National Assembly for Wales

I call 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 Caroline Jones.

Thank you. Our economic action plan recognises the crucial role digital technologies will play in the future, with digitisation and innovation featuring as key themes within the calls to action. We continue to engage with business to encourage the adoption of technologies, including artificial intelligence.

Deputy Minister, artificial intelligence and machine learning has the power to transform small businesses, yet the majority of businesses in Wales do not know how to harness its power. Machine learning is not just for large tech companies; it can be utilised by the local cafe, to assist with processing payments, VAT returns, and automating a whole myriad of tasks. With the majority of tools being open source, even down to Welsh language voice data—thanks to Mozilla's Common Voice project—there is a low barrier to entry into the field. What businesses need is pointing in the right direction. What can the Welsh Government do to promote the benefits of artificial intelligence and ensure that we equip future business owners with the skills to exploit technology to assist their businesses?

Thank you for the question. The Member is preaching to the converted on this one—I fully recognise the benefits of artificial intelligence, both at the high, cutting-edge end, but also in the more mundane, everyday end of running a business and running organisations. And I've been impressed, since coming into the brief, with the amount of activity that there is going on, not just directed by the Welsh Government, but by universities and by businesses themselves. I think this is a space where we do need to have a discussion about what the role of Government is, because this innovation is happening despite Government in many cases and not because of it. But there are important things the Welsh Government are doing to try and increase the uptake of these technologies, and we're expecting the report of the review by Professor Phil Brown shortly to make us focus on what it is we can do.

But I just want to quote one example to the Member, to assure her that there is good practice existing within her region already, and that's Aurora International Consulting in Port Talbot, who are using AI for construction management. They have developed a project, which was launched last month, to use AI for the risk assessment and method statement analysis, which are now automatically generated, which is not only producing improvements in safety and accuracy, but is saving 95 per cent of the cost of compliance, and they're now looking at how they can roll this out internationally. So, we need to look at how we can apply this domestically, but also how domestic firms can develop this here and export it abroad.

Indeed, staying ahead of the curve in technological innovation is critical for the success of businesses in Wales, and artificial intelligence is one of the emergent battlegrounds in business competition, and, on a global stage, companies like Sony recognise this. But here in south Wales, the award-winning Sony UK technology centre in Pencoed is leading the way in this and many other ways, including tackling the challenges of modern manufacturing and improving processes by using the latest internet-of-things technology, bringing together manufacturing production in a seamless process—into one, seamless operation. Last year, Minister, the AMROC research and development facility in Pencoed was launched, in collaboration with Sony headquarters and other facilities in Japan. And as Steve Dalton, the managing director, said at the time,

'Being chosen to carry out this vital research as a collaborative partner with our headquarters puts Sony UK TEC on the map, not just in Wales, but on the global manufacturing stage, which is something we are rightly proud of...It is also a testament to our highly skilled workforce who have set themselves apart thanks to their unparalleled knowledge and abilities.'

So, I wonder whether the Deputy Minister, or the Minister, or both, would accept an invitation to visit the award-winning Sony UK technology centre to see how an incredible team are putting Wales now at the forefront of world-leading modern manufacturing and technology.

Thank you for the question. The Minister has just informed me he has already accepted an invitation to attend the factory; I would also be delighted to come. I'm aware the Member is, of course, a great champion for Sony's presence in Pencoed. I think there's a real exciting opportunity. It's one of the things I want to try and focus on in this portfolio—how we harness the good practice that exists in the public and the private sector. Because we have in south Wales great sources of data richness—in the DVLA, in Companies House, in the Office for National Statistics—in Wales, alongside the example the Member just quoted of Sony, and elsewhere. How can we bring them together to harness that collective power to give Wales some kind of advantage in this field? So, we'd be delighted to come, I'm sure, and I look forward to discussing with the Member further what other opportunities there might be.

You mentioned earlier, Deputy Minister, what the role of Government is in this, and one of those can be reassurance. I've spoken to internet providers about the 5G cover in the last few months in the context of the Swansea bay city deal, and they make the point that both the private sector and the public sector need to create demand for 5G, such as uses for AI, for them to commit to invest in the technology that's needed. Only yesterday I saw a media piece on how AI can better interpret cancer diagnostic scans more accurately and more quickly than doctors and, of course, health and well-being is one of the main themes of the city deal. With the review we've just had, I think there might be a bit of a risk that it'll knock private sector confidence at a time when we're really looking to maximise a golden opportunity for AI commercialisation. So, how can you reassure those innovators in AI that my region, with its two great universities, is still a good place to invest and commercialise?

We'll be discussing this further this afternoon, I know, but let's decouple the city deal with the broader agenda of digitisation. The two are not the same thing. One is a means towards an end, and let's focus on the broader end. 5G, of course, at the moment is not something that's being developed at any scale. We've commissioned Innovation Point to give advice to the Welsh Governmenment on how we can capitalise upon it. There are far more mundane things that we can do to make these technologies work. For example, the internet-of-things can be powered by a LoRaWAN network, which is a low-frequency network that is much more commonplace and day-to-day than 5G. So, there are things that we can do now using far less high-tech gadgets than 5G that can really make a difference. So, let's focus on what can be done while we figure out where this goes next, because it's a fast-moving environment.

Yes, of course. The environment has been a critical consideration in the development of the economic action plan. Key objectives of the plan include the drive towards sustainable growth, the need to combat climate change and the promotion of a transition to a cleaner, low-carbon economy. Achieving this will be vital in meeting our obligations under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Just over a fortnight ago, I was invited to speak at the Cardiff Extinction Rebellion event outside Cardiff library. They, as well as the school strikers, are campaigning for the declaration of a climate emergency, among other things, to ensure that all current and future policies are consistent with averting climate change and ecological collapse. I support the campaign aims—climate change is the most severe crisis that we face in the world today.

Minister, economic policy has a big part to play in ensuring that the environment is protected, and this Government's failure to meet carbon emission targets has been described as disappointing by your own side. Energy is a vital part of our economy and fast decarbonisation is essential. Now, there have been various proposals throughout the world for green new deals. Do you accept that your economic plans should have been a green new deal?

Well, the green new deal as a project title has gained, I think, a lot of traction not just in the UK, but around the world. But, here in Wales, we're already delivering against ambitious plans for sustainable growth, and the economic action plan is very much a new green deal. We are delivering, and I think it's worth the Member recognising some of the detail that's contained within the economic action plan, including our commitment to zero-emissions buses. That demonstrates how we're delivering, including our commitment to 100 per cent renewable energy for the metro service—again, demonstrating our commitment.

I think it's also important to recognise how our investments in business across Wales are contributing to decarbonisation, including, within the economic action plan, the new calls to action, of which, one of just five concerns decarbonisation. Now, I would hope that the Member has expressed her views and ideas on how we combat climate change, drawing on the consultation on the draft climate change adaptation plan, which went out to consultation in December. If the Member hasn't already expressed her views on that, I'm sure there still is an opportunity, albeit after the closing date, to do so. But I am also very pleased, Llywydd, to say that, tomorrow, the First Minister will be launching 'A Low Carbon Wales', our first statutory decarbonisation plan.

In my region, Cabinet Secretary—or Minister now, as you're called—the Welsh Government is supporting the development plans for a new road from junction 34 to Sycamore Cross in the Vale of Glamorgan. Many residents within that area support road improvements in the existing infrastructure but for the life of them cannot understand why you are proposing to drive viaducts and new roadways across some of the most nature-sensitive areas in the Vale of Glamorgan. Can you join up the dots for me so I can go back to my constituents and understand how, when you take the environmental considerations into place, the Welsh Government is putting resources into a project that potentially would have a devastating impact on the environmental benefits of that particular area?

Well, can I assure the Member who also supports the M4 relief road, a vital programme the Government is currently considering—that the First Minister is currently considering—? And I should just say that all roads must be assessed. All builds, Llywydd, must be assessed against the latest Welsh transport appraisal guidance process, a process that is supported by the well-being of future generations commissioner, and, of course, programmes such as the one that the Member has identified are open to consultation with the public and I very much hope that members of the public in my colleague's area will submit their views when the consultation takes place.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Now, Trade and Investment Wales recently hailed the 30 per cent lower salary costs in Wales compared with other parts of the UK. Government has since taken down references to lower wages on social media, and so on, and I can fully understand why you'd want to distance yourself from your own mistake, but can I ask what is the mistake that was made here? Was it just that you said this? Because it does appear that at the heart of Government thinking still is a belief that offering low wages is a good thing. 

Absolutely not. If I could just remind the Member that I've not been responsible for Trade and Investment Wales since the reshuffle in December, but I can say to the Member that no Ministers approved that tweet. It was unacceptable. It does not represent Ministers' thinking. Indeed, the economic action plan has been designed to drive salary growth and the quality of jobs across Wales, and that's precisely what we're striving to do. 

Sadly, of course, the cat was let out of the bag and it was an insult to Welsh workers, of course, to suggest that low wages in Wales was something to be celebrated. The truth, of course, is that wages in Wales have been remaining at too low a level for far too long. I do not believe that reflects well on 20 years of Labour-led Governments. But one tool, certainly, for raising wages in Wales is the push for wider roll-out of the living wage. The public sector is engaging positively. I think councils, led by both my party and yours, have taken positive steps on the roll-out of the living wage, but a strong Welsh economy needs a strong private sector, and the private sector would benefit certainly from having more workers on the living wage. But isn't the truth of the matter that, in the private sector in Wales, we are lagging way behind other parts of the UK when it comes to the implementation of the living wage?

And can I say that that's precisely why we introduced the economic contract as an integral part of the economic action plan, ensuring that fair work is a key consideration in any decision that's made as to whether a business should secure Welsh Government funding? Of the four criteria in that economic contract, fair work is a key component. The Fair Work Commission is concluding its work at the moment. We'll adopt the recommendations. I am in no doubt that the living wage will have been a key consideration in their work.

But let's just look at the facts concerning the economy since devolution. Let's take employment—it's at record levels. Let's take the employment rate—again, it's at record levels and it increased more quickly in Wales than in the UK over the course of devolution; it's up 9.7 per cent compared to 4.2 per cent. Inactivity in the economy is lower now in Wales than in the UK as a whole—that's a record and it's the first time it's happened. On businesses headquartered in Wales—because lots of people often say we don't have the headquarters—the fact is we've got a record number of businesses established here in Wales with their headquarters here, and, indeed, it's gone up by nearly 15,000 in the last six years alone. The business birth rate is higher in Wales than in the UK as a whole. On business enterprise research and development—because a lot of people often say we're not investing enough in that—actually, between 1995 and 2017, the annual average increase in Wales was 8 per cent, and that's double the average rate across the UK. Exports are up. Household wealth is up. The Welsh economy is undoubtedly up since devolution, and in particular in the last 10 years. That's something that I think Edwina Hart should take recognition for and praise for because she invested a huge amount of time and energy in making sure that we moved away from de-industrialisation by focusing on higher quality work that pays. The job is not over yet, and that's why the economic action plan is so vitally important.

That was a very long list, and I'm not sure if you were trying to confirm what I was saying, but nowhere on that list was wage levels in Wales. Yes, of course it's welcome that unemployment is falling, but it doesn't show the whole picture. Falls in rates of economic inactivity are to be welcomed, but that doesn't show the whole picture. My questions today relate to wage levels in Wales, and we know that they've been too low for too long, and we have this seeming celebration of low wages in that tweet, which has now been deleted.

But returning to the living wage issue, these are the figures: in Scotland now, there are 3,000 employers who are registered as living wage employers. In England, that number is 4,000. In Wales, the difference, really, is quite stark: we have just 120 companies—the most recent figures that I have here—who are registered as living wage companies. Now, one difference, certainly, between the situation in Wales and Scotland and England is that they have organisations funded in Scotland and England that go out there persuading and encouraging private sector companies to roll out the living wage, and showing them that it would be good for their businesses if they were to become living wage employers.

Is it not time that Welsh Government really invested? And by the way, it is of course welcome that contracts you directly enter into, through procurement in Wales, companies are encouraged in that way, and instructed, in fact, to pay workers the living wage. But what about all the other companies that are not engaged in direct contracts with the Welsh Government? Isn't it time that you invested in organisations such as Citizens UK in England, Poverty Alliance in Scotland to make sure that the message goes out there to companies in Wales that it's good for them, as well as for Welsh workers, that more of them pay the living wage?

I should say, I don't think the Member and I have a difference of view on wage rates: they need to improve, there is no doubt about that. The way that we're going to go about doing it is by rolling out more widely the economic contract as a principle and in practice as a means of driving up the quality of work and remuneration.

Now, the Member identified some vehicles elsewhere that drive the uptake of the living wage. Here in Wales, we've got Business Wales with more than 200,000 businesses within their reach—that's a service that I have personally utilised recently. I've written to all businesses on two occasions regarding Brexit, contacting 200,000, but Business Wales are now acting as the agency for Welsh Government to encourage as many in the private sector as possible to adopt the living wage.

But I do believe, rather than just encouragement, you have to offer something. You have to offer something, and that something is Government funding, and applying the principle of something for something is by far the most effective way of changing behaviours and improving wage rates. And that's what we're seeing in Wales, and that's why household income is up in Wales. But I would accept that more still needs to be done. We started from a terrible base back in the mid-to-late 1990s. We've made huge progress, but through the economic action plan and the economic contract, we will go further still.

Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last month, Actica Consulting was commissioned jointly by the UK and the Welsh Governments to undertake a rapid independent-led review of arrangements for the delivery of the £1.3 billion Swansea bay city deal. I'm turning my head now to the Deputy Minister as I can see that's the way the discussion's going. The report made seven recommendations to improve the deliverability of the deal's outcomes, and I wonder, Deputy Minister, if you could provide a summary of your assessment of the report's findings and recommendations.

Gosh, what an opportunity. There is further opportunity later with the urgent question on this very same subject to address those topics, so perhaps I'll give you a brief summary and we can explore it a little further.

This is a jointly commissioned report by the UK and the Welsh Government, and Alun Cairns and I see eye to eye on this matter, at least. There is criticism of all the actors in these two reports, and I think rather than dwelling on that, we need to reset and focus on where we take this from here. But there's a range of very helpful detailed recommendations for all sides about how we can recalibrate this relationship to deliver what we all want it to deliver.

Thank you for your answer, Deputy Minister, and I don't disagree with anything you said. I do want to try and draw out what your initial assessments were of those recommendations and perhaps if you could address that. I did note from reading the report myself that the key recommendations outline the need for action over the next four months. Now, these actions are for the city deal to deliver, but I wonder how you and the Welsh Government are going to support the city deal in delivering on those recommendations.

Certainly, Alun Cairns and I have already met with the leaders of the local authorities on Friday. I had a further meeting on Monday with the Welsh MPs and a meeting this morning with Welsh Assembly Members to let them know what we intend to do next.

Our first priority is to get some momentum back into this project, so we're working closely with the city deal to try and get two of the projects over the line as soon as possible, namely the second phase of Yr Egin in Carmarthen and the waterfront digital district in Swansea. To do that, the onus lies primarily on the city region; they're the ones who have to develop the business case and get it approved by ourselves and by the UK Government. We are committed to working closely with them as partners, not simply as policemen, which is the way the deal has been set up, to try and collaborate and make sure that we get the assurance needed to release the funding for both these projects.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. I am glad that you and Alun Cairns are working together on this, and I'm pleased that you're updating local Members on issues as well. But I would be grateful if you could also keep all Members updated, perhaps through statements, because we've all got an interest in this. I'm glad that the report does highlight the positive contribution that the deal can make in driving forward the economy of this part of Wales. I'm a believer in the city deal approach and I'm pleased that we're moving towards a position where every part of Wales will be in the footprint of a growth deal.

But, going forward, Minister—and this is perhaps why I asked for all Members to be updated in this regard—how are you going to ensure that the issues that were raised in this report are going to be dealt with with other growth deals as well? What I'm asking, Minister, is that there were issues and challenges outlined with regard to the Swansea bay city deal and I want to ensure that the Government is using its influence to ensure that these same mistakes don't happen in other growth deals. I'm particularly thinking about the mid Wales growth deal, which is emerging, of course.

Well, a number of points there. We have briefed Members: we issued a very full written statement on Friday, we published both reports and, as I said, the briefing has been put in place and I'm answering questions this afternoon on it. If any Member would like further information, I am more than happy to meet with them to brief them on what we're doing. I think openness is really important on this, which is why we've published the full reports, even though they are critical of all sides.

In terms of the lessons learnt for other projects, this city deal was set up in a way that has not been identical to other city deals, and I think it's been one of the problems that the reports have identified: dealing with it on a project by project basis, rather than giving the city region the autonomy to take a portfolio management approach. And by insisting on the five-case Treasury model for all projects to pass through, they've set a bar that is far higher for local authorities to pass than in conventionally funded projects, either through their own revenue or through the Welsh Government. Some of the local authorities, and the region as a whole, have struggled to have the skills and capacity to be able to go through that rigorous business case model, and that's been one of the problems highlighted in the report. So, in a sense, it's been set up in a way that has made it cumbersome and difficult for them.

How we apply this to the other regions—. We're determined now that the responsibility for the city deals has moved from the Cabinet Office in that policeman role into our department we can take more of a partnership role. The Minister and I are both determined—and we've already met with the chairs of all the city deals to make this point—that we now, under the economic action plan, want to develop regional economic strategies. We want to do that in the spirit of partnership and co-production, and we should take the city deals as the starting point for how, together, we develop a grounded regional strategy for each part of Wales. In doing that, we'll be fully absorbing the lessons from both these reports and from other conversations.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Could the Cabinet Minister update us on the progress of the Blaenau Gwent advanced technology park?

Yes. In terms of the overall Tech Valleys initiative, the Deputy Minister and I are working very closely together to ensure that the national digital exploitation centre is developed as quickly as possible, that we attract more particularly automotive tech companies into the area, and that we utilise the £100 million that was allocated for the Tech Valleys initiative for the best interests of the area.

I thank the Cabinet Minister for his answer. However, since the announcement with regard to the park and to the advanced automotive technology site, some 18 months ago, not a single industrial unit has been built. Will the Minister now give the people of Blaenau Gwent and Ebbw Vale a firm date for the commencement of work, and perhaps even an actual time frame for the creation of jobs at the site?

Well, we've already approved the Rhyd-y-Blew site development. We have approved additional business and light industrial units at The Works in Ebbw Vale. The Techboard refit will begin this year. And I'm pleased to be able to say today that we are ahead of the spending profile for the £100 million Tech Valleys initiative, largely because of the investment in the national digital exploitation centre, which could have gone anywhere in the world—to Singapore, to Germany—but instead, Thales chose Wales.

The spokesperson—

Again, I thank the Minister for—

No, my fault—intervention not necessary.

That's fine, Llywydd. Again, I thank the Minister for his answer, but following on from the cancellation of the Circuit of Wales, I'm noting that the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone was responsible for just 179 jobs during its seven years of existence. Surely, then, Cabinet Minister, it is time the Welsh Government put in place, as a matter of urgency, the infrastructure—both physical and spatial—to create long-term jobs and prospects in an area that is said to be one of the poorest in Wales and indeed the UK. Following on from this, Cabinet Minister, can you give us an update on car manufacturer, TVR, and its intended occupancy on the site?

Yes. I'm pleased to say that TVR are making very great progress in terms of seeking capital support for their project. And in terms of physical infrastructure, the Member is absolutely right: JLL and many others have identified a very urgent need—not just within Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent as a whole, but right across Wales—for industrial units, partly as a consequence of so many of the units that were developed and built in the 1980s reaching the end of their useful life. And so, that's why we're investing a huge proportion of the £100 million in industrial units that are appropriate for the sorts of businesses that want to locate in Tech Valleys. I should also say to the Member, with regard to the enterprise zone, that I'm pleased that we have now transitioned into a new governance structure—the Tech Valleys advisory board—which is looking specifically at the opportunities, not just within the automotive sector, but in the wider tech and digital environment, for jobs to be developed in Blaenau Gwent.

Well, we take every opportunity to promote the Welsh automotive sector, both across the UK and abroad, particularly at this challenging time for the industry, as it is vital for the Welsh economy to see it sustained, and indeed in the future, to grow.

Okay. Diolch. Minister, I know you have been a strong advocate of the automotive industrial sector, underscored within the economic action plan, and it's an important industry in Wales that comprises around 150 companies, employing, critically, nearly 19,000 people—13 per cent of the Welsh manufacturing workforce—and generating over £3 billion-worth of revenue, and manufacturing 30 per cent of the 2.7 million engines that are produced in the UK as a whole. So, Minister, what actions are the Welsh Government taking to bolster the automotive industry in Wales as we navigate the uncertain and unprecedented challenges associated with the UK Tory Government Brexit chaos that is deeply harmful to Welsh manufacturing?

Can I thank Rhianon Passmore for her question and recognise her keen interest in the automotive sector as well? I issued a written statement to Members at the start of March that described the ongoing activity in support of the Welsh automotive sector. Together with the Welsh automotive forum, we are taking forward a number of actions to support car manufacturers across Wales, and, indeed, working very closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other UK Government departments at Westminster to look at opportunities. I think it's worth recognising that whilst this is an incredibly challenging time for the automotive sector in Wales, in the last five years we've been able to help businesses in Wales invest more than £200 million in support of more than 12,000 jobs, as the sector has responded promptly to the renaissance of the UK car sector. However, of course, Brexit poses a major threat to the great strides that have been made in recent years, and that’s why we have called upon the UK Government to broker a deal that will ensure the continued full and unfettered access to the single market.

Minister, an inquiry conducted by the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has shown that Wales could greatly benefit from the increased use of electric cars. However, the committee expressed concerns that the Welsh Government has been slow in showing leadership in this issue. They went on to say—or, the question, rather, is whether the £2 million recently announced to improve infrastructure for electric car charging points was a large enough funding boost. What is your response to these concerns, Minister, raised by the committee? And what assurances can you give that the Welsh Government’s support is adequate to promote this part of our automotive sectors?

Well, we’ve got a duty to ensure that the public purse only invests in areas where there is not market failure in this regard and that we invest in proper infrastructure. Now, it’s highly likely in the years to come that we will see the roll-out of induction charging, which would, of course, provide the solution for many streets where there are terraced houses. Therefore, it’s essential that we look at what the problem is today, in areas where the market won’t respond, and then we intervene, and that’s exactly what our deal with Plaid Cymru is striving to do.

But I would say that I believe that the Welsh Government and, indeed, the Welsh automotive sector are at the forefront of responding to the opportunities that the move to electric offers. Let’s take Aston Martin Lagonda, for example, who I’m very pleased to say are making Wales their home for the development of electric power driven vehicles. That is something that we should be championing and applauding, and it’s also something that has only come about as a consequence of working so very closely with Welsh Government.

I'm pleased to be able to tell the Member that we have used mobile phone data to inform transport modelling. We've commissioned Transport for Wales to procure an update to the previous data, supplementing other sources, such as congestion data, traffic flows and public transport passenger counts, and this will help us to understand travel patterns and to develop multimodal interventions across south Wales and, indeed, beyond.

That’s very interesting, and I’m very glad to hear that we are using the easily available data to track the future transport needs in the area east of Cardiff, between Cardiff and Newport, because, clearly, there is a major congestion problem that we face in both our cities and, at the moment, there is a gap in the metro map north-east and east of Cardiff where we obviously are going to need future provision. And in your answer to Leanne Wood, you said that, obviously, there’s a commitment by the Government to do this. So, having got all this important data from the mobile phones, how exactly are you using this to commission work by Transport for Wales and by the Cardiff capital region to get in place the transport that we need now to get people out of their cars, so they're not poisoning us all with air pollution?

Can I thank the Member for her question? I should just say that the mobile phone data is just one source of information that we’ve used to inform our transport modelling work, and not just transport modelling work with regard to road investments and rail, but also with regard to bus services. Other data that we use comes from roadside interviews and, as I said earlier, from public transport passenger surveys and, indeed, from bus and rail ticket data.

We're using it to assess the extendability of the metro and to ensure that investment in extended services is invested in the right place for passengers who could and would use metro services as an alternative to the private car. But we're also using that data to plan future bus services and to ensure that current bus services are meeting the needs of existing passengers.

I should just say, though, in Newport—I know that neither of the local Members are here themselves, but they have relayed to me on numerous occasions the fact that just urging people to move from cars to buses in Newport will not alleviate congestion on the M4, because largely the congestion caused within Newport is not because people are using their private car as an alternative to the bus, it's because they simply can't rely on bus services in many situations, because there's too much congestion within Newport, and indeed there's a belief that people who are currently using the M4 are coming off from the south or the north side of Newport and then using the M4 to get to the other side. That's not the case either, and that's shown by some of the modelling and the data that we've been able to extract.

I'm glad the Minister has learnt that lesson, and I agree with what he's just said. In terms of Cardiff, I think the south Wales metro offers a great opportunity for increasing public transport use instead of car use as employment is increasingly concentrated at the centre of Cardiff. But for Newport, the employment is disproportionately in business parks strung out along the current M4, and isn't the Minister correct in at least implying that what's really needed to help people to get to work around Newport, whether by car or by bus, is to get on with building that M4 relief road?

In conjunction with the development of the metro and in ensuring that we also have adequate parkways that can serve both. I think that the investment that we are making at Llanwern and, indeed, on the Cardiff parkway shows that we are determined to meet the needs of motorists and of people who use public transport, and to encourage, wherever and whenever possible, a modal shift.

Yes. A focus on the foundational economy will support our wider aims for inclusive growth, contribute to place-based economic development and help promote grounded and responsible firms.

Grounded and responsible firms—and those grounded and responsible firms can actually tie into the strategy that Leanne Wood raised earlier of environmental benefit, particularly where they grow locally based, locally sourced supply chains in the foundational sector, which can reduce carbon footprints. We had Redrow housing in our Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee last week and asked them if they'd made any assessment of the impact on local supply chains, and they said, no, they'd made no assessment whatsoever of their impact on local supply chains. Therefore, is it not the case that foundational companies, locally sourced companies, can have a very positive impact on a policy of green growth?

Thank you. I must acknowledge the role the Member has played in championing the concept of the foundational economy. I think it's important as well that he's focusing on this aspect of it, which is not an aspect that is often discussed, but I think there is great potential.

So, there are three different pillars to our work on the foundational economy. One is the experimental fund that we've agreed with Plaid Cymru as part of the budget agreement, where we're looking to see if we can increase the amount of money available for that. The second is the growth of grounded firms and filling the missing middle. And the third, then, is mainstreaming through the public sector the lessons from Preston and beyond through procurement, and that's where I think we can make real progress here, because using the public services boards set up under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we can give them a challenge to help this agenda that will give meaning to all the principles and approaches of the future generations Act. We've also set up a sub-group of the ministerial advisory board to challenge us and test us as we develop our thinking in the foundational economy, and we're going to be receiving a paper specifically on environmental growth and biodiversity at our next meeting, to see how we can embed those principles into the work we're doing. I'd welcome the continued support and input and challenge from the Member as we develop this agenda.

