-olds, where they may all have left their home environment, moved to another locality and their first voting experience is in an area that they aren't as familiar with. Certainly, that was the interesting experience from Scotland in introducing votes at 16 and 17.

On the main change, the clauses within the Bill as drafted, and also the name itself—the use of 'Senedd' or 'Senedd'/'Welsh Parliament'—that is work in progress, as you say, David, and I look forward to going in front of the committee of the people of goodwill to see whether we can develop further thinking on this. I would urge caution at all times and Members to remember that this is a piece of constitutional legislation and it will require 40 Members of this Assembly, and not a simple majority, to finally pass the Bill, and I hope that all Members, in thinking about interesting amendments that they may wish to put to this Bill in Stage 2 and Stage 3, will always have, at the back of their minds, that in Stage 4, it'll require 40 Members to support it and not just a simple majority. I'd actually forgotten that you were the Chair of the constitutional committee during the fourth Assembly, David—forgive me for that. But the provisions on disqualification are as that committee outlined to us, and very much so in light of the difficult experience of 2011. So, we are now following the Wales Act 2017, giving us the powers to enable us to put into legislation the recommendations from that committee. 

Public engagement, of course, can be improved without the need for legislation, and we always need to improve on that work. But as you say, there is an interesting discussion that we need to have here about a more participatory way of looking at politics in Wales that may not require legislation, and we need to look to interesting models that we can trial without legislation to see what is possible for us to improve our relationship and the understanding that the people of Wales have of what we do here and their input into what we do on their behalf.

May I congratulate the Llywydd on introducing the statement today, and also welcome the statement and what’s included in it? Specifically, then, I would like to strongly support the intention to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 for the 2020-1 Assembly election. I realise that we are at the very early stages of this Bill and that it will come before the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for further scrutiny at Stage 1. So, as you’ve already mentioned, we’re at the beginning of the journey now, but we might as well say that we agree fundamentally with what you had to say?

I recall, in the third Assembly—and it was an Assembly at that point—the local government committee crossed the seas to Europe to look at voting ages and voting systems and so on, and we visited countries such as Denmark and Sweden, and what became apparent there was that teenagers were being educated about the various political parties—in countries such as Denmark. They learned exactly what the local 'Labour' party stood for, what the local 'Plaid Cymru' equivalent stood for, in a way that was simply educational, and people accepted that. And that was a means of informing people about what their different views meant, and that has worked in Denmark over a period of years. I think that was the substance of what was happening in Sweden too. You could see how children and young people took an interest, a real interest, in the voting system and tended to be more willing to use their votes.

So, that was the evidence that we received when we sought the real facts overseas. So, I’m sure that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will need to go abroad again to see whether those views have changed. But, certainly, there are other nations in the vanguard in this regard. Because as David Melding has already said, the evidence that we received from that evidence gathering is: if people don’t vote in the first two elections where they are qualified to vote, they never will vote. I think that’s the importance of reducing the voting age to 16, whilst that enthusiasm is still there, and ensuring that young people have the confidence, before leaving home, to vote. They are far more likely to vote in that scenario.

We’ve seen that same enthusiasm with our Youth Parliament. Those of us who have been involved and have been meeting with our youth parliamentarians— some of whom are very young—you just see how enthusiastic they are about the whole process. Because there are a number of injustices out there, and they want to do something about it, and they know that the political process is the way to deal with those injustices, in relation to language, the environment, or whatever it is may be, and they are very enthusiastic. In a way, some people have become disillusioned with political systems. I don’t see that with our young people, and I think it’s important to emphasise that point.

I see that time is against us, and I can see that the Deputy Llywydd is looking at me, so I will just mention a point on the name of this institution. I think it deserves the name 'Senedd', because, as you’ve already mentioned, we have taken that step from being an Assembly that had no powers and no taxation powers. We now have legislative powers, primary legislative powers, and the power to levy tax—that is, we are a Senedd, so why not name ourselves 'Senedd'? We would then be on a par with the Parliament in Scotland and the Parliament in Westminster. I understand that there is some sensitivity around this, and of course we will be scrutinising the Bill line by line, but I also believe that as we have taken that step to become a Senedd, then surely we should call ourselves 'Senedd'. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dai Lloyd, for the contribution, and thank you for the support for the different elements that you referred to in the Bill. I won't repeat what I have already said about some of those particular matters, but just to point out, as Dai Lloyd already has, that there has been a long-running discussion leading up to this point where we're now looking to legislating on changing the franchise to include young people of 16 and 17 years of age. This isn't something new that’s happening for the first time ever in the world in Wales; it does happen in other places in the world, and it happens within the United Kingdom also, in Scotland. And so, there has been discussion on this in the past, but until the Wales Act 2017, we didn't have the powers in this Senedd or Parliament to do that. We could debate it in the third Assembly, as Dai Lloyd mentioned, but it is now, in this fifth Assembly, that we have had the powers to legislate on our own elections, and that’s why we can do this now, and we can look to call ourselves 'Senedd', because that’s what we do: we legislate.

Can I say I very much welcome this Bill and welcome the terms in which it has been drafted? I'm absolutely looking forward, after spending the best part of my life debating and discussing devolution, to see this exemplar of constitutional reform take place. The Counsel General is very ambitious in his vision in responding on behalf of the Government. I noticed, looking through some boxes at home, that when I was in my early 20s, I was campaigning for a 'senate' in Cardiff. NUS Wales, which I was then, somehow, elected to lead, had consented to me running this campaign. We chose the term 'senate' because it sounded like 'senedd' and because it was understandable to all—now this is going back to the 1980s—and I do believe that what we call ourselves is important, as it happens. I don't believe it's a technical or academic exercise, and I don't believe it's an exercise in either vanity or self-regard. I believe it's fundamental to this place and what it seeks to be. It was Arthur Henderson, of course, as general secretary of the Labour Party in 1918, who said that Wales could become a utopia with self-government. Now, I'm sure he was quoted by others in doing so, here today. But at that time, of course, there was a determination—a real determination—in different parts of the then UK Parliament, to create home rule all round, and I believe that that is the right and proper constitutional framework in which we should take these matters forward, where Wales and Scotland have Parliaments able to determine the domestic arrangements for those countries within the framework of the United Kingdom. And I hope that at some point during this exemplar exercise in constitutional reform we will look at the issues that affect our colleagues, friends and neighbours in England as well. But that's beyond the scope of this statement this afternoon.

I have little concern over whether we call ourselves 'Senedd' or 'Parliament'. To me, I use both and my constituents use both. I'm happy to be an 'Aelod Seneddol', and I am equally happy to be a 'Member of the Welsh Parliament'. What matters to me is the powers that we have and how we exercise those powers. I said earlier in my remarks that I was looking back to my early 20s—well, I celebrated my fifty-fifth birthday yesterday. [Interruption.] Thank you very much. I know that many of my constituents are looking forward to my retirement. [Laughter.] I hope that we will be able to do so with adequate settlement and adequate powers. We've already discussed this afternoon that in order to build a railway station in Abertillery we need to go cap in hand to a Tory Government. Surely that can't be right. We need a settlement to enable us to do that and to address properly the issues of mental health in Cardiff prison. As we've heard this afternoon, we're unable to do that as well. So, for me, the powers of this place are always what has driven me, and our ability to effect change on behalf of the people that we represent.

I'm interested in the example of the Dáil in Ireland, and I think it does give a very real example to how bilingualism—as David Melding quite rightly pointed out—can mean more than simply using two names in every instance. As a Welsh speaker, quite often, I'm told that bilingualism is me speaking English, and I think every so often we do need to ensure that we do have terms in our everyday language and in our national life that reflect the importance of our national language as well. But it is something I hope we will be able to reflect upon.

But the point I'd like to make this afternoon is that I hope that this will be a beginning of a more substantial reform as well. To be effective—in the Llywydd's words—we do need to have more Members here. To be effective, we also have to represent people in all parts of the country equally and, for me, that means a proportional system, and I would prefer the STV system of electing us, which I believe would provide a single method of election for all people here, rather than the two-tier system we have at present, which I think fails everybody. So, I don't believe that this should be the end of a process, but should be the beginning of a process, and look then at how we deliver active citizenship in reality. And, Presiding Officer, I very much enjoyed your introduction to this statement. For me, active citizenship is how we will define our democracy in the future. All of us here, because we are politicians and elected, enjoy the 'stubby little pencil on a piece of string' form of democracy. My children will not recognise that, and our democracy has to be a different democracy in future than the one that we've experienced in the past, and that means an active citizenship, actively involved, not only in the deliberations here, but a Parliament and a Senedd that is able to reach out across the whole of Wales.

So, I do welcome the changes in the franchise. I don't share the concerns that have been outlined elsewhere, and I also hope that we will be able to extend the franchise further to include those who are serving relatively short prison sentences and those who are citizens of other countries but settled in this country, because we do need to be an inclusive Parliament as well as a democratic one.

So, I hope, in welcoming the beginning of this debate, and in welcoming the statement this afternoon, we will look beyond what this Bill says, but we will look towards the sort of Parliament that this wants to be and the sort of country in which we want our Parliament to reach out and to create something for our future generations.

Diolch, Alun. You spent quite a bit of your contribution reminiscing over your time in your 20s. That reminded me of the time in your 20s when we were both members of Aberystwyth Town Council, both in our 20s then, both on the same benches then as well. 

But, of course, Aberystwyth Town Council—. When I was elected here in 1999, Aberystwyth Town Council in some areas had more powers than the body I was then elected to, the National Assembly. And here we are 20 years later with a very different body, organisation, Parliament now, making laws and raising taxes. I almost said 'taxis' there; taxes—raising taxes. And we are a Senedd, we are a Parliament—that's what we do here and therefore that's what we should call ourselves. As you said, there is a Senedd—Parliament—in Scotland and there is in Wales. So, let's now call ourselves that.

Just on some of the points that you finished with, of course, there are areas of other reform that this Bill could have looked at and that would have looked at other aspects of the work of the Laura McAllister report on extending, increasing, the number of Members that we need in this Parliament, as well as possibly changing the system of elections for that. I know that you and others in this place support that. Those issues remain with us, but they are for another day and another Bill.

And, finally, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and diolch, Llywydd, for today's statement. We appreciate that with the arrival of tax-raising powers there is a likely consensus that the name of this legislature will change. So, we are not opposed to change per se. Many people have spoken about the name. The proposal from the Llywydd today, following consultation, is to style the legislature as the Senedd. Now, when we debated this last time around, Llyr made the point also that Alun Davies made just now about the example of Ireland, where they do have there the Gaelic terms of the Dáil and the Taoiseach in a country where there is not a particularly high rate of Gaelic speakers. So, given this example, there is a case that we could replicate that here in Wales by using terms like 'Senedd' and 'Aelod o'r Senedd'.

I did look into the history of the Irish terms so I could get some more insight into this. Now, the term 'Dáil' was first used when the Irish legislature was being set up in the early 1920s. So, an advantage they did have there was that it wasn't a case of renaming an institution; it was a new institution that was, essentially, being created. 'Taoiseach' came in slightly later. That wasn't introduced until 1937, but until that point they didn't have a Prime Minister as such; they had a chairman of an executive council. So, again, 'Taoiseach' was a name for a new position. I think there may be some difficulties here in Wales in that we already have this institution, and of course we already have a name for it, and many people are familiar with the terms 'Assembly' and 'Assembly Members'. So, I think there is going to be initial confusion. Of course, this confusion, I'm sure, can be overcome. 

Now, if we are going to go for 'Senedd', I think that then leads to 'Aelod o'r Senedd', which is AS, rather than AM. I think Lee Waters did raise an issue last time—again a slight issue—that it might confuse viewers of Welsh language programmes, as AS is the term currently used for MPs. 

The First Minister's title is the same in Welsh—[Inaudible.]

Ah. Yes, and that is the case as well, but I'm sure these confusions can be overcome. And of course—[Interruption.] Oh, there is no confusion, okay; I'll further investigate. 

But the point I was going to make is, if we did use 'Parliament' alternatively, that would probably create greater confusion, so I think 'Senedd' is a definite possibility. Although I think even that change of term may not guarantee that we get the railway station Alun Davies actually wants in Abertillery.

Now, the lowering of the voting age—as I've mentioned before, UKIP in general doesn't support this, but of course I accept there may well be a supermajority in this place to do exactly that. So, if we do embark on this change, I think we do need to ensure we do have a clear programme of political education. That's been mentioned by many people. I know that the Llywydd is particularly interested in this, and hopefully we can use the experience of the Youth Parliament in developing that, and any insight that we can get from countries like Denmark and Sweden, which have pioneered this in the past. I would just raise one issue. This is coming in for the next Assembly elections, so time is of the essence if we are going to develop something. So, hopefully, we will bear that in mind as we go forward. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Thank you, Gareth Bennett, for your response and for looking more deeply into the Irish history on the naming of their Parliament than I have, even though I was able to attend the 100 years celebration of the setting up of the Irish Dáil a few weeks ago. You make some really valid points about aspects that need to be overcome with introducing a name change from the Assembly, whether that's to Senedd or Parliament or both. Those are issues that we need to be very aware of in making this change, because the change needs to be made with the people of Wales understanding the nature of that change.

We've already had a consultation with the people of Wales with a great number of people responding where they did recognise and support the need to change the name from an Assembly to a Senedd, Parliament. But I agree with you that we do need to ensure that there is a whole programme of engagement with people to ensure that they are very clear, by the time that this comes into force, that the name of their democratic political national institution is 'Senedd' here, not 'Assembly'. 

Then, very much so on the 16 and 17-year-old voting, I understand that your party is against that in principle, but I hope that, with considering how this is to be introduced in Wales—that it will be introduced both for national elections and local elections, one franchise, all 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in the political process in Wales, and with a well-developed political engagement programme—perhaps even those of you who may be sceptical at this point of introducing votes for 16 and 17 will see that the package in its entirety can enthuse young people in Wales. We've seen a hugely enthusiastic response to setting up a Welsh Youth Parliament. I think we should capture that mood. Young people are telling us, showing us, that they're interested, and we should enable them, then, to have an ownership of their own democracy so that, for the next 20 years and more, young people know that they will have a vote in how decisions are taken, and whether Alun Davies gets a railway station into his constituency or not. The 16 and 17-year-olds in that constituency deserve a say in that as much as anybody else.

And, finally, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I won't keep you; I just wanted to add to the very short debate that we've had on the parallels with the Republic of Ireland. Oireachtas—and forgive me my pronunciation—is the name of the Parliament; you have the Dáil Éireann and the Seaned Éireann as Chambers within that Parliament. If you do go and Google and put 'Oireachtas' in there, it says 'the homepage of the Irish Parliament'. Now, Irish Parliament is not an official name at all for the Parliament, but it is a descriptor, and I think we do need to move towards having a name, a single name, 'Senedd', for our new national Parliament, but we also need this legislation, of course, to describe our change on that journey from being an Assembly, which was a term that was to put us at a lower level to the Parliament in Scotland. We need this legislation to take us on that journey to being a Parliament. So, I think we need 'Senedd' as a name, we need a way, through this legislation, to have 'Parliament' there as a descriptor, and I look forward to us using this as a step to establishing ourselves even further in the hearts and minds of the people of Wales in our next 20 years and beyond.

Diolch, Rhun—thank you for allowing me the opportunity just to close, really, now, I guess, just by saying that the Bill does rename officially the National Assembly to 'Senedd', but it does allow on the face of the Bill for 'Senedd' to be described as 'Welsh Parliament'. That's what it will be, it is, we are—a Welsh Parliament—but we will be named officially as the Senedd. But this is the start of this legislation. It is being introduced at this point and committees and the Assembly—Senedd—in its entirety will scrutinise that and will have various views on how we end up at the end of this Bill. But thank you for the opportunity for introducing this Bill, and I look forward to going in front of the committee of people of goodwill to scrutinise this legislation further.

Thank you very much. I think it was important to extend the time on that, as we have done on most constitutional journeys that some of us have been on since 1999. So, there we go.

