National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

I have accepted an emergency question under Standing Order 12.67, and I call on Carwyn Jones to ask the emergency question to the Minister for the economy. Carwyn Jones. 

Yes. Can I thank the Member for his emergency question? This is obviously very distressing and devastating for those who will be affected by the announcement. It could be the largest loss of jobs in a generation, and the single biggest loss of jobs since devolution. I have begun the process of establishing a taskforce to work with partners over the weeks and months ahead to help find a sustainable, long-term solution for the plant and for its workforce. 

I thank the Minister for that answer. I watched that plant being built. I watched the trains coming into the plant from the chemistry lab of Brynteg Comprehensive School it was so close. And now, it seems, there is a strong possibility that I will see the plant close. Minister, the economy of Bridgend has done well over the past few years, but this is a blow to the solar plexus of the town. There was no warning, either to the workers or to Welsh Government, and for 40 years the workers at Ford did what was asked of them and this was the way in which they were repaid. Minister, it seems that the decision was taken relatively recently, possibly a week or so before the decision was announced. I hear that there were still interviews taking place in the plant the week before the decision, and, indeed, contracts were still being let some weeks before the announcement. Minister, I'm concerned about what changed in the meantime, and the only thing I can think of is the ramping up of talk of a 'no deal' Brexit. That is something that I know was a factor that they mentioned to you in private conversation, and I know it's something they then denied in the afternoon. But the reality is that concern not about Brexit but about no deal is something, I believe, that weighed very heavily on their minds.

Minister, the workers are worried. They're worried about their future. They're worried about their pensions, which is something I asked the Welsh Government to look at particularly. But, above all, of course, they look now to the Welsh Government for leadership and for advice as to the future. I certainly won't give up fighting for those workers and working with the trades unions, but we have to be prepared for all eventualities. So, my question, Minister, is this: will you assure Ford workers that all that can be done is being done, and will you assure me and those workers that they will receive assistance from the Welsh Government and that the Welsh Government will look to provide a future for them and for the town?

Can I thank Carwyn Jones for his questions? I agree with everything that he's said about the way that Ford have treated the workforce. Of course, this facility has been at the very heart of the south Wales economy since the late 1970s, built in 1978 with taxpayers' support to house what was then called 'project Erika', the components that would feed into that particular vehicle. A hundred and forty three million pounds has been spent assisting Ford over the years, more than £60 million since 2006 alone. It is, as Carwyn Jones rightly said, a massive blow to the entire community. And in response to it, we will be going further than we would normally go with a taskforce approach, and I'll come to that in a moment. 

I expressed forcefully my view that Ford had badly let down the workforce and the people of the entire region and country in making the decision in the way that it made it, without due regard to the well-being and welfare of not just 1,700-plus people working at the site, but the entire community, and without engaging with the UK or Welsh Governments on alternatives, as they had been doing until very recently.

Carwyn Jones raised the important question of Brexit in this regard. I can assure him that I raised this question with Ford, and I was told that whilst it was not the dominant factor in their deliberations, it was nonetheless extremely unhelpful and had increased their vulnerability. And they spoke in particular about the issue of frictionless trade at borders and how that could be ended with, in particular, a 'no deal' Brexit. And we only need to reflect back as well on their consistent message, from October last year, when they said that a 'no deal' Brexit would be devastating. Now, I'm pleased to see that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who has been of great assistance since Thursday, has this morning confirmed in questions that companies in the sector have been crystal clear—that we need to leave the European Union with a deal that allows us to continue to trade without frictions. And he goes on to say about the opportunities that could be had if that can be secured.

Carwyn Jones also raises the important question about pensions. I had a conference call yesterday with trade unions, with the local authority, with the Secretary of State for BEIS, the Secretary of State for Wales, and we agreed that there would have to be immediate assistance in the form of financial advisers for the workforce. And I also asked that the regulator get involved in this matter as soon as possible. We wish to keep the sharks from Bridgend, and therefore immediate assistance is required.

I can assure the Member that we will do everything in our power to support those who will be affected by this decision. Our approach, as I said earlier, will be threefold. We will focus on the people who will be affected, as we always do, with a taskforce intervention, looking at opportunities, looking at their skills needs. But we will also put a particular focus on the potential of the site, examining every option to attract investment in. And we will work with BEIS, with the Department for International Trade and with the Wales Office in order to secure alternative employment.

However, there will be a third strand to our work, which will include place. My recollections of growing up in Flintshire during the 1980s and during the 1990s have informed this decision. For the first few years after 8,500 people lost their jobs at Shotton steelworks, there was money in circulation—there were many new cars, many retail outlets did very well. But, from the mid 1980s, through the 1990s, and even to this day, challenges emerged that have scarred that entire community. And we will not allow Bridgend to go through what, sadly, Deeside went through in the 1980s and 1990s. And that is why I have determined that we have to have a particular piece of work, looking at how we can stimulate the economy of Bridgend between now and September of 2020, how we can stabilise businesses that rely so heavily on Ford, how we can support the supply chain not just within the automotive sector, but those many small, medium, and micro-sized businesses that rely on the money that Ford puts into the community, and how we can make the entire community investment ready. There is no doubt that this will have dealt a terrible blow in terms of the community's pride and dignity, but we will work side by side with the local authority, with Cardiff city deal, with BEIS, the Wales Office, with other partners, in ensuring that Bridgend has alternative employment, employment of the highest quality, that is well paid.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I'd like to offer my fullest sympathies with the workers. But I'd also like to say that I'm pretty angry on their behalf that many of the workers found out via social media that the plant was closing, as opposed to finding out initially from Ford. Now, what does that tell us about the family of Ford mantra? It's also hugely ironic, in the week that Donald Trump comes to the UK, that an American company is proposing to move a plant from Bridgend to Mexico of all places. Now, this will have a big impact on the local area, as has been exemplified already, and I think that's something we should all think about in this particular debate. And if the workers do decide on Friday to strike, then be assured that Plaid Cymru will be on the picket line with them on that strike.

The workers deserve better than this. Many of those I've talked to over the last few weeks, months, years, are very loyal to Ford—in fact, more loyal than in other areas of Ford operations across the world, and I think that should be recognised. But I'd like to ask, further to the comments already made, what exactly you will be doing in terms of the package of support offered by the Welsh Government. Also, what conversations are you having with the UK Government in relation to those packages? We know, sadly, when Ford has closed other plants in the UK, that they have offered packages of support for those particular workers. What will you be able to offer, and how will you be offering that?

Brexit has played a part. There's no escaping this, but there are other avenues that we need to assess when we look at what Ford has been doing. They've closed plants in Belgium, they've closed plants elsewhere, and we need to look at the automotive economy in the round and how they are operating in that regard.

As a country going forward, to look positively, we need to develop our own infrastructures so that we can become a no-brainer place for business, so we can develop our own indigenous economies as well. I'd like to know what your response would be to an idea that we've already proposed—to have an economic summit where everybody is involved. I know that you've announced a taskforce, but I want to have a national conversation with people who are not only directly employed by Ford, but those in the other businesses that feed Ford, the people who are in our communities benefiting from the fact that Ford exists here in Wales. What are you doing to involve everybody?

Now, I think we all have to still have hope, and we have to maintain that hope that we can keep the plant open, and that's why I'm eager to work with people across the political divide, and I know that my colleague Dr Dai Lloyd, and others, will be wanting to support the workforce. We know that many people were offered voluntary redundancies a few months ago who are now wondering what the offer is for them. The workers want clarity, and I hope that we can provide that for them and provide them with the support that they deserve for being such loyal workers. 

Can I thank Bethan for her questions and say how much I share her anger and the anger of workers? And I won't apologise for the veracity of my immediate response last week on hearing of this news. Workers do feel betrayed, do feel incredibly badly let down and, yes, the irony of the timing of the announcement was certainly not lost on many people.