I think that between your answer, Minister, and Hefin David's question you've pretty much touched on all aspects of my knowledge of the foundational economy. At the very end there you mentioned procurement, and it was only the other week in spokesperson's questions that I asked the Minister for Finance and procurement about the valuable role of procurement in developing local supply chains and growing the Welsh foundational economy, if that's a phrase we want to use. So, can you tell us a little bit more, elaborate a little bit more, on the last part of your answer there and how you intend to make sure that the Welsh Government's procurement policy does support those locally based, hopefully green industries that are the industries of now, but also the industries of the future?

Yes, the Minister for Finance and I are working closely together on this. There's a review being carried out of the National Procurement Service and as we look to reshape that, we want to make sure that the principles of the foundational economy are embedded in what comes next, and we're talking to the public services boards about how they can pilot some different approaches, building on the experience of Preston and other areas where there's been—I forget the term they use. It's gone from my head—[Interruption.] Community wealth building—thank you very much—working closely with the Minister as well as the Finance Minister. [Interruption.] Absolutely—seamless. Community wealth building, which is a—. The two terms are used interchangeably—the foundational economy and community wealth building. Community wealth building has a slightly broader focus, because that can focus not just on procurement, but on property and workforce and other aspects that will be different to different areas. 

The investment we have made and continue to make in digital infrastructure means that residents across mid Wales will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by a digital society.

Thank you for your answer, Deputy Minister. The consumer group Which? has recently highlighted the issue of access to cash across Wales and has outlined that Wales lost 3 per cent of its free cash point network between just July and November of last year. And as we transition towards an increasing digital society, people in my rural constituency are being, I feel, left behind on that journey—no more so than in Machynlleth, for example, where we saw the last bank close last year and most of its cash points with it. There now remain two cash points—one inside the Co-op and one inside the local Spar. So, access to cash, I would say, is still absolutely necessary for the thousands of tourists that visit mid Wales each year, and I wonder what action the Welsh Government can take to ensure that we manage these changes to a digital society in a sustainable way? And what can be done by Welsh Government, alongside others as well, I accept, to intervene when it is necessary to protect cash as a payment method as well?

Thank you for the question. You've raised a really important issue. It is not restricted just to mid Wales—this is as much an issue in Llanelli as it is Montgomeryshire. This is one of the reasons why the Welsh Government is working with the Scottish Government and the Royal Society of Arts on the development of a community bank, because we recognise the importance that banking facilities still have in communities. And whilst the commercial market has withdrawn from that space, there does need to be a Government intervention to make up for that market failure while society is in transition. So, we're currently working on that now, and we hope, through that, we'll be able to return some community banking facilities to high streets, and I'd be happy to have any ideas that the Member has on what further work we should do.

Question 7 [OAQ53628] was withdrawn. Question 8—David Rees.

Our broad approach to economic development in the Afan valley and across Wales is set out in the economic action plan, but can I just say that I very much welcome the news yesterday concerning planning permission for the Afan valley adventure resort?

Thank you for that answer, First Minister, and you've taken part of my question already. As you might be aware, the Afan valley has some of the most deprived areas in Wales and its economy has been hit because of loss of jobs and businesses up there. Now, as you rightly point out, I'd like to congratulate the Neath Port Talbot council on its decision to approve the outline application for the Afan valley resort, a project that is going to bring excitement to the community. It's intended to use local businesses and local people in employment. So, it’s going to, hopefully, regenerate the valley in one aspect of it, and the neighbouring Llynfi valley as well. But that project is also based upon an activity-centred resort. One of the biggest activities we can have is cycling, and as you well know, the Afan valley also has the connection between the Rhondda tunnel, which connects both valleys and the Rhondda valley through it. But there’s a big question on ownership of that tunnel still to be resolved so that they can actually seek funding opportunities to actually get that project under way, because that would be a huge attraction linked into the Afan valley resort. Now, Highways England still is the owner of that tunnel. What discussions are you having with both Highways England and the local authorities to take ownership of that tunnel so that we can get on with our project?

I believe that discussions are ongoing. Indeed, they are involving my friend and colleague's officials—the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism. I think, with regard to both the Afan valley adventure resort and the Rhondda tunnel, they both have great potential to be sustainable business opportunities. But, in addition, I am pleased to be able to say to the Member that, since April 2015, the Welsh Government, through Business Wales, has supported almost 1,000 enterprises in Neath Port Talbot. The exact figure is 980. That's generated a combined investment of £7.4 million and £33.8 million in exports and it's created more than 678 new jobs and more than 161 new enterprises. So, our support for my colleague's area is assured, and we will go on working with the supporters and promoters of the Rhondda tunnel and the Afan valley adventure resort in order to make sure that they are viable propositions.

Yes. The foundational economy has an important role to play in our wider approach to economic development. 

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you know, we still face significant economic challenges in our Valleys communities and the problems caused by poverty remain persistently stubborn in parts of my constituency. While I was interested in the answer that you gave earlier to Hefin David on the foundational economy, I'm interested to know specifically how this might help to deliver the step change in the economic conditions for areas particularly like the upper Rhymney valley, which has been stubbornly resistant to any kind of economic upturn. I'm thinking, for example, of the Welsh Government's work with Caerphilly County Borough Council, where we're investing in the transformation of care in the upper Rhymney valley, and whether you're involved in that work and whether you see that as part of the whole foundational economy transformation that we can look at in those Valleys communities. 

Thank you. I have been careful to avoid terms like 'transformation' and 'step change' in relation to the foundational economy. I think the foundational economy will help. It will make things better. It'll keep money—existing money—within those communities and stop it leaking out. And it'll allow us to harness the power of public spending in particular to improve the fabric of those communities and the lived experience there. We should be under no illusions about the type of intractable economic problems we face in those valleys, and no single intervention will make a step change in my view. So, I think we should be moderate in the rhetoric we use around that, but I think it can make a real difference.

And what's good about it is we have the powers to do it. It's within the tools we have at our disposal to do this work, and that's why we need to get on and do it. Also, it's important we stitch together existing initiatives. So, we have the Valleys taskforce, and I'm very pleased that Dawn Bowden has accepted my invitation to join the Valleys taskforce to input into its work. We also have the Better Jobs Closer to Home project, and we now have the work going on under the foundational economy—the three different strands that I mentioned—including growing grounded businesses. This is not just a public sector agenda; it's about growing responsible and rooted local firms too. And through bringing all those different strands together—. I had a meeting with officials this morning about how we co-ordinate that work within the Welsh Government to make sure we are joined up, and to do it in partnership with local authorities.

I'm meeting, as part of the Valleys taskforce work, with each of the local authority leaders and I want to use the Valleys taskforce to try and identify existing good practice and scale it up. We say often that best practice is a poor traveller in Wales. This is an opportunity to identify good practice. For example, in RCT, they've themselves been working on bringing abandoned homes back into use, and that's potentially a project we could scale across the Valleys using this approach, and, in doing so in a smart way, utilise local labour, local SMEs—we could potentially look at retrofitting to improve environmental standards and skills as we do it. So, I think this is an exciting agenda and it can make a real impact to our communities.

And, finally, question 10—Helen Mary Jones.

The work of the taskforce will be measured using a range of key indicators, such as employment data and those relating to impacts on health and well-being. Evaluation of key commitments taken forward by the taskforce and their impact on people across the Valleys will also contribute to evaluation.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his answer. Is he able to tell me whether the taskforce does or does not now include the Aman and the Gwendraeth valleys? The Minister will know, as well as I do, that there's a constant conversation, and sometimes those western valleys can fall off the edge. This is a real concern, obviously, because, while there may be some cultural differences, the social and economic problems at the top of the Aman valley are very similar to what you'd get at the top of the Rhymney valley, for example. So can the Minister tell me how the Amman and Gwendraeth will be included in the Valleys taskforce and how that work specifically will be evaluating and relating to those communities?

Well, by taking the approach that I just mentioned of taking a thematic approach and looking at how we can scale up existing best practice, and also focusing on the foundational economy as part of the Valleys taskforce, I hope we can spread the benefits beyond just the hubs, but right up into all tips of the Valleys and across the broadest breadth of the Valleys. So, for example, through the foundational economy work, it won't be simply limited to the current footprint of the Valleys taskforce. And it's important that the footprint is porous. So, to answer the specific question about the Amman and Gwendraeth Valleys, that is something that I recently asked officials to provide me with advice on. I have a constituency interest in this, so I won't be able to make a final decision on it, but it is something we're going to be clarifying very soon, I hope. 

Thank you, Minister and Deputy Minister.

The next questions are to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, and the first question is from Rhianon Passmore.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, in regard to—. It was clear, sorry, from this Chamber last week, following—

You need to ask the question on the order paper, please.

I've got it.

The Welsh Government and its agents are continuously assessing the potential impact and implications of Brexit on all aspects of Welsh society, including the arts and culture, to ensure that no area of Wales, including Islwyn, loses out as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

Thank you. It was clear from this Chamber last week, following the important statement by the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, that there is a clear and critical consensus in this place and outside of the chaotic stalemate in Westminster that Wales must continue, as promised by those opposite, to receive the very same level of funding that it would have had had the UK remained in the European Union—not a penny less. And we will all monitor this avidly. What discussions, therefore, has the Welsh Government had with the UK Government to reiterate to them the importance of continuing funding for the arts in Islwyn?

I thank the Member for that supplementary. I know there are many organisations in her constituency that have benefited from EU funding, including the Blackwood Miners' Institute and other organisations. We've been consistent in our insistence that the UK Government should deliver on its promise that Wales would not lose a penny of the income it receives currently from the EU after we leave, and that's just as true for arts and cultural funding as it is for any other aspect of the current programmes. 

It's currently unclear whether, for example, in relation to Creative Europe and other programmes, we will continue as the UK to be eligible for that in the longer term. In the event of a deal, it's possible projects could continue, but it's not at all clear in the context of no deal that there will be access to those programmes in the future. The Welsh Government, of course, provides significant funding to the arts through the Arts Council of Wales, and they've undertaken their own analysis of the impact of Brexit on the arts sectors in Wales. And some of it's about funding, of course, but other aspects of it, equally important in many ways, are around European collaboration, artist mobility, and the impact of tariff and border regulations on cross-border arts and cultural partnerships across the European Union. 

A 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic for Wales, but we are working at full capacity on preparedness, building on the arrangements reported to the Assembly on 22 January. This includes support to organisations from the European transition fund, with an additional £1.7 million for business resilience announced last week.

Thank you, Counsel General. And, yes, a 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic for Wales, which is one of the reasons why I'll be proud to march on Saturday for a people's vote, to try and prevent further catastrophe. [Interruption.] No, no; a people's vote on the Brexit deal, with an option to remain. 

As you know, one of my major concerns in relation to Brexit is the impact on our many hundreds of automotive jobs in Torfaen, and I've got absolutely no doubt that the very best option to protect those automotive jobs is for us to remain in the European Union. However, I understand of course that it is prudent to prepare for a 'no deal'. So, with that in mind, can I ask what specific steps you've been taking as a Government not just to work with the likes of Ford and Nissan, but to work with the companies, such as the ones in my constituency, which are working very hard making parts for our automotive companies throughout the European Union?

I thank the Member for that supplementary. She has raised this with me a number of times in the Chamber. I know how vital the automotive sector is in her constituency and in other parts of Wales. There is a very, very constant stream of communication—two-way communication—between Welsh Government, the Minister for Economy and Transport and officials with companies who are car producers, but also in the supply chains across Wales. She will know that there has been funding made available for skills training for some of those larger employers in the automotive sector. I took the opportunity of a recent meeting with the UK Government on UK-wide preparedness to make the point that even though we see companies, car producers, in England—for example, Honda in Swindon—making decisions to disinvest, the impact of that sort of decision is felt across the UK, including in Wales, in a number of the supply chains feeding into that company. And there are several companies who are significantly dependent on that sort of supply chain for their business and profitability.

She will have noticed that the UK Government's tariffs announcement in the last week or 10 days in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, which was described by the Confederation of British Industry and many unions as very, very disappointing, obviously had something specific to say about car component parts. Actually, the focus there needs to be on the non-tariff barriers as well, so that companies in Wales and across the UK can continue to export car components in what are increasingly complex production and supply chains.  

Questions now from the party spokespeople, and the Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Brexit Minister, who do you agree with when it comes to whether there should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the EU—the First Minister or the health Minister? 

The First Minister was very clear yesterday in the Chamber about the Welsh Government's policy in relation to Brexit. We see two options for the future. One is the kind of deal that we've been describing in 'Securing Wales' Future' for the last more than two years and, failing that, a referendum. 

Well, that was a good attempt at a body swerve, but you didn't actually answer the question. You're quite right to say that the First Minister did say that it would be divisive and may not be decisive if there were to be a second referendum, and he made it quite clear that there was no support for a second referendum from the Welsh Government at this current stage. But, of course, that's very different from the pronouncements from the health Minister today, who is now actively campaigning, it seems, for a so-called people's vote, to the extent that he's organising two buses from London to Cardiff. Can you tell us where this leaves the Welsh Government's collective responsibility, whether you think that a Minister who defies the Government's position ought to resign, because, clearly—[Interruption.]—clearly, the health Minister—[Interruption.]—the health Minister may well want to organise buses, but he's not on the same bus as the Welsh Government?    

Well, that's a complete mischaracterisation both of the health Minister's position, the First Minister's discussion yesterday in the Chamber and Welsh Government policy, which is, as I say, completely clear and was made again clear in the Chamber yesterday by the First Minister. We've been very clear that a referendum is one of the options for resolving this. We have also described the kind of deal that we think we should seek and, failing that, a referendum is the way of resolving it. We've called for preparations to be made on that basis. There is no issue here; the First Minister was very clear about Government policy yesterday.   

The First Minister, as I've quite rightly said, is absolutely clear on this issue, but the health Minister seems to not be interested in this issue of collective responsibility. And, frankly, anyone who's not prepared to abide by collective responsibility in any Government ought to resign. [Interruption.] Let me just—[Interruption.] Let me just remind you—[Interruption.] Let me just remind you of the current state of play when it comes to the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union. The UK Parliament has rejected a second referendum, it has rejected 'no deal', and it has rejected very soundly membership of any kind of customs union. There's only one deal that has been negotiated by the European Union: the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated. That deal delivers on the referendum result, it protects jobs, it protects security arrangements across the EU, and, indeed, it protects the integrity of the United Kingdom. So, when will the Welsh Government wake up, smell the coffee, get behind the Prime Minister, in a team UK approach, in order that we can deliver the Brexit that the people of Wales and the United Kingdom voted for?

Might I give the Member a little bit of advice? If he's going to choose to attack us on the basis of consistency, I suggest he looks a little closer to home. And I think a bit more focus on the national interest, as opposed to simply the party interest, would have meant that this country was not in the position that it is in now, of three years of wasted time, while his Prime Minister was not able to come up with a deal that commands the support of the House of Commons, could command the support of her Cabinet, or puts the Secretary of State for Wales in a position where he can vote consistently with his own voting record—voting for and against no deal. Completely irresponsible.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Minister, do you personally believe that the health Minister was right in calling for the second vote?

Well, as I've just mentioned, I'm absolutely clear that the Government's policy on this is very clear. The First Minister and the health Minister have responded about this. There is no question about the Government policy on this, as I've articulated a number of times already today.

Minister, we on the Plaid Cymru benches applaud Mr Gething for his bravery, and for being willing to put his job on the line, in order to stand up for what's best for Wales, and for the whole of the UK. Of course, in order for a referendum to be held, or indeed for the First Minister's position of a deal to be done, we will need to extend article 50. Will the Minister tell us how long the Welsh Government believes article 50 should be extended for, and for what purpose?

Well, I'm glad to see the Member now being very clear about her policy. Plaid Cymru has held three different policies in as many months on this question, so good to have her clarifying her position. What I think is disappointing is that the Prime Minister has sought an extension to the end of June, and is clearly pursuing a strategy that is completely irresponsible, of ploughing on regardless. We have been clear that what should now happen—and I've been clear this morning, in conversations with the UK Government that what needs to happen is for there to be a fundamental change of strategy, so that the Prime Minister seeks a much broader consensus in Parliament, reflecting the kinds of principles that the Welsh Labour Government, and Plaid Cymru, outlined in 'Securing Wales' Future', one which is about cross-party talks, with no red lines. That involves rewriting the political declaration that, if she were to pursue that, would be possible within the current extension time frame that she has left. But I think that, without that change of strategy, the time frame that she has sought in her letter to Donald Tusk today will not lead us to any better situation than we are in today.

Minister, I must say I am at a bit of a loss as to why Welsh Labour contests Assembly elections if the party has no desire to form a coherent policy on the great matter of the day when they're in Government. You'll know that the EU has said it's only willing to grant an extension to article 50 if the purpose for doing so is abundantly clear, and that requires a timescale that makes sense. Now, unless I missed it from your answer, you didn't say exactly how long you think that article 50 should be extended for. The Times has reported that the European Commission is unlikely to accept a short extension, because it would be fraught with legal and political difficulties, and France is unlikely to consent to that, which means that, if Labour were to—as is being reported now—call for a short delay only, that would make crashing out of the EU within 11 days with no deal a very likely outcome.

Minister, your position is illogical, irregular and irresponsible. And I have to wonder whether you are really serious about offering a sensible strategy out of this mess, or whether Labour's real aim here is to implement a scorched-earth strategy, by facilitating a disastrous 'no deal' Brexit as a means of getting Jeremy Corbyn into power. Plaid Cymru is absolutely clear about what should happen now. Article 50 should be extended for 21 months so that a referendum can be held at the end of that period, when we know what that will mean—between whatever deal is negotiated in the meantime, and remaining in the EU. This would avert the impending 'no deal' catastrophe, and allow time to sort out this mess, once and for all, as Mr Gething clearly understands. Yesterday, the First Minister accused the UK Government of providing

'no leadership, no collective responsibility and no control'

over Brexit. Minister, is the same not true of your Government?

Well, I will make the point clear again to the Member: what I said this morning to the UK Government in a telephone conference is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the way the UK Government is approaching this question. What they're doing is completely irresponsible. If 30 June is the extent of the extension, which the EU will consider—. By the way, as we stand here today, it isn't clear that that is even acceptable to the European Union, so let's not be complacent about the prospect of leaving without a deal at the end of next week. I think that is something that we need to remain focused on. But if that is the extent of the extension required, then renegotiation of political declaration is certainly possible in that time frame. And, if it were us doing that, we would be seeking to do that in a way that reflects the principles that her party also signed up to in 'Securing Wales' Future', and which I believe strongly, and the Welsh Government believes that there is a majority for in Parliament and that there is certainly enthusiasm for in the European Union. And, as I have said, and as the Welsh Government has said repeatedly: if that is not possible, then another referendum would be required to break that deadlock. 

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. As the First Minister knows, the Prime Minister has now formally made an application to the EU to extend Britain's membership of the EU until 30 June, but would he agree with me that the decision to be made is not simply a political one, but also has legal implications as well, and that the advice that the European Commission has received is that, if the UK is allowed to extend its membership beyond 22 May, it will be a legal requirement for Britain, therefore, to take part in the European Parliament elections? And given that 148 Labour constituencies voted to leave in the referendum and only 84 to remain, does he view that prospect with equanimity?

Certainly, the issue around the legal implications of an extension are one of the consideration that I know are live in the minds of European Union partners. Clearly, there is a point at which the constitution of the new Parliament at the end of June/early July, poses very significant change in the environment. And there are concerns, I think, around whether, if the UK was a member beyond that point without having elected Members of the European Parliament, there might be challenge to the constitution of the new Commission and so on, which feels to me like a risk they would be very disinclined to run in practical terms. So, there are very real constraints to the question we've been discussing in the last 10 or 15 minutes around the extension that might be possible.

What advice has he given to the Welsh Government on this point? Is it his legal opinion that if Britain's membership is extended beyond 22 or 23 May, we will legally be obliged to take part in those European Parliament elections that will be taking place in every other EU member state throughout Europe?

Well, I'm not answering questions in my capacity as the Counsel General, but I will assert the privilege that I'm inclined not to use usually and I will just remind him that I don't disclose advice that I give to the Welsh Government in relation to this.

I thank the Counsel General for a wholly uninformative answer, of course. But just to revert to the question that Lynne Neagle asked earlier on about the effect of a 'no deal' on the automotive industry in her constituency, as she alleged at any rate, has the Counsel General seen that today, in fact, Toyota has announced that it's going to begin producing a new generation of hybrid cars at its factory in Derbyshire next year, despite the global car industry downturn, and that these cars that will be built for Suzuki will also use engines produced at Toyota's Deeside plant in Wales—all despite Brexit, of course? Meanwhile, Ford has also announced that it is cutting 5,000 jobs in Germany, which, of course, is nothing to do with Brexit, and, therefore, what is happening in the world, certainly in the automotive world, is that the tectonic plates are changing and that Europe, as a whole, is going to suffer from its addiction to over-regulation and inward-looking protectionist attitudes, and that if we were outside the common external tariff and the customs regime, we would have the opportunity to exploit the 85 per cent of the global economy that is not part of the European Union and that is expanding, unlike the European Union, which is contracting economically.

Well, we are living in a global economy, which is shifting very dramatically. That's precisely the point. That's why we think that taking the view that the Member takes, which is crashing out of the European Union with no deal, is particularly catastrophic. At a time when we are all managing global change, seeking the kind of traumatic change that he's advocating for would be completely irresponsible. Where there have—[Interruption.] Where there have been examples of investment, as he points out, it is because of diligent work by the Welsh Government, by the economy Secretary, over a long period of time to ensure that companies understand the level of commitment that the Welsh Government is prepared to make to significant employers in Wales. And that work of preparedness is exactly the kind of work that needs to happen and continue to happen across the UK so that we ensure that the disruptive effects of Brexit are minimised and that, where we can encourage businesses to invest, we are able to do so.

The Welsh Government’s priorities remain unchanged. The UK Government must remove the 'no deal' cliff edge and seek the close relationship with the EU that we set out in 'Securing Wales’ Future' with participation in a customs union and the single market together with dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer, but I want to turn to another priority. On Question Time on the BBC last week and on Sunday night on the BBC Wales Live programme and in conversations in the streets and the cafes and the pubs and clubs across Wales and with families and neighbours and on anti-social media, there is often a harsher, brutal and sometimes a downright nasty edge to the debate around Brexit. Now we know, as we see here today in the Chamber, that passions run high in such a high-stakes debate, but you can actually now touch and feel the anger from those on all sides of the debate—those who are desperate for Brexit, those who are desperate to avoid a cliff edge, those who are desperate to see a second referendum. It's fair to say that some seem happy to talk up the prospect of civil unrest, which I regard as wholly and probably criminally irresponsible. Be careful what you wish for.

In this country of Wales and in the UK, we resolve these issues through democratic means, because, flawed as all our democracies may be, it's far better than the alternatives of anarchy or dictatorship. So, my question to the Counsel General and, through him, to the whole Welsh Government, is this: whatever the outcome of the coming weeks and months, what can we and what can our Welsh Government do to repair the corrosive fissures that have now opened up in our communities, to heal the damaged relationship between the elected and the electorate and to build again a shared vision for the future of Wales behind which all can unite? Now more than ever is the time and the need for that vision, that ambition and that leadership that can unite all the people of Wales.

Well, I think that's a profoundly important question, if I may say so. I think I reflect that the debates around Brexit often take one of two different paths, don't they? One is the high politics of what's happening in Parliament, what's happening in the European Union; and then the other is the question of preparing for different outcomes and the practical aspects in people's daily lives of what they need to do, if they're running businesses and so on, to look at that. And the piece that's often missing is that piece in the middle that describes the kind of country we want to be at the other end of it, and I think it's incumbent on us all in positions of national prominence and leadership to contribute to that picture of how we want Wales to be after Brexit.

Some of that is about the practical aspect. So, the Government is committing funding to support community cohesion co-ordinators around Wales, who are delivering practical interventions to allay concerns, very often, at this point. There's funding that we've made available to manage anticipation-of-hate-crime initiatives and so on—so, the practical things. But there's also that challenge of national leadership for all of us, isn't there, to make sure that we try and conduct the debate in a way that is respectful and recognises that passions can run high and loyalties run deep but also that we are always focused on making sure that everyone who is living in Wales or who wants to come to Wales recognises that we not only are an inclusive society but that we celebrate that value as a fundamental aspect of what we're about as a nation.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments that were expressed by the Member for Ogmore. Something none of us wants to see is that situation of civil unrest unfolding. In response to the questions from the Conservative spokesperson, which I thought were very legitimate, in fairness, we can argue about what's going on at the other end of the M4, but this is Assembly question time, and this morning two positions have developed within the Welsh Government, and you are the Brexit Minister, and it is important that we understand which is the position that you as the Brexit Minister are supporting. Are you supporting the position of the First Minister, as laid out yesterday, that a second vote would be divisive, or are you supporting the health Secretary, who says a second vote is what's required, and the Member for Blaenau Gwent calls that 'principled leadership'? Because if you read the press statement that was put out by the health Secretary today, he is goading the First Minister to fire him from the Government because he says he's not sure whether he'll be in the Government or not if he undertakes his act on Saturday. So, can you clarify today who is right—the First Minister or the health Secretary? It's a pretty straightforward question. 

And I've answered it several times, with respect. 

No, you haven't. 

The First Minister outlined yesterday Welsh Government policy and I will repeat it again if the Member isn't clear what that is. The health Secretary has said that he supports another referendum. That is part of the Welsh Government's policy position: if we can't get the deal that we've advocated for, then a referendum is the means of breaking that deadlock. 

So, the First Minister's wrong, you say. 

The Minister for Education fully supports the current re-referencing of the credit and qualifications framework for Wales to the European qualifications framework alongside Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, to ensure continued comparability and portability of qualifications, and to facilitate the mobility of learners and jobseekers to and from Wales.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, most of what I was going to say was on that—that we do need to make sure that people have equivalences, that people can move from country to country in order to carry out skilled work and that the qualifications are treated as equal. That is incredibly important. How is the Welsh Government, working with either the Minister for Education or with the Government in Westminster, going to ensure that occurs? I mean, we can't be certain we're going to keep all the geographical food names being protected once we come out of the European Union. We hope it's going to happen; we can't guarantee that we'll keep them. We can't guarantee we're going to keep them if we do deals with the United States of America. But the point I'm trying to make is: how can we guarantee our qualifications—City and Guilds qualifications were considered amongst the best in the world by many, many people—are still considered within Europe as equivalences of the European qualifications?

Well, at this time, Qualifications Wales is working on a report in relation to this. It will be presented to the Minister for Education, who I know will be making announcements at that point. The publication, I think, of the final report is intended currently to be over the summer. But, in relation to the future arrangements, clearly this is part of the discussions that are ongoing between the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government. Clearly, as with many of these things, the fork in the road depends on whether there is a deal or there isn't a deal. Clearly, in the context of a deal, there's a framework that may be continued at least in the short term. In a 'no deal' scenario, you're looking at a question of ensuring compliance with the individual member state requirements in relation to qualification recognition, which I'm sure we would all agree is a scenario we want to be able to avoid for the reasons that underlie the Member's question. 