Item 6, then, is a debate on the Public Accounts Committee report on Natural Resources Wales's annual report and accounts of 2017-18, and I call on the chair of the committee to move the motion, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It is regrettable that, just over 18 months on from when I stood here in this Chamber relaying concerns regarding issues of irregularity within the administration and governance arrangements in NRW, following the qualification of Natural Resources Wales's 2015-16 accounts—well, here we go again, following a qualification of the 2017-18 accounts due to the same irregularity issues, for new transitional contracts. The committee has found itself in a certain sense of groundhog day as we examined and re-examined a number of concerning issues surrounding the awarding of timber contracts by NRW over the last two years.

Back in March 2017, the then Auditor General for Wales laid before the Assembly a report on the accounts of NRW, setting out his reasons for qualifying the 2015-16 regulatory opinion on NRW’s financial statements. The report referred to NRW’s decision to award eight high-value timber sales contracts to a sawmill operator in May 2014. As a committee, we conducted an inquiry into these matters and published a report in June 2017, concluding that:

'We believe that NRW could and should have ensured that there were good governance arrangements in place in the contracting process, and in failing to establish effective governance arrangements, it is unable to demonstrate how it acted lawfully. We do not believe there is any evidence to demonstrate whether the contracts represent value for money.'

We also recommended at that time that NRW

‘undertake a full evaluation of its governance arrangements relating to contracting processes, clearly setting out lessons learned'.

Now, fast forward to 2018, and the committee found itself back in the same position, when the then Auditor General for Wales qualified NRW’s 2017-18 financial statements for a third year in a row, and for exactly the same reasons. We were extremely disappointed that, despite the findings of previous reports by the Auditor General for Wales and the Public Accounts Committee regarding NRW’s approach to timber transactions, NRW’s accounts were qualified for a third consecutive year. This led to us publishing a further report in November last year, in which we raised again a number of concerning issues around the awarding of these timber contracts, a number of which remain unexplained. 

Not least, we were left bewildered that the decision—when awarding these contracts—to follow a process outside of the procurement rules was taken against the backdrop of a scathing auditor general’s report that raised concerns about that specific type of process. Indeed, I recall Members of the committee, and one Member specifically, citing this as the crime that was committed twice, such was the concern on the committee at that time. This suggested to the committee that there has been a cultural failure within NRW in relation to governance procedures, and that a serious overhaul was needed.

We could only conclude that previous concerns had been disregarded, and the decisions that followed at NRW appeared to defy logic. These were decisions made by experienced staff, and it is difficult to view these actions as a result of incompetence. We could only conclude that we will never fully understand, or have an explanation for, what happened at NRW. I should add at this point that Natural Resources Wales had a new chief executive from February 2018, and that an interim chair took up post on 1 November 2018 for a period of 12 months. Together, they've stated their commitment to turning NRW into the organisation it aspires to be. The 2018-19 annual report and accounts will be the first complete accounts fully under their watch, so previous qualifications were prior to their appointments. I think it's important to make that point.

Moving forward, we fully welcomed and respected the decision of the new chief executive to commission a full independent review of the issues raised in the auditor general’s report on NRW’s 2017-18 financial statements. The review was undertaken by independent auditors Grant Thornton and, at the request of NRW’s chief executive, was to be a no-stone-unturned investigation to fully flush out the failings within the organisation and bring about wholesale reform.

The findings of the review were published on 4 February this year and considered by us on 11 February. The Grant Thornton review makes further uncomfortable reading as it explores in some greater depth the issues raised in previous reports on NRW’s timber transactions. However, the report did not reveal any surprises or, indeed, anything new, but it did raise further questions about when we will see change at NRW and, more importantly: are the issues relating to timber sales restricted to the forestry division at NRW, or do these issues reflect a fundamental flaw in the organisational culture? The Grant Thornton report highlights a lack of single organisational culture at Natural Resources Wales, and there are many lessons for the whole of the organisation to learn from this.

It seems unfortunate that the merging of three organisations into one has left a lasting legacy of deep-rooted cultural differences that have never been resolved. However, we welcome the commitment given to us by the new chief executive and chair of the board that work is under way to completely restructure the organisation, with a move towards a more place-based organisation that, it is hoped, will unite it more fully.

Now, we've listened to the chief executive and the chair of the board give assurances that the Grant Thornton review has really gotten to the core of the problems at NRW, and will provide a starting point for a fundamental rebuild. However, we remain concerned that the membership of the board lacks the timber sector knowledge—a point that was raised by Adam Price in questions yesterday—that we believe is much needed to provide the vital insight and expertise required to address the problems at NRW, and to break down the cultural divides by providing a crucial link between the board and the forestry division. We remain concerned about whether the board has the right skills mix and capacity it needs to turn around the fate of the organisation.

Over the last three years, the auditor general, the Public Accounts Committee and, finally, more recently, Grant Thornton have scrutinised events at NRW in a forensic fashion, exposing a number of fundamental flaws and misgivings of the highest magnitude, and it is to the credit of the current chief executive, actually, that that review was commissioned in the way it was. But one unanswered question does remain: where has the Welsh Government been throughout this process? Had this been a health board, we might have seen the organisation put into special measures as a matter of urgency, yet for the last three years or so, NRW has continued to operate out of control despite it having its accounts qualified for three consecutive years and its governance arrangements completely undermined and brought into question, not to mention millions of pounds of public money that have been mismanaged.

When I stood in this Chamber last July raising serious concerns about NRW, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, as the title was then, was pleased that in response to the qualification of the 2015-16 accounts, NRW had conceded, with hindsight, that they would have handled things differently. The Minister added that the recommendations within our 2017 report were primarily a matter for the accounting officer and the board of NRW. She was assured that NRW had already put in place an action plan to address the issues raised by the auditor general, and that the Welsh Government’s role would be to support NRW in the work they needed to undertake to ensure robust procedures were in place for the future.

We were also told that Welsh Government officials intended to review the governance arrangements for arm’s-length bodies in Wales, and that, as an arm’s-length body, NRW is governed by a robust framework agreement that reflects the principles set out in ‘Managing Welsh Public Money’.

During our initial scrutiny, NRW requested a more precise definition for the terms ‘novel’, ‘contentious’, and ‘repercussive’ in their current governance framework. This request was made specifically to address the auditor general’s recommendation that the timber contracts were novel, contentious and repercussive, and hence they should have submitted their proposals to their sponsoring Welsh Government department in line with the current governance framework. This Chamber was told that, as part of the current arm’s-length bodies review, consideration will be given to providing greater clarity around these issues.

However, despite all of this, little has changed, it seems, leading to the qualification of NRW’s 2017-18 accounts, with the auditor general basing his qualification on NRW’s proposal to enter into transitional contracts that he considered to be novel, contentious and/or repercussive. Alarmingly, although NRW informed the Welsh Government of its intention to put in place transitional arrangements, it did not formally refer them to the Welsh Government as it was required to do. It seems to us that the Welsh Government’s seemingly hands-off approach did not work in this instance, and despite assurance after assurance, nothing at NRW has changed. 

To make matters worse, the Grant Thornton review highlighted the introduction by NRW of a new and novel contract form, standing sales plus, during 2016, which raises very serious concerns regarding the introduction, monitoring and accounting for these new contracts. These contracts are unusual, and we believe have potential implications for the auditor general’s regularity opinion on NRW’s 2018-19 annual accounts. The contracts relate to approximately one sixth of NRW’s annual timber sales. We are naturally concerned that this means there is a risk, potentially, that NRW will see its accounts qualified for a fourth consecutive year. Now, this should surely be the time for the Welsh Government to take more affirmative action to support and address the problems at NRW.

The committee, through its work, has also considered the Welsh Government's internal review of arrangements relating to arm’s-length bodies, which resulted in an action plan published in January 2018. We also received correspondence from the Permanent Secretary to the committee back in September last year providing further information on the review, amongst other new arrangements in hand. The letter notes, and I quote:

'The removal of the ‘Calling-in Procedures’ i.e. a requirement for our Arm’s-length Bodies to refer to us for approval for particular categories of decision, such as single tenders above a specified threshold or issues which are novel and contentious.'

We have questioned the Welsh Government further about the removal of the calling-in procedure and how issues such as those that occurred within Natural Resources Wales would be identified in future. We were told by the Permanent Secretary, and, again, I quote:

'that has been one of the positive outcomes of the arm's-length body review, to make sure that we are giving very clear guidance and more support to them. We are communicating more regularly with them, we're setting out very clear guidance about expectations that we have, and, as I said, bringing them together three times a year for this forum to talk through priorities and share best practice, basically, on how we can manage public money most effectively.'

It seems that the Welsh Government is moving towards a system of enabling arm’s-length bodies greater autonomy at a time when one of its largest bodies is in dire straits, and has failed to report serious issues to the Welsh Government, or at best, adhere to governance rules and procedures. This new approach will reduce, we feel, the opportunities to provide necessary assurance around the actions of arm’s-length bodies.

Concluding, Dirprwy Lywydd, it can only remain to be seen what happens next for NRW under its new leadership, but it is clear that serious concerns remain outstanding, both in terms of internal governance arrangements at NRW and how it functions as an organisation. It is not yet clear to anyone how change will be delivered, and the task ahead is monumental, but NRW now has all the tools it needs to do the job of turning around the organisation, and delivering the services that the people of Wales deserve. We will give the organisation and its leaders the time and space they now need to deliver change, but we will be seeking an update at the end of the year.

This report by the Public Accounts Committee into the accounts of Natural Resources Wales reveals an organisation that is not fit for purpose. NRW is Wales's largest quango. It is responsible for anything from protecting habitats and wildlife, woodlands, monitoring water quality and flood risk to regulating power stations and waste processing sites. For an organisation so important to have its accounts qualified for three consecutive years, as Nick Ramsay just earlier said, is unprecedented and unacceptable. And it shows how blindfolded one Government can be.

The committee found it difficult to find any logical explanation for why NRW allowed this situation to arise. You could only conclude that their internal controls were not fit for purpose, or definitely substandard. What is particularly concerning is that the same issues of irregularities were highlighted three years ago. Then, the auditor general expressed concern that NRW had not appeared to fully accept his criticism of their action in respect of the award of long-term contracts and sought to downplay its significance. This is demonstrated by the controversy over how timber was sold, repeatedly, without going into open market. Fair trading rules were totally ignored in this instance. This scandal lost the Welsh taxpayer at least £1 million and resulted in the resignation of NRW's chair—a situation described by one Labour Assembly Member at the time, and his quote is:

'there needs to be accountability from the senior leadership of this organisation which does appear to be out of control.'

There has been a consequent and widespread loss of faith in NRW. Ten timber firms recently sent a joint letter to the Welsh Government saying that they had no confidence in NRW's ability to manage forestry in Wales. They claimed 12,000 jobs in the rural economy and £100 million of new investment over the next five years were at risk. These companies concluded they had no confidence in the ability of NRW to deliver a commercially viable, sustainable and economically driven service. 

This lack of faith in NRW appears to be reflected in the attitude of its staff. The result of an internal staff consultation exercise on restructuring the organisation was leaked to the BBC in December last year. Almost two thirds of NRW staff responded to this consultation. Deputy Presiding Officer, of these, 62 per cent agreed there was a need for change but were strongly opposed to the plan and highly critical of the process. Concerns were also expressed that the new structure would not provide a suitable service for the people and environment of Wales. Expertise would be spread too thinly and staff spoke of high stress levels with people feeling undervalued and worthless. Natural Resources Wales has systematically failed the people of Wales. The Welsh Conservatives have made it clear that we would scrap NRW and replace it with two separate bodies: one handling the regulatory duties undertaken by the organisation and the other its commercial aspects. We can all agree that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.

The committee has made three recommendations. All three have been accepted by the Welsh Government and by NRW. NRW is drinking in the last-chance saloon. This is their last chance to make the changes required to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and to provide efficient and effective protection for the environment of Wales and put the faith of public funding in an organisation. Thank you.

I'm grateful to the Public Accounts Committee for its report. To me, it raises two far more fundamental questions, perhaps, than some of the details that we have been discussing. Both are questions—one related to the scope of the responsibilities of NRW, and the other related to the ability or the capacity of NRW to deliver against those responsibilities.

Now, the scope of the responsibilities is of course something that we have discussed from the early days before the creation of NRW, namely the ability of the organisation or otherwise to play a commercial role as well as a regulatory role simultaneously. I remember the term 'Chinese walls' being used more regularly here than anywhere else at one point when that discussion was taking place. And there are a number of voices from those days up until now who have been questioning whether that is appropriate, and another in the Western Mail today—John Owen Jones, the former Minister in the Wales Office, or the Welsh Office as it was then, and the last chair of the Forestry Commission here in Wales—who described the creation of NRW as a classic example of making bad policy, with not enough discussion with the forestry sector, in his view, as manifesto commitments were drawn up. Well, you know, I know that there's a difference of view, but it's come to something when we come to a point when Confor, on behalf of the sector, expresses a lack of confidence in the ability of NRW to deliver their responsibilities as we would want to see them doing.

And, of course, that statement of a lack of confidence is very significant, because they directly employ 4,000 people, they indirectly support 12,000 jobs in the rural economy, and they contribute £40 million in timber revenue to the Welsh Government every year. The sector is calling for the removal of that commercial timber element from NRW and the creation of a new entity within Welsh Government. For me, that justifies us asking the question, for us to take a step back and look—is it worth us having an independent inquiry? And we shouldn't fear that. It's entirely valid for us to ask the question. Five years into the existence of this organisation, are there lessons that we should be learning, and should we be reviewing their responsibilities? And if the inquiry would find that change is necessary, then there is also scope for an inquiry to suggest alternative models. Or if there is a finding that it is acceptable, then we should build on the work that has already started—and I accept that it has started within NRW—to rebuild the relationship with the sector.

So, I've touched upon the scope of the responsibilities, but then there is this ongoing issue of the capacity of NRW to deliver against its responsibilities in this area. As an organisation, it has seen a cut of 35 per cent in its budget in real terms since its establishment: a third of its budget—the non-flood grant in aid budget, I think that's the correct term—has been lost in just five years. And, of course, at the same time, we have seen the responsibilities increasing through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and most recently, of course, through the expansion of regulations relating to the reservoirs in Wales, which also bring significant cost, never mind Brexit and the flood waters that will face NRW in that context. They are on an unsustainable trajectory, given the budget and the responsibilities. The responsibilities are expanding but the budgets are contracting. It doesn't work and it's not sustainable.

Now, the non-flood grant in aid allocation from Welsh Government is down 5 per cent in this financial year, and that followed—[Interruption.] Oh, go on.

Actually, it's 3.7 per cent. We saw that in the environment committee today.

Well, I'm quoting the figure from the environment committee this morning. It's down 5 per cent in this current financial year, not in the next financial year. That's where we differ on that figure. But that's against, as well, a flat settlement last year—there we are, you've got me confused now as well—last year. So, we know exactly what that situation is. And those difficulties are now being managed, of course, through continued reductions in operating costs, it's seen a job re-evaluation scheme that's reduced its staffing by 50 and, of course, we've seen the whole organisation review happening so soon after the whole organisation came into being, I might say, which will mean that services will be reconfigured in the way that they're delivered. Some services will see delivery more slowly and some not being delivered at all. And there's one other, to conclude, fundamental question to Welsh Government: you have to decide, do you really want a properly funded, properly functioning organisation that is promoting and helping to deliver sustainability in Wales, or will it be starved of the resources it needs to do its job? And in all of that, spare a thought for the staff, the organisation's greatest asset—they are absolutely working wonders in what are very, very difficult circumstances.

I know there are many people who say the merger of these three organisations was bound to fail, but I'm not one of those naysayers. I don't agree with John Owen Jones. I actually think that the way it was done is obviously something we need to learn from, but that, actually, there is a huge strength in bringing together the different functions of this environmental body into one organisation, and I'm hoping that it is now going to work.