I think it's fair to say that Ford need to recognise the loyalty and the commitment of the workforce and the community with a very substantial legacy investment, not just in the workers but in the community as well. And in order to encourage them to consider a substantial legacy investment, I and the Secretaries of State in UK Government will jointly be writing to Ford, urging them to invest a considerable sum of money in the community and in those who will be affected. That will form part of a package of investments. There is, of course, a role for Welsh Government. Of that there is no doubt, and we are already looking at how we can support not just the individuals and the businesses in the supply chain, and the many businesses on the high street that could suffer as a consequence, but also how we can assist the place itself—Bridgend—making sure that if there are investment-ready schemes that would contribute to economic growth and to stimulate economic growth between now and September 2020, then we will invest when and wherever we can. 

But there is also a role for the local authority, of course, in identifying similar schemes and supporting those schemes alongside us, and, crucially, a role for the UK Government, in particular through the UK industrial strategy. Yesterday and, indeed, on Friday, I discussed with the Secretary of State for BEIS the opportunities that could come through in particular the Faraday challenge and the sector deals, and the Secretary of State for BEIS is working incredibly close with us. His officials are in if not hourly then certainly daily contact with our officials in the Welsh Government to identify opportunities for investment. 

Bethan raised the important point of diversifying the economy of Wales, and we now have a record number of businesses. I was telling journalists just this morning that in any given week the Welsh economy loses around about 2,000 jobs, but, during that same period of time, the Welsh economy creates just over 2,000 jobs, and that's why we have such low levels of unemployment and low levels of economic inactivity. Diversification of employment, the economy, is taking place, but the economic action plan was specifically designed to empower and to enable business in Wales to adapt to the new realities of automation, to address the challenges of industry 4.0 and to address the need to reduce carbon emissions. And that is why, within the economic contract, one of the four criteria concerns decarbonisation and that's why one of the five calls to action concerns decarbonisation as well. We are already supporting many, many businesses in their endeavours to become more modern in the way that they operate, and we will go on doing so. We've already seen more than 200 businesses sign up to the economic contract. We are encouraging and enabling businesses to modernise their practices, there is a hunger and a desire out there in the business community to adapt to the new reality, and we will go on working with them. And in particular, we will work with them in the Bridgend area, where they can, and I am confident they will, create new employment opportunities. 

Thank you for the question today, Carwyn Jones, and your response, Minister. Can I just begin by saying, though, that I think if we overplay the Brexit hand in any conversations of this nature, we're going to reach a point where we're blaming everything on Brexit and not really being able to evaluate the effect of Brexit? So, while I'm prepared to accept that there may be an element of this, I'm glad that Bethan Sayed made the point that this is not the main reason for the move today. The fact is it's £600 cheaper to produce this engine in Mexico than it is in Bridgend, and there should be questions here—and perhaps you could deal with this, Minister—about why the conversations between the Welsh Government and the UK Government—I ask the question of both—didn't foresee this happening a little bit sooner. Because one of the things that has definitely emerged from the sorry tale that we've heard over the last few weeks is that Ford were very much behind the curve on identifying the tastes that were changing within the European market and over-focusing, perhaps, on very different tastes within the American market. Why wasn't that presented as a form of challenge to Ford much earlier in the process, bearing in mind that we've heard from you and we've heard from BEIS as well that conversations have been happening with Ford for many a year?

I wonder if you could also tell us a little bit more about the money that Welsh Government has given Ford over the years. I accept what you say, that you won't be allowing them to draw down any more, and I think you mentioned that about £11 million is available to be clawed back—although the Deputy Minister today, in the cross-party group, mentioned that the ability to claim back any money would be just modest. So, I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about how much money may be written off in the course of this for Welsh Government, but, for any money that you do manage to recover or not give to Ford in the first place, how that money will be used. Will it all be dedicated to the work of the taskforce, or will you be looking to spend it in other ways? Because one of the things we haven't heard anything about at the moment is that Bridgend is within the Cardiff capital region footprint, but it's pretty close to the Swansea bay city deal footprint as well, and I would be looking to both those boards to see whether they can be of assistance, to see whether, actually, the skills of this workforce can be used within the project plans for both those boards. And in particular, as you know, Cardiff is still in the running for being a Heathrow hub; I would have thought that the ability to present the talents within this workforce as a plus for that Heathrow hub might be something that might just nudge it on its way towards Cardiff. 

And then, finally, it was just this question of communication, I think. We heard from you back in February that Ford was hoping to hear in about a month's time about the new engine for the Grenadier 4x4; I had to find out from the pages of Auto Trader that that job had gone to BMW. I think it might have been useful if this Chamber had been told that, as we're all clearly very, very interested in that. I'm not going to steal all the questions today, but there is still a question to be answered about where INEOS will fit into our picture looking forward on this and whether you're speaking to other companies about how to resolve Ford's failure to notice that green transport is the way forward. Because we are looking at that—not just electric cars, but we're talking about hydrogen cars and also new forms of public transport, the new vehicles we're going to need in twenty-first century green public transport. Have we left that a bit late to involve this particular workforce, this expertise, which Ford itself recognises as superlative? Have we lost the opportunity to capture them for the new-look public transport in particular that Wales so desperately needs? Thank you. 

I thank Suzy Davies for her contribution and her questions. I must say, it's simply not possible to ignore the impact that Brexit is having on the economy of Wales and will continue to have on the economy, and the dire consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit that Ford and many others have repeatedly issued. There are two challenges facing the automotive sector in the UK; one is Brexit, the other is the decline in the internal combustion engine. In terms of the internal combustion engine, some manufacturers had not seen the pace at which it would decline coming, and I think Ford is one of them. That's why they are perhaps behind the curve.

In terms of the question that the Member asked about why we didn't see it coming before now, well, we'd set up a taskforce that was meeting very regularly until recently that was looking at opportunities for the site, working with Ford and with the unions. And we were looking at the opportunities that could stem from Ford's electrification programme that was announced in April, and the potential for hybridised engines to be manufactured at the Bridgend plant. At no point did Ford indicate that the future of the plant was in question; indeed, we were working with the company and with others, with BEIS, on opportunities to invest in the Bridgend plant. And I would agree with Carwyn Jones that this decision appears to have been made very recently, and is something of a reaction to recent events that the Member for Bridgend outlined. Therefore, I really do strongly feel that Brexit should not be ignored as a contributing factor.

In terms of the conditions that have been attached to the support that we have given Ford over the years, as I've already identified, £143 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in the site, and I believe that we were right to invest in the plant, not least because in the space of just the last 10 years, it's contributed £3.3 billion to the local economy, keeping many, many small, micro and medium-sized businesses alive. The conditions applied to the support that we have put on the table for Ford still do exist today, but much of the conditionality by September of next year will have expired. That is why we are saying to Ford that there should be a very substantial legacy investment back to the people who have contributed to the company's existence in Bridgend. I would very much welcome any involvement that the Swansea bay city deal partners could contribute to the endeavour to get people into high-paid, decent jobs.

With regard to the other opportunities that could come to Bridgend, I won't be giving an ongoing update on all of the commercially sensitive discussions that are taking place with potential investors—the Member has identified one—but I can assure Members of this Chamber that there are many interested parties looking at the Bridgend facility. It is an enormous facility; it's very much a factory within a factory at the moment, producing the Dragon engine in one part but with available space for other businesses. And it may well be that the site could be used for multiple businesses. The priority, I believe, should be given to manufacturing, because the 1,700 people who currently work there would be ideally suited to such employment. But we would not rule out alternative and additional uses for what is an exceptional asset. 

Could I just begin by thanking both the Minister and also the First Minister for their very direct and immediate and energetic engagement in this with the workers, meeting the unions in the plant last week, along with Carwyn my colleague, local MPs and others, and being right in the front seat on this? And could I echo everything that my colleague Carwyn Jones said on behalf of not the hundreds but the thousands of people directly employed in Ford, but also the supply chain, not just in Ogmore and Bridgend but right across the region, and their families, and the shops, and the cafes that depend on that circular economy where they spend their money?