I'd like to come at this from the other way around, if I may, because, at the moment, of course, a qualified teacher coming from the European Union can work here without any further training being necessary, whereas qualified teachers from other parts of the world need to basically retrain. Once we leave the European Union, there's a genuine question then about whether it will be illegal to discriminate against qualified teachers from other countries. I'm wondering what your view of this might be and whether you'll be speaking with the education Minister, perhaps, about the need to review that position, particularly in view of the new curriculum, where, actually, the qualifications of those other overseas teachers may be more relevant than they are at the moment? 

There is obviously a significant piece of work in relation to the qualifications make-up of the public sector workforce across Wales generally, including in the education sector, and that has been the basis of a lot of the representations we've made in the Brexit context particularly to the UK Government and beyond. But this is an area where work is absolutely under way at the moment. I know the Minister for Education is working on these questions at the moment. 

The delivery period for projects funded through the current EU structural funds programmes ends, as you know, in 2023, so we are around the halfway point in delivering the programmes. As a result, the majority of projects are still under way.

There is quite some concern about the future of an innovative project, the Ffarm Moelyci project, in my constituency. The Cwm Harry trust are almost two years into a three-year project, which is led by a German university, as part of the INTERREG programme, which includes 11 partners in five European nations. The project has ordered a large biomass processor and is about to spend tens of thousands of pounds in the local economy. As you have said, there was a pledge that projects that have been approved would receive funds should Brexit happen. But Cwm Harry tell me that the whole project in Moelyci is under a cloud because they have been given to understand that those assurances are no longer in place. So, can you give us some clarity about the situation? Are there other projects under threat, and what can you as a Government do to assist?

Thank you for that further question. I know that the Member has written to me regarding that specific question. Officials are looking into the detail of that situation, and I will write back to you shortly about that specifically.

But, in more general terms, in the context of leaving without a deal, the UK Government has offered a guarantee in terms of funding projects that have been confirmed before the end of next year. Therefore, there's an opportunity to spend beyond that towards 2023. So, in principle, if we left without a deal or with an agreement, there shouldn’t be any change within the current arrangements for those who already receive funding within the period of the programmes that have already been approved.

Discussions are happening at the moment between this Government, between the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, and the UK Government regarding the detail of how that guarantee works. On a practical level, one of the things that we are trying to ensure is that the same flexibility relates to this commitment over a period of years as is relevant now. But, in terms of what the Member is requesting specifically, I'm happy to answer the question she has already sent me.

Minister, I'm sure that you'll be aware that projects in Pembrokeshire that have been in receipt of European funding are very varied, ranging from tackling unemployment among young people and supporting specialist innovation in small businesses, to infrastructure projects and expanding the tourism industry. It's important that any follow-up funding programmes do allow communities to play a full part in spending decisions. Can the Minister confirm that any new proposals will ensure that funding is targeted at specific areas, or does the Welsh Government have a particular strategy in view to refocus on other aspects of public policy?

Thanks to the Member for that question and the acknowledgement that communities across Wales have taken advantage of European funding during our time as Members. The contribution made by these funds to our economy and our society and sectors across Wales has been very important. In terms of what's going to happen in the future, there is a question at the moment regarding the decisions an commitment of the Westminster Government on this. We, as the Member will know, are pressing for a specific commitment that decisions on these sorts of issues will still be taken by a Welsh Government, and that there will no less funding available for that. Despite pressing for that for a while, at every opportunity that we have, those two commitments haven't been given clearly, so that question is still one that we are pushing for.

However, the question of regional support is slightly broader than that—the shared prosperity fund is the name given to it by the Government in Westminster. There are a number of other sources, and the question of what will be a follow-up is still being considered. The Government has established a steering committee under the chairmanship of Huw Irranca-Davies, and that looks at delivery mechanisms for the future—exactly the same sort of question the Member is asking: how can we deliver at a grass-roots level in a different way in the future? Perhaps he also knows that the Government has commissioned a project from the OECD that is looking at how this is happening in other countries and learning from international best practice so that we have evidence, within the structure, for schemes in the future. Part of that work will report this year and another part next year.

The First Minister, other Ministers and I met with local government leaders in January to consider how local authorities were preparing for all EU exit scenarios. Ministers and leaders have met again this week. Local authorities must also assess their own preparations. The Wales Audit Office, as the Member will know, has assessed the public sector overall. 

I recently wrote to a number of local authorities asking them for details of their Brexit planning, and in particular what assessment they had made of the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on their spending, service delivery and other related matters. In response, one council told me, and I quote directly, that the short answer is,

'none, at least of any substance'.

Other councils are at a more advanced stage, with cabinets having already received and discussed Brexit reports, as you say. Are you therefore concerned that some local authorities seem to be lagging behind? What monitoring mechanisms have you got in place? At this late stage, what plans have you got to ensure that all local authorities are as prepared as they can be?

Well, that's a very good question. Of course, the Wales Audit Office indicated that the work that they had done at the back end of last year indicated a degree of variability between local authorities. I must say, I'm not sure that that is the picture now, so I'm concerned to hear that one response that the Member referred to there.

There are a number of challenges here. We have funded, through the EU transition fund made available to the Welsh Local Government Association funding—modest amounts, in all truth—to provide a kind of sharing of best practice and to develop a toolkit so that individual authorities are able to assess for themselves what their readiness is, and that's public domain information in relation to the dashboards that they've put together.

In relation to the individual resources of authorities, the Minister for local government announced last week further funding to all local authorities in Wales to increase their capacity for preparedness for Brexit preparations in general. It's ultimately a question for local authorities to satisfy themselves, of course, but, mindful of what the Wales Audit Office indicated in that report, one of the steps the Government is taking in response to that is to support activities between WLGA and the academy to build capacity for scrutiny of the political decisions being taken in local authorities across Wales. His question was about operations, but it was also about political leadership and political scrutiny. There have been, or there are about to be, roadshow events for authorities in Swansea and in two other locations—I'll remind myself of where the two other locations are—and they are under way at the moment. So, we hope very much that that will raise the capacity of those undertaking scrutiny of political decisions in local government around these decisions.

Perhaps the best de facto example of local government preparation for Brexit in Wales is represented by the north Wales growth deal and north Wales growth bid, based upon funding, direct and indirect from both Governments, but also internal devolution to be equivalent to that devolved from the UK Government to the Northern Powerhouse. It was understood that heads of terms would be agreed between the Governments and the growth board by the end of February, but nothing has been heard publicly since then. Are you able to provide, therefore, an update on the current position in that regard?

I am not, I'm afraid, but I will write to the Member in relation to that.

I have discussed the importance of maintaining frictionless trade between Wales and Ireland with Ministers from the Republic, including at the last meeting of the British-Irish Council, and I hope very much to be meeting my counterpart in the Irish Government to build upon the existing close relationships between Wales and Ireland.

I read about huge pessimism on both sides of the Irish border, and I'm concerned to probe with you what the impact on our trade with Ireland could be because we know that we export over £1 billion-worth of goods to Ireland, and most Irish exports come through Fishguard, Pembroke and Holyhead to other parts of Europe. So, that is one huge aspect of it that is very difficult to understand how it's all going to work out, given that there's a possibility of 'no deal', a quick-fix deal, a jobs-and-economy deal, or if the public decide not to leave the European Union. It seems to me it's hugely important that with our nearest neighbour we continue to maintain good trade and other relationships with them. I just wondered how difficult that is proving to be, given that London seems to have very little idea of where either Wales or Ireland are.

Well, underlying the question is the question of uncertainty about what happens next, and plainly that is the overarching context for all that reflection and discussions. I was in Holyhead a few weeks ago, talking to the port authorities there. Obviously, one of the biggest variables in what happens to them after we leave the European Union is the response in Dublin, in the port there, in terms of border infrastructure and checks and so on. That's a significant issue, as the question obviously acknowledges.

There are, of course, other dimensions to this. We saw, as I mentioned in my response to an earlier question, the publication of the UK Government's proposals for tariffs in the event of 'no deal' and they have a dimension that affects trade with Ireland, in relation in particular to beef imports, and there's also, of course, the commitment in that policy document to ensuring that there will be no customs checks on the border with the Republic, which feels to me like it's not a sustainable long-term arrangement in a context where otherwise there isn't a broader customs relationship, and, of course, it poses a potential challenge for us here in Wales. If it is easier to ship goods from the Republic into Northern Ireland without tariffs and from there into Great Britain, that may pose a challenge for the trade route from Ireland directly into Wales. So, I think these dimensions need to be—. There are many unintended consequences to some of these policy decisions, so we're very alive to some of the potential challenges we may face in that context.

Given reports that the Brexit Protest and Direct Action Group, led by figures involved in the 2000 fuel protests, are threatening to disrupt Irish trade with a go-slow on the A55 this Friday and a blockade of Holyhead and Pembroke Dock on Saturday, what will the Welsh Government do to minimise disruption?

I know that the Minister for Economy and Transport is engaged in this issue already in relation to the concerns the Member has raised.

Regular discussions have taken place on all aspects of planning for a potential 'no deal' Brexit, involving Ministers, Welsh Government officials, and health and social care organisation leads. There has also been regular engagement with key partners and Governments across the UK.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his reply. I've got particular concerns about the care workforce and the percentage of staff currently employed in care homes who are citizens of the European Union. Now, of course, they will be permitted to stay, but there are real questions about how welcome they'd feel and whether they will choose to continue to do so, particularly after a 'no deal' Brexit and the potentially hostile environment that Huw Irranca-Davies referred to earlier.

What discussions has the Counsel General had with the Minister for health, both about how we can reassure this section of the workforce that they will continue to be very welcome here in Wales, but also about the potential to recruit from beyond the European Union if we have to, in a more co-ordinated and concerted way than we've done in the past? In the past, we have had different health boards going out to, for example, the Philippines to recruit nurses and competing against each other, which seems to make very little sense. So, can he provide us some reassurance today that there is some long-term thinking going on about how we protect, particularly, the care workforce, both in terms, as I've said, of making those people who are with us now feel welcome, but also thinking about how we may need to replace them if a hard Brexit does happen?

I thank the Member for that question. It’s obviously a very important point.

In relation to the social care workforce generally, obviously the make-up of that workforce has been one of the issues that the Minister for Health and Social Services has been very focused on. We've undertaken a piece of research to identify what the likely levels of employment are within the sector from the European Union, and, obviously, they are reasonably significant. It's one of the sectors where, in my discussions directly with the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, and in the formal representations that the Government will be making to the UK Government, we've identified the issue of the social care workforce as one that requires a particular approach in terms of protection through the migration policy. The current proposals in the White Paper that the Government has brought forward do nothing to support the social care workforce, and that’s important from the point of view of the workforce, but it’s also important from the point of view of the sustainability of the workforce and, therefore, the provision of services to people who are often in a very vulnerable position.

There are also discussions going on in relation to how best to ensure that social care workers are able to understand the mechanism for acquiring settled status under the UK Government's proposal. And we've also made funding available to the Association of Directors of Social Services to look at the planning for resilience in the workforce more generally in the longer term.

On the question of making the social care workforce from the EU feel welcome, absolutely, that’s a vitally important dimension to all of this, and I hope that all of us will take the opportunity of making it absolutely clear to workers in all parts of our public services who live here and are from the European Union that they are, and continue to be, welcome as an important part of Welsh public services and Welsh society.

And finally, question 9, David Rees.

Whilst the effects of leaving without a deal cannot be completely mitigated, we are doing all that we can to prepare for this eventuality. Staff across the organisation have been told to prioritise this work, and we have filled 127 additional Brexit-related posts, with a further 53 in train.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General.

Now, whilst we're here, it's obviously nine days away from the legal date on which we are supposed to be leaving the EU, yet we don't know whether we'll be leaving the EU with a deal, with no deal, or maybe an extension. And I'm sure that the chaos we are seeing comes from a shambolic Government in Westminster. But you, as a Welsh Government, have to manage that chaos here in Wales. Now, you've just identified that you've got 124 extras, with 50-odd in train beyond that; is that going to be enough for next Friday if we go without a deal? What implications does that have for other business of the Welsh Government? Can we ensure that we can deliver the services to the people of Wales that they need and continue to want and desire following Brexit without a deal? Because, unfortunately, the way we are going, the shambles we are seeing, that’s a very strong possibility.

Well, the Member invites me to say, 'Don't worry, it'll be fine on the day', and I'm not going to say that, because that's not the position of level of reassurance that we can give.

In relation to preparedness generally, we've been careful to be specific about what we think the situations are in relation to different levels of preparedness, because I think that's the most helpful way of giving people in Wales an understanding of what we are doing, what the UK Government are doing, and what our expectations are, for example, if you're a business owner. So, we've tried to be very specific in relation to the advice that we are giving.

On the question of the resources of Government to deal with this, clearly the resources of Government are stretched thin in relation to preparing for Brexit. That is true in Wales; it’s true in all parts of the UK, because this is an additional burden that, certainly here in Wales, we don't welcome. Within the context of doing that, we have been recruiting, as he will know in his capacity as Chair of the relevant committee, significant numbers—obviously, significantly less than is happening across the UK, for reasons that are obvious. Does that involve taking people from doing other important things? Yes. Would we prefer not to have to do that? Yes. But, in the context that we are in, until we know that 'no deal' is not a possible outcome—and we are certainly nowhere near that as I stand here today—we are going to have to continue deploying the resources that we have to make sure that, where we can mitigate the worst excesses of 'no deal', we can try and do that. But I just want to be clear for the Member that we have been categorical that it is not possible to mitigate for the impact of 'no deal' either in the short term or in the long term, fully.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. Diolch.

Item 3 is topical questions. The first of the topical questions today will be answered by the Minister for Economy and Transport. Joyce Watson.

Yes, thank you. This is clearly very disappointing news for the company, for the workforce, their clients and the wider Welsh construction supply chain. We stand ready to do all that we can to support the workers through the work of a taskforce that I have asked to be established immediately.

I thank you for that answer, Minister, but my immediate concern is for the workforce and for their families, and for those left out of pocket throughout the supply chain. It must be, indeed, an extremely worrying time for them. There is also a need to ensure that any apprentices that are caught up in this are supported, and the Construction Industry Training Board have indicated that they are willing to help, and have helped in other situations like this.

When a large company like Dawnus does go into administration, it puts smaller, local businesses at risk, potentially having a devastating impact on those local economies. We know that they directly employ 700 people, and that's a large number in and of itself, but there is a much larger potential number within the locality, as I've just described. These are not just numbers of people, but real families being affected by this collapse. So I'm keen to know what support is available from Welsh Government to all the companies and the workers who've been affected by this worrying news.

Also, the other side of this is that, in my constituency, Mid and West Wales, Dawnus were contracted to build a 360-pupil English-medium primary school, a 150-pupil Welsh-medium primary school in Welshpool, and the replacement for Ysgol Bro Hyddgen in Machynlleth. The Welshpool English-medium school is scheduled for completion this September. But they were also contracted within my area to deliver the £1.1 million Chimneys link road and development scheme in Fishguard, and that is now on hold. So, Minister, could I ask what discussions Welsh Government are having with the industry to ensure that these projects that I've mentioned in Mid and West Wales, and the others that are contracted to Dawnus, are going to be carried on successfully, and that those people's minds, those expecting those projects to be delivered, and to be employed within them, are put at ease?

Can I thank Joyce Watson for her questions and join her in expressing my deep sympathies for the many people, the many families that are being affected by this very distressing news, and who will be assisted by the taskforce? We have a proven track record through convening taskforces for Virgin, for Schaeffler, for Tesco and other businesses that have lost human resources, and I'm confident that we will be able to find many employment opportunities elsewhere in the sector.

The Member raised a number of important points, including the future of the apprentices and businesses that were employed in various projects through the supply chain. Now, I can confirm that we have engaged with the Construction Industry Training Board and will work with them to identify new placements for as many of the apprentices as possible, so that they can complete their frameworks and go on to secure sustainable long-term employment within the sector.

The Member also made the very important point that this is a challenge that does not affect just the south of Wales, but also mid Wales and north Wales, urban Wales and rural Wales as well. Therefore, the challenge is a national one and that's why the taskforce will be viewing this through the prism of interventions across the country if necessary.

We'll be working with the administrator and also with partner agencies and the private sector to ensure the best possible outcome for all affected. We'll also be working with local government over the many schools programmes, the flood defence schemes and infrastructure projects to ensure that the public purse is protected and that as many of the projects as possible can be taken forward through subcontractors or through alternative arrangements. This is a very distressing time for many businesses and many families, but the Welsh Government and, of course, the Development Bank of Wales, stand ready to assist wherever we can.

Thank you very much for that last comment, because one of the questions I was going to ask, of course, was that this is different from Tesco or Virgin—this is a company in which the Welsh Government has invested, and there's a question, then, about, by enabling Dawnus to exist for another two or three years, whether you've allowed certain contracts to be entered into, by the very fact that the company was allowed to exist to enter into those contracts.

But I want to start with some questions about the Welsh Government's loan and the £1.5 million that's outstanding on that. We're talking about administration here, not liquidation, so this is going to take some time and a court order before you can get your money out of this. Can you confirm that it is a fixed charge that you've got and not a floating charge, and the value of the assets against which that is secured? Just to give us a rough idea of how much is available for other creditors once you and the banks have been paid.

In our earlier written statement, you referred to Dawnus's weakening cash position. Do we know how much money the company is owed by its debtors? And why in particular the confidence that was shown in them in 2016 in a recovery plan has proven unfounded? Because, presumably, that relied, to a certain degree, on any debts that were outstanding at that point being paid swiftly and any future debts being paid swiftly. I think, probably, an element of the confidence shown in this company by other public bodies, such as councils, will be partly based on the green light that you showed Dawnus back in 2016, and I'm wondering whether you agree that that is the case or whether every public body should rely 100 per cent on their own due diligence, rather than look to Welsh Government to be giving indications of confidence in particular companies.

Can you confirm, in particular, that the Welsh European Funding Office funding for the Kingsway development in Swansea is unaffected? I know the council is looking for a new contractor, obviously, to take over that work, but if that funding is at risk in any way, then that is pretty serious.

And then, my final question, which was about the workforce and supply chains: you mentioned that the development bank could step in if necessary, but will you be asking the supply chain companies to be looking to their own banks first, or is this an open offer, effectively, for those companies with cash flow-only problems? I'm not asking you to save them if they're not sustainable companies, but is that an open offer or is it an alternative offer to what the banks may be prepared to do?

Thank you. Can I thank the Member for her questions? In all fairness to those subcontractor businesses engaged through the supply chain, I do believe that many of them have already engaged with their respective banks, but the Development Bank of Wales will be working very closely with Welsh Government through the taskforce to identify any additional need that might be required.

I can't comment on other debtors at present, but it's my understanding, with regard to the specific question about the Kingsway project, that the WEFO funding is unaffected. However, I will be seeking a guarantee of that, and I will, clearly, update Members once I have confirmation.

With regard to the investment through the £3.5 million commercial loan by Welsh Government, that was matched by £3.5 million from the business's own bank, under the same terms and conditions, and also the same level of security and support was provided in order to help the business and its employees, as I've already stated, through a very difficult period concerning its cash flow. Now, to date, we've received £2 million back, and we're confident that the terms of the loan will see outstanding moneys repaid in due course. But I think it's absolutely right that, at this moment in time, the focus of our attention should be on the employees and on subcontractors and suppliers who, undoubtedly, are being badly affected by the developments at Dawnus. So, we are clearly focusing our attention on ensuring that the impacts of the company's demise are minimised, both in terms of local communities and the national economy. I think it's important to say that, with regard to previous Welsh Government support—and I make no apology for supporting the company in the past to ensure that they could deliver projects and to ensure that they could go on employing 700 people—extensive and intensive due diligence is carried out before contracts are signed, and I am very confident that those contracts that were signed were done so in good faith and in the belief that the company could deliver them through to completion.

I won't repeat the questions that have been raised already, but I reiterate that I share the concerns that have been raised about the workforce and so on. This was a company that was very, very important, of course, in Wales. A proud Welsh company, a strong Welsh name—'dawnus' is Welsh for 'talented', reflecting the real talent that there was within the company. It is a call for all the help to those talents within the company, and those associated with it as subcontractors, that is foremost in our minds today. Concerns have been raised by my colleagues Bethan Jenkins and Dai Lloyd in the south-west of Wales where the company was based, but the concerns, you're right, are Wales-wide, and Dawnus was involved in some key contracts in my constituency as well.

So, we are concerned about the directly employed staff, and the subcontractors are owed millions of pounds, of course. I've spoken with one, a really good company in my constituency, who's owed £175,000. For a small company, that is a lot of money. If you could explain, either now or in coming days and weeks, all the steps that are being taken to maximise the money that can be repaid to those subcontractors, and also the work being done to ensure that those subcontractors are supported in getting involved in continuing with the projects that Dawnus was involved in in various parts of Wales—. Another key question for me moving forward is what is being done to look at the possibility of allowing TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—transfer for those workers that were directly employed with Dawnus to contractors that will be carrying on the work on various contracts in various parts of Wales, because, of course, that would give a degree a protection to those workers. 

Just a couple of key questions looking back: you have confirmed that you were involved in working with the bank and Dawnus itself once it had become known that the company was facing some difficulties. Could you perhaps describe what happened towards the end, and why, if it was not possible to share more information that could have given various public bodies and others a little bit more preparation, that was not done? Also, perhaps you could confirm whether there was an investor that actually was ready and had been willing to step in to make an investment in Dawnus that perhaps could have saved the company.

Can I thank the Member for his question? My understanding is that there may have been an investor that was prepared to step in. However, in spite of all consideration and, I think it's fair to say, everybody's best efforts, Dawnus nonetheless was destined for demise. Our efforts must now focus on how we ensure that the businesses that could be affected by this event are supported through a very turbulent period and how we ensure that as many staff members get alternative work as possible.

The question of TUPE transfers will be dealt with by the taskforce. In terms of some of those contracts and some of those businesses that could be directly affected by the demise of Dawnus, initial analysis of supply chain creditors indicates that there are in the region of 455 Welsh suppliers affected. The total value due to the Welsh supply chain is in the region of £6 million. Officials will continue to monitor and to review as fresh information is received from the administrator. But it does go to demonstrate why it's so vitally important the development bank is integral to the work of the taskforce moving forward.

Dawnus was actually in my constituency, in Swansea vale. It was a medium-sized construction business, and if there's one thing that we need in Wales it's medium-sized private businesses. Employing 700 made it, in Swansea East terms at least, a large employer. And if you look at the list of companies in Wales, it was in the top 50 in the Western Mail list up until the last list. It's going to be a devastating blow to the economy of Swansea East, but I am aware of the support the Welsh Government has given and, as you know, I approached you over 12 months ago asking for that level of support, and I'm very pleased that it was provided, even if it eventually proved not to be enough. I think it really is important that we do try and protect medium-sized, homegrown Welsh companies, and you couldn't get more Welsh than Dawnus. 

I would like to associate myself with everything that Joyce Watson said about the workforce, and I won't repeat it. I've got two questions. You talked about giving support; will the same level of support as is currently being provided to Virgin Media, and which was provided to Tesco staff, be provided to the current Dawnus staff? I know it's not as simple as everybody being on one site, but wherever they are, they'll still need that support. And was Dawnus finally paid all the money it was owed for the work it did in Sierra Leone?

I can't comment on the last point that the Member raises, but I'd be happy to write to him once the information is available so that we can answer that question, but I can assure the Member that the same level of support through the taskforce will be afforded to people affected by this latest turn of events at Dawnus that was offered to staff members at Tesco, at Virgin and other companies that have been supported by various taskforces. 

Now, the Member makes a really important point, and I think we should just recognise for a moment that the company was one of our proudest Welsh medium-sized enterprises and for that reason, again, I make no apology for all of the effort that went into keeping the company operating strongly. But today is an incredibly sad time for those who were employed by Dawnus and I'm sure everybody's thoughts are with the employees and with, indeed, companies in the supply chain. 

Thank you very much, Minister. 

The second topical question this afternoon is to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport. Suzy Davies. 

Thank you. The report provides a solid foundation upon which the Welsh and UK Governments, and the regional partners, can move forward quickly with the delivery of the city deal. We will work closely with the leaders of each local authority to consider how the recommendations can be implemented. 

Thank you very much for that answer. I'm sure you'll remember, it's almost two years now since the original announcement was made, and you'll recall that other Members, including Mike Hedges and me, have stood up a number of times in this Chamber to say how difficult it has been and we've found it as Assembly Members—the relevant Assembly Members, with an interest in this—to get any meaningful dialogue with members of what was then the shadow board. That's not exactly in keeping with the core principles of the delivery of good governance in local government framework. So, I very much welcome this review, which has flushed out some of the worries that we, the interested Assembly Members, were hearing about for some time but had no realistic path of clarifying or, indeed, challenging. We all want this deal to work, so this has been a very helpful document today. 

I welcome your earlier confirmation that you believe that part 2 of Yr Egin and the Swansea digital waterfront project are almost over the line, and hoping that Governments will now work together to make sure that that happens. I wonder if you can give us any sense of a timeline that will be a step in reversing any loss of confidence that has happened in portfolio projects recently—not necessarily related to those two projects. 

My main questions, however, are on governance, and, again, the delay in getting a coherent governance model together has been the subject of some questions in this Chamber. It looks like there is still some fault with that model, with the four council leaders sitting on both the strategy board as well as the joint committee without the necessary Chinese walls and checks and balances to protect them, actually, against accusations of conflict of interest. It looks as if the lead council, Carmarthenshire, doesn't have the capacity to handle the work, so I wonder if you could tell us what you'll be expecting from the new director, who'll be appointed to assume this leadership role. Will this be an independent director? What sort of background and experience will you be expecting him or her to have? And can you confirm that neither Government will take part in the appointment process for that—it will be for the board to do that? And also, bearing in mind what you mentioned in reply to questions from Russell George earlier, about not all models are the same, can you confirm why it is that you've chosen a sort of Cardiff model, with a director, in order to try and solve the problem that's been identified in the review? I'm not saying it's a bad decision, but I'm quite interested to have your answer to that.

Recommendation 3 says that a best practice integrated assurance and approval plan should be put in place pretty quickly. So, I'd like to know what the risk and assurance processes are that are currently in place. Because, coincidentally, an internal review seems to have been done—presumably at the instruction of the board. Because we are talking about four council leaders here; the concept of risk and assurance shouldn't be new to them. So, what reasons were given to those who conducted the independent review for the failure to have—well, what looks like a failure to have—a sensible risk and assurance process in place at the moment? And, in particular, what process was used to appoint the strategy board members and how was the risk of that assessed? Why is there a lack of clarity about how much the councils will need to borrow? What were the problems identified in preparing a financial plan? One of the reasons the Governments haven't signed off the implementation plan is because there is no financial plan. And the role of the private sector—they're the main funders in this, after all—I think that remains underplayed and of minimal influence, except, ostensibly, in the one place where we've had a question about conflict of interest. If you can use those example questions to explain your views on the current system for risk and assurance, I'd be most grateful. Thank you.