The reason why I think they need to be in one organisation is that the well-being of future generations Act requires us to look at all our various responsibilities holistically, so that we understand about climate change mitigation, we understand about how we can use our forestries to act as a carbon sink, as well as for biodiversity, as well as creating enough timber to build the environmentally appropriate housing that we're going to need in the future, for example, as well as tapping into the fantastic public goods we have that we are blessed with in Wales, which is through renewable energy, which enables us to diminish any reliance on carbon for generating energy. We could also use that as an export. So, I think there are huge possibilities for NRW, as well as, obviously, some challenges to rectify the mistakes that have been made in the past.

Clearly, the governance arrangements at NRW were completely inadequate, and that's one of the things where I think we need to really reflect on how it was that we had a board that really didn't understand exactly what their job was. I'm pleased to say that the internal audit and risk-assurance committee did do, I'm sure, what was an extremely painful review of how they acted, or didn't act, and I think that there's some evidence that they were not getting the information they needed, but nor did they seem to have the sense of enquiry to probe a bit deeper as opposed to just simply taking things as read.

They've now got a new chair of the audit and risk-assurance committee, and I feel sure that the group of people who've been brought together at the very senior level to oversee the level of change required to ensure that these timber contracts are never let in an inappropriate way in the future are going to get to the bottom of that. But I agree we need to look forward to make sure that problems don't pop up in a different direction, just because we've sorted out the way in which we manage our wood assets.

I know that several people are saying that—. Nick Ramsay said, 'Well, maybe they need a timber expert on the board.' Well, I'm not sure they do, because if you had a timber expert on the board, instantly there'd be a question mark as to whether there was some vested interest that would cause a conflict. If they were somebody who'd come from another continent who'd had experience of timber contracts, maybe, as long as they were no longer in the business. But I think just as important would be somebody who has experience of letting large contracts. It doesn't really matter what the product is, it's about knowing that you've got the legal and financial expertise to understand the value of whatever it is you're trying to trade and ensuring that it's being done in a way that meets our obligations under European regulations, as well as what the Welsh Government requires us to do.

So, I would agree that, at the ground level, there are lots of fantastic people at the coalface of NRW doing fantastic work, and you've only got to remember places we visited where we've met these people on the ground who are all incredibly enthusiastic about what they're doing. I do think, having spent a lot of time with the senior leadership of NRW this week, both in the Public Accounts Committee and in the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee this morning, that they do have the skills required to turn this situation around and make a success of it. So, I don't think that an independent inquiry is required at this stage. Were they to fail, then, obviously, that might be a different matter, but I have confidence in the current chief executive and chair, having seen them in action, as well as the director of resources who was with us this morning. So, I very much hope that we can look forward to what is a really, really important organisation for ensuring that Wales can maximise the opportunities from our fantastic natural resources and not see them being thrown away.

Well, this report by the committee and, indeed, the subsequent Grant Thornton report and the previous reports by the Wales Audit Office certainly have laid bare a—how can we say—systemic collapse, really, of ordinary rules of governance and audit, and leadership, I think, more generally, and there are issues of capacity as well, as Llyr Gruffydd has said. But I think they've also pointed out a sector that is in deep crisis. I think some of the roots of that crisis do lay, I think, in a failed—or, has been, based on the evidence—a failed merger hitherto. And I would take issue with the question of whether the lack of subject matter expertise present on the board is irrelevant here, because it would be unthinkable, for example, under the days of the Forestry Commission, or indeed in the Forestry Commission in England and Scotland now, for there not to be forestry commissioners that knew something about forestry. Yes, you have other skills there, but you certainly would always have had people that had deep knowledge in the field. And then the issues of conflict of interest are addressed in that case, as they are in every other sector or case. [Interruption.] Yes.

But surely you can have that expertise through the director of forestry or the director of land management, who is an executive officer as opposed to a non-executive person who needs to bring broader skills.

I disagree. In any instance, non-executives also, to be able to perform their function of critical challenge, need to be able to ask good questions, and they can only do that from a basis of knowledge, and that's been lacking in this case.

It's an important sector economically. It's actually bigger in terms of value added than agriculture and, indeed, in terms of the rural economy, its importance is even more significant. In terms of climate change reduction, it's absolutely central, which is why, of course, the Welsh Government has had to increase its target, in response to the Committee on Climate Change's recommendation, to 4,000 hectares. As I pointed out in First Minister's questions, this is one of the worst areas of performance against any Government target. So, the target was 2,000 hectares a year of new woodland planted. We've been achieving, in the last year, I think, 200 hectares. In fact, in the last four years, it's been the worst four years of new woodland planted since 1971. Restocking rates—they're the worst since 1990. NRW itself has a land bank—these scars you see on the Welsh landscape at the moment of areas that have been felled but haven't been restocked. They have 6,000 hectares at the moment that they haven't restocked. That's four years' worth of production. The reason that they introduced the infamous 'standing sales plus' contract in 2016 was because NRW didn't have the funding to be able to build the infrastructure or to undertake restocking themselves, and so these contracts were meant to be used as a mechanism for them to harvest timber and restock at minimal cost. Well, it obviously hasn't worked; the figures speak for themselves. And, of course, if you look forward into the future, it gets even worse, because the current prediction is that there is going to be a 47 per cent cut in softwood availability in Wales over the next 25-year period.

This underperformance in this sector comes at a time when timber prices are at a 30-year high. Why? Partly because, of course, of the demand from biomass, and so everybody in the sector in Wales—which is why the Minister has received this letter from the 10 companies in question—is saying, 'Look, we could build this industry up; it's a huge resource for Wales,' and yet we are massively underperforming. NRW, actually, itself currently produces 800,000 tonnes a year. That is set to fall by 34 per cent over the next 20 years or so to 531,000 tonnes, and it's completely unnecessary. Whatever the structural solution to this question—and we may have different views on that in this Chamber—can we at least admit that there has been an absolutely critical failure here in this area of public policy? It's important economically, particularly in rural Wales, but it also affects our ability to meet the Government's own other target in terms of climate change, and it's the Minister that should take the responsibility here, fundamentally.

Natural Resources Wales exists to make best use of our resources, to protect our environment, to conserve our natural heritage and to enforce environmental protections. Unfortunately, NRW is dysfunctional, as highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee Report into NRW’s 2017-18 accounts. I would like to thank the Public Accounts Committee for producing their report, and for the fact that they will be keeping a close eye on the organisation over the coming year.

In the face of global ecological disaster, environmental protection and nature conservation are some of the most important tasks for government. The decision to merge the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission was not wrong, but to turn them into little more than an underfunded and under-resourced Government department was unforgivable.

Climate change threatens our very existence, and, as highlighted by yesterday’s Institute for Public Policy Research report, policy makers and politicians have failed to grasp the gravity of the environmental crisis facing us. It is therefore vital that we have organisations—preferably arm’s length away from Government—that can protect our environment and conserve our biodiversity.

A measure that assesses how intact a country’s biodiversity is suggests that the UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average. The index suggests that we are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world. According to the RSPB’s state of nature report, between 1970 and 2013, 56 per cent of species declined, with 40 per cent showing strong or moderate decline. Of the nearly 8,000 species assessed using modern red list criteria, 15 per cent are extinct or threatened with extinction from Great Britain. We lose around 2 million tonnes of topsoil due to erosion each year in the UK.

I realise this debate is about the financial accounts of NRW, but it is important to outline the scale of the challenges facing the organisation and the vital role they play in protecting our nation. The fact that NRW have had their accounts qualified for the third year running calls into question their financial management and places doubt on their ability to protect our biodiversity and safeguard against the changing climate.

The work of the committee and the Auditor General for Wales highlights multiple governance issues at NRW. I fully support the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations. The fact that it has taken so long for the Welsh Government to act in the face of serious failings at NRW means that the independent review of governance of NRW is long overdue and must be made public. The fact that the Public Accounts Committee will keep a watching brief on NRW reforms is most welcome, but, given the importance of NRW’s role, it is vital that we also have a review, not just of the governance of the organisation, but of its entire remit, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. This goes way beyond mishandled timber contracts. The functions of NRW are vital to our nation. We must ensure that the organisation has the right funding, the proper resources and the best staff in order to carry out those functions. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths? 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to respond during this debate today. There were three recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee following their scrutiny of NRW's annual report and accounts and NRW has responded to the first two recommendations. I wrote to the committee on 11 January setting out the Welsh Government's response, and I agreed to consider the findings of the independent review NRW commissioned, together with the evidence they gave to the committee earlier this week.

I welcome the committee's report and its work in challenging NRW and Welsh Government to ensure our natural resources are maintained and enhanced now and in the future. I want to give the Assembly my assurance that Welsh Government is fully prepared to grasp the issues described in the committee's report. We're determined to see through the necessary changes at NRW and to learn lessons. We recognise and welcome the National Assembly's role in scrutinising this process and making its contribution to driving that change.

Since the auditor general's qualification of NRW's accounts last summer, I've appointed an interim chair and six new board members. These changes to the board mean the full complement of the longest-standing members' strengths combined with the new members will ensure we have the mix of experience and knowledge required to ensure strong leadership of such a large and complex organisation. Indeed, during the PAC session on Monday, the interim chair outlined to the committee the positive impact the new board's leadership was already bringing to NRW, and, in his remarks, I think the Chair, Nick Ramsay, alluded to the change that the new leadership is now having on the organisation.

I've spoken in detail to the chief executive about the independent review of NRW's commercial forestry operations, conducted by Grant Thornton. I'm satisfied she and the interim chair are taking a strong lead on putting things right in the organisation. The organisation accepts the findings and recommendations of the Grant Thornton report and is making progress at pace against them. They will be keeping me appraised of their progress against these at our regular meetings. The report, which has been made publicly available, is a powerful driver for change. The required changes to contract management set out in the report are especially urgent. I know NRW is taking advice from the appropriate agencies to support them with this. They've assured me that, where Grant Thornton has suggested issues require further investigation, their internal audit team are doing so. 

At the Public Accounts Committee evidence session this week, the chief executive stated that their internal audit team are reviewing the remaining contracts not covered by the Grant Thornton review. The results of these will be available to their audit and risk assurance committee, which includes representatives from Wales Audit Office and the Welsh Government. 

Yesterday, I met with representatives of the Confederation of Forest Industries. They have told me they are willing to work with NRW and Welsh Government and are confident there are clear solutions to the concerns they have expressed in the past. I'm assured from my discussions with Confor and NRW that we are now in a stronger position to see the forestry sector deliver even more value to the Welsh economy and the industry can make an even greater contribution to protecting and enhancing our natural environment. 

I would like to remind Members—and this is especially Mohammad Asghar—that NRW is supported by many hardworking, committed staff across the whole country, who deserve our respect. I was very disappointed to hear you say that they've failed the people of Wales. At times, the public discourse surrounding the challenges in one area of NRW's work has neglected the fact that the organisation delivers some of our most fundamental responsibilities to the people of Wales. 

Today, and every day of the year, NRW staff are protecting people's homes from the devastating impacts of floods, they're tackling the scourge of illegal waste, they are defending our most vulnerable native species from extinction. They are doing outstanding work—as referred to by Llyr Huws Gruffydd and Jenny Rathbone—often in extremely challenging circumstances, and I urge Members to take the opportunity to show their appreciation and I want to put on record my sincere thanks to them.

Following on the comments made by my colleague Llyr Gruffydd, I think we would all recognise the picture that you're painting of the very excellent work that staff do in very, very challenging times. But how confident are you that they are adequately resourced to do that? Because there is the question that Llyr raised of, essentially, staff being asked to do more for less. I know that's the situation across the whole of the public sector in Wales, but this is so important.

I agree. Obviously, it is the picture across the whole public sector, and it is a question that I've asked around capacity; a few Members referred to capacity and capability. Obviously, they have had cuts to their budget. They don't just get funding from us, though—I think that should be recognised—and we have worked with them to ensure that they are able to look at other opportunities for getting funding brought forward. I've also been able to give them not huge amounts but significant extra money on top of their budget. That is a discussion I had with the chief executive just yesterday. I met with her again, and she assures me that is the case. But I think it's something that we have to keep a very close eye on. 

I know that PAC Members—I watched the session, and I thought it was very good that they indicated that they want to go out and visit NRW on the ground. I know many Members have already done that. But I do think it is an opportunity to see the great work that they are doing. 

There is more we need to do to ensure NRW is in a position to fulfil its vital role to the high standards that Welsh Government and the people of Wales expect. I don't think an independent inquiry would be of benefit at the present time. They've just gone, obviously, through an independent review. We need to look at what's come out of that in the first instance. I've got confidence in both the interim chair and the chief executive. I've no doubt they will stand by their commitments that they made to the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week and they will see through every change necessary. 

As I stated in my response to the committee's report, I will now take the time to review the evidence that they gave to the committee on Monday, together with the Grant Thornton report, and I will write to the committee with my considerations by the end of March.

Thank you. Can I now call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank Members who have contributed to today's debate? I think, as has been made clear, there were two fundamental issues at the heart of this debate today: what's gone wrong with governance at NRW and how long it will take to put it right. 

The fact that NRW has had its accounts qualified for the third year running, and will possibly have them qualified again in future, shows that there have been failings in the organsiation, which I think everyone appreciates needs to be addressed. This is not saying that the hardworking staff at NRW aren't to be commended. Of course, they are. We all recognise as members of the committee, and this came up time and again, just how hard they do work and how necessary their vital work is right across Wales. But it's important, as Helen Mary Jones alluded to, that they have that necessary resource, that they have that support, so that is the intention behind this debate and our review.

We welcome the new chief executive and chair. I share the Minister's comments with regard to those. The committee was very impressed with their appearance before us at committee. They clearly have inherited what they have inherited, and it's for them to try and turn the organisation around. What is going to be vitally important is it's not just operational issues that are turned around, but that there is a cultural change—a deep-seated cultural, deep-rooted change at Natural Resources Wales. That hasn't happened in the past. That will be necessary to address this in future.

If we're going to have an organisation created from mergers, then there has to be a proper merger of cultures, and I heard what Jenny Rathbone was saying about those strong arguments for having a merger of organisations into an NRW-type body. If that's going to happen then we need to make sure that there is a proper interlinking between all arms of that new organisation, because I think the chief executive and the chair told us that they didn't feel that that had happened in the past. They appear to have the determination necessary to rectify the issues. They commissioned the Grant Thornton review, which does turn over all stones and expose many issues, some of which we weren't aware of before, such as the standing sales contracts. Interestingly, the disagreement between Adam Price and Jenny Rathbone—or the discussion, I should say—about whether or not there should be forestry expertise on that board, well, whether or not it's on the board, or what form it might take, we certainly agree that there needs to be more of an awareness of current forestry issues within NRW. That's been lacking hitherto, and hopefully the new chair, the new team, will put that right.

These are problems that they've had for a long length of time. They will not be resolved overnight, but they will have to be addressed over the medium term, as I believe the Minister has recognised, because this is too large an organisation and it's too important an organisation to be allowed to continue to have these problems over the longer term. The purpose of this debate is to highlight these issues, to give the chief exec and the chair the support they need to make sure that, in the future, these problems can be rectified and NRW can be fit for purpose.

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 7 on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on the Welsh independent living grant, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. When historians come to write the history of the last decade from the perspective of disabled people and how they've been treated by successive governments, I believe that we will be judged harshly. The consequences of the series of changes to social security that were first started by Lord Freud under the Tony Blair Government—yes, let's not forget that it was a Labour Government who created Atos—those changes were accelerated then under the coalition Government and they have been so devastating that they amount to one of the biggest violations of human rights in British history.

Now, in this Senedd and elsewhere, there have been enough of us calling out the UK Government on their behaviour, even if we've had limited influence as a result. So, it's doubly disappointing to see patterns of behaviour at Westminster creeping into the Welsh Government as the story of the independent living fund will tell us. Yesterday's announced changes to the way assessments are carried out are of course welcome, and no doubt the Minister will be responding to this debate by outlining those changes. I'd like to place on record our gratitude and congratulations to the campaigner Nathan Davies, whose campaign on this has been absolutely tireless. But the behaviour of this Government as a whole up until now has been one that demonstrates similarity to the approach that we've seen from the Tories in London.