This is devastating. The workers did not deserve this. They didn't deserve it in the way it was announced. They've bent over backwards over the last couple of decades to do every single thing that Ford has asked of them—everything: to increase productivity; to change the way they produce on those lines; to bring new production lines in. They did not deserve this. Ford owe these workers and they owe these communities. So, I welcome what you were saying, Minister, about legacy, should it come to that, but could I urge him, please, first of all, to do exactly what the First Minister said, which is to go back to Ford and challenge this decision? I think they've made the wrong decision. I think this is a productive, highly skilled, highly effective workforce here and they deserve the opportunity to challenge this in the period of consultation.

But my question to the Minister is this: if the decision is a fait accompli and Ford are going to walk away, then they should indeed leave a legacy, but I would ask two things. First of all, in welcoming the taskforce and the approach towards a place-based approach, could I ask the Minister to ensure that we do identify those areas where we can now fast-track investment into not only Bridgend itself and into the immediate vicinity, but also into the greater Bridgend area? Because the impact will be in that greater area of that old Mid Glamorgan area. And in so doing, it would be helpful—and I'm sure he'll want to—to engage with the local authority of Bridgend itself and the council leader there and his cabinet. Because they have—and I know they've been in discussion—ideas already of what can stimulate the economy, what can give confidence to the business community that it's not going to be the Flintshire of decades ago. This will be something that we intervene in and we take steps and we make sure that this is a prosperous economy and there is a future for these people. So, I would ask those two things: scale of investment, rapidity of investment from UK Government and Welsh Government, and work with the local authority, please, Minister.

Can I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for his comments and for his questions and say that we took leadership immediately? We gripped the steering wheel of this challenge immediately because we have great experience in successfully intervening through our tried-and-tested taskforce approach, as we did in Cardiff when Tesco made its announcement of closure, when Virgin in Swansea made its announcement. We intervened immediately, we provided the necessary support to those who were affected to ensure that they found alternative employment as soon as possible and avoided long periods of unemployment.

Of course I will be challenging the decision by Ford, yes. The volume of engines that had been predicted for Bridgend was not realised. However, there are predictions that Dragon engine volumes will increase in the years to come. If they don't change their minds, then those increased volumes will be realised in Mexico rather than Bridgend and we are simply not going to accept that. We will object to the closure. However, we must plan for every eventuality, and the place-based approach, which is a new dimension in the work that we do, will focus on making sure that the community is prepared for life after Ford.

I've already been in regular contact with the leader of the local authority, who has kindly provided Welsh Government with a series of potential investment opportunities. It could do exactly as Huw Irranca-Davies has said. And they are not just opportunities confined to Bridgend town centre, to the immediate area that Ford currently supports. These are interventions that span out across the entire patch from which Ford takes workers and supports local small businesses. We will appraise all of those options. We will look at additional options as well, and we will, through the new regional team, be supporting the local authority in responding to this challenge.

Minister, while I thank you for your earlier written statement, I was surprised that there was not an oral statement on Ford's decision to close the engine plant at Bridgend. Not only is this devastating news for the workforce and Bridgend, it is also a devastating blow for South Wales West. While I hope that Ford will see the error of their ways, I'm not sure they will, given the global economy and moves to prioritise American jobs. Minister, you have indicated the establishment of a taskforce, which is most welcome. Will the taskforce be looking for other buyers for the plant, and have you discussed this possibility with Ford? How will the moneys recuperated be used—£11 million, as I understand? Ford have stated that Brexit has not played a part in this decision and a 'no deal' Brexit has been spoken about for the last three years and therefore is hardly a new concept. So, I think we must look at other possibilities as to why this decision has been made. My thoughts are with all workers and families affected by this decision.

There's a line in Jaws where the mayor is told by Chief Brody that he's going to ignore this problem until it comes up and bites him on the derrière, and that, I'm afraid, is what the Brexiteers of Wales are going to do: keep ignoring the problems that a 'no deal' Brexit will cause for the people of this country and our economy until it comes up and takes their jobs from them. That's when they'll start bleating about the problems that Brexit is causing. And I'm afraid we will not stand by and allow the economy of our country to be ruined by people who do not care about employment in Wales; who do not care about jobs in Wales; and who would rather align themselves with President Trump, who promises a great deal for the UK, but whose companies are, as the Member herself said, prioritising American jobs over our jobs.

Brexit is a very real issue for our country. I've identified previously investment opportunities that have been lost or suspended as a consequence of a 'no deal' Brexit becoming more apparent and real. And that, I am afraid, is only going to intensify in the coming months. We will do our utmost to provide people with valuable work in this country, but I do hope that those who are ignoring the threat of a 'no deal' Brexit will come to their senses and appreciate that a deal must be secured or we must put the question back to the people.

Can I ask, Minister, how proactive has the Welsh Government been in ensuring that its investment was widely spent by Ford on alternative opportunities for the plant, including, of course, investment opportunities for bringing the production of electric engines to Bridgend? You've outlined the large amount of capital support that's been provided to Ford, but can I ask you what kind of evaluation the Welsh Government has undertaken of the funding spent, in the same way that it has done for Tata? And others have asked you this question and you've answered to a point, but not entirely clearly, so perhaps you could expand on this: how much money does the Welsh Government think it can get back from Ford and when will it know more detail about how much can be reclaimed?

Can I thank the Member for his question? We're currently working on the precise figures about the conditionality attached to the support that we've offered, and calculating how many of the jobs are still going to be in condition come September 2020. Actually, it was remiss of me not to answer one specific point that was made by Suzy Davies about the transition towards hybridised and electric vehicles. I think it's worth reflecting on the fact that Wales alone has a leader in new hydrogen technology-based automotive powertrains, Riversimple in mid Wales, which has been able to develop its product and technology as a consequence of the support that this Welsh Government has given them. And we're very proud as well to have one of the most ambitious proposals for a zero-emissions bus and taxi fleet in the UK, with a zero-emissions fleet by 2028, and I'm pleased that the Development Bank of Wales are currently working on the support that may be required in order to achieve that target.

In addition, as Members will already know, the south Wales metro—a hugely ambitious scheme—will see electrification powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, with half of that coming from Wales. However, there are some manufacturers of vehicles, of cars in particular, that do not see the pace of change that is taking place right now, and are being left behind the curve. We can do all we can to incentivise, to enable and to empower those businesses to change, but ultimately, it is for those decision makers within those businesses to accept the inevitable and to embrace the change and the support that we're able to offer. And I do wonder to what extent the fact that Ford is an American company that perhaps does not recognise the climate change emergency—I do wonder whether they are really, really committed to the transition to a green economy and to zero-emissions vehicles.

Of course, I've already outlined, in terms of evaluation, the contribution that Ford has made to the local economy over the years. For an investment of just over £60 million from the Welsh Government, we've seen £3.3 billion returned to the economy of Bridgend and the wider region. We believe that that is a very significant and welcome return on investment, amounting to more than £300 million on average every year for the last 10 years, compared to the £60-or-so million that we've invested into the company. We've also been able to, through our investments, make sure that those workers are well skilled and well trained and able to deploy their skills in alternative employment, and I am confident that, through the work of the taskforce, we'll be able to ensure that those wishing to stay in employment will have opportunities to deploy their excellent skills in similar jobs.

I'd like to squeeze two further questions in, so if they could be as succinct as is possible, and I'm looking at the two of you. David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I will be as succinct as possible, therefore, I'll avoid repetition of many comments already made. But, clearly, I will associate myself with the comments from the Member for Ogmore and the Member for Bridgend on this matter, and, Minister, thank you for the answers.

Just a couple of quick points in that case, because, clearly, many of my constituents work in Ford. Indeed, I know friends and the family of friends who work there. But when the issue happened in Port Talbot, a taskforce was established. One of the streams it set up was a health and well-being stream, vital to ensure that those who are affected by this decision of Ford's are able to get that type of support. Will you, therefore, ensure the taskforce also sets up a similar stream in this situation to ensure that people are supported?