Thank you for those questions. A number of them, I think, are best directed towards the city region. This, after all, is a local project. This is not a project the Welsh Government has sponsored. This is a project that's come from the region, and the Welsh Government and the UK Government, jointly, are funding this, and they've put in place a series of assurances that the money is going to be well spent and the strategy is going to be adhered to. So, many of the detailed questions you ask about appointing the strategy board and the financial plan and so on are ones that I'm not in a position to answer; those are the questions that the city deal themselves are to answer. Because, if we want genuinely place-based decision making, then the responsibility and the accountability must remain locally. Although, until now, it's been very different, I think our role does need to change, as I indicated earlier, into more of a partnership and less of a policeman role. But the city deal as currently constituted, as designed by the UK Government, does not give us that role explicitly.

In terms of the timeline, it's our very clear hope that we can get these projects over the line. But, as I've said, this has to come from the city region themselves. Alun Cairns and I have both expressed our hope to the council leaders—and we met them last week—that we would like a pipeline of projects, with momentum. So, if we can get the first two over the line no later than the end of April, we'd like to get more before the summer and before the end of the year. However, it is worth noting that the independent review that the Welsh Government and the UK Government jointly commissioned put all the projects at red risk. Now, this is a very significant finding, placed right at the end of the annex of the report, but it certainly took my eye. So, I don't think we can responsibly put into stone any firm deadlines until we can be assured that the lessons can be learned by the joint board and that the cases are going to be robust enough to meet the tests that we have in place.

You asked about the role of the director and who will appoint that, and the role of the Welsh Government. And you're quite right—this is a local appointment; this is not a role for the Welsh Government to be involved in. I'd expect and hope that they will be advertising that role, and I think the person they get into that role is crucially important. The independent review makes it clear that this should be somebody of equal status and standing to a chief executive in order to provide a challenge and scrutiny. And, to be fair, of the three reports that have now been published—the Wales Audit Office report, the Welsh Government-UK Government report, and then the independent report, jointly commissioned by the four local authorities and carried out by their own internal auditors—that I think is the most rigorous of the reports and the most unsparing in its criticism. And I think some credit needs to go to the city region that they themselves have commissioned that—it's the public sector who have carried out that, not some private sector consultants—and they've published it. So, they've been completely open in the criticisms they've made of themselves, and it's not a comfortable read, but I think, to give them due credit, they have done that and it's now for them to fully absorb the lessons from that report and to implement them. So, I hope I've answered the questions that the Member has raised.

I won't go over ground already covered, but, as I mentioned yesterday during the business statement, from my perspective it is particularly worrying that the first recommendation within this independent review looks to encourage, and I quote, 'direct and regular face-to-face' talks between the region and both the UK and Welsh Governments. These are basics, aren't they? Are you disappointed that it took a review team to tell you that? As it stands, the city deal structure and relationship between the region and UK and Welsh Governments is not designed to deliver. It is far too bureaucratic, as we've heard, and it does seem adversarial at times. Do you agree with that assessment as well?

As you've said, what we need to see now is far more of a partnership approach of both Governments working with the city deal team to work through any of the issues, because we've heard—I've certainly heard—from local authority leaders in the region about their frustrations from their side. The city deal team have consistently called for the release of UK and Welsh Government money for the two most advanced projects: the Swansea waterfront development and Yr Egin development in Carmarthen. The review echoes that sentiment, recommending that it should happen immediately. 

We need to see Government funding flow, therefore, as soon as possible. It is simply a farcical situation whereby Yr Egin development in Carmarthen has already been built, has been officially opened and is nearly fully occupied, yet the UK and Welsh Governments have still not released the funding. The funding that was meant to be front-loading now is in danger of not even back-loading. The city deal team are understandably saying, 'What more proof do you need? Just release the cash'. But, instead, the project is still tied up in the discussions between the region and the Governments. Will you now commit to releasing the funds for those two projects as a matter of urgency?

A further question: recommendation 5 in this independent review talks of the need, as we've heard, to appoint a portfolio director before the end of April 2019 to provide independent advice to the board. Is this realistic, considering that we are now coming towards March—the end of March 2019, the last time I looked?

And, finally, the controversy around the suspensions at Swansea University is something that hangs over the city deal, so can I ask: what discussions are you having with the university on this? Clearly, the sooner that this issue is resolved, the better it will be for confidence in the city deal.

Thank you for those questions. I'll try to answer them in turn. I think, in many ways, the Member's comments compound the problem we've been seeing, in that there's been a very different perception of the way the city deal is being run depending on which part of the M4 you're coming from. So, the Member's repeating many of the things I've heard said from the city deal end, which is a different perspective from the one in the reports and the one that the Governments have. So, for example, he repeats the call that money be released in an early way to allow these projects to proceed, but we can't release money until there has been a proper business case agreed and submitted. So, I think that is irresponsible—to call for public money to be endorsed in this way without the proper checks and balances put in place.

He also says: why is it that the different parties are not talking to each other? Well, I'm not sure if he's had a chance to properly read both the reports, but I'd suggest that it's worth the investment of time, because it does address many of the points that he asks. So, for example, on page 13 of the independent report by the local authorities, it says, and I quote, that 'business cases are presented to UK and Welsh Governments prematurely, resulting in UK and Welsh Governments undertaking due diligence checks they'd expect the regional office to have undertaken, which is further frustrating the process.'

And I think that this is at the heart of the matter, that much of this challenge and rigour, which the report, led by Pembrokeshire, says was not in place, should be done at a local level and has not been done at the local level. The cases are then sent to the different Governments, who are then having to knock them back because they're not ready, which is creating further tension and misunderstanding and fuelling the degree of suspicion there has been. If they had the skill set and the portfolio approach embedded,  they'd be able to carry out those checks on each other, rather than passing them to us to be checked and prematurely submitting those business cases, and I think that really has been at the heart of the problem. So, it's incumbent on us now to reset the way this deal has been operated to give it the best chance of success and to help the local authorities to be able to carry out those checks themselves. 

He mentions again, as he did yesterday, the Egin being fully occupied and officially opened and the funding not released. Again, my understanding is the funding in the city deal is for phase 2 of the Egin. It's phase 1 of the Egin that is open and has been occupied, not phase 2. So, I think there's a misunderstanding there about what projects we're talking about.

He asks about a portfolio director being in place by the end of April 2019. Is that realistic? I don't think it is realistic. We could, of course, press ahead with appointing someone, but I think it's really important that the right person gets this job. So, I think we should be more charitable in the way we look at that suggested deadline.

He also asks have we been in discussions with the university. Of course, the university are not partners in the city deal; they're partners of some of the projects within the city deal. And, now that we're moving to a portfolio approach, it's for the city deal themselves to decide how they flex and change the current range of projects they have within their portfolio and whether or not there's still the same appetite to go ahead with them and whether or not they can pass the tests that remain in place. 

And, finally, Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I won't repeat anything that Dai Lloyd or Suzy Davies have said, but can I say that we've oft spoken as one on this for the whole period of time? There are not many other issues that you can say that about. But we really have stood together, because we realise how really important this is to the economy of the Swansea bay city region. Will the Welsh Government continue to provide all the support necessary to the Swansea bay city region? And does the Minister accept that to increase the GVA in Wales we need to develop more high-paid highly skilled employment, which is what the Swansea bay city deal is about? It's about getting jobs that pay at a higher level to get our GVA up. 

Yes, indeed. In terms of providing all support necessary, we really want this to succeed. The UK Government want this to succeed. Members here want it to succeed. The local authorities want it to succeed. In some ways, it's not been necessarily set up to succeed in the structures that we've put in place, in the insistence of the five-case business model, which the local authorities have struggled to respond to—that level of scrutiny and rigour. I think the important thing now—. And I stress, in all the reports, it's stressed that there is criticism of all sides here.

We had a very good meeting with the local authority leaders on Friday, in which I emphasised—and there was unanimity on—that there's no profit in pointing fingers here. Clearly, if we want this to succeed we need to press on, learn the lessons, reset. That is certainly the spirit in which the Welsh Government—and, in all the conversations I've had with the Secretary of State for Wales, the UK Government too—are entering into this endeavour. But, ultimately, this is a local-led project. So, in terms of all support necessary, we will give it every support we can, but also, in the spirit of partnership, that leadership has got to come from the local area, and not from us. But we must see it within the spirit of developing regional economic plans and work together on them as equals and, as I say, move away from the policeman to the partner model. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. 

Item 4 is a 90-second statement. Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This month marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the start of the 1984-85 miners' strike. The strike had a significant impact on mining communities throughout the UK, including those here in Wales, and including the ones that I represent in Cynon Valley. Indeed, growing up in a village like Cwmbach, where many of my friends and neighbours were directly affected by the strike, I myself and a whole generation of young people and women, as well as the miners and families themselves, couldn't fail to be shaped and moulded by its effects. 

The strike didn't start in Wales, but, by 14 March, every colliery in south Wales was on strike, and, of the 21,500 miners in south Wales, a staggering 99.6 per cent took part. Remarkably, 93 per cent were still on strike a whole year later. That retention figure far surpasses other areas, testament to the resolve and solidarity of the miners and their communities. Yet it's also a reflection on how much their towns and villages relied on the pits. The miners and their families endured unprecedented hardships, yet historians have written of the sense of community that was created, and not just within mining areas. I'm sure we're all familiar with the inspirational film Pride, telling one such story. In Cynon Valley, the miners' support group was twinned with Islington and the London Turkish community. The miners said that the UK Government had a long-term plan to decimate their industry, and as we mark the start of their struggle, we can only reflect on how perceptive they were.  

Thank you. 

The next item is a motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move formally the motion. 

Formally. 

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

Item 5 on our agenda is a debate on Stage 4 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.  

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's my pleasure to present the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill to the National Assembly for Wales for its approval. I hope, indeed, that Members will support the Bill this afternoon because the Bill will strengthen the ombudsman’s role in order to protect the most vulnerable in our society, improve social justice, and, of course, drive improvements in public services and complaints handling.

Now, today marks the culmination of a process that began back in 2015, when the Finance Committee of the fourth Assembly, chaired by Jocelyn Davies, conducted an inquiry to consider extending the ombudsman’s powers. On behalf of both the fourth and fifth Assembly Finance Committees, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the various consultations that have helped inform and shape the Bill today.

I would also like to thank Members for the constructive and collaborative approach to this legislation, and this is the first Bill to be taken through the Assembly by a committee. That was based on our shared desire to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals, who are often most reliant on our public services, feel confident complaining to the ombudsman and that they have the right to a fair response to their complaint.

And, I am grateful to the Assembly committees that have been responsible for scrutinising the Bill, namely the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and, especially, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and its Chair, John Griffiths. Now, this Bill has been improved as a result of that scrutiny. For example, the Bill now ensures that the ombudsman is required to consult specified persons, such as commissioners, when carrying out own-initiative investigations, and the Bill now requires the ombudsman to maintain a register of all the complaints received. The Bill also strengthens the Welsh language duties and responsibilities placed on the ombudsman.

At Stage 2, the Members expressed concerns about the accountability of the ombudsman for the future. Before today's vote, I would like to assure Members that I have had initial discussions with the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee with regard to the oversight arrangements of the Assembly, and how they can be strengthened in future through our responsibilities for appointing the ombudsman, scrutinising the annual report and accounts of the ombudsman and, of course, the duty to review the implementation of the Act.

Now, the next steps in terms of the Bill's implementation, of course, include receiving Royal Assent, commencement by Welsh Ministers, working with the ombudsman to ensure that he has consulted widely before the provisions come into force. It's also a requirement that the Secretary of State makes the necessary consequential amendments to UK Parliament Acts, and this is with regard to the ombudsman's work on a joint basis with the ombudsmen in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and some provisions with regard to the general data protection regulation—the GDPR— which is, of course, beyond the competence of this Assembly. And while some practical issues are to be worked through, the Secretary of State's office has noted that it is willing to deal with the necessary consequential legislation, and that is, of course, to be welcomed very much.

Now, it has been a long journey to reach Stage 4 as we have arrived at today, and I ask Assembly Members to support the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill.

I thank the Member in charge for all his hard work and for the non-partisan and consensual manner in which he has worked with other parties throughout the Bill process. It's been one of the rare occasions that all parties have generally agreed on a piece of legislation. However, I was disappointed, of course, that my own proposed amendments were unsuccessful.

The ombudsman plays a vital role in ensuring that any member of the public who believes that they've suffered injustice through maladministration or service failure by a public body is able to make a complaint with the reassurance that their complaint will be dealt with fairly and independently by the ombudsman. To this end, we welcome the extension to his powers within this Bill, but, of course, increased power brings increased responsibility with it.

Our unsuccessful Stage 3 amendments included one to ensure that the ombudsman considers the resources of town and community councils when preparing their model complaints-handling procedure and another to ensure that the ombudsman takes into consideration the Nolan principles applying to the ethical standards expected of public office holders when undertaking investigations into complaints against public bodies. We feel that these would have strengthened the Bill.

As I stated at Stage 3, One Voice Wales, representing town and community councils in Wales, had written to me stating that they do have concerns about the model complaints procedure. They further noted that most town and community councils in Wales are incredibly small and employ just one clerk who would normally or likely work on a part-time basis. I've also since received correspondence from the North and Mid Wales Association of Local Councils, which refers to the model complaints procedure on Welshpool Town Council's website and recommends that town councils deal with their own complaints in the first instance where they wish to adopt a code in that regard.

I note that the Member in charge stated at Stage 3 that he has

'included some commentary on this issue in the revised explanatory memorandum to the Bill'

and his view

'is that that sufficiently addresses the concerns expressed'.

We therefore hope that he's proved correct in this respect.

I also note his statement at Stage 3 that he's

'ensured the revised explanatory memorandum now makes it explicit that in holding public office or working in the public sector, the ombudsman and the listed authorities are required to have regard to the Nolan principles.'

We remain of the view that this is critical where complaints to the ombudsman frequently relate to matters to which the alleged conduct of officers are integral and, at the very least, evidence submitted to the ombudsman by said officers in relation to these complaints must be considered in the context of a potential conflict of interest. However, we are generally supportive of the Bill before us today and particularly welcome the aspects of this Bill that allow the ombudsman to initiate his or her own investigations, and which increase the mediums by which people can complain, rather than just by writing, thereby creating a more accessible complaints process. Diolch.

I declare an interest as a county councillor. I won't be supporting this legislation. In Catalunya, they do politics by judiciary—the unionists, that is. And in Labour Wales, we have politics by tribunal. The abuses of the system are actually very similar in principle. I feel we have an ombudsman system lacking in integrity, lacking in accountability of the ombudsman himself, who uses gagging orders, refuses to disclose e-mails and operates with a basic lack of fairness and a lack of transparency.

I want to give you an example of a confidential investigation by the ombudsman, and the person who was confidentially being investigated received a phone call and text messages from a serving Member of this Assembly after discussing the case with the ombudsman. Now, I know that's true because the person was me. I got the text messages; I had the call; I had the discussion and was warned not to take on the ombudsman. I was told I couldn't win, and I think that, with hindsight, in a factual sense, that was correct but morally completely wrong. When there was a tribunal—and I'm talking about the fairness of the system here—I was not allowed to present those text messages as evidence of a lack of transparency, a lack of fairness in the system. The local government ombudsman in Wales is used as a political weapon to stamp out the sense, to stop questions being asked, and it's a way of trying to exert control over politicians. I will oppose this legislation because this office of the ombudsman—and some people may not want to hear this, looking at the reactions around the room—this office of the ombudsman is used in a highly undemocratic way, and I will not support this legislation. 

Can I call the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to speak?

Well, I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Member in charge, Llyr Gruffydd, and the Finance Committee and their supporting officials for their time and their work over the last year. The Finance Committee has worked really constructively with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, which we have before us today, is an effective and robust piece of legislation and one that will help strengthen public services in Wales and support public accountability. I hope that Members will be able to support it. I would also like to thank the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the Bill and put on record my thanks to those Members who were part of the fourth Assembly's Finance Committee and Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee, which were very instrumental in preparing the ground work for this Bill. Beyond this Chamber, I'd like to thank all of those across Wales who have contributed to the development of this Bill through various inquiries and consultations, undertaken both recently and during the fourth Assembly. 

Throughout the National Assembly's consideration of this Bill, the value of the service of the ombudsman has been very clear. The ombudsman's office helps those people who have been let down by services and haven't received the level of service that they're entitled to expect. This Bill will support access to the ombudsman's services for vulnerable people, including, for the first time, those who have been let down by private healthcare companies. It grants the ombudsman the new powers to investigate systemic problems on their own initiative where there is evidence of widespread, repetitive and deep-rooted problems, and it will also allow the ombudsman to play a leading role in improving standards in complaints handling across the public sector. This should lead to more complaints being resolved at the first point of contact rather than people having to resort to the ombudsman, and this Bill will make it easier for people to complain to the ombudsman when issues do need to be escalated. The extensive amendments the Finance Committee has made to this Bill since its introduction ensure that it will achieve these aims effectively and will preserve the primacy of complaints processes agreed by the National Assembly.

At the core of this Bill is the principle that healthy and effective complaints processes are a key source of feedback for public bodies and a driver to improve the services that we offer the people of Wales. In that spirit, I hope that Members will support the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill today, ensuring that Wales continues to be at the leading edge of ombudsman legislation and supporting our public services to be responsive to the needs of people in Wales. 

Thank you. Can I now call Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I first of all thank Mark Isherwood for his contribution and the way that he as well has engaged in this process? You are right: I have, sort of, recognised some of the issues that you raised and hopefully the revised explanatory memorandum, as you referred to, will be borne out to be true to what I believe is the situation and I'm sure that is the case. Can I thank the Minister as well for her contribution and, again, for the co-operation that we've had with Government officials in dealing with this legislation?

In terms of Neil McEvoy's comments, I am disappointed that he's used this opportunity to make some of the points that he has made, although he's perfectly within his right to do that. I won't comment on any individual cases. We know that there are ways and means for people to pursue any of those concerns that they may have. I could not disagree more in terms of his accusation that the ombudsman lacks integrity, lacks accountability, lacks fairness and lacks transparency. My biggest disappointment is that the Member lacked any interest in previous stages of this Bill, where he could have brought forward amendments to change any deficiencies in the law. He chose not to do so. He sat on his hands when he had an opportunity to put forward amendments to this Bill, changes to this Bill, which would have started to maybe address some of the concerns that he has raised. He didn't do so, so, clearly, it wasn't that much of a concern to him. So, I regret his choice to sit on his hands and to come here and grandstand in front of us. And I'm sure we'll all see through that for what it is.

I therefore want to add to the thanks that I gave earlier to everyone—or almost everyone—who has engaged in this process. I want to thank, in particular, the Commission staff, particularly the clerks, the clerking team and the legal services team of the Finance Committee, for their great support and for all the work that they have done to bring us to this point in the process. With those few words, may I ask Members to support the Bill this afternoon and to open a new chapter, in so doing, in the work of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and in the support that there is for the citizens of Wales, particularly those who are most dependent on our public services?

Thank you. In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions, so I defer voting on this motion until voting time.

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee's report on the mobile action plan update, and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Russell George.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. This report before us today looks at the progress with the Welsh Government's mobile action plan, and follows on from the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee's 2017 inquiry into digital infrastructure in Wales, when we recommended that the Welsh Government should make firm commitments to collaborate with the UK Government, regulators and the industry to improve digital connectivity and support infrastructure needed for better mobile coverage.

We all know mobile connectivity is now a vital service for the people living and working in Wales, just as water and electricity are. We all know how annoying it is to be without our phones for two hours or a day, or perhaps in some cases—Suzy Davies has just whispered to me—it's lovely; it depends on how you look at it. But Wales still lags some way behind other parts of the UK in terms of coverage, and so this has been an important area of committee scrutiny.

Our update report looked at what has been achieved by the Welsh Government since its mobile action plan, which was launched in October 2017, and we made 10 recommendations. Now, what I'm going to say next I would like to say in every opening of a committee debate for the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee: I welcome the Government's acceptance of all our recommendations and the general positive tone of the response.

The Welsh Government’s response starts by emphasising that telecommunications is a reserved matter, and that it does not hold all the levers to improve mobile coverage. I'd respond to that it two ways. While it's true, it was the Welsh Government, of course, that brought forward the mobile action plan, so, of course, it's not unreasonable for the committee and stakeholders to demand that those planned actions are delivered with urgency. And, secondly, the Welsh Government clearly has a number of levers at its disposal. So, I therefore focus my opening remarks on those areas where the Welsh Government does hold the levers and can set the pace, in particular in relation to planning and business rates, and by collaborating with providers to deliver infill solutions for coverage in hard-to-reach areas.

On planning, the committee made two recommendations: one on best practice guidance and one on allowing higher mast heights under the permitted planning regime. It was obviously very pleasing to see the announcement last month that the rules around mast heights in Wales have finally been relaxed so that masts of up to 25m do not have to go through the full planning permission process. This means that, from next month, the rules in Wales will now be in line with those in Scotland and England. This is something the committee first recommended in its digital infrastructure report in 2017, when we said that the Welsh Government

'should reform the planning regime to support investment in digital connectivity, in particular to allow the installation of masts that cover a wider geographical range.'

We also said that the Welsh Government should work with operators and planning authorities to ensure that plans are clearly communicated to the affected communities, and that the key benefits of mobile connectivity are actively promoted. Although mobile coverage has increased in Wales since 2017, our report found that the role the action plan had played in that improvement was unclear, and we called on the Welsh Government to use its devolved levers to tip the scales of commercial viability in favour of further investment in some problem areas.

We also recommended that the Welsh Government continues to engage with mobile operators and other stakeholders to capture best practice and include that in the revised and consolidated code of best practice and technical advice note 19. The Government has said it will consider a review of TAN 19 when further work on the permitted development rights regulations and the national development framework is complete, and indicated that work is unlikely to begin until 2020.

While I understand the need to undertake this work in a logical order, we do need to move as quickly as possible on this. The clear message from us on the committee and from the industry was that rapid action is needed to ensure that Wales does not fall further behind. The latest Ofcom figures show that, on almost all measures of mobile coverage, Wales is behind the UK average. So, for geographic 4G coverage by all four mobile operators, we are at 57 per cent, compared to a UK average of 66 per cent. I note from the Government’s response that it believes there is scope to combine TAN 19 and the code of practice into one document, and to perhaps adopt the approach taken in England by having mobile providers take a lead on this work. 

Obviously when it comes to planning there will always need to be a balance struck between the need for base stations to provide coverage and local community concerns about the landscape, but we must recognise the expectations, I think, of the 90 per cent of people who use mobile phones that they should have full mobile connectivity.

The persistent gaps in coverage are not just between Wales and the other UK nations, but they're also between rural and urban areas of Wales. I am all too aware of this, of course, from my own constituency of Montgomeryshire. The committee considered how a rural roaming obligation might help in areas of poor coverage, although we recognise that it won't help if you are in a notspot area where there is no network to roam onto, and the frustrations of having calls drop out. Nevertheless, we recommended that the Welsh Government should continue to lobby mobile providers for rural wholesale access, and if they do not respond positively, for the Welsh Government to call on the UK Government to make this mandatory through Ofcom, as part of the package of measures to increase coverage. I appreciate that Welsh Government is pursuing this issue, and I'm encouraged that they continue to press the case.

With regard to our recommendation that Welsh Government engages with mobile operators on the merits of business rate relief, it is also welcome that the Government says it is looking at the role of a non-domestic rate support scheme as part of the interventions to tackle specific notspots.

Of course, while we are trying to remedy the problems with 4G coverage, talk has already started to move on to the roll-out of the next generation of mobile connectivity, 5G, and that was mentioned in contributions and questions earlier today. The benefits of 5G, to deliver faster and better broadband, and to potentially—[Interruption.] I'll take it in a moment, if I can, Suzy.

All right, yes.

—and to potentially revolutionise the manufacturing, transport and healthcare sectors, are highly anticipated. But 5G is unlikely to extend the coverage of mobile networks, as it is more about increasing the capacity of the network than extending its reach. And the technology for 5G does not directly benefit from the change in permitted development rules, as 5G networks are likely to see greater deployment of small base stations, making mast heights less of an issue. But it's still important, though, to ask what the Welsh Government is doing to make Wales 5G ready. We need to be making sure that the Welsh Government is 5G ready. So, we would obviously be interested in the Minister's views on what could be done to maximise the opportunities of 5G technology for Wales. I'll take an intervention from Suzy Davies.

Thank you very much, Russell. You mentioned 5G there. Of course, that's another technology that involves a level of electromagnetic field. Obviously, there's already existing guidance on people who have a sensitivity to this, to limit their exposure to it, but I just wondered, as the Government is looking at 5G roll-out—and I completely agree with the benefits of this—whether potential health questions are considered as part of that process.

I thank Suzy Davies for the intervention. It is rather a new technology that is still yet to be rolled out. Certainly, Members of the committee have had members of the public contact us in regard to that question, but the official guidance is saying that there is no health risk for humans or animals. That is the official guidance that is provided. But, clearly, I'd be interested in the Minister's response to that point as well. 

If we are to achieve coverage in Wales that is comparable with the UK as a whole, then the Welsh Government, I do think, needs to do more with the levers at its disposal, so I therefore call on the Minister to outline any areas in which the Welsh Government is leading the way. Let's find out where the Welsh Government is leading the way of all the UK nations. I look forward to hearing views from colleagues and from the Minister, and of course I commend this report to the Assembly.

I'd like to thank the Chair for his opening remarks. I didn't, to my recollection, take part in all of the inquiry, but I was there for the tail end, and it's obviously an important issue that affects us all. I do welcome the Welsh Government looking ahead to the future and looking at ways of developing infrastructure. However, there are huge gaps in coverage across Wales, particularly in rural areas, and that's no surprise to anybody. Areas of my region, particularly in the northern Valleys and Gower, are not connected well enough, and some areas seem to have hit a wall in how they can get connected. There is a need to remember, moving forward, that we don't forget communities who may not be perfectly located when establishing 5G networks. There should be equitable distribution across Wales so as to allow areas that are underdeveloped a chance to catch up. 

I think it's important to note that large parts of Wales don't even have adequate 4G signal across four networks or more, so talks of 5G could be viewed as very premature in some areas of the country. It's not to say that 5G shouldn't be developed, but it's to say that we need to establish the development of 4G before we potentially move forward.

In terms of better connectivity on a broader level, the Welsh Government at the moment seems to have hit a wall in terms of high-speed and superfast broadband. I've also asked questions in this place before on capacity issues too. We know that in parts of Wales, particularly in areas of high self-employment, people's economic security can depend on their connectivity. It means whether a business is successful or not, so we really need to get to grips with how businesses can get past this particular hurdle.

We have to ensure that a full suite of connectivity options is available, making sure that existing technology is rolled out equitably across Wales. In terms of 5G, I'm still concerned there is a risk we could be left behind, so I think it would be useful to have some clarity from the Government here today on how they are integrating 5G delivery plans with the existing delivery of improving 4G across multiple networks.