When responsibility for managing the independent living fund was devolved to Wales, there were two main options that the then Welsh Government faced. On the one hand they could copy England and devolve the independent living fund to local authorities, and ask them to take responsibility for the care and support provided. Or, on the other hand, they could keep the fund and administer it, just as they did in Scotland and the north of Ireland. Now, my colleagues will elaborate further on the flawed decision-making process that has occurred here, but there is just one rhetorical question that summarises this whole debate: if you adopt a similar approach to the Tories, why would you expect a completely different result? And it's those predictable results that led to yesterday's announced changes. From the Minister's own statement:

'Considerable local variation is evident, with the percentage of former ILF recipients within a local authority whose hours of care have reduced ranging from 0% to 42%.'

What, of course, can't be measured is the level of anxiety and stress of having to go through constant reassessments, where your quality of life is on the line. Disabled people talk to each other. They know what happened with the introduction of the work capability assessment, and they know what happened when DLA was replaced with PIP. They know what happened in England to those people who were receiving the ILF. So, they knew that they faced assessments from staff working in an institutionally ableist public sector, assessments from organisations under massive financial pressure, and assessments with little protection against poor judgment. Yet, your Government still forced over 1,000 people to go through this and spent years resisting those campaigners and your own party activists, until the new Minister effectively overruled previous decisions.

Now, if the changes announced yesterday are implemented properly, we should, thankfully, see no disabled people at all lose out. But we will still have ended up with a system that has greater administrative costs and bureaucracy and imposed unnecessary stress and anxiety on some of the most vulnerable people in this country, and I believe you should apologise for that.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move formally amendment 1 tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Independent living enables disabled people to achieve their own goals and live their own lives in the way that they choose for themselves. The independent living fund enabled severely disabled people to choose to live an independent life in the community, rather than in residential care. I move amendment 2, calling on the Welsh Government

'to ensure that disabled people are full partners in the design and operation of an Independent Living Fund for Wales which safeguards the rights of disabled people to live independent lives.'

The Welsh Government announced a two-year transition period from April 2017, during which all Welsh independent living grant, or WILG, recipients will be required to have this element of their care needs assessed by their local authority.

Scrapping the grant on 31 March is a betrayal of the rights of disabled people to live independently and make their own decisions. In 2015, the independent living fund was devolved by the UK Government to local authorities in England and to the respective Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Welsh Government worked with local authorities to establish the WILG, but otherwise only undertook a consultation exercise and established a stakeholder advisory group, which it says produced a range of views.

In contrast, the Scottish Government states that its new scheme was co-produced by the ILF working group, with representation from the Scottish Government, ILF Scotland, disabled people, carers, disability groups and local authorities. Scotland then launched ILF Scotland, to ensure that recipients have choice and control. Northern Ireland chose to join the Scottish scheme, and disabled people and disabled groups in Wales have told the cross-party group on disability they wanted to join it too.

Unlike the Welsh Government, which only transferred the annual funding received from the UK Government for this to local authorities, the Scottish Government also committed an extra £5 million a year. In November 2016, the then Minister here argued that transferring fully to local authority responsibility would equalise access to support amongst disabled people and avoid the WILG becoming unsustainable. The then First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said,

'We would expect local authorities...to fulfil their obligations to disabled people and to put sufficient funds aside in order for their financial needs to be recognised and satisfied',

and that local authorities, he said,

'are answerable to their electorate if they pursue policies that the electorate deem to be unacceptable.'

Unfortunately, severely disabled people do not have many votes. However, Welsh Government estimates obtained by disabled campaigners suggest that over 200 former WILG recipients will see their funding cut, and some Welsh local authorities admitted to them that a significant proportion of those currently receiving support through the WILG had already had their support packages cut. So much for the written statement by the Welsh Government in May last year that local authorities were reporting that most people were receiving similar support to that they'd had with their ILF payments, with no significant issues being raised. Who on earth are they listening to?

I chaired January's packed meeting of the Assembly cross-party group on disability in Wrexham. At this meeting, the leader of the Save the Welsh Independent Living Grant campaign, Wrexham's Nathan Davies, who I've got to know over many years, emphasised that this is about the difference between staying in bed or getting out of bed, about having dinner or not having dinner, about having control or being controlled. Attendees agreed with Nathan that they just don't understand the importance of one word to disabled people—independence—and the impact on mental health and well-being and the ability to interact with society.

This was lived experience talking, straight from the horse's mouth, and I was asked to get answers because time is running out. I subsequently raised this, as promised, with the Welsh Government during the business statement here. As Nathan Davies stated in his open letter to the new First Minister, the deep-dive review that was recently undertaken by the Welsh Government to analyse the performance of local authorities relating to the WILG transition is full of errors and, quite frankly, not worth the paper it is written on. How can an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the end of WILG be conclusive without having consulted disabled people who will be affected?

In 2017, the UK Government announced that people with a severe lifelong disability, illness or health condition will no longer need to be reassessed for employment and support allowance and universal credit. In 2018, they announced an equivalent exception for the personal independence payment. However, the Welsh Government announced yesterday that former ILF recipients 'unhappy' with their care and support package will be offered another assessment. What shocking hypocrisy. 

Well, talk about shocking hypocrisy. I have to say that I have got, as we all have, deep concerns about the way the Labour Government has handled this here, but I am not going to take—and nor would I expect the Welsh Labour Government—any lessons from any Conservative when it comes to the administration of benefits to disabled people. My colleague Leanne Wood has just rightly described it as an absolute scandal, and I frankly—though I have every respect for Mark Isherwood as an individual—find it very, very difficult to take those messages from him. I know he absolutely believes them himself, but the party in whose name he sits in this place conducts themselves very differently at the other end of the M4 corridor, and I will happily take an intervention from Mark Isherwood. 

We've not got time to debate the whole of welfare here, but I made the point that the UK Government, which you are not a great fan of, has nonetheless prevented people with severe disabilities having to be reassessed for a range of benefits—PIP, ESA, universal credit—and yet we've told people with severe disabilities that they will have to be reassessed again to get what they should have kept in the first place.  

Let's be clear that that is a belated change of heart very late in the day, after many disabled people across the UK have suffered dreadfully from that system. And you're quite right to say that we haven't got time to debate it here, but I'll happily take you on on it any time, anywhere, because it's not okay. Now, I think it's regrettable that the Minister is going to have to people through reassessment, but my understanding of the function of that reassessment is potentially to restore support that's been removed. So, my understanding from disabled people is that they actually rather welcome this.

So, to return to what I'd intended to say, Llywydd, I had expected to be giving a very different speech until the Minister made her announcement yesterday. I have watched this debacle both from outside this place and from inside it, and it has been incomprehensible to me, given the number of times that successive Welsh Ministers have committed themselves to the social model of disability, and I have been absolutely unable to understand what has happened. And while the Minister's change of mind yesterday is really, really welcome, as Leanne Wood has already said, it does leave questions unanswered.

We must express the extreme distress that this whole sorry process has put disabled people through, and those who love and care for them. To be honest, I sense from the Deputy Minister's statement that she understands that level of distress and wants to put it right, and we can't hold this Deputy Minister, as an individual, responsible. But we must ask her to look at what went wrong. How was this allowed to happen on the watch of a Government allegedly committed to the social model? We have to understand that if we are to prevent it from happening again. Was it a question, as we suspect is the case around the Government's proposals around post-Brexit agricultural support, of officials being reluctant for Welsh Government policy and practice to deviate from the English model? I hope I'm wrong. If that is the case, it's profoundly worrying. Was it a case of Welsh Ministers taking their eye off the ball? Again, I wasn't here at the time, and I'm not able to say categorically, but it certainly looks like that to me.

Will you take an intervention?

I will, happily.

Do you also find it worrying and very distressful that it's only when they've been backed into a corner by this Plaid Cymru motion today that they have actually taken this step?

Well, I am worried about that and I am very glad that the step's been taken, but an awful lot of sadness, distress and upset could have been prevented had it been taken further. Now, of course, it is the function of an opposition to put the Government on the spot and, hopefully, we have done this in this case. But I would reiterate that we need to understand why this really poor set of decisions happened, because, otherwise, it may happen again.

I wish to turn, briefly, Llywydd, to the Deputy Minister's statement yesterday where she refers to independent social work assessments. Now, while I share some of the concerns about people being endlessly reassessed, if the purpose of these reassessments is to enable people to get support restored where it's been taken away from them, that has to be welcome. But I think the key word there is 'independent', and I would like to ask the Deputy Minister today how she sees those assessments being undertaken. If the staff undertaking those assessments are directly employed by the local authorities who have already withdrawn support from those disabled people and their families, those people will be left with concerns about whether or not those assessments are truly independent. Those people who have had their support cut will, I'm sure the Deputy Minister understands, be sceptical. So, I hope that she can tell us today how she will ensure that not only those assessments are independent, but they are perceived to be independent by those on the receiving end. I'm sure she will not be surprised—and it's clear in her statement that she has dealt directly with the campaigners—if they have lost faith in the system and need a lot of convincing to have that faith restored.

Finally, Llywydd, if I can beg your indulgence having taken some interventions, I want to ask the Deputy Minister today, in her contribution to this debate, to recommit the Welsh Government clearly and unequivocally to the social model of disability. That model being, of course, that the disability consists, not in an individual's impairment, but in the barriers society puts in the way of that person with that impairment participating fully. I was under the impression that we were unanimous in this place in that regard—absolutely unanimous, I think, across all benches. The actions around this have demonstrated that perhaps we are better at words than we are at deeds. The purpose of this particular support is specifically to enable our disabled fellow citizens to live independently and fully participate. So, I hope that the Deputy Minister today will commit to ensuring that this support continues, to support that independence, that it does so equitably across Wales, and that it's done in the context of a meaningful commitment to the social model of disability. Our disabled fellow citizens deserve no less, and they deserve an apology.

I heard Helen Mary Jones say she's making a different speech to the one she expected, following the statement by the Minister. I'm going to do something different—I'll be voting a different a way than I expected to, following the statement by the Minister, because I was going to vote in favour of the Labour Party policy if the Minister hadn't made the statement that was made there.

I'll start by restating Labour Party policy agreed by the Wales Labour Party conference in 2018—a policy I supported then and support now: defend and save the Welsh independent living grant. The Welsh independent living grant was introduced to help people who previously claimed from the UK Government's independent living fund, which closed in 2015. More than 1,500 people are helped by the Welsh independent living grant scheme across Wales and recipients all have a very high degree of care and support needs. The Welsh independent living grant was due to run until the end of March 2017, but it had been agreed that funding would continue for another year. The annual £27 million fund would then transfer directly to local authorities during 2018-19 so they could meet the support needs of all former ILF recipients by 31 March 2019.

This conference called upon the Welsh Labour Government to maintain the Welsh independent living grant, at least until the next Welsh Assembly election, and to do so whilst retaining the following principles: preservation of the triangular structure of the grant between the local authority, the individual and a third party stakeholder; that the available funding should be ring-fenced in the future to ensure that allocated moneys are used for the purpose for which they are intended; that the well-being of disabled people should not be put at risk; that the most vulnerable people in society should be protected not endangered; and that quality of life is a human right for our vulnerable individuals, rather than merely maintaining existence.

As a member of the Petitions Committee, I was there when we received evidence. The primary concerns raised by the petitioner and others relate to a fear over the impact of transferring responsibility for supporting former ILF recipients to local authorities, in particular the financial ability and resources of local authorities during a time of austerity to adequately replicate the focus on independent living promoted by the ILF and WILG. And I'm not criticising local authorities. Anybody who's got any knowledge of local authorities will realise just how much pressure they are under. It's like squeezing a balloon—every time you push it in somewhere, it goes out somewhere else.

The concerns also relate, however, to previous experiences of the petitioner and others supporting his campaign of working with or receiving services from local authorities. This included a concern over the understanding of the term ‘independent living’ itself:

'It is no secret that a Medical Model attitude towards disabled people remains endemic and institutionalised across the public sector and it is clear from the regional needs assessments and particularly Social Care Wales’ summary report, that there is no understanding of the distinction between "being independent" [meaning managing without support] and "Independent Living" that Welsh Government have formally accepted as meaning disabled people living the lives they choose, in the way they choose and supported how, when, where and by whom they choose.'

Another further concern expressed by the petitioner related to a loss of the tripartite structure within the operation of the ILF. This incorporated the recipient of funding, the central administration of the fund and the local authority in making assessments and reaching decisions about care and support. The petitioner explained:

'the other element of the Independent Living Fund was that independent Social Workers carried out the assessments and reviews so that disabled people felt protected by the independent oversight of a qualified and experienced social worker who could not be intimidated by'

or instructed by the local authority because they weren't working for it.

I welcome the statement by the Welsh Government that it will provide additional funding to local authorities for the cost of independent social workers and additional care hours that may result from these independent assessments. This means that there can be no question of—

Will the Member give way?

Can I finish this sentence? There would be no questions of changes to a care and support package being a cost-cutting measure. Certainly.

Given that former recipients of the independent living fund had to qualify for that by proving that they were severely disabled, why should they have to prove it again when, rightly, we criticised UK Government when they told people they'd have to prove it again?

I think this is because some people have—local authorities had their needs reassessed and downgraded, and this is an opportunity for them to get reassessed and upgraded. It is something that disabled people themselves want to see. It's not perfect, and I'm sure we wish we weren't here. I wish that, last April, the Labour Party conference decision had been implemented in this place, but it wasn't, and that's nothing to do with the Cabinet Minister—or the current leader.

I welcome the Minister’s acceptance that the underpinning principle in undertaking independent assessment is that the result should be consistent with people’s agreed well-being outcomes. As there is no financial barrier, no-one needs have less favourable care and support than they currently have, and 'currently' means whatever they had before the changes were introduced by local authorities.

I welcome the preservation of the triangular structure of the grant between the local authority, the individual and a third party stakeholder. I believe the Government of Wales have met the spirit of both the petition and the Labour Party conference resolution. I just regret that it's taken so long. Finally, I thank Nathan Davies for his continual and consistent campaigning—I think I'd describe him as 'indefatigable'—and Julie Morgan for coming through now and providing this continuing support that I believe and I think the vast majority of people in my party believe is something that should have been done a long time ago.

May I thank Mike Hedges for his comments? He has reminded me of the irony here that Plaid Cymru has had to table a motion in order to try and persuade the Labour Government to commit themselves to their own policy. So, that tells us something about where this Government finds itself at the moment. And this is the party, of course, that claims to be 'for the many'—no. 'For the many, not the few', yes, I was right the first time. I have become confused today. But who are we talking about here? Who do they represent? Well, if we are talking about a group that needs representation and needs a voice to speak on their behalf, it's the 1,300 people who have been reliant on this independent living grant; that 1,300 people who have suffered anxiety and concern over the past two years as to the implications of losing that grant. And the u-turn that we've seen from the Government came 24 hours before this Plaid Cymru debate is news that is to be welcomed—of course it is. And I understand that the intention now is to do some more research to see what the options are in terms of developing an alternative proposal or varying the scheme. So, my plea is that you listen to the evidence of those who are in receipt of these funds, their families and carers, when you come to look at the options whilst making progress.

Now, much of the discussion has focused, and has done over the past few years, on the funding element, but I think it's important to remind ourselves of the importance of the independent living element. The experiences of those in receipt of this grant do lead them to fear that life under local authority control would be far more prescriptive, and that it would risk removing independence from them. And the swingeing cuts that the local authorities have suffered do mean that it would be almost inevitable that the systems would be more prescriptive because of the need to prove value for money. But what is value for money if the value put on the life and the quality of life of these individuals decline as a result of that? How can you measure an individual's quality of life on a financial spreadsheet at the end of the financial year? The recipients of this grant are already suffering a lack of independence because of circumstances that are out of their control. They are taking medicines and are using wheelchairs and they are already restricted to their homes, and the last thing that they need is further restrictions because of the financial rules and bureaucracy of local authorities who have to count every penny to prove value for money.