In relation to the comment made on pensions by the Member for Bridgend, and you highlight that you don't want the sharks coming in, well, we saw the sharks coming into Port Talbot. Will you have a discussion with the Financial Conducty Authority to ensure that they do not descend on Bridgend as well? In fact, the FCA are holding a session in Port Talbot this Friday particularly in relation to that, and it might be worth having a discussion with them on that point.

In relation to any redundancy settlements that are being made, we've been told by the unions that, basically, they believe these are partly a bribe to the workforce to accept those deals and to accept the decision of Ford, and we'll see the outcome of that on Friday at a public meeting held by the unions. Will you also look with the Treasury as to what the implications are from a Treasury point of view on those payments, because many people may see large figures, but they may not understand what the consequences of those figures are and how much they may end up having to pay to the Treasury, back into the UK Government?

Finally, on the supply chain matters, you've talked of the supply chain already, will you look very carefully at the supply chain? We've seen Ford's announcement, we've seen the one in Newport and we've seen Calsonic's announcements—there is an impact upon supply chains as well. Will you work with supply chains to look at how they can actually address the future? We've talked about engines and hybrid engines, but supply chains need also support to change their designs and working for those engines and manufacturing. Will you work with supply chains to ensure that they can actually meet the engines of the future as well?

Can I thank David Rees for his questions and the important points that he makes about the mental health and well-being of those who are going to be affected by this decision, not just the workers, but their families, and people employed in different businesses that rely on the contribution that Ford makes to the local economy? I can assure the Member that the health board will be part of the taskforce, and, provided Ford give access to the taskforce, we'll be providing immediate support to those who are affected. I said to Ford on the phone on Thursday that I simply will not wait 12 months for the consultation to end before the taskforce can get into the business and support people. I want immediate access for those people and immediate support in terms of their well-being, because we know that announcements such as this do often lead to family breakdowns, to increases in mental illness and despair, and we must do all we can to avoid that.

I've already answered the question on the FCA's involvement in the questions raised by Carwyn Jones.

David Rees raises the important question of the taxes that could be paid to the UK Treasury. It's not for me to disclose the level of payments to workers or to speculate over the sum of taxes that will be sent to the UK Treasury, but we are already looking at this very issue, and it may well be that UK Government's contribution could come in the form of some form of return of those taxes to the workers and/or the community.

The Member is also right to raise the significance of this challenge for the supply chain. We're working very closely, not just with BEIS, but also with the Wales Automotive Forum, in identifying those businesses within the automotive supply chain that will be affected by the announcement. Work has already commenced on that. The Wales Automotive Forum have written out to businesses within the supply chain, not just those directly relating to Ford's activities, but the general automotive sector, to identify any businesses that might require support from Welsh Government, from the UK Government, and the local authority.

Finally, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, thank you for your answers this afternoon. I don't make this as a political point—I make it as a point in general—that the biggest loss of work in the devolution era was the Llanwern steelworks that was shut in the early 2000s, and I draw that to your attention on the basis that, obviously, the remedial action that was put in by the Welsh Government could, in this particular instance, be a good example for the Bridgend plant, because you have cited, obviously, the example of Welsh Government action when it came to the Tesco withdrawal out of Cardiff and Virgin out of Swansea, but there were already large businesses able to take on a lot of those employees in those businesses. Here, you have predominantly an engineering facility that has 1,700 jobs now at risk, after the end of the consultation period, and whilst we know Aston Martin are actively recruiting for at least 500 to 600 jobs, there are a lot of people looking for work, and I would draw your attention to the taskforce that the Welsh Government put in place when Llanwern shut to be a comparator over the Ford engine plant.

I would also say, as well, about the Brocastle development that the Welsh Government has just commissioned next door to the Bridgend engine plant, where the diggers have literally just gone in to do the infrastructure work there. Will there be any remodelling over that business park? Because the critical component here is that the jobs that have been lost pay on average £45,000 to £50,000. Those jobs do not come easily, and I'm sure that when you were modelling that business park and some of the plans you had, you didn't foresee the complete closure of the engine plant. So, can you confirm whether it's business as usual with that business park that's being developed alongside the engine plant, or will there be a reappraisal of the plans that were originally laid?

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his questions. He raises a very important point about Brocastle. That is a strategic employment site—a major site that is being developed. It's adjacent to the Ford engine plant, for those who are unfamiliar with its location. It is owned by the Welsh Government and I'm pleased to say that work has commenced on a £10 million investment in site infrastructure. This particular site is ideally suited for a prestigious company headquarters or a quality supplier park, and we are working on a number of leads. If any changes to the proposals are required in order to accommodate employers offering highly paid, high-quality work, then of course we will tweak or amend the proposed park layout, infrastructure, whatever is required.

Of course, Llanwern was a major concern of ours, and we intervened in the manner that the Member has identified. The reason that we believe that this could be the single biggest loss of jobs since devolution is because of the multiplier effect, which could be three to one. We could be looking at something in the region of 5,000 to 6,000 jobs affected—not necessarily lost, but affected—by the decision that Ford has taken, and that would place it on another level to anything else that has happened since 1999 and demonstrates, again, the need for us to go beyond the normal taskforce approach and why the place-based element is just so very important in the work that we're going to be undertaking.

Andrew R.T. Davies was right to identify Aston Martin Lagonda as a major employer offering high-quality work, well-paid work, and an employer that is currently recruiting. We do believe that something in the region of 500 jobs could be offered for Ford workers there. Aston Martin Lagonda, of course, have made south Wales their global home for the development of electric cars, showing confidence in Wales's ability to transition to a low-carbon economy. The company is incredibly ambitious with plans for new vehicles, and I'm hopeful that it will go on expanding. Certainly the Welsh Government stands ready to assist Aston Martin, unashamedly, in expanding in future years, to ensure that more people have decent jobs that provide a good livelihood for their families. 

But there are other potential investors that we are working with. We are determined, alongside DIT and BEIS, to land as many opportunities as we possibly can. I've been in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Wales concerning a number of those potential investments, and I am hopeful that we will be able to announce good news in the weeks and months to come. 

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Nick Ramsay. 

Llywydd, the Welsh Government's most recent actions in environmental protection have focused on securing a statute book that prevents any deterioration in environmental standards, should the UK leave the European Union. Consent has been provided to 29 UK exit statutory instruments, with eight Welsh-specific environmental SIs made here in the National Assembly between October 2018 and June of this year.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I have recently received some very well-written letters, I have to say, from pupils in the Silverbirch class at Usk primary school in my constituency, who've been learning about global goals and, specifically, deforestation. The pupils wrote to me primarily because they're particularly concerned about the increasing demand for palm oil, which is used in food, cosmetics and so many other everyday items. Our demand for these products here in Wales is directly resulting in the destruction of tropical rainforests to make room for plantations, thereby destroying natural habitats for wildlife, including orangutans.

The pupils were hopeful that I would raise these issues with you as First Minister, which I am delivering on today. First Minister, would you say that these ethical and informed citizens from Usk primary schools are really talking about issues that should be affecting and are of concern to us all? And can you tell them what the Welsh Government is doing in the fightback against the demand for palm oil on the one hand and, in the wider sense, against the threat to forests across the world?

I thank Nick Ramsay for that question and congratulate those pupils at Usk primary school for writing to him. I'm very glad indeed that their concerns are being aired on the floor of the National Assembly. Concern for the environment is very much a generationally driven set of concerns. We know how much young people are invested in making sure that the planet that they will have to look after arrives in their stewardship in as good a state as we can make it.

I'm very glad that we have made unethically sourced palm oil something that cannot be used when we are striking economic contracts with firms here in Wales. The Member will know that the things that we are doing to secure reforestation here in Wales are part of that globally responsible effort to which he referred. We are committed to at least 2,000 hectares as a minimum of new woodland planting between 2020 and 2030. I am looking forward very much to the practical steps we will take to create a new national forest here in Wales.