I found this really interesting, this topic of connectivity in the modern age, and there were a few things that clearly came out and that I will focus on. One of them was the shared masts element, where you don't have to keep, time and time again, putting up different masts to get the same result if one mast is shared by companies. The Minister told us in the discussions that we had that she had had talks with people in the Home Office so that they would do some futureproofing on those masts. We heard from EE that they were developing 40 new sites, and others were developing their sites, and that they were prepared to share those masts in those sites. So, I think it is important that we do that, because we have heard, and Suzy Davies raised it now, that people are concerned about the health implications of putting up multiple masts on multiple sites. So, maybe that would go some way to help with that.

What we must do is make sure that all communities move forward together here. We can’t have people left behind in what is now a digital age. I’ve had e-mails from people who are actually going somewhere away from their home in order to access some connectivity, just so that they can do that. I’ve heard about people sitting in their cars with their children, so that they can complete their homework. That is definitely not satisfactory. And we know that people are moving more and more to doing everything on their phones, and far less on their computers, and I suppose that we are all guilty of doing that.

I know from experience, in covering my area in Mid and West Wales, that there are plenty of notspots, and I’ve got two phones, and they're on two different networks, but it still doesn’t ensure that I have complete coverage wherever it is that I go. And even if I had all the networks and all the phones to go with them, I would still experience notspots. So, we really need to do something about that.

We’ve heard from the providers, when they’ve asked the Minister for reduced business rates, and the Minister quite rightly said that that has to make commercial sense, that we can’t just reduce business rates unless there is going to be a return for that subsidy—because it will be a subsidy into a private business—to give something back to that community. And in terms of small and medium-sized enterprises—and those are the majority of businesses that are in my area—they do have to have connectivity just even to start up. But if we are asking them to grow and to develop, there is no way that that can be done in a digital age without the high-speed connectivity that they absolutely have to have for that to happen.

The importance of mobile connectivity has grown exponentially over the past few years, with mobile phone ownership in Wales said to be standing at over 90 per cent for adults—and, from my own experience, it may be even greater with children. Of these mobile phone users in Wales, 57 per cent report using a mobile phone to go online. Therefore, the importance of such connectivity has increased enormously over a relatively short period of time. The question, then, is: has the industry kept pace with these developments? For Wales, unfortunately, the answer has to be ‘no’. Statistics show we have the lowest coverage in the UK. It is concerning, therefore, to read in the Welsh Government’s response to recommendation 4 of the economy and infrastructure committee's report that Ofcom are consulting on their obligations. Their current proposal is setting coverage obligations for Wales at 83 per cent, whilst that for England and Northern Ireland is set at 90 per cent. This is surely nothing short of an insult to Wales. Can we be assured that the Welsh Government will be more than forceful in its deliberations with Ofcom, demanding nothing short of parity with other parts of the UK?

We all know that the planning regime has a key part to play in mobile phone coverage across Wales. It is therefore imperative that the planning regime is as flexible and conducive as possible, reflecting both the topography and population distribution of Wales. All mobile operators were of the opinion that increasing the permissible height of masts from 15 to 30m could have a dramatic effect on coverage, and it is good to see that the Welsh Government, although not going to the 30m, has now agreed to 25m masts. And as Joyce Watson pointed out, it is imperative that these masts are shared. We understand from the operators that a greater height in masts will allow a greater amount of sharing. So, it will be important for the Welsh Government to make sure that they are implementing what they say they are.

We all know that the planning regime has a key part to play in mobile phone coverage across Wales. It is therefore imperative that the planning—. Sorry, I do apologise.

If Wales is to have a mobile coverage network fit for the twenty-first century, it may have to call on innovative methods to cover the many notspots that now exist. The Welsh Government should do all that it can to encourage such innovation. The importance of our emergency services and their ability to save lives depends on the emergency services mobile communications programme—ESMCP. It has received support from the Home Office in providing funding for masts in areas where it is not viable for service providers to do so. Given the comment by EE that they were reaching the edges of commercial viability in terms of direct investment, the Welsh Government should be exploring every possible opportunity to share some of ESMCP's facilities. As EE's comments obviously relate to the topography of Wales, should we look at how parts of Scotland manage with similar topographical restraints?

In summary, it must be recognised that the Welsh Government has done an excellent job of rolling out internet connectivity over a short period of time, but we must see the same robustness apply to the mobile network, which will take an increasing part in connectivity over the coming years. We must acknowledge that 5G, the next new innovation to the mobile network, is rapidly expanding. Wales must be ready to embrace this latest innovation. We cannot be seen to be lagging behind in adopting this new technology. Indeed, if we are to attract high-tech industries to Wales, it is imperative that we are at the forefront of providing such technologies.

As a member of the economy committee, I'm of course very pleased to speak in this debate today on the mobile action plan. It's something that I know, Deputy Minister, impacts businesses in my constituency, and something I'm really passionate about. So, I am pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted all recommendations from the committee's report, which some Members have alluded to before me. I think it shows how serious the Welsh Government is about working together to ensure we don't fall short in our ambition to become a global 5G leader, but with that in mind, we do know that competition is fierce on a global stage, and that the UK, unfortunately, as a whole is behind, which is something we need to address.

Llywydd, six countries are already adopting 5G technology, and they include the United States, Japan and China, just to name a few. Now, I spoke about automation and 5G in a statement last year, but I want to take a slightly different approach today, and I want to focus on the impact 5G can have and two things in particular: autonomous vehicles and remote healthcare. Now 5G networks can respond fast enough to co-ordinate self-driving cars, either with cars talking to a central controller at a road intersection, or communicating directly with each other. We sometimes think that this type of technology is years away, and miles away from being a reality, but, actually, we're already seeing companies make Tesla make huge strides in this market. Other companies and experts are already discussing how 5G technology could lead to no traffic lights in the streets—there are cars that are crossing, but they're not bumping into each other. Once all cars have sensors and cameras, they could also capture continuous video footage. Now, if there's an unfortunate accident you'll be able to view video from all angles, not just from the cars involved, but from cars all in the same area at the same time.

Moving to remote healthcare, we know that getting 5G right could permit doctors to perform procedures remotely. The lag time is so miniscule that doctors could use robots to operate on you from 1,000 miles away. People in remote regions across the world can be treated by specialists from wherever, something that is pretty amazing in my eyes.

So, Llywydd, how do we make what seems to be futuristic today's reality? Now, it is possible, because we know that other countries are already leading the way, as I've said before. It requires us to ask difficult questions and rethink how we've been rolling out technology developments in the past here in Wales and in the UK. Should we really wait until everyone is on 4G, and run the risk of certain areas missing out on the opportunity of being 5G pioneers? Now, to be clear, I do want every part of this country to have the best connectivity, but I also want us to jump at the opportunities that are out there in the present.

My generation knows nothing other than technology, so there's no reason why we shouldn't have 5G in our lives. We should, as a Government, as a country, be doing 4G and 5G projects simultaneously, alongside ensuring we have gigabit cities and hubs like I've suggested in the past. Llywydd, there's been a lot of discussion in this Chamber, and it's often about looking to the future. But we are out of touch if we think that's the case with 5G, because with 5G, the future is here and it's now. Diolch.

The Deputy Minister to respond to the debate—Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you to everybody who's taken part for the constructive nature of the contributions, and a particular thanks to the committee for the considered and diligent work they undertook on their inquiry and for their report. I know there was some particularly noteworthy contributions to the work of the committee from people who are no longer members of the committee, so I think we owe our thanks to them too. [Interruption.] I am talking about myself, yes. [Laughter.] 

To be able to use your mobile devices to access the internet, as many Members have said, is an essential part of modern life, and that's going to become more so as the internet of things and 5G develops apace, which is why we think this needs to be regulated as a key utility by the UK Government. But it is not. Telecommunications policy is not devolved, and the main levers for improving mobile coverage and capacity rest with Ofcom, as the regulator, and the UK Government. And I believe there's more that Ofcom and the UK Government could do to improve mobile connectivity in Wales. And Bethan Sayed has talked about broadband—nicely leveraged into this debate—where the Welsh Government has demonstrated what it can do, even though it's not devolved. But to reach the remaining part of the population we're struggling with, it does require UK action in tandem—the same is true for mobile. Clearly, our topography and population density poses challenges. Providing the necessary connectivity requires more mobile infrastructure than it would in other parts of the UK, and that's reflected in the current levels of coverage. 

Would you take an intervention?

I would.

I know he was making a frivolous point about being a previous member of the committee, but can he identify any issues within this report and any views he holds that have changed as a result of becoming a Minister in the Government? Has his perspective changed significantly as a result of that experience?

Well, I think the fact that the report has been accepted in full suggests that I was convinced by the analysis and the evidence I heard by the committee, and, to be fair, I don't think anything the Minister said at the time—Julie James—when she gave evidence to us, is different from what the Government is saying now. I'm more than happy to admit when I have changed my mind or changed my view, but in this case I think it's more of a seamless evolution. 

The picture has improved over recent years as a result of the continued commercial roll-outs of the mobile network operators, but there are still significant areas, particularly rural areas, where there is no reliable mobile coverage. And I'm very concerned that in its consultation on the award of new spectrum to pave the way for 5G, Ofcom is proposing much lower targets for Wales than other parts of the UK. In England and Northern Ireland, they plan to require 90 per cent of the population to be covered, and in Wales they're setting the target at 83 per cent. And as David Rowlands rightly pointed out, that is clearly unjust, and will simply perpetuate the existing challenges and disadvantages Wales has in providing data and digital services. David Rowlands asked the Government to be forceful, and we have submitted a consultation response to Ofcom, and we have sent that to the committee so they see that at this stage, so that they're able to mobilise their rightful indignation as well, to try and get this changed.

For Ofcom and the UK Government have a central role in addressing many of the points raised in the committee's report, and the spectrum option provides a rare opportunity to make a real difference in improving mobile connectivity in Wales. That's why we're urging them to reconsider, and I hope the committee will join the Government in echoing that call.

That said, there are areas where the Welsh Government can act to make a difference and we're committed to do what we can. We welcome the challenge and the scrutiny of the committee to make sure that we are doing as much as we can, when we can do it, and for you to give us the odd constructive prod when you think we could do more. I think that is a helpful part of the scrutiny that this place exists to do.

The action plan focuses on nine key areas where the Welsh Government can use its levers. In some of these areas, our role is one of facilitation, and in others we can intervene more directly. We have made progress in a number of key areas. We have introduced a new 'Planning Policy Wales' document, which encourages planning authorities and mobile operators to work collaboratively. From 1 April, the height of masts allowed under permitted development will rise from 15m to 25m, or 20m in protected landscapes. That is a significant additional rise, without requiring planning permission. It's open still for mobile providers, if they want and can justify higher masts, to go through the planning process to give communities their say, which we think is right. 

The forthcoming national development framework is likely to provide more proactive policies for local planning authorities and the industry to act in areas of limited or no coverage. I heard what Russell George said about TAN 19, and I can report to the Chamber that our officials met with the industry yesterday and had a very constructive dialogue. Once the national development framework is completed in the summer, we will approach the industry to co-produce a best practice guide. But, as we say, it is still open for them to do as they've done in England and take the lead. But we'll do what we can to work with them on that. 

On 5G, we have commissioned Innovation Point to identify and develop up to three strategic projects, and we expect this work to be completed shortly. For those Members who highlighted the health concerns, I too as a constituency Member have had that correspondence, and I think it's right that we're vigilant about this new technology as it emerges. We currently take advice from Public Health Wales and Public Health England on this and we keep that under review. 5G is still a technology at its very early stages, and we'll make sure that, as that is rolled out, it continues to comply with the guidance and the standards we'd expect it to. It's important that we maintain public confidence in doing that. 

Moving on, Transport for Wales has commissioned, through their rail contract, TfW Rail Services to deliver improved mobile connectivity on the rail network. By owning the rail network now, we have the opportunity to use the land to host masts and to host improvements in connectivity. Publicly funded masts built under the new communications contract for the emergency services will be futureproofed by deploying larger mast bases and robust towers capable of supporting multiple operators, as Joyce Watson referenced. We are developing a more local approach to improving mobile connectivity in specific mobile action zones. There, we can target interventions such as business rates relief where we think there's a case for acting where the market otherwise wouldn't act. 

We're engaging with local authorities and the operators to develop a business case for investment by the public sector in mobile infrastructure and we're currently developing proposals for a non-domestic rates support scheme where it can be combined with other interventions such as publicly funded infrastructure in the zones and working with local authorities on how the planning system could be used to encourage the deployment of infrastructure into the mobile action zones. So, there are some practical steps that we can do and we are working on.

We've expressed many times over recent years our belief that mobile roaming focused on rural areas should play a central role in improving mobile connectivity in partial notspots. Ofcom has indicated a willingness to look at that, as has the UK Government. Clearly, it's not ideal, because, in the rural area, if you are roaming, your call will drop out and you'd have to reconnect to another operator, but at the moment your call just drops out and doesn't connect to anybody, so, clearly it would be an improvement.

So, I think, Llywydd, overall, we have made good progress. We are working in partnership. The main levers do not lie with us, but we've not used that as an excuse to do nothing. But I'm sure there's more we can do and I look forward to working with the Member to identify that, so that, together, we can improve the service for the people of Wales. 

The Chair of the committee to reply to the debate—Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I thank Members for taking part in the debate this afternoon? Bethan Sayed, right at the beginning of the debate, pointed out, of course, those people in those notspot areas. And whilst some people who might be watching this debate will be screaming at the screen, saying, 'Hang on, we can't even get any signal at all, why are you talking about 5G?', of course one technology can complement the other. It's not a competition between the two, and Bethan, of course, wasn't even suggesting that. I'm very pleased that Bethan pointed that out. And what I can say to those people who are in those notspot areas is that they certainly do have the ear of the committee, and it's certainly, I think, my view that those areas should go straight from notspot areas to the latest technology. That should be the case. 

Joyce Watson pointed out a number of areas. One area that she touched on, of course, is the importance for business to be connected. That is very, very important—that we are not left behind and that business does have good connectivity. And I'm reminded of the example of the advice that farmers are given, from a health and safety point of view, to always keep their mobile phones in their pockets—don't keep it on the dashboard in the tractor, because, if you have an accident, you might not be able to get to it. But what use is that advice if you've got no signal, which is so often the case in very rural areas where farmers are lone working? 

I think Joyce Watson and David Rowlands both also touched on higher masts and the need for operators to share infrastructure as well. Operators are doing that, which is welcome, and what they tell us is that, if it's easier for them to have taller masts, then they're more likely to share. Well, now we're seeing that change in the planning regime, we'll of course have a close eye on the mobile operators to see that they're doing just that. 

David Rowlands also mentioned—and so did the Deputy Minister—Ofcom's 700 MHz spectrum auction, and I think the Deputy Minister put a challenge out to committee to also lobby Ofcom to raise the bar in this area in terms of making sure that we're on a level playing field with the rest of the UK. And we have done that. I can say that. We, Deputy Minister, wrote a very similar letter to Ofcom's consultation, along the same lines as your own letter to Ofcom as well. 

Jack Sargeant and David Rowlands also talked about 5G and being 5G ready. This technology is yet to be rolled out, but it is important that we're 5G ready. It's not too far in the future, as well. And I think, obviously, 5G is needed for automation and artificial intelligence, areas that the Deputy Minister is very keen on, as well as committee members also. So, this is an important area. We don't want to be the last nation in the UK to be adopting this technology and being 5G ready. I would put out the challenge: why can't we be ahead of any other nation across the UK? Why can't we lead the way on this occasion, rather than lagging behind as we have done in other parts of mobile connectivity?

I think, finally, I would just like to thank all the stakeholders that gave evidence, either oral evidence or written evidence. Thank you to committee members. Thank you to the clerking team and the integrated team for their support also, and those who took part in the debate today. I'd also like to thank the Deputy Minister for thanking himself. [Laughter.] But I do commend our report today to the Assembly.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

That brings us to the next item and it's the debate on the Children, Young People and Education  Committee report, 'Degrees of Separation? The Impact of Brexit on Higher and Further Education', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open this debate today on the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report, 'Degrees of Separation?', which discusses the impact of Brexit on higher and further education. Members of this Chamber will be fully aware of my views on Brexit, but at the outset of this debate it's important that I emphasise that I am contributing this afternoon as Chair of the committee. The comments I will make draw on the evidence-based report we agreed as a cross-party committee, and the views I will express reflect the recommendations we made together.

It is difficult to know where to begin a debate on the impact of Brexit when so much is still unclear, but I don't want us to focus our discussions on whether we agree with Brexit or on the votes happening in the UK Parliament. Rather, our aim in tabling today's debate is to discuss the potential impact Brexit could have on students and education providers in Wales, based on the evidence we received from experts in the field and those on the front line. 

This was a challenging inquiry that was considered against a backdrop that was, and still is, constantly changing. Due to this shifting landscape and the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, a number of significant matters only became clearer as the inquiry progressed. The way we approached our work and the shape of the conclusions and recommendations in the report reflect this uncertainty.

The committee came to three broad conclusions. Conclusion 1: even a reasonably favourable Brexit would, under current plans, require the HE sector to adapt and change in its most important areas of operations, while the FE sector, with its much smaller international staff and student bodies, will also need to respond to Brexit-related changes in their local economies. Conclusion 2: despite Treasury funding guarantees, a 'no deal' scenario would still be significantly disruptive to both sectors, deeply so for the higher education sector. Conclusion 3: we found that few opportunities from Brexit for either sector were identified in the short term, and those that were identified were raised in the context of simply making the best of Brexit.

Within these three broad areas and the key issues that emerged, the committee made 12 recommendations. I am pleased that the Minister was able to accept all 12 recommendations either fully, in part or in principle. However, since the report was published in December 2018, the likelihood of a 'no deal' Brexit and the consequent need for clear and proactive Welsh Government planning to mitigate the impact on staff, students and providers substantially increased. We were therefore concerned that, in relation to a number of the recommendations, the Government’s initial response did not provide sufficient clarity, or failed to respond to all the specific recommendations made.

With so much still unclear, it must be our shared goal to reduce uncertainty for staff and providers as much as possible. I’d like to thank the Minister for the additional information provided last week, which does provide some further clarity on a number of points. The committee will take this additional information into account alongside her response to today’s debate.

I don't intend to go through each of the 12 recommendations today; I would instead prefer to concentrate my comments on three of the key areas contained in the report: student and staff immigration, the effect of Brexit on EU programmes like Erasmus+, and meeting industry skills demands after Brexit.

Firstly, student and staff immigration: new immigration restrictions for EU staff and students was a key issue considered during the inquiry. The evidence we received indicated that a change from the current immigration status quo to a more restricted system would have a detrimental impact on universities. To reduce uncertainty, there needs to be as little change as possible to the rules governing the movement of EU students and staff.

We also recognised that student immigration is not limited to EU students. The committee therefore believes that the immigration rules for EU students and other international students should be brought together into one set of rules for all international students coming to Wales. In highlighting the principle that there should be as little disruption as possible to staff and students, the committee was mindful that it would be for others to set the detail of the rules. It is our clear view, however, that Wales should be able to set its own direction on this.

Our recommendation was, therefore, that, via the UK Immigration Bill, Welsh Government should demand executive powers that allow it to make different immigration rules specifically for students and academic staff in Wales. It is important to note that this is different to seeking legislative competence over immigration. Since the publication of the report, the UK Government has published its White Paper consulting on the UK's future immigration system, and has introduced its Immigration Bill. This Bill appears to give the Secretary of State the power to repeal free movement law in the UK. This means that, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, freedom of movement need not be ended immediately.

Due to these actions at the UK level, the specific recommendation made by the committee may no longer be necessary, but the principles that lie behind it remain important. In her recent response, the Minister also outlined the work Welsh Government has been undertaking in seeking to contribute to and shape the development of migration policy in the UK. It is a concern, however, that the Government’s position on this still appears to be 'wait and see' before deciding on differential rules, rather than taking a proactive approach, as we recommended. We note that the Welsh Government intends to engage with the Home Office to highlight its main aims for the HE sector. While we welcome this approach, as a committee, we will be monitoring this closely and will seek regular updates on progress.

Finally on this point, we note the publication on Monday of the report 'Migration in Wales' by the Wales Centre for Public Policy. The committee has not had an opportunity to consider this, but we note it is not focused on students. We will reflect on its content as we monitor the ongoing work of the Welsh Government.

I turn now to the effect of Brexit on programmes like Erasmus+ and Horizon. In both the oral and written evidence the committee received, there was complete consensus about the value and importance of international mobility placements for students and staff. We heard clearly that, despite Erasmus+ being only one of several mobility schemes, continued participation in it post Brexit 'would still be hugely beneficial'.

And, as outlined in the report, the committee believes the Welsh Government is doing all it can to maintain Erasmus+ participation. However, students need assurances, especially to confirm that they will face no financial disruption to their mobilities in the short term and in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. Recommendation 7 of the committee’s report sets out how we believe the Welsh Government can help ensure this. We were therefore concerned that the Welsh Government’s response offered no assurances in this respect to students expecting, or required, to undertake an international mobility placement in 2019-20. As we've already outlined, there must be a clear focus on reducing uncertainty for students and providers and urge the Government to do so.

The third area to focus on today is meeting skills demands after Brexit. The evidence received during the inquiry painted a very clear picture that, through their more local focus and skills-based curricula, further education colleges are particularly sensitive to the strength of their local economies and employers. They also have a key role in meeting skills demand. It is almost inevitable, therefore, that any negative economic impacts from Brexit will also have a negative impact on the FE sector, and further education colleges will need to respond to any changes in skills demands resulting from Brexit.

The committee strongly believes that colleges have a fundamental role to play in any plans the Welsh Government has to upskill workers in economic sectors that may be exposed to risk from Brexit. Recommendation 11 in the report therefore calls on Welsh Government to commit to working jointly with the FE sector to develop and publish a plan to identify and respond to any changing skills demands. We welcome the Minister’s response setting out that proposals for skills projects funded by the EU transition funds are being prepared and that the future skills system in Wales will be demand-led. The additional information provided by the Minister last week also provides some further detail on the work being carried out and the proposals being developed. This additional response does suggest that the aims of Welsh Government and the committee appear to be fundamentally the same in this respect, which is very much welcomed.

One final point I would like to make is in relation to the committee’s recommendation 12 relating to funding the Reid review’s recommendations. We very much welcome the Minister’s announcement last week of an extra £6.6 million to support higher education research. We believe that research and innovation are of fundamental importance to the prosperity of Wales and that the Welsh Government must do all it can to fund the remaining recommendations from the Reid review.

In closing, Deputy Llywydd, I would like to highlight one of the key messages from the inquiry: Brexit will undoubtedly have a deeply disruptive impact on both the higher and FE sectors. While we recognise that there are shared themes across both sectors, we are very aware that the impact of Brexit on both will be very different. In looking to do all we can to help mitigate any disruption, it is vital that we do not simply conflate the very visible impacts on our universities with the impacts on our colleges, which are, on the whole, more locally rooted. I want to make a very clear commitment to both sectors today that, as a committee, we will continue to monitor closely the work the Welsh Government is undertaking to help ensure that it and we do all we can to protect education in Wales from the effects of Brexit in whatever form it takes. Thank you. 

Can I thank Lynne Neagle and my colleagues on the committee as well as the committee staff, and, of course, the Minister for their part in this inquiry? I hope Members have found the report interesting. We didn't get the opportunity to hear from the education Minister on the department's preparedness for Brexit in that marathon session we had fairly recently, so this is a chance to look at this more closely.

I think what struck me most in the inquiry is that while our higher education sector will undoubtedly be disrupted and hit financially by Brexit, particularly if there's a 'no deal' Brexit, it has recognised the challenges and wanted to get on with meeting them, even in this period of uncertainty. There was a genuine sense that the reputation of our higher education institutions would be strong enough to withstand the buffeting of the storm ahead, but they were likely to need some political help to lever the value of that core asset.

I have no problem signing up to this report because of how it framed its recommendations. One of the questions that have become difficult to answer—or will be post Brexit—is why staff and students if they've come from the EU should be treated differently from staff and students from other countries from now on. Our main selling point should be that the excellence of our research and academic offer, alongside accessibility to those who would benefit from a university experience regardless of their background—as I say, it should be the selling point, not that individuals from some countries can have a financial advantage over individuals from other countries through the former tuition fee grant, which is why I draw Members' attention to the first six recommendations in particular, in which we ask Welsh Government to examine why EU students choose to come to Wales, and to report now on the legacy of Global Wales and to be clear about its expectations of Global Wales II as well, because I think they must be connected.

We will lose EU students. I'm in no doubt about that. So, our universities do need to examine their unique selling points and use whatever Global Wales II can offer to fit their own maintenance and growth strategies, and that will mean Welsh Government talking again to HE institutions to make sure that Global Wales II is compatible with those universities' strategic priorities in this new challenging environment—because it is more challenging. We've already seen a 10 per cent drop in EU students studying here when there's been a 2 per cent rise in other parts of the UK, and we also heard that despite that—despite that—the sector's short to medium-term reliance on EU funding streams for programmes was relatively high, which is why I thought recommendation 1 was very interesting, and I appreciate, as Lynne mentioned earlier, we may not need that now, but I still think it's something to ask ourselves: whether our powers that are incidental to the devolved area of education could be explored to devise a way to apply different rules for permitting overseas students and staff to come here. 

As well as Global Wales, we also took evidence that Welsh Government needs to step up to the plate now in delivering on the Reid review recommendations, and I also welcome the announcement of the £6 million. It's not particularly clear why there's been policy drag here. I think, if our universities need to sell excellence, innovation and specialism to attract the finance staff and students they will need, it can't be Government policy that puts them at a disadvantage. Professor Reid was—well, he was stating the obvious, really, when he said that our universities needed to move on from reliance on EU funding and become more competitive at winning UK funding, and it should remain a cause for concern that we already have a research and innovation gap, which can't get bigger. Whatever the justifiable complaint there may be about the UK's lack of clarity about things like the prosperity fund, that doesn't explain the funding gap nor the slower pace on Reid, but I am pleased things have moved on there. 

I'm pleased also with the First Minister's commitment that any future regional funding won't disappear into the general pot and that will remain multi-annual in nature. That suggests he can do it for other services as well, but maybe that's for another day. It's a shame, I thought, though, that there was nothing earlier in the 2019-20 budget despite that Barnett consequential. It struck me that it did give Scotland that little bit of an edge on us by having early announcements. 

Just finally, Welsh Government has given £6.2 million to HEFCW and £3.5 million to Global Wales to help them respond to Brexit challenges, and while it's quite right that it's up to them how they spend it on what, I, for one, would really like to have a little bit more detail on quite what they've spent it on, because in the case of HEFCW, it seems to be about universities getting some money a little bit sooner than they were going to get it. Well, how are they going to use that? And, with Global Wales, it's subject to continuing negotiations with Universities Wales, which means it may not even have been spent, and yet, we could be leaving in 10 days' time. So, that's the best part of £10 million, the efficacy of which remains a bit of a mystery, at a time when we're facing uncertainty, and at least, I'd like to have some certainty on how that was spent. Thank you.