This proposal to scrap the Welsh independent living grant was nothing more, as we've heard, of course, than the Welsh Government following the lead of the UK Government. And the pause announced yesterday is certainly a step in the right direction. And we can do things differently here in Wales. We can show that we value the most vulnerable in society and that we look after each other as a society. Let's hope that this pause leads to a positive overhaul whereby everybody with a disability is lifted up to a better funding and support regime rather than pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

We have examples of good practice in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where they are forging their own path, having not only retained the independent living fund but enhanced it as well. And we know, as we've heard, what happened in England with the scrapping of the grant there: people being thrown into a postcode lottery, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities having to say that it's led to a human catastrophe. And, of course, the concern is that we will be heading down that very same route here in Wales with the most vulnerable suffering.

Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is dedicated to disabled people's right to live independently and be included in the community. People with disabilities shouldn't be infantilised, with their lives dictated by bureaucracy. We all value our independence, our ability to make our own choices, our ability, yes, sometimes, to make our own mistakes, but that right should not be taken from disabled people simply because of their disability.

Now, if you're genuinely concerned about inequalities facing disabled people, then the Government should be bold enough to admit it and face this issue head on. Let's see the depth of the real problems and challenges facing disabled people in our communities and let's act on that to improve the quality of life for those people instead of taking away their hard-fought funds and independence.

Yesterday's announcement gives us an opportunity to do that, so I ask the Government whether you'll take this opportunity to look at the whole picture of disabled people living in Wales. Will you set up a commission to look into the funding of disabled people here in Wales? What are the needs of disabled people in Wales today? What are the challenges that they face? And how can your Government and this Assembly make things better and improve the quality of life of disabled people here in Wales? This is what we should be looking at and not cutting the little funds that are provided to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Yesterday, we saw an admission from the Government that all their previous promises about how the transition away from the ILG system would be painless for its recipients meant nothing. The panic statement, no doubt prompted by Plaid's motion today, came not so much out of concern for the disabled people involved, but because they don't want to be politically embarrassed. But that statement was a red herring. Their announcement only delays the abolition of the ILG, it doesn't stop it, so, in a lot of ways, disabled people still currently have an axe hanging over their heads.

Over a year ago, Welsh Government were being warned about the problems that were going to arise, but they ignored the warnings and went ahead anyway. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept that their surprise or apology for the current problems, hardships and anxieties is genuine. I don't think it is. 

Let me say something about what's going on right now, right at this moment, as we're discussing this. There are some men and women—a parallel of you and me—who, were it not for the throw of the dice landing on a different number, could be sitting here with us in this Chamber, but unlike us, they have a disability that's deprived them of many of the opportunities, freedoms, life chances and choices that most people are able to take for granted. We're not supposed to be looking at these people as figures on a spreadsheet or as part of an accountancy equation. This Government may well define the recipients of ILG by their disability, but they're so much more than that; these are people with every single hope, dream, aspiration and wish that you and I have every day. And these few who receive the ILG could, in no way, be accused of being workshy, not bothering to properly look for employment or just trying to play the system. These are the most disadvantaged vulnerable people in Wales and this Labour Government is taking their money to subsidise the coffers of local councils. To remove some of their hope and make them worry about how their life is going to become even more difficult, purely in an effort to make the financial books look a tiny bit better, is inhumane and utterly shameful.

Welsh Government is absolving their responsibility in a cynical, cost-cutting exercise. The individuals and charities concerned are all against this move, and when Labour say that the same amount of money will be spent on disabled people, what they mean is they will take the money from the individual recipients and give it to the local authorities to use as they please. Then they'll blame the local authority if it goes wrong for disabled people. Only a proportion of the money that used to go directly to disabled recipients will actually be spent on meaningful help. They're giving this money to councils to keep council tax low in the hope that people will vote Labour in local elections. The Government know this money will not all be spent on the person it's been spent on so far—that's the reason they're doing it—otherwise, they'd leave this well alone. And the urgent mail received yesterday by me and possibly some other Members in this place from a disabled person backs this up. During the process of losing her ILG, she has experienced an inadequate review and has had her funding halved. She says she knew that as soon as it became apparent that what the councils didn't spend on the former grant recipients they could then put into the generic social care pot, she knew that the most vulnerable people, like her, would lose out. She says, quote:

'I knew that there could only be injustice to each of those who are going to be reassessed. The likes of myself, whose life is going to change into basic existence from a fulfilling and rewarding one'.

Welsh taxpayers would be much happier to think that their hard-earned tax is paying for a disabled person to get the help they need than go on a council employee's salary to tell a disabled person that they're going to get less help than before.

So, finally, I call on the Welsh Government to be inclusive and not act in a way that will make people think that you're ignoring the needs of disabled people, simply because there aren't enough of them to vote against you and affect the outcome of your next election campaign. I call on you to reverse your decision to abolish the ILG. Thank you.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to everybody who has contributed to this debate. Everyone in Wales deserves support to live independently when they require that support. The independent living fund was established over 30 years ago across the UK to support disabled people with complex needs to live independently. The UK Government closed this scheme to new entrants in 2010, and in 2015 they transferred responsibility for it to the devolved administrations. At that time, to ensure continuity of support, the Welsh Government established interim arrangements by creating a Welsh independent living grant. On the basis of a consultation exercise and with input from a stakeholder group, a new approach was developed, whereby local authorities would plan, with Welsh independent living grant recipients, their whole care and support needs and arrange for this to be provided. 

So, starting in 2017, a two-year transition period was put in place to establish these arrangements. By the end of December 2018, approximately 1,000 of the 1,300 former WILG recipients were having their whole care package arranged through local authorities, and the remainder are scheduled to complete that transition by the end of next month. For most of those people, their new care package is the same or greater than their previous arrangements, and for these people, the transition taking place is supporting their ability to live independently, as envisaged. In some cases, it is enhancing this further than previously. However, for approximately 150 people, their care plan is smaller than previously, and this could be for specific reasons. For example, I've been given the example of the effective use of modern technology and a focus on ablement not dependence. We know from our own inquiries and from the independent survey of recipients conducted by the All Wales Forum of Parents and Carers of People with Learning Disabilities that most people are happy with these outcomes, and this is even true in some cases where hours of care have reduced, and this is by agreement.

However, concerns have been raised, particularly over recent months, about the transition, because there is a considerable variation across Wales—and I know people have already raised that in this debate—with the percentage of recipients within the local authority whose hours of care have reduced following a transition care review ranging from 0 per cent to 44 per cent. And at this stage, I would also like to thank Nathan Davies and his colleagues, from the #SaveWILG campaign, for the representations they have made to Welsh Government on this matter. They have been relentless in drawing the disadvantages of this scheme to our attention. I've met with Nathan twice in the last three weeks to hear his concerns and to seek to develop a new approach, and I was developing this new approach before I knew of this debate today, but I'm very pleased we're having the debate, because, obviously, it does give us the opportunity to discuss in more detail what this means. 

I've considered all the available evidence, including that gathered through a deep dive, which was undertaken by my predecessor, Huw Irranca-Davies, and I would like to thank him for all the efforts that he's made to look at this issue, but I have concluded that the variation between local authorities does warrant a change in direction. I therefore wrote to local government leaders yesterday to request a pause in the transition with immediate effect, in order to bring in revised arrangements. Now, the details of the new arrangements need to be worked through with the local government partners, but the key elements I'm seeking to secure are as follows: first, an independent social work assessment will be offered to all former recipients who are unhappy with their results and care and support package and would like a second opinion. The independent social work assessment, in answer to Helen Mary Jones's question, will be done by an independent social worker who is not employed by the local authority and who will be totally independent. This independent view will mirror the arrangements that existed under the ILF and so will restore a tripartite decision-making system.

Could I just ask a question, if I may? If it's wrong, as it is, for UK Government to state to a severely disabled person that they have to be reassessed because the benefits have changed, to see whether they qualify for the successor benefit, why is it right in Wales to say to somebody who qualified on the grounds of their severe disability for a benefit that they have to be reassessed? I understand that those who have lost their care and support packages now need to have them reinstated and there has to be a process to be followed, but why can we not say that because they had already qualified for ILF, just like DLA in England, they don't have to go through the process of reapplying, just as they have to with PIP in England?

There is no need for anyone to be reassessed if they don't want to be. Everybody will be offered the opportunity, but there is absolutely no need, and as the carers survey does show that many are satisfied with what they've got, we don't anticipate everybody wanting to be reassessed. It's only people who want to be reassessed, who are unhappy with the arrangement, who will have the opportunity, and they will have the opportunity of an independent social worker. 

Secondly, the Welsh Government will provide additional funding to local authorities for the cost of independent social workers and additional care hours that may result from these independent assessments. This means that there can be no question of changes to a care and support package being a cost-cutting exercise. The underpinning principle in undertaking that independent assessment is that the result should be consistent with people's agreed well-being outcomes, and as there is no financial barrier, no-one needs to have less favourable care and support than they had under the Welsh independent living grant.

These arrangements acknowledge the historical entitlement of former recipients. It is a significant change of approach that ensures that the needs of former recipients will be fully met and that resources are no barrier to a full package of care and support. In fact, I believe that these new arrangements are much stronger than the Welsh independent living grant, and that is why we are seeking to amend the motion before us today. The Government amendment will enable the whole Assembly to get behind my plan to put something better in place. We will accept the Conservative amendment today.

Access to independent assessment and new resources to back up the potential outcomes of these assessments are at the core of this new approach, and it's because of these key features that Nathan Davies and his colleagues from the #SaveWILG campaign are supportive, in principle, of the approach that I intend to take. In fact, they have published their welcoming of what I'm saying here today. But, of course, we share a common interest in seeing that it's implemented properly, and that is one of the key issues.

To go back to some of the other questions that were raised during the debate: yes, we are committed to a social model and that is what we will be working on. I think Llyr asked if there could be a commission on disabled people. I can just assure him that we are totally committed to looking at the needs of disabled people and, in this job, I will be having that at the forefront of what we do. And I know there's been a few calls for me to apologise. Well, I don't intend to apologise today because this policy has come about in good faith. The recipients—people who are disabled who have been leading the campaign—don't want us to apologise. They're rejoicing at what we've achieved. So, I think that what we need to take forward today is to make sure that these new arrangements work and that we make sure that disabled people, this severely disabled group of people, have the best possible care they can have during these arrangements that we've put forward.

I call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate. 

I thank Members for their contributions, and I'll be brief in my closing remarks. When Plaid Cymru tabled this debate, we'd had years of intransigence from this Government on this question. So, I am glad that that intransigence has finally ended. Now, we've heard this afternoon how many people have already had their support cut, and it's good that those people will have the opportunity to have their cases reviewed on a voluntary basis, but I very much hope that those people who have lost out on their support will have it fully reinstated. Otherwise, you're going to risk putting people through an extremely stressful process again for nothing at all.

Helen Mary Jones pointed to the understandable lack of confidence on the part of the recipients with this process. She also made an excellent point about Tory hypocrisy on the question of welfare benefits. Listening to them, it's like they've never spoken to somebody who's been knocked off PIP: so out of touch. So many people have been put through hell. Just yesterday, we heard the UK Government admit that the rise in food bank usage is down to universal credit. Surely that says all we need to know.

Thanks to Mike Hedges for reminding us of Labour Party policy—grateful to you for that. He also pointed out the campaigners' concerns about cuts to this provision from cash-strapped, austerity-hit local authorities. While guarantees may have been there now in the current financial year, the fear is what would have happened over the longer term, and it's pretty obvious what would have happened, really. As my colleague Llyr has pointed out, our Senedd here provides us with the opportunity to do things differently, to lift people up, to enhance people's support. 'We all value our independence', he said. Well, I say, 'Amen to that.' A commission to look at the whole picture facing disabled people is an excellent call, which I'm sure most of us will be able to get behind. 

I thank the Minister for her statement and I very much welcome the announcement that she made yesterday. The Minister said that some of the people could have had their support cut for a number of different reasons. I looked at the analysis from the deep-dive review and I've seen that one of the reasons given in that review was that some recipients may have had their allowance cut because they now receive support in a day-care setting. Well, the problem with this is austerity, and cash-strapped councils are all cutting their day-care provision because they can't afford it. So, what might exist for people now may well not exist in the future. So, looking at this again was an absolute must, and the impact of other decisions taken in other places have to be considered here as well. This question can't be considered in isolation.

To everyone who's paid tribute to Nathan Davies, who I met for the first time back in 2015, it may well be an overused word, but I have to say Nathan Davies is a real inspiration on this question. I'm pretty sure that we'll see him continue to campaign on disability rights. I very much hope that we do anyway, because he is very, very effective. He's shown what is possible with political campaigning. As some of the contributors have already said, the issue of the independent living fund isn't over. There's more to do after this pause, and I'm sure Nathan will be on the case. 

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? The motion without amendment is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item therefore is the UKIP debate on prisons and prisoners. I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion—Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I beg to move the motion standing in the name of Gareth Bennett on the agenda today. I'd like to say right at the start of this debate that I very strongly believe in rehabilitation of prisoners and in prison reform. As a member of the bar for 40 years, I've many times in the past represented as an advocate pro bono prisoners sometimes convicted of very serious offences, in one case a double murder. And, subsequently, when they've been released from prison, I've continued to represent them to obtain justice where I think they've been unfairly treated and have been the victims of injustice. If I thought that there was any substantial rehabilitative value in extending votes to those serving custodial sentences, I would be very much in favour of it, but I'm afraid I don't. 

The change in the law that is in prospect in England, and Scotland and Wales too, arises from a case brought in the European court by a man who is about as unmeritorious as you could possibly imagine—John Hirst, a man who spent an entire lifetime in violent crime and killed a woman with whom he'd been lodging whilst on parole from a two-year burglary sentence with an axe, hitting her seven times, and said that, whilst he'd been lodging with her for a mere 11 days, because she nagged him consistently when he went out, he felt no remorse and bashed her with the axe. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. Amazingly, the then head of the Crown Prosecution Service accepted that on grounds of diminished responsibility. But the judge, sentencing him to 15 years in prison, said:

'I have no doubt you are an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect.... Unfortunately, this is not suitable for treatment in a mental hospital.'

Whilst in prison, Hirst attacked a prison officer, leading him to be transferred to a high security unit reserved for the most dangerous prisons and he served 25 years due to violent behaviour and other offences whilst in prison, being released in 2004. So, it's not a very good start, I think.

The case went before the European Court of Human Rights and he succeeded ultimately in his claim that the law as it now stands in the United Kingdom was insufficient to protect the human rights of prisoners. Under protocol 1, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights he succeeded, which merely says that: 

'The High Contracting Parties'—

the United Kingdom being one of them—

'undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.'

So, that's a very broad general principle, as is typical, in fact, of the legal language of the European Convention on Human Rights, giving immense freedom to judges to interpret in the way that they think fit. It is in my view an arrogation of the rights of democratic institutions like the Welsh Assembly or the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I think it is dangerous for judicial activism of this kind of take place because, once the judges have taken a decision, there is ultimately no appeal, and the people are not able to change the judgments of judges in the European court because you can't do that unless you can change the convention, and that is an extremely difficult thing to do, and anyway the language in which it's cast makes it impossible to do in specific instances, which is why my belief is that we should repatriate the European Convention on Human Rights and legislate for our own Bill of Rights, which democratically elected persons can change in appropriate cases. The European Union's charter of fundamental rights in article 39(2) provides a similar kind of provision, which has also been litigated in the European Court of Justice. All that says is that MEPs

'shall be elected by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.'

In the Delvigne case of 2015, a similar result to the Hirst case arose out of it. Now, Lord Hoffman, who is no fire-breathing right winger, said of the European Court of Human Rights that it had been

'unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and impose uniform rules on member states',

and Geoffrey Robertson QC, a paragon of liberalism, said in a pamphlet he wrote called 'Why we need a British Bill of Rights' that the European convention fails, actually,

'to include the rights Parliament won by the "Glorious Revolution" in 1689',

and mounting evidence exists that the weasel words of the European convention are damaging other basic rights, and the convention is in some respects out of date.

So, whatever one things about the substantive issue—[Interruption.] Yes, I will.