Last week, my colleague Lesley Griffiths announced a series of investments in nature recovery schemes here in Wales, and the students at Usk primary school will be glad, I'm sure to know, that there is a £1.3 million scheme planned for A Resilient Greater Gwent, which will include looking at ways in which habitat has been degraded in the past and needs to be revived in the future. I suspect, at least, that the latest addition to the Ramsay household will, by now, have received his certificate telling him that trees have been planted here in Wales and in Uganda on his behalf—     

It's framed.

Framed—well, I'm very pleased to hear it. This is as part of 'A globally responsible Wales', to which we are committed as part of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

I came this afternoon from the cross-party group that I chair on sustainable energy, where we heard about possible funding sources in low-carbon energy infrastructure. We also heard about the Institute of Welsh Affairs's work on re-energising Wales. Now, that offers a route to decarbonising energy in Wales by 2035, and I do feel that there is consensus across the parties to take actions on the recommendations contained within that report. So, I would ask the Government to consider setting that as a foundation for the work that you're going to be doing, and that we're all going to be contributing to, over the next few years, hopefully, particularly in light of the written statement by the Minister for the environment this morning on the aim of being net zero carbon by 2050.

So, could I ask you to move in that direction? And if you will, then you will certainly receive support from these benches as well as, I'm sure, from other benches in this Senedd.

May I thank Llyr Gruffydd for his words? I agree, there is a consensus between some parties on the floor of this Assembly as regards what is facing us and that we will have to take the responsibility, as Lesley Griffiths said this morning in the written statement that she has published. I had the opportunity to speak when the IWA launched their report. There are very many interesting things in that report, many ideas that we want to collaborate on with the IWA and other partners throughout Wales who wish to be ambitious about what we here in Wales can do to safeguard our future.

I'm sure, First Minister, by your earlier comments, you would agree with me that trees play a significant role in our environment, not only for their aesthetic contribution to our countryside, but also for their carbon absorption qualities and the sustainable economic resource they represent. You mentioned earlier on as well the Welsh Government's commitment to replanting trees, but, unfortunately, it is regrettable that the Welsh Government is failing significantly in its tree planting targets—in fact, a shortfall in planting of 31,000 hectares since 2010, and a loss of 18,000 hectares of conifers since 2001. What is the Welsh Government doing to reverse this particularly devastating trend? 

Llywydd, I've acknowledged here on the floor of the Assembly in previous discussions with the leader of Plaid Cymru that we have not done as well as we needed to do in relation to tree planting here in Wales. That's why I set out the new commitments that we have made over the coming decade. It is partly why we are committed to the creation of a national forest as a legacy to future generations here in Wales, and it's because of what woodland does in terms of biodiversity, soil protection, water management, as well as all the other potentials that a national forest would provide, in the fields of tourism, employment, a response in the agriculture community to new conditions that they will face in the future. There is a constellation of very important reasons why we need to do more to plant trees here in Wales, and this Government is entirely seized of those arguments. 

Llywydd, we use child poverty indicators to measure our effectiveness in mitigating the impact of poverty created by the UK Conservative Government. Freezing and reducing benefits, penalising children through the family cap and punishing families through the bedroom tax are amongst the impacts we have to combat through our mitigation measures. 

Thank you very much for that reply, Minister, but I think you're the one who looks after the social services and the NHS in Wales. Research for the End Child Poverty Network shows that the number of children living in poverty in Wales rose by 1 per cent last year. Given that your Government pledged to end child poverty by 2020, can you explain why Wales is the only nation in the United Kingdom to see a rise in child poverty last year? Do you agree that this research calls into question the effectiveness of your strategy to tackle child poverty in Wales?

Llywydd, it's an irony-free zone on the benches to the left of me. Here are some figures from the report to which he referred: they tell us that, as a direct result—a direct result—of the actions that his Government is taking, lone parents in Wales will lose around £3,720 a year, families with three or more children will lose £4,110 a year, there will be 50,000 more children in poverty by 2021-22, and households with one disabled adult and a disabled child will lose £5,270 on average in Wales. Those are the facts of poverty here in Wales, and they are deliberately created by the actions of the Government that he supports. We do things every day to try and mitigate the impact of those benefit cuts, those impacts that there are on families from penalising children, through penalising disabled families through universal credit, and we will continue to do everything in our power. But the root cause of child poverty in this country lies absolutely firmly in the hands of the Government that he supports.

I was half expecting this question to be withdrawn by the Tories after shocking figures emerged showing the potential impact of Wales's exit from the European Union upon our poorest communities. Perhaps they'll just dismiss as scaremongering the analysis that has shown that, based on comparisons between the UK Government spending on economic development and the distribution of EU structural funds, Wales could lose £2.3 billion over six years, if the new shared prosperity fund is distributed in the same way as the Government allocates current spending on economic affairs. This was equating to handing every Londoner a cheque for over £200 and taking away £700 from every single Welsh person. The Rhondda, where I represent, cannot afford to lose any money, let alone this much money. So, how are you going to prevent this nightmare scenario from unfolding?

Well, I thank the Member for drawing attention to that report. Time and time again, on the floor of this National Assembly—and with support of Plaid Cymru Members as well, I know—we have said that we will not sit idly by and allow a shared prosperity fund to become an excuse for sharing resources that come to Wales today with other parts of the United Kingdom who do not qualify for it as we do on the basis of our need. A Barnett approach to sharing out money is completely unacceptable to us, because Barnett does not reflect need, and the money we get through the European Union comes to Wales because it is assessed on the basis of needs that we have here. We will continue to make that case wherever we have the opportunity. We will make it alongside the Federation of Small Businesses, who recently produced a report saying exactly that, alongside the all-party parliamentary group chaired by Stephen Kinnock, who produced a report saying exactly that, and we will need the support of Members across this Chamber who put the needs of Wales first, to help us in that effort to make sure that when there is money that is available for regional economic development the other side of the European Union, that Wales continues, as we were promised, not to lose out by a single penny.

First Minister, would you agree that maintaining universal benefits like free prescriptions, free bus passes, and offering relief to those council tax payers in financial need are a far better way to tackle poverty than Tory tax breaks for the highest paid and scrapping of tv licences for the over-75s?

Well, thank you to Dawn Bowden for pointing to those two developments of this week. The absolutely astonishing suggestions by a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party that, eight years into austerity, those who need the help the most are those who have the most to begin with. It's absolutely disgraceful, when you think of the impacts that there have been on the poorest families here in Wales, that the Secretary of State for Wales should announce that he is prepared to support somebody who not only in relation to his policies on Brexit, which the Secretary of State knows perfectly well, will be devastating here in Wales, but who is also, apparently, there to speak up for Wales at the UK level, with everything that we know in relation to the impact of those cuts here in Wales—that he is prepared to support a candidate who would shovel money out of the pockets of those people who have the least into the pockets of those who have the most. And when it comes to universal benefits, I absolutely want to agree with what the Member said about the television licence. The television licence has been a universal benefit. It goes to every older person aged over 75. Nobody has to apply. Nobody has to be threatened with imprisonment because they don't pay it. Nobody later on in life has to wonder about whether this bill has to be added to everything else they have to pay out of a fixed income. Those families have enjoyed that benefit since the last Labour Government was in charge of these matters at the UK level, and it's a pretty bad day for those families to find themselves in a position where, in future, not only will many of them get no help at all, but even those who are entitled to help will not get that help automatically. They will be forced to deal with a system that is deeply off-putting for many of them. Many of them will lose out. We know that that's what happens with means-tested benefits, and that's why Dawn Bowden is so right to point to the absolute advantages that providing benefits, wherever that's possible, on a universal basis, provide to claimants. 

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, can you tell us how many people are waiting for follow-up appointments in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board area?