Well, I'm not sure if we can say that we welcome another debate on Brexit, but I think it's important that we discuss it in relation to education. But, here we are again, talking about this important issue. I'm not going to go into much detail on the finer points of this committee report. I'm sure that many of us will have read the report and we've listened to Lynne Neagle's introduction as Chair, but there are lots of issues there for us to pick up on, from whatever party that we're in.

It does lay out some very clear pathways to offer some security and to build some resilience in the sector, as we face what is potentially a very disruptive and uncertain period in our lives in relation to higher education in particular. I think the university sector has been clear, so we must react in that same way. The current state of Brexit is going to be a serious deterrent to attracting people to come to the UK to study and work in our higher education sectors. This is going to be the case in other aspects of the economy, which we have debated at length here, but particularly in higher education, and I am personally very concerned about the short and longer term impacts that this could have on our economy.

The Welsh Government has implemented sweeping changes to student support over the last several years. There has been some confusion that I think Suzy Davies referred to earlier, which I don't think has been communicated to our European partners particularly well, regarding changes to that support and, in particular, the removal of the tuition fee grant. But in this current Brexit process, Britain has become an international laughing stock. I was in the Committee of the Regions and that was the attitude that I faced on a daily basis; emphasising that I was Welsh and trying to remove myself from some of the decisions that have been made was particularly challenging. But The Washington Post has said that the Brexit mess, from the US, is like watching a country argue with itself in an empty room whilst trying to shoot itself in the foot. Now, imagine what our European partners must feel, who come here on a regular basis to study and to take part in our vibrant higher education institutions.

I'm particularly interested in recommendation 1 relating to the treatment of free movement and the immigration status of those EU-27 citizens working and studying in higher education. I would support this, as the uncertainty, with certain politicians playing this issue—playing with people's lives like a cheap political football—has been an absolute disgrace. And, funnily enough, none of them are actually bothered to come into the Chamber to discuss this report today. There are people who've been committed to this country and who are contributing to it and their status should be settled, and that should not be questioned.

I'm also concerned about the loss of potential EU partnerships, such as Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020, and that's not just for HE; I've spoken at length with leaders in the further education sector whose young people may not have otherwise been able to have gone to many of our European capital cities and have utilised that potential because of Erasmus+—and only because of Erasmus+. They would not have had that opportunity otherwise, and we can't underestimate that influence on a young person's life, on how they will form relationships in the future, how they will think about working abroad for the first time. If they don't get that opportunity through Erasmus+, then we may be confining the aspirations of some areas of Wales where aspirations are already at a low point. 

The Minister has said in the past that HE establishments are autonomous, but this isn't something that's going to fly, I think, in relation to Brexit, and I would hope that the Minister would commit to initiating a mitigation strategy and a round-table with vice-chancellors to ensure that higher education institutions are acting in unison. I think leadership in this regard is entirely essential. And if the Minister, potentially, doesn't want to do it, then why doesn't the committee do it? Why don't you take the mantle in terms of hosting these opinions and coming up with a strategy in this regard?

In relation to recommendation 2, I believe that this response lacks clarity and seems to put the onus on universities with only a commitment to ask HEFCW to engage. This doesn't seem to be the cornerstone of the proposal as requested in this particular document.

I do welcome that the Welsh Government has accepted, to a large degree, the other recommendations, and I look forward to some further detail on some of these. I know that the economy committee that I sit on will be potentially coming up with similar recommendations in relation to the Graeme review, but also Welsh visibility and participation in UK-wide research funding opportunities. We have to make that work.

Cardiff University has called for the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to underwrite UK student mobility in the EU and commit to seeing what support could be done to continue widening participation from BME international students. I've said this before; I have a declaration of interest in that regard. My husband is from India, and if he hadn't come here, I wouldn't have met him. So, you know, we have to encourage more international students to come to Wales, if only to facilitate intercultural relationships on a personal level. [Laughter.] You can see these Brexit debates are something that I'm really enjoying here today.

I jest, but I think this is a really, really important issue, because the more integration that we allow between different cultures, between different countries, the wealthier we are as a nation, as people, and I think that's integral to what the issue is with Brexit. If we make enemies of each other, then how are we going to be able to work together for the future benefit of our nation? We've seen what's happened in New Zealand recently, but we've seen the amazing response of the people of New Zealand to such an attack. I think that the problem that we have is that higher education is a microcosm of society, and we have to treat that as a way in which we can support the sector, but also how that, then, will emanate through all of our lives in various different ways.

I wanted to say, 'Well, I used to teach higher education international students, from within the EU and outside the EU,' and I was going to say about what great relationships I had with those students, but I didn't want to go any further then, following what Bethan Sayed was saying. [Laughter.]

The students that contributed to my courses brought a whole range of different experiences and backgrounds, and you can see in one classroom, whether they're European Union or non-European Union, the value that these students bring to our economy, and of course, also—Universities Wales has commissioned research—they also come and spend money here, and they have a value directly into the economy on which we rely.

I wanted to concentrate on recommendations 1, 2 and 7. With regard to recommendation 1, in the response the Minister has said 'accept in principle' to what Suzy Davies recognised as quite an innovative approach, and we should see if we can take this further anyway—proactively demand executive powers for Welsh Ministers over spatially different immigration rules for students and academic staff. I think that's an innovative approach, and it recognises the kind of devolution settlement we might want to see collectively in the future, apart from, of course, Michelle Brown, who is not supporting recommendation 1 by her absence today. I think we can be quite innovative about this. Suzy Davies would say—I'm not party political for the sake of being so, but I do have to note what the Minister says in her response to recommendation 1:

'Our aim is to ensure the Welsh economy is not adversely affected by an overly restrictive migration system and that Welsh Universities are able to meet their future staffing and student needs.'

Well, yes. The UK Government has now got this White Paper and the Bill going through on immigration, but I don't share our Chair's optimism that it will lead to any better policy, because I have to say, Theresa May, as Home Secretary, introduced incredibly restrictive immigration practices for international students outside the EU, and all I can think is that those incredibly restrictive practices will be imposed on EU students now. So, it won't be the fact that we will be able to offer international students outside the EU the same equality that EU students enjoy now; quite the opposite. Those EU students will be closed down as a result of UK Government policy, and therefore I think recommendation 1 should still hold, and still has a lot to recommend it. 

With regard to recommendation 2, the Minister accepts in principle and says that universities are 'independent, autonomous bodies'—that they are, that they are—and therefore it would be inappropriate to commission this study. But when it comes to, say, housing, that wouldn't stop us commissioning a study. Housing companies are independent, autonomous bodies, but it doesn't stop us commissioning a study as to why houses aren't being built. I don’t see why we cannot support the university sector—some would say the more worthy university sector—as it’s currently structured, by commissioning studies into how students will be affected by the consequences of Brexit. I would urge the Minister to reconsider on that ground, particularly in terms of the parameters that are imposed on her with regard to continued participation in Erasmus+ post Brexit. 

Which brings me to recommendation 7, which is about Erasmus+. The vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, Professor Colin Riordan, has called on the UK Government to create an alternative back-up scheme, but, with 'no deal' Brexit looming, and looming ever closer every day, it appears that that will be in vain.

Let’s focus on what the Welsh Government can do. The report notably places the blame for an unwillingness to engage on the European Commission and the response from the Government on the European Commission and calls for the UK Government to urgently set aside funds for an alternative to Erasmus+. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary? She said she’s awaiting responses from the Government to the House of Lords' committee's report. This is changing daily; perhaps she’s had an update since. But can she also tell us, in addition to what has happened since she wrote her letter to us on 15 March, what engagement she has had with the European Commission? Maybe we should bypass the UK Government and go to the European Commission directly on the principle of subsidiarity—those decisions taken relevant to those areas in which they have most effect. Has she considered that as a process and a decision?

I think the report, as it’s presented, is a good one, and I think it gives us a very clear insight into the problems faced by higher education as a result of Brexit.

Thank you very much. Can I call the Minister for Education, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. And can I thank Lynne Neagle and members of the committee for their work in this area?

Given the enormous uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the limited time available to me this afternoon, I will not go into a discussion about the impact of the UK Government's handling of Brexit on the higher and further education sectors here.

I fully appreciate the challenges that Brexit provides for those sectors, their students and individual institutions. That is why, since June 2016, I and colleagues have been proactive in doing all we can to help mitigate those challenges, provide leadership, and identify new opportunities and partnerships. We provided guarantees in 2017-18, in 2018-19, and for 2019-20 that EU students at Welsh universities will continue to be eligible for financial support. We are introducing an outward mobility pilot going beyond Europe that will give Welsh students the opportunity to study, work or volunteer overseas. And we know that it is students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds that too often miss out on those opportunities, and our scheme will reach out to those students.

Through the Global Wales programme, we are supporting the sector to reach new markets and to build new partnerships. I recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vietnamese Government, and we are in the process of agreeing exciting new partnerships in North America.

Only last week, as has been referenced by a number of speakers, I announced new funding worth £6.6 million to enable Welsh universities and researchers to compete for a greater share of UK funding, as suggested by Professor Graeme Reid’s review.

For Bethan Sayed’s information, within a week of the Brexit referendum result, I convened a HE working group to advise me on the challenges facing the sector, made up of vice-chancellors. That group has been particularly useful. Vice-chancellors are, of course, represented on the First Minister’s Brexit group. Colin Riordan of Cardiff University is also representing the Welsh sector on some UK consultative arrangements. It was this Government that initiated the regular four nations meetings of the university Ministers so that we could work across the UK on these matters, but also hold the UK Government’s feet to the fire on promises that they have made.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this is an uncertain and rapidly changing area, and, of course, this is not helped, I'm sorry to say, by at times limited and often very unclear communications from the UK Government. Although I have been in post for less than three years, I'm onto my third different English education Secretary, and my third different universities Minister. Of course, we all know why Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah are no longer in the Government.

But I can now turn to the committee's recommendations. On recommendation 1, I agree that it is vital that the UK Government's migration policy does not create unhelpful and unnecessary barriers to the universities' ability to attract EU students and faculty to come to Wales, and in particular, that it does not have a differential impact on Wales that puts our institutions at a particular disadvantage. I have to agree with the comments made by Hefin David—this point is well understood. It was well understood by Jo Johnson, it was well understood by Sam Gyimah, it is now well understood by Chris Skidmore, but of course they have to run the gauntlet of the Home Office and the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's record on this is one that Hefin outlined. So, although they understand the challenges, I'm afraid I sometimes feel for them and the battles that they're trying to win at a Westminster level. What we do know as well is that some decisions that have been made have been particularly unhelpful, and don't recognise the reality of HE provision. So, for instance, part-time courses, four-year courses, and don't get me started on the post-work visa scenario where Wales's needs were ignored initially completely by Westminster.

On recommendation 2, I agree that it's important for universities to understand what attracts or deters students from studying in Wales, but I do feel that recruitment is a matter for them, but we will continue to work with HEFCW and the sector on these matters, and will assist where we can.

As regards recommendations 4, 5 and 6 on Global Wales II, the committee made a number of recommendations on the detailed implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Global Wales II, and asked for more detailed information to be provided, which was included in my written response last week to the committee's follow-up letter. The issues raised by the committee are being pursued by my officials in discussion with HEFCW, which is managing our financial contribution to Global Wales II on behalf of the Welsh Government, and I hope some of that extra detail about the nature of when payments will be made and the evidence that will be required for payments to be made, has provided some reassurance to the Minister.

On recommendation 7, in relation to participants in future Erasmus projects proposed for later than 2019, our concern about the UK Government's handling of its proposed underwrite guarantee, as again mentioned by Hefin David, has been shared by the House of Lords, who recommended last month that the moneys that would have covered the underwrite guarantee should be used to put in place a UK replacement arrangement, and we continue to press UK Ministers to deliver on this.

The EU's proposals in relation to UK participation in the EU's 2019 budget would seem to offer an opportunity to resolve this and to provide reassurance on access to Erasmus funding for students going abroad in autumn 2019. But disappointingly, once again, the UK Government has yet to say what its position is on this proposed solution. And I think it's important to note that it's not just university students or indeed FE students that benefit from Erasmus+ projects; Welsh schools have been particularly successful in accessing this money and providing opportunities for their students. As I said, I absolutely do not want to let the Westminster Government off the hook here, but I can assure Members that we continue to work on contingency plans for a Welsh solution if absolutely necessary. But it is the Westminster Government that should pick up the financial tag. I have to say: we have been proactive in supplying information to the UK Government about the importance of this scheme, but once again, that information disappears into the Treasury and we do not have any feedback from them. But in terms of value for money, sometimes it's about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Even a UK replacement scheme, I believe, would not bring us the advantages that we currently enjoy as participants in the Erasmus+ programme.

On recommendation 8, regarding the evaluation of the overseas mobility pilot, this will be received by the Government in the summer of 2021 when we will be able to share the results with the committee. As regards recommendations 9 and 10, it is a matter of concern that the UK Government has yet to share its thinking on the future of the regional development funding. We will continue to press them on our priorities as set out in the Welsh Government's policy paper on this issue, and I'm very glad that that position is being wholeheartedly supported by Universities Wales and our Welsh vice-chancellors.

On recommendation 11, on changing skill needs, officials are working with our partners to ensure the current plans are being developed to focus on the changing needs of Wales as a result of Brexit-related disruptions, and are developing options for actions that could be taken to address 'no deal' Brexit resilience issues. The financial implications of proposals emerging from this process will need consideration as part of the Welsh Government's wider Brexit resilience work.

And I think what's really important to me, as I reflect on why we're in this situation in the first place—it was perhaps previous Governments' inability to respond to industrial change that has led to us and maybe many people in those communities feeling that Brexit was an option for them, and we cannot fail to address those industrial changes and economic changes again, otherwise we will set up more problems for our future. 

And finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, if I may, on recommendation 12—implementation of the Reid review—I have made £6.6. million available and Welsh Government are establishing the office in London. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales are also embedding a member of staff part-time there so that we can draw down our fair share of UKRI money. And I will give the Chamber a commitment that I will work with them, with the sector, to ensure that the real and present risks that Brexit and especially a 'no deal' Brexit faces for the sector—we will continue to do all that we can to support the sector to mitigate them.

Thank you. Can I call on Lynne Neagle, as Chair, to reply to the debate? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate today? Your contributions are very much valued, including the Minister's. Can I also take this opportunity to thank all the organisations who engaged with our inquiry and provided such insightful written and oral evidence, and also take the opportunity to thank our excellent clerking and research team? This was a difficult and challenging inquiry because of the fast-moving situation, and I’m very grateful for their expertise and input. I won’t be able to reply to every point that Members made today, but if I can just pick up on some of the points made.

Can I thank Suzy for her contribution and her continued support for recommendation 1, and also the points that Suzy Davies made, which were echoed by Bethan Sayed, about the need to really get to the bottom of why EU students come to study here in Wales? As you’ve highlighted, we have already seen a significant drop, and we do need to very urgently get on top of that, so that we can ensure that our universities are as resilient as possible. Thank you, too, for your welcome to the FM’s announcement on the multi-annual funding and the regional funds—that is going to be crucial going forward.

I’d like to thank Bethan for her contribution and her support for the recommendations on immigration and, again, on establishing why students come here. Also, Bethan raised the importance of Erasmus+, and I wholeheartedly agree with your comments on that, and I’m grateful to you for highlighting the involvement of FE in Erasmus+, because it is often seen as a HE initiative. I have got a personal bugbear about Erasmus+, in that I was once an Erasmus student, so I do very much see the value of that, particularly for young people from our most deprived communities. I was in that position, I’d never had anyone in my family go to university, yet I had the brilliant opportunity to go and study in a university in Paris, and I think it’s vital that we continue to see, particularly our young people from our low-income families, continue to get that opportunity. So, we’ve all got to keep pushing on that.

Hefin David also raised the importance of Erasmus+, which I know that he’s been able to see from a very useful front-line perspective, and highlighted the importance of recommendation 1 and 2 also. I completely take on board what you’ve said—I have little confidence in the Prime Minister’s approach to immigration myself. I think the immigration Bill does provide us with an opportunity to make those arguments, and to make them as strongly as we can. And I hope that we, as a committee, can work with the Welsh Government, to ensure that we continue to emphasise to the UK Government the importance of certainty in this area, not just for our students, but for our staff in our universities—it's absolutely crucial.

So, can I just close, Deputy Llywydd, by thanking again everybody who has spoken today, and everybody who has contributed to this inquiry? The committee will be taking a very keen interest in developments going forward and continuing to monitor Welsh Government activity in this area, and I'm sure, along with all other Members, hoping for some certainty as soon as possible. Thank you.

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

Item 8 on the agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on the Kurds in Turkey. I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion. Delyth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm proud to open today's debate on this motion. It's a matter of double importance to me, partly because I'm spokesperson for international affairs, but also because Imam Sis, who has inspired us to table today's debate, lives in Newport, and that falls within my region. I anticipate that Members on other sides of this Chamber will have differing views about what's got us to this point, and there'll come a time for us to debate those points, but let's begin with the human life that is at stake here, not 15 miles from where we stand at this very minute. 

I'll say his name again, because God knows he hasn't had the attention he should have had to date: Imam Sis. Imam has been on hunger strike for 94 days and he's done that in protest at the Turkish state's treatment of the Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held in on-and-off solitary confinement since 1999, in contravention of international law. Imam is on this indefinite hunger strike alongside 300 of his compatriots, including Leyla Güven, who is a democratically elected Kurdish MP in the Turkish Parliament and who is now nearing death having refused food for 130 consecutive days. I implore Members to not dismiss what we're talking about here—people's lives. For that reason, I point out that our motion today is a straightforward one and we will not be accepting any of the proposed amendments. 

I have written to Leyla and to the secretariat for the European committee for the prevention of torture, and my letter called on them to review their investigation into the treatment of Mr Öcalan. The committee has looked into his case before now. Unfortunately, they do not have the necessary powers to ensure Mr Öcalan's human rights are enforced, which is why those campaigning for him have resorted to extreme measures to try to secure that his legal rights are honoured. 

Plaid Cymru welcomed the Welsh Government's decision to establish an international affairs ministry, and today is an opportunity for Wales to take its place on the international stage by being the first nation, through this Parliament and Government, to show its solidarity with the Kurdish people. Surely, it is incumbent on the National Assembly and Welsh Government to recognise and support the part that a Newport man is currently playing in an international struggle for justice, equality and human rights. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and, truly, I hope for the support of the Labour benches as well, given that their party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has also given his full support to the hunger strikers' cause. Diolch.

Thank you. I have selected the five amendments to the motion, and I call on Darren Millar to move amendments 1 to 5, tabled in his name.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendments tabled in my name. I have to say that many will call into question whether it's a good use of the National Assembly's time for us to be holding an opposition debate on foreign affairs and matters that are non-devolved, particularly at a time when Wales is facing huge domestic challenges that demand our attention. Many will also find it to be extremely distasteful that we're debating a motion today that sympathises with the leader and founding member of a prescribed terrorist organisation, especially given the dreadful attacks that have been perpetrated in Christchurch and Utrecht in recent days. 

As a person who has visited the Kurdistan region of Iraq just last year, and has Kurdish friends from Turkey and Iraq, I do recognise that there is a desire amongst many Kurdish people for an independent Kurdish state. But regardless of whether people in this Chamber support that aim or not, I would hope that we can all be united in our condemnation of the use of terror to achieve that goal. 

Now, I note that the motion before us refers to the ongoing hunger strike by Imam Sis, which was initiated to protest at the isolation of Abdullah Öcalan and to raise concern about Öcalan's human rights. I do not know Mr Sis, but from my research I gather he's a very sincere person, a very passionate man who believes in a future independent Kurdish state that values all of its citizens and upholds their rights. And I, like others in this Chamber, am moved by his plight, and I'm very concerned for his health, his well-being and his welfare, but I'm also very concerned about what appears to be the blind loyalty among some of the hunger-strikers to Abdullah Öcalan, the founder and leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is better known as the PKK. He was, of course, arrested back in 1999, as we've already heard, and he was arrested on terror and other related offences and has been in prison since. 

Now, in addition to being a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK, the PKK is also considered to be a terrorist organisation by the EU—

Will you take an intervention?

—by the EU, the United States, Japan and NATO.

Will you take an intervention?

The primary aim of the PKK, of course, has been to establish an independent Kurdish state in south-eastern Turkey, Syria and Iraq, but the PKK also wants to monopolise Kurdish political power, and it has done this by showing intolerance, suppressing opposition and attacking the interests of rival Kurdish political groups.

Will you take an intervention?

Since the establishment of the PKK back in 1978 on a far-left revolutionary Marxist philosophy, tens of thousands of people have died. 

Will you take an intervention?

Suicide bombs, car bombs, roadside bombs have been planted—

The Member is not taking an intervention. Allow the Member to continue.

—by the PKK and they have claimed the lives and changed the lives of many innocent civilians and their families, including children. The PKK has been accused of being involved in the narcotics trade, child smuggling, tax evasion and counterfeit-money production. As recently as 2016, Human Rights Watch alleged that groups affiliated to the PKK have recruited boys and girls to be soldiers in their cause. And the PKK, of course, continue to mount deadly terrorist attacks in Turkey.

Now, there have rightly been many questions asked of the actions of Turkey during the conflict that they have had with the PKK, including their treatment of prisoners. Now, clearly, Turkey has a legitimate right to defend itself against the PKK and terrorism, but, as is the case in any conflict, civilian casualties should always be avoided and human rights should always be fully respected and protected. Successive UK Governments have rightly urged the Turkish authorities to respect human rights, including the right to freedom of expression in the course of their anti-terror operations. And earlier this year, British Embassy officials discussed the imprisonment of Abdullah Öcalan with Turkish officials, including the issue of the hunger strikes by Leyla Güven and others. They have made it clear that the UK expects Turkey to ensure that prisoners' human rights are observed, including access to medical treatment and legal representation, and that all sides in this conflict, all stakeholders, need to return to the peace process. And to this end, the UK Government has provided funding to civil society organisations that are seeking to build dialogue between the different actors on the Kurdish issue, and I think we ought to recognise that in this debate.

Now, time has beaten me, but I do hope that Members will recognise that we've sought to clarify and give some context to this debate by making it clear with our amendments just what's behind the situation that we find ourselves in, and we have the opportunity this afternoon to condemn the terrorism that has been perpetrated by the PKK.

Thank you to Delyth Jewell for opening this debate, and I'm pleased that we are standing here having these international debates, because this is the place to have them. This is our national institution and we should make no apology for that. 

To start off with, I wanted to react quickly to something that Darren Millar said. The Belgian Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that there was no terror activity from the PKK and instead it was an organisation in conflict with Turkey over their treatment of the Kurds. Terror designation is often a political question, not a technical one. That's the ruling by the Supreme Court in Belgium, and I am really sorry that you've used this debate to try and dilute what we are here today to do—to talk about the human rights of political prisoners who have not had access to a solicitor to even try and make a point about their political—

I've supported the human rights of prisoners.

You took four minutes before you even mentioned Turkey—

Because I had a lot to get through.

—and about the terror that Turkey are imposing on the Kurdish community. 

I think the Plaid Cymru motion covers the key points relevant to this debate. I am a little confused by some of the Conservative amendments, which seem to puzzlingly refer only to the PKK, when this debate is focused on the general situation of the Kurds in Anatolia and northern Syria: a cynical—a cynical—attempt to try and dilute this particular debate here today. I've met Kurdish residents in Wales and their campaign group, which has absolutely no involvement with the PKK. Reading these Tory amendments, you could be forgiven for thinking that they are a deliberate attempt to muddy the water and excuse the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey, always through the lens of the PKK, an organisation, in practice, with a limited reach and operation.  

Let's also be clear that the Turkish Government consistently uses the threat of the PKK as a wider justification for the generally poor human rights conditions they maintain in southern and south-eastern Turkey. And I won't take any lessons from a party who said that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Let us look back in history and see what the Conservatives have done to treat people with a lack of respect in our international discourse. There are politicians that have been locked up—politicians like Leyla Güven, who are democratically elected—intimidated, harassed on their streets, communities that have suffered intimidation and a curtailment of their democratic rights. The Turks and others are now directly using military action in northern Syria under the pretext of combating terror, by attacking rebel groups that, up until relatively recently, had the support of the United States and others as partners in the war against Isis. So, I reject these Tory amendments, as do my colleagues, and I don't think they show an adequate appreciation of the wider context.

On a personal level, I see this as a basic fight for justice for a people who have been stateless throughout the vast majority of their history. Some Kurdish origin states were established, but were overran by Turkic states and confederations when they moved into the middle east in the middle ages. Kurds have been without a formally recognised state since that point in time. So, I would hope that Members recognise their struggle in that particular context, recognise the struggle and passions that this ignites, from a people just looking for a homeland, looking for somewhere to make their home, so that the people who have come to listen to this debate, many of whom are from that community, can thrive and can practice their own religion and language and culture, and seriously consider what it takes to drive people to hunger strike for such long periods of time. People are going to suffer, as happened in the north of Ireland. When people thought that the political process could not help them, they resorted to hunger strike because they wanted to be listened to, and they wanted to ensure that they could come to a solution.    

My heart goes out to Imam Sis and to all those who are on hunger strike. Clearly, it's a very difficult position for us to be in, because we don't want people to be in that type of situation, but we do commend them for doing that as an act of political protest and support them in their plight. I would hope that we would get a positive statement of support from the international Minister here today, and a recognition that she will do everything within her possibility to fight for justice for the Kurdish community, not only those who are in Turkey, but for people in Wales who are fighting from the sidelines, fighting here because they simply are not safe to return to their home country. So, I hope that you will all take part in this debate and support the Plaid Cymru motion.

I am glad to be able to participate in this important motion, and, just as we have previously discussed issues relating to Spain and Catalonia, as I have previously raised issues relating to Ukraine, just as we discuss issues around genocide in the Balkans, so it is right that we speak up today on behalf of our Kurdish community and the current situation in Kurdistan, in Kurdish communities, and in the context of human and national rights. I first became engaged with Kurdish activists back in 1976, when I became aware of the history of the struggle of the Kurdish people to protect their cultural and linguistic rights and their rightful demands for nationhood. Their history is one of death and torture, of exploitation, broken promises and betrayal by the world's powers—a trust that has been broken by the west time and time again as a consequence of geopolitical politics and vested interests, very similar to the geopolitics that I've spoken about in this Chamber affecting Ukraine to this day. So, it's one that I feel a great personal affinity with. 

As long ago as 1963, a Ukrainian dissident poet Vasyl Symonenko wrote a solidarity poem to highlight this common cause. It was titled 'Kurdskomy Bratovi', 'to a Kurdish Brother', and it was a poem that was rapidly banned by the then Soviet authorities. It read:

'Вони прийшли не тільки за добром / Прийшли забрати ім'я твоє, мову.' 

'Жиріє з крові змучених народів / Наш ворог найлютіший—шовінізм.'

'To steal your goods alone they did not come, / they came to take away your race and language.'

'And on the blood of tortured nations thriving, / grows fat our worst of foeman—chauvinism.'

'He acts with shame and with deceit, / his plan is to turn you all into a humble brood'.