Neil, thank you so much for giving way. I just want to make the observation that, even under the ECHR determination, and their previous judgments, there are European countries who operate with no restrictions on voting rights—in effect, a universal franchise for prisoners. There are others who operate with restrictions. They've interpreted exactly the same determination in very different ways. They've applied their sovereignty even under that judgment.

They don't have the sovereignty to make the decision that anybody serving a custodial sentence should not have the right to vote, and I think it's perfectly proper in a democratic country that the elected representatives of the people should be able to make that choice if they think it's in the best interests of their own people. Because the European convention does of course give the right to freedoms that nobody would contest, and everybody thinks it is a good thing. But, in depriving somebody of their liberty, we're depriving them of other fundamental rights under the convention or the charter of fundamental rights. Prisoners retain a right to a family life whilst in prison; they can't pick their children up from school or kiss them goodnight. They retain the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but by definition they lose the right to freedom of assembly.

Anybody who ends up in prison, assuming that they're rightfully convicted, of course had a choice to make before he or she committed a crime, that they could actually not commit the crime and act within the law, knowing that, if convicted and sent to prison that one of the things that they would lose along with their freedom to move around outside the prison walls is that they would lose the freedom to vote. It seems to me that that is a perfectly acceptable position for anybody who has the trust of the people elected by them, as we are in this institution, to hold. Indeed, Chris Bryant, the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, in a speech in the House of Commons in 2011 said this:

'it is not the role of the European Court of Human Rights to legislate on who gets to vote in the UK. As the President of the Court and others argued in their dissenting opinion on Hirst,'

because it was a 12 to five majority that gave Hirst his judgment,

'"it is essential to bear in mind that the Court is not a legislator and should be careful not to assume legislative functions."

'That is why we argued'—

this is what Chris Bryant said—

'in the Grand Chamber'—

and it was a Labour Government that he was talking about—

'That is why we argued in the Grand Chamber that the Court was acting ultra vires and why we believe it is for Parliament—and Parliament alone—to legislate on this for the UK.'

I give way.

I don't think that we should get too hung up on the European Court of Justice. We're about to leave it. You and many other people, like Theresa May, are very obsessed about this. Just let's look at the objective, which is to support the reintegration of prisoners into normal life and to tackle our appalling record on recidivism. Clearly, we are spending loads of money on something that's not working.

I strongly agree with the latter point that Jenny Rathbone makes. If I thought, as I started out by saying, that there was any worthwhile rehabilitative value in giving prisoners the right to vote, I would support doing that. I don't, in fact, think that there is, and I do believe that it should be open to society to express its revulsion at criminal offences by removing the right to vote from those who have other rights removed from them by virtue of the fact of imprisonment itself. Certainly, it should be for institutions such as the National Assembly to take that decision, not unelected judges in courts in Strasbourg. It's the European Court of Human Rights that we are dealing with here, not the European Court of Justice. So, we will not be leaving the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, and we will still have to observe the decisions of those judges.

The Government at UK level has proposed some minor changes that have actually been accepted now by the Council of Ministers as fulfilling the judgment in the Hirst case. They are relatively limited in effect, and I'll just read them into the record. There are five of them. Prisoners on remand can vote. Prisoners committed to prison for contempt of court can vote. Prisoners committed to prison for default in paying fines can vote. Eligible prisoners released on temporary licence can vote. And prisoners released on home detention curfew can vote. I hope that, in conformity with the judgment of the European court, when the Welsh Government puts its proposals forward after it has considered the report of the equalities committee, they won't go one jot or tittle beyond that, because I think that there is absolutely no public support whatsoever for giving prisoners the vote. If we had a people's vote on this issue, I've no doubt that there would be a very heavy majority against doing so. So, I think that the Government has a heavy responsibility on its shoulders if it wants truly to represent the people, not least in Labour constituencies, to keep the legislation to the minimum possible. 

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar—Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Prisons should be places of reform and rehabilitation, and imprisonment is a punishment for those found guilty of a crime. The UK Ministry of Justice is focused on rehabilitative services, community sentences and reducing reoffending. Last August, I attended the event in Wrexham held by HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales to discuss the 'Strengthening probation, building confidence' paper, under which all offender management services in Wales will sit within the National Probation Service from next year. The HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales will explore options to commission rehabilitative services, such as interventions and community payback. They'll build on the unique arrangements that they already have in Wales through their established prisons and probation directorate and on existing successful local partnerships, better reflecting the devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government.

The UK Government's prison reforms are about replacing ageing and ineffective prisons with buildings fit for today's demands. The UK Government has rejected community prisons for women in England and Wales, and will instead trial five residential centres to help women offenders with issues such as drug rehabilitation and finding work. The Ministry of Justice is also considering banning short prison sentences in England and Wales, with Ministers stating that short jail terms are less effective at cutting reoffending than community penalties.

The Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee are currently undertaking an inquiry into voting rights for prisoners, yet this is the second debate in a fortnight seeking to pre-empt this. I move amendment 2 accordingly. In a 2017 YouGov survey, only 9 per cent of people in Wales said that all prisoners should be allowed to vote. It is not having boundaries that contributes to offending, but a lack of them. Rights go with responsibilities, and not voting is just one of the facts of life arising from being in prison, reflecting a decision by the community that the person concerned is not suitable to participate in the decision-making process of a community. Prisoners in the community on temporary licence can now vote, and the UK Government has also said that it should be made more clear to people given prison sentences that they will not have the right to vote while in prison. Unconvicted prisoners being held on remand and civil prisoners jailed for offences such as contempt of court already have the right to vote by postal ballot, although very few do.

We heard in Parc prison that few prisoners would either use a right to vote, or see it as an incentive to rehabilitate. Existing prisoner voting rights should not be extended in Wales beyond this, and I move amendment 3 accordingly. Our focus should instead be on giving offenders opportunities to contribute, make amends and build positive lives.

In December, I hosted an Assembly event with Construction Youth Trust Cymru and the Construction Industry Training Board, celebrating the success of the Clean Slate Cymru project, and launching the Clean Slate Cymru toolkit. The Clean Slate Cymru project aims to support people with convictions into construction employment, and the Clean Slate Cymru toolkit is a practical guide on how the construction industry can engage with ex-offenders in prisons and communities across Wales, and achieve social value. As part of the project, pilots were delivered across Wales, including an industry day in HMP Parc and careers fairs and work placements in HMP Berwyn.

Opening the first ex-armed forces personnel wing in the UK in 2015, Parc prison provides focus for specialist veteran support services that work outside the prison, such as peer mentoring services, employability and transition into life on the outside. Supporting Transition of Military Personnel, or SToMP, also has a whole-system approach to ex-armed service personnel, which supports them from police call-out to resettlement in the community. SToMP has implemented an all-Wales prisoner pathway to ensure consistent identification of, and support for, ex-armed service personnel across all prisons in Wales.

Last November, Parc was only the second prison in the UK and the first in Wales to be awarded autism accreditation by the National Autistic Society. However, sadly, the state of devolved services after two decades of Labour-led Welsh Government was again exposed this week by the damning independent report that found that half the men released from HMP Cardiff have nowhere to stay when they're released, and many will deliberately reoffend in order to be sent back to prison. It is that sort of failure that must be our focus, utilising the sort of projects I've referred to, rather than other measures that might satisfy the egos of individuals, but will make very little difference.      

It's good to speak in this debate today as Chair of the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee, Llywydd, because, as has already been mentioned, this is the second debate in short succession covering work the committee that I chair is currently undertaking as to whether prisoners in Wales should have the right to vote in Assembly and local elections. As part of that work, we are dealing with the issues in the round, as to whether there should be a blanket lifting of restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote, or whether there should be distinctions drawn between prisoners who would have that right and those who wouldn't. So, we've been looking at issues such as whether categories of prisoner on the basis of the sentence that they receive, or their release dates, or the type of offence, might be used to decide whether they should vote or not.

We're yet to come to a collective view. We have the UK position, as has been outlined, and I guess that's informative in terms of a possible starting point. We've undertaken visits, one to Parc prison, and one tomorrow to Eastwood Park to look at Welsh female prisoners in that English prison in Gloucestershire. Certainly, the visit to Parc was very informative in terms of hearing from prisoners and prison staff, and the director of the prison was quite forthright in saying that she believed that all prisoners should have the right to vote on a human rights basis, and that some of the practical considerations were certainly not so logistically difficult that they would prevent that happening, and that necessary arrangements, in her view, would have to be made and could be made. So, that was a very interesting visit, and I'm sure tomorrow will be very interesting too.

I also think, Llywydd, it's been quite informative in terms of our consultation process, in terms of hearing the public and organisations with a view, because it has, actually, been quite balanced, in terms of those for and against giving prisoners the right to vote and whether distinctions should be drawn and how they might be drawn. And it's certainly doesn't bear out the view that people are almost unanimously of the view that prisoners shouldn't have the right to vote at all. It's been far more nuanced than that.

So, we are in the middle of taking oral evidence and in the middle of the committee's inquiry. We will be taking further oral evidence from a range of organisations and, of course, from the Minister in due course. We aim to publish our report after the Easter recess. So, I hope very much that, in the debates and consideration that we're having—the previous debate and this debate, Llywydd—the work of the committee is duly recognised and indeed respected, because we are going through, I think, a very important process. And it will, I think, put a body of evidence on the table that I hope all Members will look at very carefully in due course before fully forming their own opinions on these matters.

Now, prisoner voting is, I think, an important issue. I do have slight concerns about us bringing this debate today, because, as John Griffiths has just explained, there is an ongoing inquiry into this issue being carried out by the ELGC committee, of which I am a member. I think, in general, it isn't good practice to pre-empt the outcome of an inquiry, but, to be fair, we had a debate on various criminal justice issues in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, which wasn't brought by us, in which both Labour and Plaid Cymru certainly sent out strong signals on this issue. So, I think that debate has already pre-empted the inquiry to some extent. 

To recap what was said a fortnight ago, Labour's Jane Hutt stated that the Welsh Government was awaiting the outcome of our inquiry but at the same time was preparing a Government Bill on this issue. Well, a Bill is a major undertaking and you don't prepare a Bill if you're not seriously intending to bring legislation in. So, I think this tells us that the Welsh Government has already decided that it will extend prisoner voting, although they are not explicitly stating that, despite the fact that we haven't finished the committee inquiry yet.

For their part, Plaid Cymru, who brought the debate, were keen to include prisoner voting in the wording of their motion. This gave us, I think, a strong indication that they wished to extend the prisoner voting franchise in Wales. So, again, I think this pre-empts the inquiry, certainly in spirit if not in precise wording. So, I think we are justified in bringing this debate today. Of course, I will endeavour to continue to listen to the evidence of the committee inquiry.

Now, my colleague Neil Hamilton has raised some of the major moral objections to allowing prisoner voting at all, which is basically the UKIP position—that far from wanting to extend the prisoner vote, we would rather ignore the absurd ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on this and allow no prisoner voting at all. If the major objection to this is that we need to comply with ECHR, then our position is this: we are leaving the EU and ECJ in order to have control over our own laws, after all that is what the majority of the people of the UK voted for. So, why don't we simply leave the ECHR as well and have our own British bill of rights? So, this is the political context in which we oppose the principle of prisoners having the right to vote.

Now, what our inquiry has already thrown up so far are the many logistical and technical difficulties that are likely to arise if you do go down the path of trying to extend the prisoner franchise. There are major difficulties, for example, over the registered address of prisoners. There are prisoners with Welsh addresses who are imprisoned in English prisons. So, some prisoners held in English prisons could be allowed the vote in a Welsh Assembly election. That will be difficult to organise. Even if they have that vote in theory, will they actually be able to cast their vote in practice? Conversely, there are English prisoners in Welsh prisons who won't be allowed to vote in an Assembly election.

Will you take an intervention on that?

Yes.

Is he aware that prisoners already exercise their right to vote? They tend to vote by post or proxy.

The right to vote, as far as I recall from our inquiry in Wales, was actually extended by that ECHR ruling and the application of it to—

Prisoners on remand.

Ah, prisoners on remand. Okay, that is a precise issue.

They're not convicted when they're on remand.

They're still in prison though, aren't they?

I think there is a basic—[Interruption.] There is a basic difficulty with prisoners on remand, but it's an interesting point that we need to look at.

Now, if I can return to what I was saying, conversely, there are English prisoners in Welsh prisons who won't be allowed to vote in an Assembly election. So, in many prisons, you will get prisoners on the same wing, some of whom will get a vote and others of whom will not. What you won't get is equality of opportunity, and the inequality may conceivably lead to lower morale on the wing rather than higher morale, so I think we do need to tread carefully here.

We did visit Parc prison, as John Griffiths mentioned. We did meet prisoners, we met prison officers and we met the prison director. Now, they do have a privileges system in that prison. I wondered would the privileges system be of any use in determining whether or not a prisoner might be allowed a vote—perhaps a naive idea. The prison director thought this was highly impractical and, on reflection, I think this would be unlikely given that you are then giving the prison director and the prison officers the right to say who can and who can't vote, which is probably itself fundamentally undemocratic. So, given all these difficulties, we are then led into the extremely murky waters of allowing all prisoners to vote. I really do think I agree with points that Mark Isherwood raised during the previous Chamber debate that the prospect of violent offenders like murderers and rapists getting the vote is not likely to win much support from the wider electorate. And he did quote again today the 9 per cent figure from a YouGov survey conducted in 2017. So, I think there will be very little public support for this. It wasn't in Labour or Plaid Cymru's manifestos; I think it's a bit rich trying to bring this in under the radar. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I approach this not because of an absolute aversion to the word 'Europe' and any institution that contains that descriptor is therefore wrong as a matter of principle and practice. My approach is somewhat different, although I did find Neil Hamilton's introduction to this debate at least had the virtue of an attempted argument on the basis of principle as well as waving newspaper headlines at us.

But let me say this: I think this is important—when I made a statement to this place as a Minister on 30 January last year, I made a statement that I hoped was rooted in principle and a philosophical commitment to the social justice and equality that should be the hallmark of this place. If we are to be a Parliament in the future, then the decisions we take and the approach we take to those decisions is of fundamental importance to the citizens of this country. For me, when we imprison somebody, when we incarcerate them, when we take away their liberty, we take away their liberty to do some of the things that Neil Hamilton described. What we do not do, and what we must never seek to do, is take away their identity, to take away their citizenship, to take away their rights as an individual and as a human being. That is a different proposition. The punishment they receive is a deprivation of their liberty, and that is the point at which we should begin.

But we should also begin at a different point of principle, a point of principle that is rooted in rehabilitation, and one of the weakest parts of the system we have for dealing with criminal justice in this country is the through-the-gate services as prisoners come to the end of their sentences and they are taken back to the community, and we discussed that with a topical and urgent question earlier this afternoon. For me, when I look at this issue, it is essential that we continue to treat people throughout their period in prison as citizens of this country and as citizens we hope will play an important part in their communities in the future, as responsible citizens. The proposal I made to this place I felt was a reasonable place to be, whereby somebody who is sentenced to prison for a period of time and where their release date is anticipated to be within the term of the authority—in this case it's local government, of course—being elected would be able to vote in elections to that authority. They will be citizens living in that place during the term of that authority being elected, and I thought that was quite an important principle, because we are not depriving somebody of their right to vote who will be held in prison over an extended period of time—a life sentence or a long sentence—but we're actually enabling somebody to choose the local authority, in this case, and to participate in an election where they themselves will live in that community during the term of that authority, and that is an important point to make. We already do this with remand prisoners, of course; they already do participate and are able to do so. They do so with a connected address—there are none of the issues that the leader of UKIP attempted to articulate in his contribution. None of those issues are either relevant or have been, at any time, issues where difficulties have arisen. And let me say this: it is important that we do this in a reasoned way that is rooted in principle, rooted in a philosophical commitment to social justice, but also where there is a practical application.