Those figures are published, Llywydd, and therefore available to Member, as to every other Member of the Chamber. 

Well, let me help you, First Minister, to answer my question. According to the Daily Post newspaper, a freedom of information request found, in total, 70,908 people have had to wait more than six weeks for their out-patient appointment. A staggering 27,334 people have had to wait at least 53 weeks—more than a year—for an appointment. And let's look at some other facts, because you're very keen on statistics today, First Minister. Patients attending the emergency department are now waiting, on average, seven hours to get a resolution. Back in January 2014, it was just under four hours. And behind every statistic is a real person who is being let down. Having a health board in special measures should mean things are getting better, but special measures, under your health Minister, mean things are getting worse. The special measures at Betsi Cadwaladr were meant to last two years, but now have gone on for four years. There is no specific plan, no timeline, no leadership to take the health board out of special measures. Who is accountable for this lack of improvement?

Well, Llywydd, special measures at Betsi Cadwaladr will last for as long as the health Minister believes that they are necessary, and as long as it is necessary to make sure we have the improvements replicated in other areas that we have already seen in relation to maternity services, that we've seen in out-of-hours GP services, that we are seeing in primary care, and, indeed, that we are seeing in mental health as well. Of course, there are things that that board has to improve, and that does include waiting times for some specialities. It does include financial planning. That's why the board remains in special measures, because we are not satisfied, and the Minister is not satisfied, that everything is yet in place to allow us to de-escalate that level of intervention. 

But the Member is selective, as he always is. He doesn't mention, as he could have mentioned, if he had the facts that are in front of him, that the number of patients waiting less than 26 weeks for treatment is now the best in Wales that it has been since 2013. He didn't point to the fact that therapy waits in Wales were 98 per cent lower at the end of March this year than they were in March of last year. He didn't point out that there is a 30 per cent increase in five years in the number of cancer patients in Wales who are treated within the target times that we have laid down.

The point that I always want to try to make to the Member is that it is not sensible, and neither is it helpful to those many people who work every single day to make our health services in north Wales, and every other part of Wales, as good as they possibly can be, to treat the exceptional as though it were typical. Where there are exceptions, and where there are things that need to be done better, then, of course, we work to do that, and the figures that I've just provided to him demonstrate how we are succeeding in those headline matters right across our country. 

Well, First Minister, the figures that I've just given you are, unfortunately, very typical, because you are failing to provide leadership in this health board. Now, last week, the health Minister claimed that mental health services in the Betsi health board area were actually improving—and I commend the board for having a new strategy on responding to mental health issues for people of all ages. However, First Minister, this new strategy was published in September 2017. Now, the cross-party group for north Wales has been told that the delivery plan for the new strategy is still in draft form and won't be published until September this year—two years since this new strategy was agreed. Surely, this is unacceptable, First Minister. Now, we heard from you last week, and you made it very clear—when it comes to making decisions, you are the decision maker. When will you decide that enough is enough and that your Government takes responsibility for this and to actually show some regret for failing the people of north Wales and that your health Minister should take the responsibility and go?

Well, Llywydd, I think we've rehearsed this tired old trope a number of times on the floor of the Assembly. I'm glad that the Member recognised that there have been improvements in services in mental health. When I was the health Minister, there were very significant concerns about mental health services in north Wales, as Members here will know. I was pleased to see the most recent report by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales that commented on the improvements at the Hergest unit, in the unit at Wrexham Maelor, on the way that services in community hospitals in north Wales for people who are elderly and with mental health conditions have improved in recent times. So, it's good to recognise where improvement is being made, because it is by recognising and encouraging improvement that we get further progress, rather than by constantly trying to point to difficulties and make those seem as though they were typical of the experience of patients. Patients in north Wales get, every single day, in thousands and thousands of encounters with the health service, some of the best care that you will find anywhere in the country. Where there are things that need to be done better, of course we will continue to work on those things. But it doesn't help to bring about that improvement by failing to recognise it and treating the whole of that service as though it were something that was not valued by patients—because I can tell him that it certainly is.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. I think it's fair to say that Ford's decision appeared to be a genuine shock to the Welsh Government on Friday. The combination of factors that contributed to the decision, though, would have been less of a surprise, because of Ford's previous statements, especially its announcement in January that it was shedding over 1,000 jobs at the factory. The economy Minister referred earlier to the working group that had already been established to look at potential opportunities for Ford, in light of its difficulties. I was wondering: could you say a little bit more about the work of that previous taskforce—the extent to which it met, the level of engagement with senior management at Ford and the contours of the strategy that it was developing? Did it examine, specifically, the proposals referred to earlier to help save some of the jobs at the plant through the reported interest by INEOS Automotive in assembling its proposed Land Rover Defender-style vehicle in Bridgend, and, for example, a proposal to build a power station for the plant to reduce energy costs, similar to the plan that the Welsh Government supported as part of its efforts to save Port Talbot steelworks? Can you say, First Minister, as well if you plan to meet the president and chief executive officer of Ford urgently? I think I recall your predecessor flying out to India at the time of the Tata crisis. When Michelin, last November in Scotland, announced a plan to close its Dundee plant, the Scottish Finance Minister flew out immediately to meet its senior management in France. And it was at least able to secure a continuing involvement of Michelin, through a joint venture with the Scottish Government and other partners. Finally, to prevent us being blindsided again by this kind of catastrophic announcement on closure, do we need, urgently, an industrial resilience strategy for Wales, given the uncertain times that we're facing? And will you as First Minister, and your ministerial colleagues, now be speaking, over the next few weeks, with every single one of the anchor company's senior management in Wales?

I thank the Member for those questions. The work that the taskforce has been involved in flowed in part from the meetings that I and my colleague Ken Skates had with the most senior Ford representatives back in January here in Cardiff, and the programme of work that was discharged there was very much shaped by what appeared to be Ford's commitment at that time to securing a long-term future for the plant. So, there were a series of prospects that we discussed with them, and brought them, the unions, the UK Government and ourselves around the table to work on a prospectus for the future of the plant that had been shared with us by the most senior management in Ford itself, and that is why the decision was so unexpected on the day that it came, because we appeared to have an agreed set of ideas that we were all committed to working on together. 

Separately, of course, as Ken Skates said in answers to other questions, the Welsh Government has been in discussions with other companies that have an interest in coming to that site and to that part of Bridgend. Those continued separately to the group that was talking about the future of Ford on that site, but, from a Welsh Government position, of course, we're involved in all those discussions together. I look forward, Llywydd, very soon to meeting with senior Ford Europe decision makers, because this was a Ford Europe decision, and arrangements are being made to make sure that we have those further face-to-face meetings.

I was fortunate enough, last week, to be able to have a discussion with the First Minister of Scotland about what had happened in Dundee with Michelin, and she was generous in offering to share some of that experience with us further, to give us access to her officials, to talk about the way in which they had approached that. And it's been part of my discussions with the Prime Minister, when I spoke to her on Friday, and I've written to her again today, to reflect on some of that Scottish experience and the importance, as the First Minister of Scotland said to me, of trying to retain some presence on a site from a company that's had a long-term investment in any part of the United Kingdom. 

Finally, in relation to further strategies and so on, we have our economic action plan. We will be looking at it, of course, in the light of the Ford experience. But we're not without a strategy; we have that strategy already, and we will see where it needs to be further updated in the light of the most recent experience. 

The first line of defence here, of course, is to fight this unconscionable proposal by Ford and we, on this side obviously, as Bethan Jenkins said, wish to express our total solidarity with the members of the GMB and Unite unions who will be balloting for industrial action on Friday. But, obviously, the Government's—. One of the Government's roles is to prepare contingency plans, and I was wondering if you could just share a little bit more of your thinking on these. I can understand why you can't be drawn on specific companies, but I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about the scale of ambition. In essence, is there an opportunity here to turn what, I believe, was the largest manufacturing plant in Europe at one stage in the twentieth century, to a gigafactory for the twenty-first? 