Llywydd, this motion is not about the politics of Abdullah Öcalan or his political party. It is about the treatment of a political leader of many Kurds, arrested in February 1999, kept in solitary confinement, exposed—like many other Kurds—to trial recognised by the UN and human rights groups as unfair, and unsatisfactory treatment, as recognised by bodies such as Amnesty International, by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and his treatment is symbolic of the treatment of the Kurdish people.

Llywydd, the plight of the Kurdish people is one we should be ashamed of, because over decades we have been—our Governments have been—complicit in turning a blind eye to the abuses of basic human and national rights, just as we have of the Palestinian people. It seems that we are forever to put our economic and vested interests ahead of the basic rights of the Kurdish people and the undemocratic and increasingly oppressive actions of the Turkish Government and also, indeed, the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian Governments. It seems that yet again oil always speaks louder than human rights.

Since the coup in Turkey, 150,000 public officials have been dismissed, 64,000 jailed on so-called terrorism charges, and 150 journalists and nine parliamentarians imprisoned. Atrocities are being committed on a daily basis against the Kurdish people. If there is ever to be a just peace and resolution of the Kurdish question, then Turkey and other Governments must engage with the Kurdish people and their representatives. I, therefore, give my full support to this motion.

And, in respect of the Tory amendment, it is typical of the Tories that they choose to ignore human rights issues and become apologists for Turkish atrocities. I condemn all terrorism and human rights abuses and I note that this amendment—. This amendment is exactly the same tactic the Tories used to support apartheid South Africa—the same Tories who labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist, who wore—[Interruption.]—the same Tories who wore 'hang Mandela' T-shirts, only to fawn over Nelson Mandela decades later, despite doing nothing to secure his release, and it is so disappointing that they repeat their historic mistakes and failings. 

I'm very pleased that Plaid Cymru's been able to secure this debate today. A Welsh citizen who has become a friend is on hunger strike in Newport, and I was reminded of Imam Sis's commitment to building strong and diverse communities when a Facebook memory photograph popped up just this week from two years ago, when Imam and I marched together in Cardiff against racism. He was prepared to stand up for our communities then and he has on many other occasions. Now, it's our turn to stand with him and his fellow Kurds and their struggle.

I first got into politics because I wanted to challenge inequity, inequality and injustice, and that is still a motivator for me more than two decades on, and while we have so many problems to deal with here in Wales—problems and issues that we raise in this institution day in and day out—we also have a duty to speak out when there is an international matter that requires our attention, especially when it affects a Welsh citizen.

The treatment of the Kurdish people at the hands of an increasingly despotic Turkish state is one such issue. The torture meted out to the Kurdish people demands that we speak out and condemn such action. Imam Sis is on day 94 of a hunger strike. He is one of more than 300 people who have joined Kurdish politician Leyla Güven on hunger strike. The strike is to put pressure on the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to fulfil its duties and pay a visit to check on the situation of the Kurdish leader.

I saw Imam Sis just last week, and it's hard to see how much he has deteriorated since that photograph that was taken two years ago. It's impossible not to be inspired by the unassuming and unflinching bravery that he exudes. I only hope that Turkey, a country that is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, fulfils its international obligations before good people like Imam Sis die.

If this national institution sends a clear message today that Turkey must cease its barbaric treatment of Kurdish people, we will contribute to increasing international pressure to resolve this situation. I have today received a response to a letter I sent to Kurdish MP Leyla Güven, who is also on hunger strike in Turkey. In that letter, she says 'our demand is completely legal and humane'. She says, 'We, the Kurds, are a people whose language, identity, culture are still criminalised. Thousands of our politicians are currently in prison for their thoughts. Our municipal buildings have been forcibly seized and are run by appointed trustees of the Government. We are a people subjected to all kinds of denial, annihilation and assimilation policies. To put an end to this lawlessness, our struggle continues.' Does anyone see any parallels here? Us Welsh should understand this. Time is fast running out for people like Leyla Güven and Imam Sis, so I urge you all to support us in this debate.

Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm just grateful to you for letting me speak for a couple of minutes. The fact is that I've been to Kurdistan myself. I stayed in Sulaymaniyah, I stayed in Duhok and I stayed in Diyarbakir. I've travelled through Kurdistan, which is divided into four parts, partly owned by Iranians, partly owned by Syrians, partly owned by Iraqis and partly owned by Turkish. At the moment, Abdullah Öcalan—[Interruption.] Just let me speak my few words, please. You must be aware of the background of Kurdistan first. They're all Muslim. I went there in one of my Kurdish friends' company and one of the restaurants would not serve me because they thought I was an Arab, and, once they were told I was British, then, actually, they looked after me very well—Kurdish fellow. I'm very, very friendly with Kurdish people, I went with them, and three times more, and I'm friendly with Turks also. Don't underestimate that they are altogether. They are living there for centuries.

Now, you're setting up a very different precedent here. If somebody comes from any part of the world and starts going on a hunger strike—'Do this in my country otherwise I'm going to die'—what message are you going to give to the world? There are many, many other parts of the world having the same sort—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. They're having the same problems and you're giving a route for this sort of thing—'Okay, come to this country; we'll try to help you'. That is actually a problem for those people to sort out their own problems with their own communities.

Please, yes, you wanted to ask something.

I just wanted to pick up on what you were saying about how part of the Kurdish community is owned by Iran and partly by—. It's not owned by them; it's occupied by them. And we have to realise that people don't go on hunger strike because they just want to bring attention to themselves. There has to be some really, really fierce commitment that will give them the strength to end their life, effectively, for the cause that they are endeavouring to achieve. I met Imam Sis last night, and I have to say that everything that has been said about him by other people is absolutely true. He is an extremely upright and admirable individual, and we simply have to be a little bit more reflective on why it is that people are so desperate to get their cause heard and their self-determination so that they're not continuing to be bombed and imprisoned for simply wanting to speak their own language and have their own self-administration.

Thank you for your little lesson, but the fact is what you just heard me saying; you're setting up a very different precedent. You're asking for the people. There's not one Öcalan here. You're not talking about one Abdullah Öcalan. There are a lot of other similar sorts of situations around the globe. Don't underestimate—. You are actually opening Pandora's—. You are opening Pandora's box—[Interruption.] No, no, no. Those countries must look after their own selves. And they're living very happily. Don't ever think the Turks and Kurdish are fighting every day. The great people are living together, and their Imam—. As he said, the Kurdish are a great nation. Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians—they are also the same. And they're living for centuries. They're not—. You just mentioned occupation; it's nonsense. There's no occupation. They were divided into groups, yes. If you go back 500 years—. Look, Jeremy Adams, on the Irish isle—20 years ago, he was a different person. Gerry Adams, sorry. He was a different person 30 years ago. Now, he's a totally different person. [Interruption.] Time and—. Wait a minute. Time and negotiation do happen, and they do change the nation. It will happen. It will happen with Turkey. [Interruption.] As long as Turkey and they sit—. It is their job. It's not our job. They will sit and sort their problem out, to make sure—. Do not open Pandora's box here. [Interruption.] Thank you, no—

The Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language, Eluned Morgan.

Thank you very much. May I start by saying, as Minister for international affairs, that we as a Government take a great interest in safeguarding human rights across the globe, and that is why many of us became active in politics in the first place? We in Wales have a long tradition of standing shoulder to shoulder with political, progressive organisations throughout the world.

May I make it clear to begin with that the Welsh Government condemns persecution and violence in all their forms, anywhere in the world, and we support efforts to promote reconciliation where there is discord?

Now, turning to the motion before us today, I think it's important to recognise and celebrate the political, economic and cultural contribution made by people of Kurdish heritage to Welsh communities. When people who are born in other parts of the world come to Wales to make Wales their home, we are enriched as a nation. And when those who have adopted Wales as their country as a nation suffer, we suffer with them, and that's why we're extremely concerned about the worsening condition of Imam Sis from Newport. We absolutely recognise the strength of feeling that exists in Welsh communities on the issue we're debating today. He is, as we've heard, on hunger strike to draw attention and to seek improvements to the conditions under which the Kurdish leader Öcalan is being held in a Turkish prison.

Today, I've spoken to the Turkish ambassador of the United Kingdom, as I did in January, where I raised the concerns of Welsh citizens about the worsening condition of Imam Sis and the reasons for his ongoing hunger strike. The ambassador asserted that in March 2018, the European committee for the prevention of torture published a report that highlighted that the conditions under which Öcalan was being held had materially improved since their previous visit in 2013. He also suggested that Öcalan's brother had been to visit him in January this year, and as far as he knows—and I think it's probably worth checking this—Öcalan does have access to lawyers. It's worth noting, however, that the European report suggests that the authors had serious concerns regarding the prisoner's contact with the outside world, and that this has further deteriorated.

The situation of Kurdish communities in Turkey and the neighbouring countries is an extremely complex matter that has deep historical roots as well as having broader significance in the present-day politics of the region. Since the 1980s, there has been a series of unsuccessful attempts to bring about an end to the violence through peace talks, and during this time, more than 40,000 people have lost their lives. We can’t lose sight of this, and our thoughts go to the victims, their families, and the civilians caught up on both sides of the conflict.

Now, we expect the Turkish authorities to ensure that prisoners’ human rights are observed, including access to medical treatment. We support the UK Government’s stance of urging all sides to return to negotiations, and for the peace process to be resumed and to bring about reconciliation and a lasting peace.

The motion under consideration today invites the National Assembly to call on the Welsh Government to write to the European Council on its behalf. As this is the first debate of this nature since I’ve become Minister for international relations, I believe it’s important to emphasise and to underline the fact that foreign policy is an area of policy that is specifically reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, the power to produce such a statement rests with the UK Government. However much Plaid Cymru would like us to have this power, the fact is we do not have it.

The motion does seem somewhat unusual, in that the opposition debate today does not call on the Welsh Government to do anything in the areas in which we have responsibility and in which we have the resources available to take action.

Will you take an intervention?

I'm happy to do that.

Thank you for taking an intervention; it will be very brief. Do you not think it's perfectly relevant for Welsh Government to take an opinion on a matter that is not devolved?

I think, when it comes to reserved matters, we have to honour the agreement that we have, and this is an area that is specifically reserved. Foreign affairs is specifically reserved. That’s why, as the Welsh Government, we are treating this motion as we would a backbench Members' debate, and we are granting a free vote to Labour Members.

Now, I’d like to encourage Members in future to ensure that, where we engage with international issues, we keep the focus clearly on those areas in which we can take action and make a real difference. Now, we as a Government will abstain on this motion, but there is nothing to prevent the National Assembly from writing on its own behalf to the European Council.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Thank you to everyone who's taken part in this debate. Members have spoken very movingly in favour of the motion. I agree with Bethan that it’s only right that this Chamber should express our voice on international issues, particularly when they concern a Welsh citizen. Mick Antoniw spoke of the personal affinity that he feels with the Kurds, and I thank him for his very moving words. And Leanne spoke of her personal friendship with Imam. I, too, am proud to call Imam a friend. I agree that it’s impossible not to be inspired by him. Thank you to Jenny Rathbone as well for her support on this.

I was glad to hear the Minister saying that we in Wales have a tradition of calling out injustice internationally, and I will quote her words: when people from other parts of the world come to Wales to make their home, we are enriched, and when they suffer, we suffer, too.

I’m glad that she has raised this issue with the Turkish ambassador. I would still implore the Government to please support our motion. We can still write a letter on this. Again, when the Government have created a ministry for international affairs, surely it is within the bounds of that to express an opinion on this.

I’m afraid that I found some of Darren Millar’s comments—and I’ll use his word—‘distasteful’. I regret the tone of his contribution profoundly. I won’t get into what Darren has said, but I’ll repeat that the motion is about human rights and ending the enforced solitary confinement of a political prisoner. And the life of a Welsh citizen—Imam is 32; he’s a year older than me, and he might die.

Will you take an intervention?

You didn't take an intervention from me, Darren. I'm not going to take one from you.

Llywydd, I wish to end the debate by explaining that Imam and the others on this strike are motivated in their actions by their desire to give Mr Öcalan a voice that has been denied him. To do that, they are willing to sacrifice their lives—not that they want to. A few weeks ago, I visited Imam in the Kurdish community centre in Newport. He's now living in that centre as he's too unwell to go elsewhere.

I'd been anticipating the visit with a sense of foreboding. I thought it was going to be quite traumatic, but in reality it was life-affirming. Imam told me he's not on hunger strike because he wants to die. It's because he wants to celebrate life. At first, that might seem like a contradiction, but actually it's in keeping with this phenomenon that many sub-state nations experience—that of asserting a positive in the face of a challenging negative. That's something that small nations with more powerful neighbours, like the Kurds, like the Welsh, will have an affinity with, and in that light, Imam's resolution, though drastic, though concerning, is actually not paradoxical at all.

The Kurdish centre in Newport where Imam is living was established with the aid of my predecessor, Steffan Lewis, and I know that this is something he would have supported wholeheartedly. Imam, too, is caring, thoughtful; he is an honourable man whose only concern is seeking justice for his brothers and sisters in their Kurdish homelands. I'm deeply concerned about his welfare, and I fear the worst may come to pass unless his reasonable demand for Mr Öcalan to be treated humanely is met, and I therefore implore my fellow Members to support our motion today, and Imam, we send our best wishes to you. Diolch.

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

Which brings us to the next item, which is the Plaid Cymru debate: women against state pension inequality campaign. I call on Helen Mary Jones to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am pleased to propose this motion on behalf of Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, and on behalf of the 138,600 women in Wales born in the 1950s deprived of their pensions without due and proper notice.

Now, I want to be clear here that we are not opposing the equalisation of the pension age. That is entirely just, it's entirely proper. But the issue is not equalisation, but the lack of notice and the catastrophic way in which this has been carried out. These women were denied the right to change their plans and to make preparation. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that many of these women were never informed, until the point that they actually turned up and applied for their pension, aged 60. So, it is not about opposing the equalisation of the pension age, but it is about opposing the way that the women were treated.

Now, the facts, Llywydd, are well known. Legislation to gradually equalise the pension age was passed in 1995, and that was unexceptionable—except that the women who were to be affected were not appropriately told. Years later, in 2011, the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to escalate the timescale. Now, on this occasion, some of the women were told and some were not, and some of those who were informed were given just a year's notice of a six-year delay in their access to their pension. Women have been left without a basic income that they were expecting. This is not money that enables our fellow citizens to live in the lap of luxury. This is about having a reasonable standard of life. Some of those women have had to carry on working in roles that they are no longer physically strong enough to undertake safely—for example, caring—and I have seen doctors' letters to women advising them not to carry on with that kind of work when they have no choice. Some have been forced to rely solely on partners for support, and in many cases that's all right, but in some cases that leaves women vulnerable to financial abuse and to having to stay in abusive relationships because they have no money to go elsewhere. Many of them are living on their limited savings, and many of those savings are now gone. All are poorer than they expected to be after a lifetime of work, paid or unpaid. Some have been plunged into serious poverty.

Let me tell you about Rose. It's not her real name. She is happy for me to share her story, but she is much too proud to allow her neighbours, let alone her children, to know how hard things are for her now. Rose lives in a rural community in Wales. She worked in an office in the late 1960s and early 1970s for a few years, but had no opportunity—in fact, was not allowed, as a woman in those days—to contribute to the occupational pension scheme that was available to her male colleagues. She married and she worked at home for many years, looking after her children and contributing to her community in numerous voluntary capacities. When she returned to paid work in her late 40s, she made a point of, in the language that we would use, ‘topping up her stamp’, so that she would be entitled to her pension. And she went without to be able to afford to do that.

Well, after a few short years back in paid work, Rose once again found herself needed at home, first of all to care for her mother, and then for her older husband, who sadly passed away. As well as taking a huge emotional toll, this has affected Rose's health. She tells me, ‘I’m not as strong as I used to be.’ Rose was 59 when she was widowed. Her husband’s private pension did not make provision for dependants. Rose found some part-time work and dipped into her small savings pot. She thought she’d be okay—her pension would come in in a few months’ time when she was 60. Nobody had told her that she would have to wait. She made her application and that was the point at which she knew her pension was not due for some years.

So, Rose keeps working. Her savings are gone. She takes as many hours in her part-time job as she can manage, but it is not enough. There are days when the main meal of the day is tea and toast so that she can put petrol in her car to enable her to get to her part-time work. She dreads the car breaking down or the house needing repair. She saves hard for Christmas gifts and birthday gifts for her grandchildren, and it really upsets her that she can’t give them more. This is not how she expected to live and this is not what she deserves. Presiding Officer, Rose and the thousands and thousands of other women like her are looking for us today in this National Assembly to stand by her and speak up for her. Of course, these matters are not devolved, but that does not prevent us from expressing solidarity and support.

In bringing my introductory remarks to an end, I would ask Members to reject the Conservative amendments. Amendment 1 removes all meaningful content from this motion. Amendment 2 is factually incorrect and I would invite the Conservatives, in that context, to consider withdrawing it. The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that many of the women were not contacted at all, and many of those who were contacted were contacted much too late for them to be able to make any meaningful adaptations to their arrangements. The High Court this summer will determine the extent to which the Department for Work and Pensions operated unlawfully.

And I would invite the Conservatives today, Presiding Officer, to have the courage of their lack of convictions, and if they are unable to support the WASPI women in the wrong that’s been done to them, if they are unable to stand up against this injustice, then withdraw your amendments and just vote against the motion, because we know that’s what you mean. I look forward to the contributions of all Members to this debate, and I hope that, at the end of that, we will feel able, as a National Assembly, to stand in solidarity with Rose and all the other women.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. The change to state pension age, announced in 1993, followed equality legislation and various cases in the European courts. Changes in life expectancy were also being considered. Equalisation was initially brought about by the Pensions Act in 1995, when an EU directive prompted the UK Government to equalise retirement age for men and women—then 65 and 60 respectively. The UK Government chose to level it at 65, with staged increases in women’s state pension age between 2010 and 2020.

Following the 1995 Act, actual and projected pensioner population growth continued faster than anticipated, due to increasing longevity. The then Labour Government, therefore, decided that a state pension age fixed at 65 was not affordable or sustainable, and introduced the Pensions Act 2007, increasing the state pension age to 68 in stages between 2024 and 2046.

The coalition Government set out further changes in the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age and brought forward the increase in equalised state pension age to 66 by 2020. However, this included a concession so that no woman would see an increase to her state pension age of more than 18 months, relative to the 1995 Act timetable, at a cost to the Exchequer of £1.1 billion. 

The Pensions Act 2014—

Are you taking an intervention, Mark Isherwood?

I wasn't aware there was a—. Yes, certainly.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you accept, though, that the crux of this issue is that many, many women were not notified of the changes, and that that's where the injustice lies? And if that is proven to be correct, then the UK Government should be compensating those women. Do you agree with that? [Applause.]

I'm coming to that, but I'm aware this is a matter of live litigation.

Can I just call on members in the public gallery, who I know are very interested in what we're discussing here—if you can allow the Members in the Chamber to carry on their contributions, for them to be heard. They are elected representatives of all the people of Wales and they need to be heard. If you clap, clap right at the end, and not during the debate. But I'm not urging you to clap, before anybody criticises me for saying that. [Laughter.] If you can allow all Members to be heard during their contributions, that would be very gratefully received. Mark Isherwood.

That's very kind, thank you. I'm conscious, because this is live litigation, I'm trying to avoid expressing an opinion and rather focusing on the actual history behind this. 

So, the Pensions Act 2014 then increased state pension age to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and introduced regular reviews of the state pension age, the first of which was the 2017 Cridland review, to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and affordable for taxpayers on an ongoing basis.

We can't ignore the issue of life expectancy. Back in 1926, when the state pension age was first set, there were nine people of working age for every pensioner. The ratio is now 3:1 and is set to fall closer to 2:1 by the latter half of the twenty-first century. Life expectancy at 65 has increased by more than 10 years since the 1920s, when the state pension age was first set. The first five of those years were added between 1920 and 1990. The next five were added in just 20 years, from 1990 to 2010. The number of people receiving a state pension is expected to grow by one third over the next 25 years and, by 2034, there will be more than twice as many people over 100 as there are now. Life expectancy at age 65 in the UK is now projected to increase to 26.7 years for men and 28.7 years for women between 2014 and 2064. Speaking in Westminster last November, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Guy Opperman, said,

'The Government have gone to significant lengths to communicate the changes to ensure that those affected were fully aware of their rights...including communication campaigns, information online, and individual letters posted to approximately 1.2 million women who were directly affected by the 1995 Act changes. A further 5 million letters were sent later to those affected by the 2011 Act changes between January 2012 and November 2013.'

He concluded,

'Between April 2000 and the end of September 2018, the Department for Work and Pensions provided more than 24 million personalised state pension statements, and we continue to encourage individuals to request a personalised state pension statement.​'

I move amendment 2. Last December, the work and pensions Secretary stated that revising the 2011 changes would cost over £30 billion by 2026, that returning to age 60 for women would cost £77 billion by 2021, and that creating a new inequality between men and women would be dubious as a matter of law. The High Court subsequently granted permission for judicial review of the impact of these matters on women born in the 1950s. The case is listed to be heard on 5 and 6 June. It's clearly inappropriate for the DWP to investigate a matter that is being considered by the High Court and they have therefore suspended action on related complaints until a final decision has been taken by the courts. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has also suspended consideration of related cases on the same basis. As Guy Opperman said in January,

'I stand here defending the actions not just of this Government but of the coalition Government, the Labour Government of 1997-2010 and the preceding Government, all of whose actions are effectively the subject matter of the judicial review.'

As the DWP has also said, it does not comment on live litigation—a protocol that this Assembly has previously adopted, but which this motion appears to breach. I move amendment 1 accordingly.

My colleagues and others have already established what the issue is here. To recap, the UK Government changed the rules to equalise the pension age for men and women without any consideration that men and women born in the 1950s faced a very different environment, with women facing considerable legal restrictions on their ability to achieve fair pay and access to pension funds. They then failed to communicate these changes to those likely to lose out—a communications effort so poor that there's been speculation that those in charge of women's pensions ended up running the Brexit campaign three years ago. [Laughter.] I may joke, but when it's been pointed out, the injustices and hardship that this is causing to these women, the UK Government has just ignored them. In fact, worse than ignored: it's imposed an additional hardship on mixed-age couples by denying many of them pension credit benefit and switching them onto the lower value universal credit.

And isn't it interesting timing, how we heard yesterday from a House of Commons committee that has seen evidence to suggest that, as a result of 86 per cent of the austerity cuts that have hit women, some of those women are turning to sex work? We can't just assume that this is only an issue for younger women. How many WASPI women, I wonder, have been forced to take this route?

All of this has really been a catalogue of poor decision making and trivialising the concerns of people that's been undertaken by a Government that, time and time again, demonstrates that it cares very little for the financial well-being of women. It makes numerous changes that disproportionately affect poorer women, and this is one of them. And people wonder why we need to make the apparatus of government, both political and administrative, more reflective of the society that it serves. Put simply, more women in senior decision-making roles in Whitehall and Westminster, and, of course, this is unlikely to happen, but if it had happened, this issue would have been addressed far sooner and it would not have been dismissed as a niche issue. So, our motion here is simple: let's support this incredible campaign and correct an injustice. [Applause.]

Can I start by declaring an interest? Members of my family were born in the 1950s. I actually live with one, and she gave me permission to mention it, so I'm okay. I was going to start differently, but I've just spent six minutes listening to the Conservative spokesperson and not once in those six minutes did I get any empathy for these women. Not once in those six minutes did I get an apology for these women. The Government has actually rejected the implications for these women, and that's disgraceful. It's about time they sat down, and stood up, maybe both together, to actually listen to the voices of these women—and it's been heard from Helen Mary Jones already this afternoon—to actually identify the differences and challenges faced by these women. Rose is not just one woman; every community we have has a Rose. 

Will you take an intervention?

I'd be more than happy to. 

I've got family members affected by this, as I'm sure other people have here. And I can assure you I have every sympathy for some of the individuals who have been affected. But will you accept that there was a Labour Government that could have changed these arrangements and did absolutely nothing to change them? Do you accept that that is the case?

Here we go: the Tories trying to blame somebody else again, when the Tories did all the motions. It's about time they took responsibility for their actions, and they're not doing that. Let's look at this reality. As I said, there's a Rose in every community. Let's get serious about this. It's known that 33 per cent of men may end up only on the state pension, but 55 per cent of women will end up relying on the state pension—disproportionately affecting women again. 

We have a situation with the age-barrier issue. A woman who was born in May 1953 will have had a pension in November 2016, a loss of some £2,000. A woman born in May 1954 will not get a pension until January 2020, a loss of some £20,000. For the sake of 12 months, a huge difference. That is not fair. Also, let's go on to this, because the third problem we have is the notice. The women up there will tell you: the notice. My wife will tell you she didn't get notice. This is a big issue. And, when you do get notice—three years—what can you do in three years to prepare for your pension changes? Nothing. That is totally inappropriate and totally ineffective. You are putting these women in a position where they cannot make alternative arrangements, they cannot live on the income they're going to get, they cannot prepare, and that is unfair. 

I go back to a couple of points here: ages. We talk about negativity, but let's be honest about it—when I tweeted this about 1950s women, I was told off. I was born in 1960. I know the Member who was on the radio this morning will be in the same category. I was born in 1960. What about me? She will be affected as well, because we are thinking only in the 1950s because they're coming up to their pension age now, but this is going to affect women for many, many years. And why should we be debating it? It's not just about supporting women, because this Government will have to pick up the pieces for those women. There will be a demand upon social needs. Those women are now carers very often; whether they're caring for older relatives or grandchildren, they become carers. If they have to work, who's going to be the carers? Who's going to pick up the bill for the carers? The people in the front row here. It affects the Welsh Government. It affects everything we do, and what's more important, it affects the women out there. It's the real situation. 

Some are able to have occupational pensions, but I think Helen Mary highlighted this: they came from an age where they weren't entitled to occupational pensions; they weren't included in that. Some of them didn't start work until later in life, because of the tradition in those days where they started looking after the family and then came in to work later on, sometimes part-time and built them up. That results in any occupational pension that they did have being very small anyway. And everyone—everyone—relied upon the concept of, 'Well, I'm going to have a pension at the age of 60, and that's my calculation, that's what I'm working towards—a pension at the age of 60, so I can retire and help with the caring needs of my family.' That's been shot, because they now have to work because they can't have the income when they would have retired.

And some of those are working in jobs that are physically demanding, and it's going to make them ill as a consequence of that. It's going to make them probably have demands upon social services, social needs, because of that condition they will then get because they're working those extra years. What are we doing as a society, putting that upon women? It's about time we took our responsibilities and treated these women fairly, and the transitional period, thrown out of the window by the Tory Government. These women have been put on the scrapheap. It's about time we stood up and represent these women, and told the Tory Government, 'You have a duty to these women; deliver that duty.' [Applause.] 