It is clear to me that the arrangements and structures are already in place, and certainly, as a Minister, I was very, very clear that there were no major practical impediments to this being delivered. The structures we have in place, the right of a prisoner to receive correspondence from an electoral returning officer already exists, the right of a prisoner to receive that correspondence in private and to make a determination on the basis of that correspondence already exists. The Electoral Commission have already made an assessment of how this could operate in practice, and the relevant legislation was already amended back in 2000 to enable this to happen. So, there are no practical applications and practical issues on this matter. It is who we are as a country, as a people, as a community that matters to me. I want to see prisoners who are being held at the moment in prisons either here or elsewhere to be released at a point at which they will become responsible citizens of this country. And we need to start treating them as responsible citizens not at the point at which they are released, but at the point where they are still held in custody, where we are able to begin the process of rehabilitation.

One of the real crises—and I'm sure Mr Hamilton is aware of this—is that rehabilitation's always started when it's been too late and when it's already going to fail. What we need to do is to ensure that we are able to do that as a cohesive and holistic approach from the beginning. So, I hope that we will vote this afternoon to support those principles and that the committee, during its work, will also come to that conclusion and we will be able to legislate on these matters before the end of this Parliament.

I want to approach this debate in something of a reflective manner—not to pre-empt the outcome of the committee headed by John Griffiths that I sit on, but I do want to, in opening, just thank both the prisoners and also the prison staff and officials of Parc prison, where we had a visit the other day. I was struck by how articulate, well informed and intelligent the discussions were with both the prisoners and the prison staff. Some of the prisoners remarked to us, in the group that we were in, 'You'd be surprised how well informed we are when we're locked up for 14 hours of the day, how much political television we watch and how many newspapers we read. We're very up to speed on it.' So, I just want to thank them and I'm looking forward to the visit tomorrow.

Can I just track back a little bit to why we are where we are? The reason we have the deprivation of the franchise from prisoners dates back to medieval times and the issue of civic death—the idea that if you entered prison, you forfeited your property. Because you had forfeited your property, you forfeited the right to vote, because the right to vote was predicated on the ownership of property, and so on. So, it's got a medieval—[Interruption.] Well, it's actually prior to that, it's medieval—1870 was the Forfeiture Act, which then actually talked about the issue of social contract as well.

So, there's a long, strange history within this, but if I bring it a little bit more up to date, since 2005, where there have been bans within countries on prisoner voting, this has been found to violate international human rights legislation. The ECHR, not an EU body—there's sometimes some confusion over that—remarked that the blanket ban on prisoner voting was indiscriminate and disproportionate. And, of course, as has already been remarked by several contributors to this debate, in November 2017, the UK Government indeed did give prisoners who were released on temporary licence—or on home detention, on remand, as we often call it, on detention, on curfew—the right to vote in the UK. In fact, guidance was sent out that year, and leaflets were given to all prisoners, we are told.

Now, in May 2018, the Scottish Parliament's Equalities and Human Rights Committee recommended lifting the ban in its entirety—and there is a spectrum of views on this—within Scotland, but this was rejected by the Scottish Government. Of course, as we've heard, the committee headed by John Griffiths, at the instigation or invitation of the Llywydd, is now looking at the issue in Wales, with our powers for the Assembly and local elections. And, of course, very recently in the debate that we had on 30 January, the Assembly voted 36 to 14 with one abstention in support of the principle of a vote for prisoners. I just note that that's short of the supermajority needed to actually change the view within this.

So, that concept, from the whole disenfranchisement to the whole enfranchisement, has several areas where the committee is looking with interest at this. The principle of it—. As we know from the Welsh Government consultation back in 2007, in that consultation, 50 per cent of the respondents agreed with prisoners being allowed to register for a vote and 48 per cent disagreed; a 2 per cent difference—where have we heard that before?—but very close. It looked at the issue of sentence length, whether or not sentence length should be a factor in deciding which prisoners should actually be eligible to have the franchise, or the severity of crime, and, of course, technical issues that we've heard referred to around method and the address. Just to remark, of course—and my thanks to library colleagues here within the Senedd for this—there are 4,700 Welsh people in prison, of which 37 per cent are held in England, so there are technical issues here, and there are 261 Welsh women prisoners, all of whom are held in 12 England prisons. So, there are technical issues, but they're not insurmountable. 

Now, if I can turn to some other issues that are pertinent to this: youth offenders. We went to Parc prison recently—. If we were, within this democratic institution, to reduce the voting age to 16 and 17, what would that mean in terms of young offenders as well? And just to address issues of other countries' examples, I mentioned earlier that different countries have different approaches, the majority of democratic countries now extend the franchise in different ways to the prison population, but it is in different ways, and in different measure.

Could I just turn very, very briefly, in my closing remarks, to the concept of why, if at all, prisoners should have both? Former Conservative Home Secretary Lord Hurd said,

'If prisoners had the vote then MPs would take a good deal more interest in conditions in prisons.'

Can I turn attention to the suicide of Vikki Thompson, a transgender prisoner, because of the treatment and the abuse that she received in an all-male prison; the continuing failure to combat ongoing consistent rape and sexual assault behind bars in prison population; the fact that black prisoners make up 15 per cent of the prison population compared to 2 per cent of the country in total—they're over seven times more likely to be barred from voting while inmates? And I could go on. As the Canadian Supreme Court has stated,

'disenfranchisement is more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy than a spur to reintegration.  Depriving at-risk individuals of their sense of collective identity and membership in the community is unlikely to instill a sense of responsibility and community identity, while the right to participate in voting helps teach democratic values and social responsibility'.

I'm looking forward to participating in the inquiry tomorrow when we go to prison in Gloucester, the all-women's prison. I think that this is an interesting inquiry, but I hope that it will give us some sense, here—light more than heat—about the way that this democratic institution may want to proceed.

I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to restate the Welsh Government's commitment to working to ensure that prison is an environment that is safe and secure, enabling staff and resources to concentrate on the rehabilitation of offenders. The first statement in the UKIP motion is inherently contradictory. The decision to send someone to prison and deprive them of their liberty is obviously an act of punishment in itself. Once that punishment is achieved, we should focus on rehabilitation. I strongly believe that the focus in prisons should be on rehabilitation and reconnecting inmates with the values of society at large. 

Of course, the prison service is the responsibility of the UK Government. The Welsh Government works closely with the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service to provide devolved services that are vital in maintaining prisoner welfare and reducing reoffending. We reject the Conservative amendments, which appear designed to ignore the very large contribution made by devolved services.

I will run quickly through some of the services we provide in partnership with the prison service in Wales, which clearly demonstrate our commitment to the rehabilitation purpose of prison. The Welsh Government is working with local health boards in Wales to improve the health and well-being of prisoners in the Welsh prisons. Our priorities include mental health, substance abuse and medicines management. These services are key to ensuring inmates are suitably prepared for returning to life outside the prison walls. Access to good-quality education and links into work are a vital part of the Welsh Government's approach to reducing reoffending. Working with the prison service, we have developed our employability plan, which supports prisoners into further learning and good-quality work on release. Our aim is to ensure that offenders have access to a continuum of support as they return to their home communities.

We're also working with crime and justice agencies and local authorities to improve the housing options available, in order to overcome many of the accommodation problems confronted by many prisoners on release. In particular, as we discussed in today's earlier topical question, we want to ensure prison leavers' housing needs are assessed while they are still in custody, and the resettlement process is seamless from the wing to the community. And as was also said earlier, far too many resort currently to rough sleeping, and failures to adequately plan prior to release is a major factor in that, as we discussed in our topical question.

But in considering rehabilitation, we cannot ignore the effect of sending so many women to prison, often for low-level summary offences, which, in my personal view, are entirely inappropriate for prison sentences in the first place. I therefore welcome the female offending blueprint that was developed by my predecessor in post, Alun Davies, and which we worked on together for quite a long time, and developed jointly with the prison and probation service, to help identify the additional support needed for the delivery of appropriate justice services for women in Wales. I am pleased that the UK Government is at last looking at the use of short-term sentences. The so-called 'short, sharp shock' approach to sentencing simply does not work. Those handed short-term custodial sentences are often not in prison long enough to be able to complete the available education programmes and substance misuse treatments designed to achieve rehabilitation, and usually just long enough—as was said, I think, by David Melding earlier in the topical question—to disrupt jobs, homes and families, and to achieve nothing of any merit to anyone.

Our approach to youth justice is wholly focused on early intervention and preventative activity to divert young people from offending and promote their welfare. We provide funding through the promoting positive engagement for young people at risk of offending grant, which offers preventative and diversionary support to young people at risk of offending. I think that is sufficient to illustrate that the Welsh Government does a great deal in developing a holistic approach to rehabilitation with the benefit of making our communities safer.

The Welsh Government also rejects the second prong of the UKIP motion and the second of the Conservative amendments. I am very clear that I support the principle of some prisoners being able to vote at Welsh elections, for the reasons that a number of colleagues set out. Having the right to vote would send very strong messages to these prisoners that they have a stake in society and, in turn, that they have responsibilities towards that society as a whole. The support services I have outlined in the first part of my speech demonstrate how big that stake is, and I have barely touched on the support prisoners' families are likely to call on from devolved services whilst family members are in prison. 

The Welsh Government is looking carefully at all the issues around the possibility of allowing prisoners to vote at Welsh elections. We invited views on the principle of allowing some prisoners to vote in Welsh local elections in our consultation on local government electoral reforms in 2017, as has been set out by both Alun Davies and Huw Irranca—and by John Griffiths in talking about his committee work. As Huw Irranca said, the views expressed were finely balanced: 50 per cent of responses favoured allowing prisoners to vote in local government elections, 48 per cent disagreed, and 2 per cent did not express a view either way. There is a strange echo of other asking-the-public questions there.

There are some complex implementation issues to consider and address, but as Alun Davies said, we have already looked at those quite extensively, and they don't pose any particular administrative difficulty. In particular, the fact that many prisoners from Wales, including all women prisoners, are actually accommodated in England, and about 30 per cent of inmates in the five Welsh prisons are from England—that doesn't pose a problem, because those prisoners will be obviously voting by post, as do many people who have Welsh-domiciled addresses who find themselves not in Wales or not at their normal place of voting during a voting time.

We are preparing legislation for introduction later this year that will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local government elections in Wales, and the Llywydd only today introduced similar measures for the Senedd. In considering prisoner voting, we will be also looking at the implications for young offenders in those circumstances. But as many people have said, I am very mindful that the issues around prisoner voting, including the implications for young offenders, are currently being examined by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I'm not going to presume the committee's conclusions; we have not reached any final decisions and we do await the committee's report. I do not share Gareth Bennett's and UKIP's cynicism in regard to democracy, and we do anxiously look forward to taking into account the committee's report in this regard. Diolch.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We've had an interesting debate, and I think it's been measured and temperate, as it should be. It's an important issue for democracy, but it's also, beyond that, as Alun Davies pointed out in his speech, which I thought was an extremely good speech, about the way in which we treat people even though they are incarcerated and outside the scope of general society. I strongly believe that prisoners should be treated in a humane way. I've been involved for many years with a charity that was set up by Lord Longford, who was a great friend of mine, called the New Bridge to reintegrate ex-prisoners into society, and I appreciate the excellent work that they've done. Mark Isherwood, in his contribution, referred to others, like Clean Slate and SToMP, doing similar work. This is absolutely vital if we are to reintegrate people into society as law-abiding individuals. Prison, of course, has a deterrent purpose and a punishment purpose, but it's no good if at the end of it people have learned nothing and simply reoffend, and as Jenny Rathbone pointed out in her intervention in my speech earlier on, recidivism is an important element of this, and whether granting prisoners the right to vote is going to have any impact, I very much doubt. I do believe that it's a matter for us as legislators to decide—not judges, least of all foreign judges—whether, as part of the punishment for the commission of crime, prisoners lose the right to vote whilst they are inside. Huw Irranca-Davies, of course, in his contribution gave us a bit of the history: of course, before the 1830s, the right to vote was very largely a property right and not a right in the sense that we would understand it today as a democratic right, and the Forfeiture Act of 1870 was the start of the process of removing the right to vote from prisoners in its modern context.

I strongly support what Alun Davies said about what happens to prisoners on release, and it's very important in advance of their being released that we should begin the process of reintegration. I can see the arguments for the proposition that he's put forward. I think it's an attractive proposition because you can see the practical purpose of it: prisoners reach the end of their sentences, they're getting to the end of the deterrent effect and the punishment effect of their sentence, and you can see, then, that the rehabilitative element is much more important, perhaps, than it is at the beginning. So, that's certainly something that I would be prepared to consider supporting as part of the process.

I'll say to John Griffiths, as the Chairman of the equalities committee, that this debate is not intended in any way to pre-empt the committee's report. One of the things that has most impressed me about this Assembly since I've been here is the way that these cross-party committees are genuine cross-party committees, and in their reports, they genuinely try to achieve a consensus that can inform the debate, and I hope that this debate, like the Plaid Cymru debate a couple of weeks ago, is part of the process—a contribution, if you like, to your work and not an attempt to supplant it or substitute for it.

I appreciate that the Minister was limited in what she could say in her speech by having to consider this issue once the equalities committee has produced its report. I do strongly agree with something that she said also in relation to the number of people serving sentences that are very short term that don't actually provide much of a deterrent effect and they certainly produce problems in prison. Prisons can be very brutalising places. I've been inside lots of prisons in the course of my life—as a lawyer, I hasten to add [Laughter.]—and places like Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways and Wandsworth prison, as it used to be, were very dehumanising places, and actually set back the process of rehabilitation. So, the building of new prisons is a vitally important element, I think, in restoring people to civil society in a better way than they went in, and that, of course, is to the benefit of us all. But I remain to be convinced that an essential part of this process is granting prisoners the vote. We will await the results of the equality committee's deliberations and indeed, then, the Government's proposals. 

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

Before I call voting time—a point of order. Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to raise a point of order under Standing Order 12.37 that an objection was verbally made to the Plaid Cymru debate NDM6967. So, can you review and make a statement on the status of that motion? I made an objection and it was heard by colleagues. 

Thank you for the point of order and for alerting me of your intention to make this point. I didn't hear the objection and neither did the clerk—[Interruption.] I don't need any supporting noises anywhere, please—and neither did the clerks on the front bench. I apologise for that. It's a lesson for me to listen closer. It's a lesson for you to shout louder. The motion was declared as having been passed by me in the Chamber. Members will have heard me say that, and that motion cannot be undone at this point. But your objection and the fact that you raised that objection has been noted for the record, and the Government's viewpoint on that is now on the record, but the motion without amendment was passed earlier on this afternoon.

This brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move to the vote on the UKIP debate: prisons and prisoners. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, one abstention, 34 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

That brings us to 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 Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed. Amendments 2 and 3 are deselected.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, four abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

If people are leaving the Chamber, can they do so quickly and quietly? We do have the short debate.

I now move to the short debate and I call on Dai Lloyd to speak on the topic he has chosen. Dai Lloyd. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The title is: air quality legislation fit for modern challenges. Now, I'm not sure whether I have ever mentioned before that I have been a doctor in Swansea for 35 years or so, with the challenges of lung health and heart health amongst the most common conditions that I continually deal with. The rates of asthma have been increasing in our children for decades, and there is no valid explanation, only the rates of air pollution that some children have to breathe regularly. And these small particles, the PM10 and PM2.5 particles, which come from diesel and petrol fumes, as well as the tyres of the vehicles distributing small grains of rubber and plastics to the air, and the nitrogen dioxide—that poisonous gas that comes from the burning of diesel—are all being breathed into the lungs. And some of these particles are so small—nano-particles, as they're called—that they not only reach the smallest tubes in our lungs, but can go immediately into the blood flow too and reach our hearts directly and cause a response in the muscle in the wall of the heart. Therefore, that is why this is a crisis—a crisis that has become more and more critical recently.

Air pollution is, therefore, a public health crisis. Across Wales’s towns and cities, people are breathing in levels of pollution that are harmful to their health.  Three cities in Wales—Cardiff, Newport and Swansea—reported unsafe levels of air pollution last year. Port Talbot, also in Bethan's and my region, suffers with poor air quality and has done for years. Public Health Wales have designated air pollution as a public health crisis, second only to smoking.