We know the future of cars is electric, and one of the leading companies in the field is Tesla. It's opened two gigafactories in the United States. It's looking to open one in China and one in Europe. So, why not in Wales? Elon Musk has specifically said, in recent months, that, if GM closes plants in the US, he'd be interested in taking them over. Could that principle be applied here? Another major company in the field is the Swedish company Northvolt, which is building a gigafactory producing battery cells with the help of one of the biggest ever investments by the EU's European fund for strategic investments and the European Investment Bank. Nothvolt's CEO has said recently there could be scope for as many as seven such gigafactories across Europe by 2025. Again, is there an opportunity here for us? First Minister, I believe you're visiting Brussels tomorrow. Why not ask the European Commission for the EFSI and the EIB, to which we're still entitled to make an application because we're still in the EU, to make a similar and, in many ways, timely investment here in Wales?

I thank the Member for all those possibilities. I think it's really important that wherever there are ideas about the way in which a future for that plant and that community can be fashioned that we pool these ideas and we explore them all. Everything that he has said I think is worth adding to that mix. But it will go into a mix that has already been in development, as I said, over many months. 

I understand what he said. I was with shop stewards in the plant early on Friday morning with the GMB and with Unite. The feeling of anger and betrayal was absolutely palpable amongst the people around that table. You heard the reasons, Llywydd, I know, from other Members earlier in the discussion. That feeling that the workforce that had done everything that was asked of them, whenever the company asked the trade unions and the workforce to be around the table and to agree to improvements made, they felt they never failed to make that contribution, and that's why the sense of fight amongst those members was very palpable when I met with them.

We have a responsibility, as Adam Price said, to prepare for whatever eventualities there may be, and bringing different firms—the recent announcement of new jobs of the sort that he described at Port Talbot through Onyx—and other ideas, other companies that we have been working with. There is a real responsibility, Llywydd, on the UK Government to make sure that its industrial strategy works for Wales and that they too put their shoulder to the wheel to make sure that where there are these different possibilities that will emerge and be talked about over the next few weeks, that they too do everything they can to make sure that the interest of those workers are supported, promoted, and that real practical assistance, money and effort that the UK Government can make is made on their behalf.

Finally, if I can turn to another matter, First Minister, interviewed during your leadership campaign on 19 November last year, you said, 'I think we've reached the point where we need more Assembly Members to discharge all the responsibilities that the Assembly now has.' You went on to say, 'There is never a good time to go out and say to people that you want to expand the number of people who are elected, but if we'd taken that view in 1999 we would never have had the Assembly in the first place.' Is this still your personal view, and if it is, why weren't you able to convince your party?

The Member is wrong on the second point, because my party at its conference in April of this year endorsed a policy of having more Members for the National Assembly for Wales. I know he takes a very close interest in the workings of the Labour Party, but that part appears to have escaped him. So, he'll be reassured to know that the Labour Party in Wales has agreed on the need for more Members for the National Assembly for Wales. My personal view is the one that I set out then.

The Richard commission, back in the very first term of the National Assembly, concluded that the responsibilities that Assembly Members had then required an Assembly of 80 Members to discharge them satisfactorily. Fifteen and more years since then, the responsibilities that are discharged in this Chamber have grown exponentially—grown legislatively, grown in the fiscal decisions that we make. We need to make sure that there are sufficient Members to be able to discharge those responsibilites, to scrutinise them all. I have come to the conclusion that that is the right answer and I'm glad to be able to reassure the Member that that was the view endorsed at my conference in April.

The leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, after your near 12-minute exchange with the Plaid Cymru leader, could I try a more succinct question? What do you consider to be the right balance between central control and local autonomy for health bodies in Wales?

I'll offer the Member a principle, and I'll be pretty succinct: my view is that the principle of subsidiarity should be the one that guides us in policy making here in Wales. I'm in favour of decisions being made as close to people as we can manage that and that we develop the way in which services are provided in Wales against that principle. 

I had understood that the special measures regime was at least intended to be a shorter or a sharper intervention to turn around a failing body or at least a body in which there were problems. I just wonder, reflecting on the questions we had from the leader of the opposition, whether the First Minister would consider whether the special measures regime that has developed strikes that correct balance, because it has now gone for over four years with that particular body but, at the same time, we're seeing almost half of health boards in Wales in the special measures regime. Doesn't that give a risk that the attentions of the health Minister, however much the First Minister supports him, are spread too thinly? Does it also give a risk for Betsi Cadwaladr in particular? Yes, we accepted in your motion last week that a couple of the issues have improved that were initially identified. However, a number of other issues, and really very serious and, I think, across the board rather than selectively quoted—for instance that over 70,000 waiting over six months, a seven-hour average wait at accident and emergency, and the emergence and worsening of problems in those areas, amongst others—. Does any of that reflect the fact that it has been in special measures for four years and that some of those local managers, perhaps some of those local clinicians, don't see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it makes it harder to recruit or retain people or drive that local improvement from them while the special measures regime lasts?

Finally from me, could I ask about the community health councils and the pending legislation we have in this area? One area in which they've done well is bringing in local vloolunteers, local people, seeing them as independent and able, to a degree, to hold Welsh Government and local health boards to account. Is the First Minister not concerned, as many others are, that, come this new legislation, bottom-up bodies where the chair of each body is on the national board will be replaced with a top-down body more under the thumb of Welsh Government and therefore less open to local people and less independent? [Interruption.] It was still less than three minutes. I'm not allowed to come back.  

Llywydd, it's entirely because we don't have a system that is under the thumb of Welsh Government, as he put it, that we have the calibrated intervention protocols that we operate in Wales, because when a health organisation is put into that system, it is not the decision of the Welsh Government alone; it is a tripartite decision. Making it involves Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, the auditor general and Welsh Government, and it is always an agreed form of intervention that that tripartite system involves, and I'm very comfortable with that, because it shouldn't be a system that is under the thumb of the Welsh Government and it isn't, either. 

There was something that the Member said that I agreed with, and that is that encouraging those people who are charged with trying to bring about improvement in our health service is really important, and recognising when things are going well, as well as when things are not going as well as we want them, ought to be a very important part of the repertoire that Government deploys in order to support those people who, at that front line, have to make those decisions every day. 

As far as CHCs are concerned, I think we have a proud history in that area, Llywydd. We retained CHCs here in Wales when they were abolished across our border, and we've always supported them in the work that they do. Now there is an opportunity, in the legislation that will come before the National Assembly, to make sure that, with the part that CHCs play in the quality arrangements that we have in the Welsh NHS, we maximise the contribution that those local voluntary people have in being the eyes and ears of patients. Members will have every opportunity during the passage of the Bill to scrutinise those proposals and to see that they deliver on that agenda of making certain that we have people in every part of the health service in Wales who are able to report on what they see, draw it to the attention of those who are paid to run our health services, and to capitalise on the enormous contribution that volunteers make to the health service in Wales. 

Llywydd, between 2013 and 2017 the number of people dying from strokes in Wales fell by 25 per cent. Latest figures, published last month, show continued improvement in stroke services in Wales. In the Rhondda, as elsewhere, this relies on effective clinical leadership and multidisciplinary working.

Colin Rogers from Rhondda Cynon Taf died of a basilar artery stroke at the age of just 55, leaving behind a devastated family. Mr Rogers had the misfortune to be taken ill on a Sunday morning. Had it happened during the week, he could have been transferred to Bristol for endovascular thrombectomy, which could have saved his life. There was no such arrangement available on the weekend. A petition has been set up to ensure that this treatment is available to Welsh patients, which calls

'upon the Welsh government to end the postcode lottery and act to save the lives of the Welsh people.'

I understand that provision is being made to correct this injustice by making the procedure more widely available in Wales, but, as with many problems within the Welsh NHS, this comes down to workforce planning. What plans do you have to ensure that there is a 24/7 service provided for Welsh patients, which will hopefully prevent cases like that of Mr Rogers? 