I'm going to declare an interest in this, and I'm also going to inform Darren Millar, who has put this amendment down, that it's wholly and absolutely inaccurate, because I know that I didn't have a letter. Don't tell me I had a letter and I didn't read it: I didn't have a letter, I couldn't read it, and that's the same for those people up there. We had the initial warnings when the Labour Government said they were going to change things. The accelerator letters, I don't know where they went, but there must be a postbox full of them somewhere, and it must be in the ether, because it never landed in people's letterboxes. So, you need to remove this and you need to face some facts, and you need to be honest about it.

So, I went out there—. I've spoken many times on this debate that we've had today, and I've met many, many people. I met somebody outside today who was telling me that it's physically impossible for her to do her job at the age that she's expected to do it. There's almost an understanding that men very often do physically demanding work, but it doesn't somehow translate and get read across that women do physically demanding work. Cleaning, for example, is physically demanding work. Nursing and caring is physically demanding work. You would need to try it. I suggest you try it, and then think about the fact that you will be expected to do it at the age of 60.

This takes us back to Victorian times. When we very first had to have pensions, it was at 70. The age was 70, and there were caveats within it that you didn't do this, or you didn't do that, because if you weren't of good character you couldn't have a pension. We're going backwards at a rate that has never been seen before.

Joyce, will you give way?

Yes.

Joyce, thank you for giving way. I wonder how you'd respond to a constituent from Bridgend, Jocelyn from the WASPI Bridgend and Valleys group, who said to me when I asked her, 'What would you say if you were able to speak in this debate?' And she said, 'Huw, what I'd say is that 1950s women have suffered enough through inequality all of our lives. We now live a life of induced poverty, uncertainty, illness, homelessness for some, debt and sadness, and are treated like second-class citizens. Equality is not equality for us born in the 1950s.' Would you agree with that?

I absolutely agree with it. And the other issue that I would like to raise, again, and I raised it yesterday, is that anybody that tries to find employment at the age of 65 plus—and we're talking about people having to work beyond 65—they're more likely to die, according to Prime Cymru's figures, before they get a job than they are likely to get a job.

And we also need to be aware—because it's going to affect this age group as well, again, and women, again—that the pension credits from May this year are going to be paid once the youngest person becomes entitled to that pension credit. So, it isn't only now that they're going to be affected, which they clearly are, but by increasing this age before they can receive their pension, it also moves it further along the way before they can actually get pension credits. And that has been sneaked through without any notification in the chaos that is Brexit. Well, you haven't hidden that news, we won't let you hide that news, and I won't actually accept this amendment, because I know personally that this is absolutely inaccurate. [Applause.]

I have to declare an interest at the outset, because I am a WASPI woman. I'm a woman unfairly affected by state pension age changes and one of the Women Against State Pension Inequality.

In 1995, the then Conservative Government introduced a new Pensions Act that would have raised the age of retirement for women to 65—the same age as men—by 2025. This would have given women 15 years to change their retirement plans; 15 more years of savings to help meet the shortfall in their pension funds. However, the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition Government changed these plans. The Pensions Act 2011 sped up the changes, meaning that women’s state pension age would increase from 63 in 2016 to 65 in November this year. The Act also stated that both men and women’s state pension age should increase to 66 by 2020.

I, like thousands of my compatriots, was not personally notified of the changes. I received no letter, I received no explanation, and no-one told me my retirement plans would have to change.

But unlike many other women in this situation, I am fortunate, I am still in employment and I am not facing destitution. Sadly, many women have been badly affected by these changes, and I have read of at least one women who took her own life as a result of the financial black hole she found herself in.

Nobody disagrees that men and women's retirement ages shouldn't be the same. However, these changes shouldn't have been introduced without decades of notice, years to plan, and time to make additional financial arrangements. As it stands, the changes to women's pensions were introduced too fast and too haphazardly.

I only learnt of the changes via an offhand remark from one of my friends who delivers parcels. She told me that she was looking forward to becoming part-time delivering parcels because her legs were not what they used to be. And she was going to go part-time. Unfortunately, due to these changes, she'd now found she had to deliver parcels for a further six years on a full-time basis. So, that's how I found out. And women are being made to suffer because of a lack of foresight and planning by successive UK Governments.

Unfortunately, we can't correct past mistakes, but we can mitigate the effects those mistakes are having on women born in the 1950s. Twelve months ago in this Chamber, I brought forward a motion calling for a bridging pension that supplies an income until state pension age, which is not means-tested; compensation for the absence of a bridging pension to those women who have already reached their state pension age; compensation to all of those who have not started to receive a bridging pension by an appropriate date, which would be sufficient to recover lost monetary interest; and compensation to the beneficiaries of the estates of those who are deceased and failed to receive a bridging pension. Therefore, I call on the Welsh Government to demand justice from the UK Government. We owe it to thousands of Welsh women, women who have paid their dues, to pay them their state pension. [Applause.]

The Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Welsh Labour Government. I thank the movers of this motion for putting forward this debate today. It highlights the issues faced by thousands of women in Wales who were born in the 1950s who've had their state pension age raised without effective or sufficient notification, as we've heard about this afternoon. We believe that, in fact, Helen Mary, it amounts to 195,000 women in Wales. I can say today that we support this motion in full.

Although pension matters aren't devolved, the Welsh Government has made strong representations about the impact of the pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 disproportionately affecting women who've had their state pension age raised significantly without effective or sufficient notification. The Welsh Government has written to the UK Government to raise our concerns about the impact of the increase in the state pension age and we'll continue to make those representations, strengthened by the debate today, to the UK Ministers who remain responsible for these matters.

The poor and untimely communication to those women most disproportionately impacted by the changes is unforgivable, and it's been clearly highlighted in the debate today. We know women affected by the changes are now enduring hardship and poverty as a result of changes that they knew nothing about, as Members have said today.

Thank you. I welcome the fact that you want to write on this non-devolved issue, but we just sat in a debate prior to this where the Minister for international affairs said she couldn't intervene because is was a non-devolved issue. How can you intervene on this non-devolved issue but you couldn't intervene on the previous non-devolved issue?

I welcome the opportunity today to bring some consensus about the representations that we can make on behalf of the women in Wales who are so adversely affected by these changes. Many women in this age group will have worked part-time, often in more than one part-time job, in low-paid roles, taking time off work to care for children or elderly relatives. Many have experienced  inequality, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, throughout their lives and were expecting to have some rights in their pensionable times. They've worked, they've paid their national insurance contributions, they've contributed fully to society, but now they find themselves once again being directly disadvantaged as women.

So, we pay tribute today, and this is an important strong voice from this Chamber, to campaigners in our constituencies. I particularly want to pay tribute to Kay Ann Clarke and Theresa Hughes, who I met on the steps of the Senedd today. There are several campaign groups campaigning for justice—Women Against State Pension Inequality, BackTo60, Shoulder to Shoulder, We Paid In You Pay Out—speaking across the land about their campaigns. I think we must pay tribute to the accomplishments of these groups. They've got the message over into the mainstream media, and to politicians. They've formed groups across the country in our constituencies. They've also been instrumental in the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.

As a result of their campaign, women from across the country submitted complaints of maladministration against the Department for Work and Pensions. The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review, due to take place on 5 and 6 June. So, we will continue to monitor developments and raise our concerns with the UK Ministers who are responsible for these matters. I will say, in response to your motion—[Interruption.]

Thank you for taking the intervention. It's really an opportunity to correct what I thought was misleading information on the position of the DWP that was made by the Conservatives. There is no reason at all, when there is a judicial review, why the DWP can't comment, because it's about process and procedure. If the DWP recognises that the women have been treated unfairly, they can say so. All they have to do is withdraw their opposition to the judicial review, and then enter into negotiations and discussions as to how they rectify what has been a rather serious mistake—a gross mistake that they've made. [Applause.]

Absolutely, and I can assure you and assure this Chamber that if litigation is commenced, the Counsel General and Welsh Ministers will consider what options are available to us in this Welsh Government to respond. So, I conclude with a very powerful statement made by Philip Alston from the UN, a special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. He said last year that women born in the 1950s have been particularly impacted by an abrupt and poorly phased-in change to the state pension age, so that the impact of the changes is such as to severely penalise those who happen to be on the cusp of retirement.

We will, Llywydd, support the motion in full and oppose amendments 1 and 2. It is the UK Government that has a responsibility towards these women and to put a wrong right; they can do it now, as Mick Antoniw has said, and ensure that women's equality is supported and promoted. And, as David Rees said, that rally I think he attended in Port Talbot last Saturday—they were there to call for our support and for the UK Government to 'give us back our dignity, our self-worth and our lives'. That's what women campaigners are calling for. We back them all the way—Welsh Government and Labour AMs back them here today in support of this motion from Plaid Cymru. [Applause.]

Helen Mary Jones to reply to the debate. Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thank you very much. And can I thank most of the Members who've contributed to this debate? I can't possibly respond to all the points that have been made, but we've heard some very moving individual testimonies, people speaking either for their friends, colleagues or for themselves.

I think the points made particularly by David Rees and Leanne were about women's different life experiences, about how much more they depend on the state pension. It was literally not possible for my constituent, Rose, to save in an employer's pension scheme, because she wasn't allowed because of her sex. Those women's lives have been very different and we owe them something for the unpaid work that they've done, for the caring that they've done, for the volunteering in their communities.

I'm extremely grateful to the Welsh Government for their support for this motion and I really hope that they will look at ways in which they can practically make representations on behalf of the women so affected. And now, Llywydd, we come to the cognitive dissonance that is Mark Isherwood. I mean, we all know what a very nice human being he is, but how on earth can he hold the values that I believe he genuinely does hold and then talk such nonsense? Mark Isherwood has explained to us—[Interruption.]—I'm sorry, Mark, no, I don't have time. I normally would, but I don't have time—

Yes, you do, Helen Mary.

All right. If he wants more rope to hang himself with, then I'm happy to provide him with it.

No, no, no. Mark Isherwood.

Because this matter is under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere, I stuck to historic facts and quotes from the record; I didn't express a view and we do not oppose a judicial review. But because of the circumstance, I did not feel it appropriate to risk a sub judice contribution.

Your point is made, but your point is incorrect. Unless you disbelieve Joyce Watson, Caroline Jones and others who have said in this Chamber that they did not receive a letter, amendment 2 is factually incorrect, and I invite you again to withdraw it, because it is just wrong. The Department for Work and Pensions have said that there were many women who were not corresponded with.

Now, Mark Isherwood, you speak in one way and then the amendments that you're placing are contradictory, in a sense, to what you've said. You've described to us what you said was a historical case, you've described to us what should have happened, and on all of the points of legislation, yes, you were correct, but the issue is not the legislation, the issue is not equalising the age—the issue is that women should've been told when they had time to plan. And far be it for me to defend the Labour Party, because, as you know, this is not my habit, but on this occasion, it is not their fault. Goodness knows it often is—[Laughter.]—but on this occasion, it is not their fault. 

To draw my remarks to a close, Llywydd, I again invite the Conservatives to withdraw their second amendment, because it is factually inaccurate. I urge this Assembly to oppose both their amendments. And my final message, Llywydd, is to all the women so affected. I urge every single woman in this age group who did not get a letter to register your complaint with the Department for Work and Pensions. Every one of those, if Jane Hutt's figures are correct—and I relied on figures from the House of Commons, so I suppose it's not surprising that it's an underestimate—every single one of those almost 200,000 women: register your complaint. By doing so you become by implication part of the process that's subject to judicial review. I would urge you to go and talk to your Assembly Member or MP to get some assistance with that process. You may consider that that isn't a very sensible thing to do if your Assembly Member or MP is a Conservative. I urge you, all these women, to demand your rights, and the majority of us will stand with you as you do. [Applause.]

The question is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer the vote until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote this afternoon is on Stage 4 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, three abstentions, one against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Kurds in Turkey, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, 14 abstentions, 11 against. The motion is agreed. [Applause.]

The next vote, therefore, is the vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on the women against state pension inequality campaign. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled by Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, eight against. The motion is agreed without amendment. [Applause.]

That brings us to the end of voting time. 

If Members are leaving the Chamber, can they do so quickly?

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Paul Davies to speak on the topic he has chosen. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to once again take the opportunity to raise the issue of protecting services at Withybush hospital in this Chamber, and I'm happy to give Helen Mary Jones a minute of my time.

I'm sure the topic of my short debate will come as no great shock to the Welsh Government, as I have raised this particular issue on many occasions, not just in this Assembly, but in previous Assemblies too. However, I refuse to apologise for raising this vital issue once again, as it remains to be the single biggest priority of my constituents, who are continually facing a threat to their vital health services. 

Now, to bring Members up to speed, in recent years Hywel Dda University Health Board has embarked on a ruthless centralisation agenda in relation to delivering health services in west Wales, and as a result of that agenda, services have continued to slip away from Withybush hospital in my constituency and move eastwards to Glangwili hospital. As we all know, the health board did launch a consultation on the future of services and decided on a way forward that would effectively see Withybush hospital lose round-the-clock general hospital status and be repurposed, and a new general hospital would be built somewhere between Narberth and St Clears to provide accident and emergency, specialist, urgent and planned care. At the time, Steve Moore, the health board's chief executive, said that it, and I quote,

'offers us the best chance to deal with the fragility our NHS faces and to provide the population with safe, effective care that meets their needs.'

So, let's fast-forward to 2019, and where are we now? Well, there have been recent reports that the health board are once again revisiting how maternity services should be delivered in Pembrokeshire, following media speculation that Withybush hospital's midwife-led maternity services are set to be reduced to a day staffed service. This would effectively mean that midwives would be on-call for women who want to give birth at Withybush hospital out of designated hours. Of course, when pushed to confirm exactly what would happen to the service, Hywel Dda University Health Board denied these reports. But given that this was reported in the first place, it does leave a huge question mark over the future of the unit. Unfortunately, these reports create uncertainty over the current service provision. Now, in announcing changes to neonatal services in 2014, the then Minister for Health and Social Services and now the current First Minister said that, and I quote,

'An essential factor in any maternity model of care is that the mother should be able to make a clinically informed decision on the place of birth.'

Now, yesterday, during First Minister's questions, the First Minister confirmed that there are no proposals of any sort to make a change in maternity services at Withybush hospital. So, at long last, the Government has clearly made its view clear on a service at the hospital. I hope, therefore, the Welsh Government will now ensure that the local health board comes forward to confirm categorically that no changes will take place to maternity services at Withybush hospital, so that mothers living in the area are reassured that these particular services will continue.

Members will be aware that I have continually raised constituents' fears that the closure or downgrading of one service has a detrimental impact on the whole hospital and calls into question the sustainability of other services. Indeed, the Minister's predecessor admitted that he didn't know what to say in relation to the slippery slope theory but that the hospital would have a secure and significant place in the health services that are provided in Pembrokeshire. Well, that was in 2014, and I think it's safe to say that that is certainly not the case now. Since 2014, we've seen services downgraded, others under threat, and no certainty or assurances from either the local health board or the Welsh Government. Members may be aware that Hywel Dda University Health Board is under targeted intervention status and has been for some time now, and there's a very real belief amongst some in the community I represent that the constant mismanagement of services now means that the health board should be placed in special measures. Perhaps then the Welsh Government will choose to finally intervene and ensure that people living in all parts of the region are treated fairly and have access to the services that they so desperately need.

Following news that the health board is planning to build a new hospital between Narberth and St Clears, it became clear that this would result in there being no fully functioning A&E service at Withybush hospital but rather a minor injuries unit serving the area instead. That is simply unacceptable to the people that I represent. In fact, Members will remember the enormous petition raised by local campaigner Myles Bamford-Lewis objecting to the removal of A&E services from Withybush hospital, which gathered over 40,000 signatures. That is a hugely significant statement, which makes it abundantly clear that the people of Pembrokeshire will continue to oppose the downgrading of services at Withybush hospital. And those 40,000 voices deserve to be listened to.

Pembrokeshire is a county that needs desperate upgrades to its public transport infrastructure network, has significant poverty levels and has a particular high age demographic—all factors that demonstrate the need for an accident and emergency service to be maintained in the constituency. Let's not forget that, through the summer in particular, Pembrokeshire also welcomes thousands of tourists and visitors from across Wales and further afield, all of whom should be confident that emergency services are available quickly in the event that they are needed. What advert does that send to people across Britain and indeed right across the world? 'Welcome to Pembrokeshire, enjoy our landscape, enjoy our food and drink, and please be careful, because if you need emergency treatment, then you will have to go elsewhere.' And let me remind the Minister that it's not only politicians on this side of the Chamber that believe that A&E services must stay put. Last September, in a debate on a petition saying 'no' to the closure of Withybush hospital's A&E service, his own party colleague, the Member for Swansea East, said, and I quote:

'The ability to access an A&E department is something that people want as close to their homes as possible. Requesting one in the ancient county of Pembrokeshire should surely not be too much to ask.'

Unquote. At least this helpful intervention shows that the need to protect services at Withybush hospital is not a party political issue, and that, even in the Labour Party, there are some that understand and agree with the voice of local people. Despite this, the health board is determined to push ahead with plans that would directly put lives at risk by forcing people to travel further afield for emergency treatment. We in Pembrokeshire accept that we have to travel further afield for specialist treatment, but forcing us to travel further afield for lifesaving treatment and emergency services is totally unacceptable and dangerous. I use the word 'dangerous' because, from time to time, we see the A40 closed and getting further eastwards in an emergency situation when the road is closed is nigh on impossible. And what have the Welsh Government said on this issue? Very little, to be perfectly honest.

The Minister has been right to point out that he may have to take a decision in the process and so has stepped back from giving a view on the proposals. But the First Minister was more than happy yesterday to give his view that no changes should take place to maternity services. Nevertheless, to refuse to confirm whether or not the money will be made available for the health board's plans to build a brand-new hospital somewhere between Narberth and St Clears is simply extraordinary. Either the money is there or it isn't, and let me remind Members that it would probably cost at least £500 million to build a brand-new, state-of-the-art hospital.

Given that the health board is under targeted intervention status, the Welsh Government cannot simply wash its hands of it and remain silent on the affordability of its plans. In the meantime, the people of Pembrokeshire are completely in the dark about how services will be delivered in the future. Is it any wonder that communities in west Wales feel so let down and neglected by their local health board and the Welsh Government? Sadly, the local health board have a terrible track record when it comes to cutting services and leaving the public without new facilities. Even now, it has yet to give any concrete assurances over the future of some of Withybush's most essential services. Now, in August 2014, when the special care baby unit was closed, we were promised the delivery of a new, state-of-the-art facility at Glangwili hospital. Over four and a half years on, they still have not built this new facility. We are still waiting for these new services. So, where do we go from here?

The health board and the Welsh Government are keen to point out the problems that Withybush hospital has had in recruiting staff, saying that reform must happen to confront these challenges. However, to my mind, the constant removal of key services from Withybush hospital in recent years, coupled with downgrading other services, has done nothing to attract junior doctors or other medical professionals to Pembrokeshire. Clinicians will feel disinclined to consider roles at a hospital that has been earmarked for downgrading, and this creates an even bigger wave of unsustainability over current services. We already know that the health board is struggling to fill posts in other areas, and I sincerely believe that the years of uncertainty and the erosion of services locally in Pembrokeshire has certainly not helped the situation. The health Minister himself has said that—and I quote:

'People have powerful emotional attachments to the venues in which healthcare is delivered, but it is about investing in communities, attracting doctors, nurses, therapists, scientists, by operating a modern healthcare system to make the best use of digital technology and to keep hospitals for those who really need it.'

Unquote. And I completely agree. That's why further investment is not just needed in Pembrokeshire in relation to its primary and community-based services, but in its hospital services too. To allow any further reduction of services at the hospital and to support the removal of A&E services from Withybush hospital would simply work against that ambition. Indeed, any decisions that result in patients travelling further for treatment is a direct contradiction to the Minister's previous remarks that we want people to receive as much care as possible as locally as possible. Therefore, in responding to this debate, at the very least can the Minister confirm that, to meet the Government's intention to deliver services locally, it will ensure that A&E services will not be removed from Withybush hospital? 

Dirprwy Lywydd, in recent years all but one thing has remained, and that's the local health board's inability to listen to the people of Pembrokeshire and meaningfully engage with them on the future of services at their local hospital. Members may point to the consultation on the transforming clinical services programme, but each one of the options offered to patients in Pembrokeshire resulted in services being downgraded at Withybush hospital. There was no option that would transform services for the better at Withybush hospital; in fact, it just demonstrated the health board's ongoing efforts to centralise services further away from communities in Pembrokeshire. 

As a result, the views of the people of Pembrokeshire were, once again, thrown to one side and ignored. At the crux of this issue is a health board that refuses to take on board local people's views and, as such, the patient's voice has been lost. That's why it's more important than ever that politicians of all colours and at all tiers of Government do all that they can to ensure the views of people are heard loud and clear. 

Therefore, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, I reiterate the title of today's debate: 'Fighting for Future Services'. We are fighting to protect vital services at Withybush hospital, fighting to ensure Pembrokeshire has a health service fit for the twenty-first century, and fighting to protect the patient's voice. Hywel Dda University Health Board has proven yet again that it is incapable of working with the people it serves. Therefore, it is time for the Welsh Government to intervene and to take control. Leadership is now needed, and I once again appeal to the Minister to step in and save those vital services at Withybush before it's too late. It seems that the First Minister can step in and make it clear that there will be no changes to current maternity services, so it goes without saying that the Welsh Government can now step in and save these other vital services, including A&E as well. Pembrokeshire needs and deserves a first-class health service fit for the future, and only by working with local communities, not against them, will that service be delivered. 

I'm very grateful to Paul Davies for giving me a few moments of his valuable time. I associate myself with the remarks that he's made. There is a real issue of trust with those local communities, not only in Pembrokeshire, but across the Hywel Dda health board. Simply, they don't believe that they will be listened to when they raise their voices. The underlying problem here is that we have health service managers trying to impose a model of service that works very well in big English urban centres on rural communities in Wales. It is time for this to stop. It is time for us to look at more comparable countries like Canada, like Australia, like Scotland, as more appropriate models for healthcare that will really work for our rural communities. Paul Davies is right: the people in the communities we represent have a right to expect us to speak up for them.  

Can I now call the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate? Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's debate is a subject that we have discussed on numerous occasions. As with Paul Davies, I make no apologies to Members—they will hear me reiterate again why services across our national health service must change if we are to provide the health service that the people of Wales need and deserve. That is true for services not just in Pembrokeshire, but across the whole of Wales. So, let me remind Members again of the challenges faced by our NHS, not just in Wales but across the UK: the rise of our older population, enduring inequalities in health, increasing numbers of patients with chronic conditions, a difficult financial climate, and a UK-wide shortage of health professionals in certain specialities that causes difficulties in recruitment in every single nation of the UK.

Now, these are well established facts that we keep returning to. It does the NHS and the public that we serve no good to try and keep re-running old arguments of why things should stay the way they are. The adage, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', could not be more inappropriate in healthcare. Waiting until it is broken means waiting until real avoidable harm is caused. No public servant, and certainly no Minister, should contemplate doing that. So, our health and care service must change. That was a very clear message from the parliamentary review, which clearly advocated the need for a revolution within our health and care system to meet future demand. It concluded that our current system is not fit for the future. Across the Chamber, parties said they signed up to the recommendations of the parliamentary review, yet, here we are, debating again why change should not happen. 

There will always be contentious choices to be made in every single part of Wales. We, of course, must continue to engage and confront those challenges by having difficult conversations and by addressing them with clinically led choices, because, if we do not, change is less likely to happen until a point of crisis and a service collapses. We either allow change to happen to us in a chaotic, crisis-led manner or we empower our health service, our staff and the public to take ownership and to choose what the future should be.

Now we do, of course, need to build additional capacity into community and primary care—that's central in our plan, 'A Healthier Wales'. We need to do that to keep people well for longer and to look after them closer to home, which is not just seen within 'A Healthier Wales', but is also within the Hywel Dda strategy. People should be able to receive advice and support across a wide range of health and care issues that matter to them and their families and also to be able to attend more current out-patient appointments outside of a hospital setting. And there are good examples across Hywel Dda of how care really is being delivered closer to home already.

Now, I do, as Paul Davies has mentioned, understand the powerful attachment that people have to the future of healthcare and, in particular, to hospital locations. But the future of healthcare is about so much more than the current location of buildings; it's about that investment in communities, attracting doctors, nurses, therapists, scientists, and that does mean operating a modern healthcare system, making full use of digital technology and keeping hospital for those who really need to have their care delivered within a hospital setting.

In Hywel Dda, the health board recognised that a number of their services are fragile and dependent up on significant numbers of temporary staff—it's a point our own Public Accounts Committee have made on more than one occasion. Having a large number of temporary staff delivering care can lead to poorer quality and certainly higher costs. To meet these challenges, the health board began engaging with staff and the public on its transforming clinical services programme in 2017, and a number of clinically led proposals were developed and formally consulted on between April and July last year, and I recognise that Paul Davies does not support those proposals—he's entitled not to do so. At the public board meeting in September, 11 recommendations were agreed, and, importantly, these recommendations were developed and put forward by the doctors, nurses, therapists, scientists and wider staff groups who live in, work in and serve the people of mid and west Wales.

Now, some key decisions were made, including developing a business case for the construction of a new major hospital between Narberth and St Clears. I don't recognise the figure that Paul Davies came up with of £500 million. Actually, when you consider that the specialist critical care centre that I decided should be built in Gwent—the price tag for that is about £350 million, so I don't recognise Paul Davies's figure. But, even for that, they had to develop a business case to come forward to say, 'Here is the detail of why we want to spend a significant sum of public money'. 

Now, it did also look at the repurposing of both Withybush and Glangwili hospitals. And the health board did investigate the feedback provided during the consultation. Clinicians and staff worked with the public and other organisations on that additional detail to put together a 20-year strategy for the area. And that strategy, 'A Healthier Mid and West Wales', was agreed at the end of November last year. That sets out the direction of travel for the next 20 years. The detailed plan to support implementation will be developed over the coming months and years and, of course, I expect the health board to carry on working with key stakeholders, other organisations, their own staff, and, of course, the public. 

Now I really do understand the concerns felt locally by people in Pembrokeshire about Withybush. As I say, I understand the powerful attachment that people have to a local hospital, and Withybush will continue to have an important part in the future of healthcare services in the area. And, of course, we have invested in a range of services within Withybush. That includes £7.5 million for a new dialysis unit, £3.9 million to refurbish the pathology department, £600,000 for a new single photon emission CT multimode scanner, and over £3 million to complete the improvements on wards 9 and 10 to modernise haematology, oncology and palliative care services at the hospital.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I'd be happy to.

I think it’s important at this stage to resettle the community and for you to confirm, Minister, that there are no plans as we speak for the maternity services that currently exist in Withybush hospital to change, to be removed. Because, clearly, this rumour is out there. I don’t know how or why it’s got out there, but we need to put it to bed pretty quickly, because we'll have distress being put on expectant parents, who will be clearly needing those services in the very near future.

And the other issue that I think I would like, if you could confirm, is that, should the business case be successful, should it be the case that a new hospital is to be built, that’s going to be an extremely long-term plan and that the services that are currently enjoyed by people will be the same services in place, where they currently are, before any major hospital is rebuilt.