Recent figures show that, every year, more than 2,000 lives are cut short in Wales as a result of poor air quality. It is nothing short of a national scandal. Now, as Chair of the cross-party group on a clean air Act for Wales, the purpose of today’s short debate is to make the case for a new clean air Act and the need to create a robust legal framework that sets out ambitious approaches to improving air quality in Wales.

Now, just 60 years ago, towns and cities across the UK would be regularly smothered by smoke from coal fires burning in homes and factories. The Great Smog of 1952 infamously brought London to a halt and caused thousands of deaths in the weeks and years that followed. Annually, air pollution affects the daily life of thousands of people who have no choice but to breathe dirty air. Illegal and harmful levels of air pollution are found not only in London and Welsh cities, but also in towns like Llandeilo and Chepstow. Just because we no longer have the pea-soupers and the dense smog of Bible-black Black's Law does not mean that the air is clean.

Air pollution affects everyone, from the womb to old age. It triggers strokes, heart attacks and asthma attacks, increasing the risk of hospitalisation and death, and causes cancer. It is linked to premature births and stunted lung growth in children.

In the 1950s, when there was a lot of smog, the problem used to be that particles were big and stuck in the upper airways. Now, these nanoparticles go straight past, deep into the lungs, and even into the bloodstream, as I mentioned earlier—directly into our bloodstream. People with heart failure are a vulnerable group, and when the air quality falls, more of them are admitted to hospital. We have a clear link between air pollution levels and heart attacks, and studies have shown that particulate matter in the air is a major cause of this. We know that the health risk from breathing pollutants continues long after exposure. There is also increasing evidence that it impacts on the lungs of unborn children—even the unborn are affected by the pollution breathed in by their expectant mothers. That could scar your health throughout your life.

So, why a clean air Act? Only last week, UNICEF UK’s report 'Healthy Air for Every Child' showed that 70 per cent of UK towns and cities have levels of particulate matter pollution that exceeds World Health Organization safe limits. And across 86 per cent of the United Kingdom, nitrogen dioxide concentrations are illegally high today.  The EU limits, which are observed by UK Government and Welsh Government, are the same as the World Health Organisztion's recommended upper guideline limits for nitrogen dioxide, but are less stringent than the World Health Organisztion's threshold for other health-harmful pollutants, such as the fine particulate matter, the PM2.5s.

Now, UNICEF has said unequivocally that it is essential that Ministers include legally binding targets to meet World Health Organization air quality standards—that's the basis of this debate. We know that the current legal framework is a patchwork of different laws and devolved competencies. Many of the potential levers to improve air quality already exist, but are not used effectively because of split responsibilities between pollution sources and environmental health, both at local government and national levels. A new clean air Act for Wales would consolidate existing legislation and clarify the roles and responsibilities of Welsh Government and local government. It also gives us the opportunity to introduce more ambitious laws that are fit for the twenty-first century and that reflect the specific challenges facing Wales.

We know there is considerable public support for a new clean air Act. The Welsh Labour Government has previously rejected calls for a clean air Act, but during the Labour Party leadership contest in Wales the First Minister Mark Drakeford committed in his manifesto to, I quote: 

'Develop a new Clean Air Act to ensure that our children can go to school, be active and play outside safely without fear of respiratory problems, such as asthma, because of pollution levels in some of our towns and cities.'

Unquote. Leaders and mayors of cities across the UK have shown their support for legislation in this area, including Cardiff council’s leader. Healthy Air Cymru have also done a phenomenal job in bringing this issue towards the top of the political agenda. And, let's not forget, the Tory UK Government and Labour Welsh Government have been taken to court for not doing enough to tackle air pollution, and been found guilty, and we cannot let this go on any longer.

So, what would a clean air Act look like? As well as enshrining World Health Organization air quality guidelines into Welsh law, a clean air Act could also mandate the Welsh Government to produce a statutory air quality strategy every five years. It could provide a statutory duty on local authorities to appropriately monitor and assess air pollution and take action against it. It could introduce a 'right to breathe', whereby local authorities are obliged to inform vulnerable groups when certain levels are breached. This should be delivered through a comprehensive cross-governmental air quality strategy that includes provision for an independent monitoring and assessment network; a national advisory board on air quality, chaired by the Minister for the Environment; the introduction of clean air zones in our cities; a requirement on local authorities in conjunction with local health boards and public services boards to prepare a clean air plan, based on data from the independent monitoring and assessment network, with adequate control measures identified and acted upon; a requirement that every local authority develops a walking and cycling strategy with targets to decrease the percentage of journeys by private car.

Now, South Wales West is particularly affected by air pollution, as well as the city of Swansea, because of its geography being in a bowl, with ozone levels, so Swansea has got particular pollution levels. It regularly suffers air quality issues. We also have, obviously, the industrial area of Port Talbot with its unique challenges as well.

Now, many years ago, we were willing as a society to suffer water that wasn’t clean. We still do in many parts of the world suffer water that isn't clean. Now, you wouldn’t suggest any situation where we should put up with water full of impurities today, but in Swansea and Port Talbot we are putting up with air that is full of impurities. We need a major change of attitude and national leadership from Government. We know that there's a real link with poverty, because there are five times more carcinogenic emissions emitted in the 10 per cent most deprived wards in Wales than the 10 per cent least deprived areas of Wales, as the wealthiest people may well afford to live in areas that have trees and parks, whereas the less well-off congregate in housing that directly faces onto the street where there's no barrier between you and the pollution emitted by cars.

So, what about solutions to support a clean air Act? I'm trying to help Government out here. Plaid Cymru wants the sale of diesel and petrol cars to be phased out by 2030. Follow Copenhagen and cities and countries in western Europe that are implementing bans—bans on sale and bans on fossil-fuel-only cars entering cities. Public transport: we need to make sure that we have a proper integrated transport system in Wales. In areas such as Port Talbot and Swansea, there is much further to go on this front. We hear of bus subsidies being slashed locally, fares going up, services slashed—is it any wonder that people are using their cars and adding to the poor air quality? We need to set targets for lower emission vehicles—taxis, as they’re doing in London, buses, council refuse lorries and other public service vehicles—and a clean air Act could help deliver that. Set targets for lower emission vehicles.

We could set a default 20 mph speed limit as a national policy, right across Wales, which would then be the starting point for local authorities. They could exempt certain roads from that blanket policy for valid and particular reasons, but 20 mph would be the starting point. That would help create more cycle- and walking-friendly urban environments that would facilitate people feeling safe and secure to cycle from their homes and connect up with a new cycle network under the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. There is a whole array of actions that can be taken, underpinned by law.

So, in conclusion, I would like to thank Healthy Air Cymru, first of all. That's a collaborative group of organisations. We've met with them individually and as a cross-party group now on the clean air Act, and the members of that organisation, Healthy Air Cymru, are the British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation Cymru, Friends of the Earth Cymru, Living Streets Cymru, the Royal College of Physicians and Sustrans Cymru. I thank them all for their fantastic work and for informing this debate, but primarily for the fantastic work that they do in this field. Now, they're all doing their part—what we need now is action from the Welsh Government. The morbidity and mortality figures demand urgent action: 2,000 unnecessary deaths in Wales per year. That is dramatic, and it needs countering. This is a major public health crisis, and a cavalier attitude to air pollution has persisted for far too long in this country, and must be consigned to the past. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I now call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to that debate—Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. This Government is acutely aware of the pressing need to tackle air pollution, both for current and for future generations. We've committed to delivering vital improvements in air quality to support healthier communities and better environments. So, I do welcome this debate on air quality legislation today, and I know and welcome the Member's ongoing interest and passion for this area, where I believe there's a great deal of consensus in this Chamber now. We know it's going to take a collective effort to get to where we need to be. As well as the action that Government can take, it also involves us all taking our own individual action in terms of our own behavioural change as well. I welcome the opportunity to be able to update on the work of this Government and what we're doing as a cross-Government priority as what I am today—unfortunately, the understudy for the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs.

Air quality management as a whole is framed within a comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework. National improvements to date have been largely driven by European directives. For example, as the Member alludes to, in November last year we published our Welsh supplement to the UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations in Wales to satisfy the requirements of the European directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. The plan sets out local authority and Welsh Government actions being taken to reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide around roads where levels are above legal limits in Wales, which is our most pressing and immediate air quality challenge. A significant amount of work has gone into the development of this plan, and will continue throughout its implementation. In addition, we've been working with the UK Government and other devolved administrations on future emission reductions required under the national emissions ceilings directive for five important air pollutants. These are nitrogen oxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia and fine particulate matter. We know that these pollutants contribute to poor air quality, leading to significant negative impacts on both human health and our environment.

The UK currently meets all EU and international emission reduction commitments. The Welsh Government will set out its plans to help achieve the UK's future emissions reduction commitments within the UK national air pollution control programme, which we will consult on shortly and publish before April this year. Cross-Government action is needed and is being taken across all Welsh Government departments and sectors to deliver air quality improvements. To address this we established the clean air programme last year, and the aim of this programme is to protect public health and our natural environment. The programme also places a focus on compliance with European and domestic legislative obligations. Under the programme, we have established projects that pull together departments and key stakeholders to deliver improvements in air quality across Wales. These include transport, improved evidence, domestic combustion, industry, planning and communications.

European directives tackle air pollution in a number of ways, including limits for outdoor air quality, limiting emissions at source, and driving down trans-boundary emissions through international action. Our emissions reductions, to be met from 2030 onwards, will support the reduction of health impacts of air pollution by half compared with 2005.

Going forward, we must maintain our commitment to deliver action to comply with our statutory obligations, but we're clear that this is not just about taking action to tick boxes—this is taking action because we know we need to do it for the benefit of our citizens and for their health. This can be achieved in a number of ways, including through improved policy integration and collaboration. Many targets, including some World Health Organization air quality guidelines, are not safe levels but are thresholds to limit individual risk. So, we are looking at all potential options to reduce exposure of the population to air pollution in the most effective way, including the potential effect of WHO standards. 

Any future policies or targets need to be underpinned by evidence to ensure that they deliver the most effective change. This includes assessing the associated practicalities, such as the social, economic and technical impacts. We need to gather evidence to make sure we are targeting the right areas in the right way. The Member almost precipitated some of my lines by referring to the First Minister's manifesto. Indeed, there was a manifesto commitment to improve air quality through the development of a clean air Act for Wales. This is something that I welcome, and work on the clean air programme that we're doing now already may identify gaps and opportunities where new legislation will be required to reduce air pollution. That is something that's on the table and we'll address going forward. But it's also important that we recognise, as we said, that we need to take action now, and we do already have some extensive legislative powers and tools at our disposal that allow us to do that. These include planning, infrastructure and communication measures, amongst others.

Assessment of air quality and associated environmental risks occurs at a number of levels. Local authorities are responsible for managing air pollution in their areas as part of the local air quality management regime, established under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. We have issued extensive statutory guidance setting out what is expected of local authorities in fulfilling their local air quality management duties. Our guidance states that local authorities must take a risk-based approach to the assessment of local air quality. This focuses monitoring on the locations where members of the public are more likely to be exposed to excessive levels of air pollution, such as schools, hospitals and nurseries, among others, known as sensitive-receptor locations.

National and local monitoring and modelling were established for different purposes. In order to develop an improved understanding of air quality across Wales, we are working with both local and UK partners to understand how local data can be better integrated with national data. We're also working with Public Health Wales to develop more local evidence, where it is needed, to complement existing evidence on airborne pollution.  

Last year, a pilot project to test a new public health-driven approach to air pollution risk assessment was completed in the Cwm Taf health board area. A paper has been drafted to summarise and promote the work amongst stakeholders, and this will aid us in developing a public health-driven approach to enhance local air quality management risk assessment in Wales.

Welsh Government is taking a broad range of actions to tackle transport emissions across the whole of Wales. Many will support air quality improvements and the decarbonisation of transport. This includes encouraging modal shift. All of us must become less reliant on the private car and move towards more sustainable models of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport. I wonder how many people in this Chamber and in this building today got here by car. But, as the Member said, this is why we need to work across Government with all the levers that are at our disposal, because, while this is a health and environmental issue, many of the things that will achieve that change rely on transport, which is why the emphasis on working across Government is so important to make sure that those alternatives are there for people.

This Welsh Government has invested over £60 million over three years from 2018 to create active travel routes across Wales to support safer, healthier and more attractive options for citizens. We also have a bold ambition to reduce the carbon footprint of buses and taxis in Wales to zero by 2028. This action supports improvements to air quality in our towns and cities, and shows leadership in the drive to low carbon and low emission transport.

This spring, we'll publish the clean air zone framework for Wales. Any local authority in Wales may introduce a clean air zone in order to address local air quality issues, and clean air zones have the potential to bring about real improvements in air quality by encouraging behaviour change and raising awareness of air pollution.

In December last year, we published 'Planning Policy Wales', which has been completely rewritten in light of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Air quality is embedded throughout 'Planning Policy Wales' edition 10, in addition to a dedicated section on air quality and soundscape. This is to ensure air quality is considered early on in the planning process, rather than a merely technical consideration, almost as an add-on, and to be central rather than a supplementary at the end of the process. Further support in technical guidance on noise and air quality will be published within the next two years.

Work on domestic combustion policy is an integral part of the clean air programme. This month, Welsh Government held the first meeting of a task and finish group made up of representatives from industry, health, DEFRA and local authorities to support and oversee the delivery of future domestic combustion policy in Wales. As you've already heard today, a multi-faceted and holistic approach is required, which looks at fuels, appliances, maintenance, legislation and behaviour changes, amongst other things, to fully address the air quality issues, given the scale of the problem. All manner of intervention will be considered as part of this work, including prohibiting the sale or quantity of some solid fuels, and banning their use where it is deemed necessary.

In March, the first meeting of the cross-governmental communications behaviour change group will take place. This work is vital to improving air quality across Wales. Whilst we develop policies to tackle air quality at Government level, we need to raise awareness of air pollution at an individual and community level too. It's important that we encourage everybody to ask, 'What can I do to take action to reduce our emissions?' The communications group will be working with external stakeholders to develop air quality education and communications messaging to inform the Welsh public of the actions we can take to tackle air pollution together.

The Member also referred to the complex issues that we face within the Port Talbot area, with the combination of factors there. You will be aware that the Minister for Economy and Transport and I, in my previous role, met with Tata Steel, Neath Port Talbot council and Natural Resources Wales at the end of last year to reaffirm this Government's commitment to making continuous air quality improvements in Port Talbot. Over the next 12 months, the Welsh Government will be undertaking work to improve and better understand the issues in the area, and this includes a review and update of the Port Talbot air quality action plan to ensure we have fit-for-purpose governance arrangements in the area and remedial actions needed are targeted effectively. This work will be informed by the outcome of a peer review from the University of the West of England, which is due imminently.

In addition, the Welsh Government is taking action to address exceedances of legal limits for nitrogen dioxide, in as soon a time as possible, on the M4 between junctions 41 and 42 at Port Talbot. Measures being taken are highlighted in our plan to tackle roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations in Wales. To bring all this together, we'll publish the clean air plan later this year. This plan will set out key pollutants and their effects on public health and the natural environment in Wales. It will include measures to achieve compliance with legislative requirements, identify cross-Government and sectoral actions required to achieve air quality improvements, and set up communication, engagement and education measures to encourage behavioural change to support a reduction in air pollution. 

A key role of this work will be to engage with children and young people to develop the plan to aid us in developing a strategy that promotes the well-being of current and future generations, because we know taking action is key to their future and they have a key part to play in realising our ambitions to tackle air quality and also to raise awareness amongst their peers. We've seen in the Young Dragons programme a number of primary schools across Wales taking part in monitoring and developing their own behaviour change campaigns, which could include walking buses, scooting to school and no idling measures outside the school grounds. I look forward to a nine-year-old knocking on somebody's window telling them to turn off their engine. 

In closing, I'd just like to reiterate this Government's commitment to action now and in the future to ensure we have the sustained improvements that we know we need in air quality health and well-being. 

Thank you very much, and that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.