I thank the Member for that. Any death from a stroke is deeply regrettable. I'm not familiar with the case that she mentioned, but in the terms that she described it, of course our sympathy goes to his family in those circumstances. Thrombectomy is a highly specialised and relatively new form of intervention in the health service. It was partly developed here in Wales, because the original research that went into it was carried out in three centres—in Cardiff, in Birmingham and in one other. And when I was the health Minister, I had the privilege of meeting the clinician in Wales who was leading on that research here, and I met with a patient who had been an artist before suffering from his stroke, who described to me that, as the blood clot was drawn out of his brain—and he was watching it on a screen; he was conscious while this was happening—he could see the blood clot being removed from his brain and, as he was watching it, he could feel feeling coming back into his arm and to his hand. It was absolutely astonishing to hear that, but as you can imagine, as Members can imagine, the skill that is needed to carry out that sort of intervention is very significant and has to be enormously precise. 

So, the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee are well advanced in planning a Wales-wide service for thrombectomy here in Wales. It will require recruitment. It will require training. In the meantime, we are commissioning services from across our border where scarce spare capacity exists. But the answer, not in the long term but as soon as we can do it, is to create that all-Wales service with the people that we will need and with the coverage that will be required. 

I'm very sorry to hear about your constituent, Leanne. We talked here, or Leanne spoke about how Mr Rogers's death may have been able to be prevented if the right resources had been in place and, of course, prevention is better than cure. It's an old saying but it is absolutely true, and we know that in the Rhondda and in the Cwm Taf health board, the highest number of young people and adolescents who smoke can be found in that area. Of course, we know that smoking is a major contributor to stroke and to high blood pressure. So, First Minister, in your capacity as the person who has to join up the various arms of the Government, could you give us an outline of what you might be able to do to ensure that young people in the Rhondda and in the Cwm Taf whole area have proper education that teaches them about the dangers of smoking, about the long-term consequences to their health? Because if we can get people young enough and make those lifestyle changes, then not only do they benefit, but we benefit as a nation because we then have resources freer to do other things that we need to do.   

I thank the Member for that important point, and I know that she will have welcomed the fact that smoking levels amongst young people in Wales are at an all-time low, as are alcohol figures in Wales. So, the public health messages that we have been conveying and the practical actions that have been taken through Public Health Wales, through community pharmacy, through what we do in schools, are having a positive effect on the levels of smoking in our community and amongst young people in particular. There is—as there is in so much of health—a socioeconomic gradient in it all, and those families who live in the most difficult of circumstances rely on smoking and other things to help them to get through those difficulties to an extent that people who live more advantaged lives are able to avoid, and that's why you see the figures to which the Member referred. But the good news, Llywydd, has to be that the actions that we have taken in Wales over recent years are being successful. We have a strong sense of the things that work. We need to do more of them, we need to calibrate them to those places where the challenge is greatest, but we're able to draw on that successful experience in order to do so.

I thank Joyce Watson for the question. The Welsh Government helps to support water safety through annual funding provided to Swim Wales. Last year, £80,000 was allocated to specific projects designed to develop aquatic opportunities and resources to enable the Welsh population to learn to swim and to learn about water safety.

I thank you for that answer. The fourteenth of June is the start of the Royal Life Saving Society's Drowning Prevention Week and the purpose is to raise awareness around water safety and drowning prevention. Tragically, one person drowns accidentally every 20 hours in the UK and many others experience life-changing injuries as a consequence of near-drowning. That is why awareness-raising campaigns are so important. The Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Dŵr Cymru work tirelessly throughout the year to raise awareness, and I would like to thank them for their commitment and their hard work.

With the summer holidays just around the corner, that is a peak time for these types of accidents, and I'm sure you'll agree that it's crucial that the water safety and drowning prevention messages are heard loud and clear. The UK drowning prevention strategy between 2016 and 2026 developed by their members aims to reduce drowning fatalities by 50 per cent. And remember that figure—that it's one person accidentally drowned every 20 hours in the UK. That is a scary figure. So, First Minister, what actions are the Welsh Government taking to help those who are aiming to reduce drowning to continue their very good work here in Wales?

I thank Joyce Watson for that question and share very much with her her thanks to those voluntary organisations that do so much in awareness raising and in the direct provision of services. My colleague Lesley Griffiths met with the Royal Life Saving Society in November of last year as part of our water safety strategy development for Wales and officials continue to work with them on the development of that strategy. 

Llywydd, we work with a wide range of organisations that try to bring about the sort of improvement that Joyce Watson has referred to. Dŵr Cymru's One Last Breath campaign, for example, is aimed at safety in reservoirs in Wales and the risk of drowning in inland waters, for example through cold water shock, when young people in particular plunge into a reservoir after a hot day. Dŵr Cymru provides sessions in schools, they provide direct advice, they go on the radio, on social media; all those awareness-raising possibilities to which Joyce Watson refers. And then we directly fund activity here in Wales. Over 11,000 children took part in water safety awareness sessions in Wales in 2018. They involve the RNLI, they involve the Royal Life Saving Society and those sessions were directly the result of funding that the Welsh Government provides.

Sadly the National Water Safety Forum's water incident database shows that 263 people lost their lives in accidental drownings across the UK last year, and only this year, First Minister, just a few weeks ago, a young boy of 13 in my constituency lost his life. River and Sea Sense, however, is a fantastic organisation based in Conwy county borough, and it was set up as a positive response to the tragic drowning of the son of Mrs Debbie Turnbull, Christopher Turnbull, at Capel Curig in 2006. This organisation—really, a sole lady doing this—has educated around 200,000 young people and adults across north Wales about the dangers of open water. She has gone into schools. But a lot of this teaching and awareness building, she's had to do on her own, with very little, if any, funding. Teaching the dangers of open water is essential, so I'm extremely grateful for the work of River and Sea Sense. First Minister, I would like to see our schools do more too, so will you explain what place water safety and drowning prevention will have in the new curriculum going forwards?

I thank the Member for that. I congratulate, of course, her constituent for the work that she carries out in memory of her son, Christopher. We know that right across Wales, there are really dedicated groups of people who take up a cause because they have had that direct personal experience of it in their own lives, and the hours and dedication that they provide to those causes is a remarkable and heartening feature of that sense of community that we are still lucky enough to have in Wales.

The Member is right to point to the importance of what goes on in school. By the end of key stage 2, we are clear that pupils should be able to swim unaided for a sustained period of time, and 64,000 pupils in Wales attended school swimming sessions in the last academic year. Pioneer schools involved in the new curriculum have already recognised that the importance of swimming goes far beyond it just being another mode of physical activity. And in the development of the curriculum through those pioneer schools, the emphasis on swimming has moved towards its safety aspects as well as to its recreational possibilities. So, I know that the Minister for Education is aware of that work and is taking that forward into the broader development of the curriculum on which we are currently engaged.

Llywydd, the post-16 sector is central to our plans to improve Welsh skills levels, economic prosperity and social mobility. Our reforms to post-compulsory education and training will bring the sector together under a single regulatory body, with a shared determination to strengthen the quality, relevance and coherence of post-16 learning.

I thank you for that answer, First Minister. It's quite clear that we need to make sure that post-16 education takes us forward. Delivery of post-16 education, as we know, is either through our schools' sixth forms, or through our further education institutions. Now, the FE sector welcomes the comments you've just made, particularly in relation to the vocational arm of the direction of education, because it is important that we address the skills agenda, which we've already identified. However, it also delivers many of the traditional academic pathways. Neath Port Talbot College in my own constituency—or my own area; sorry, Jeremy, it's in your constituency—also talks about A-levels and the academic route, but that will have an impact on the new curriculum coming into those institutions. We need a change and we need to prepare our young people on their education journey, post 16, when the pre-16 changes take place. So, what actions are you taking to ensure that post-16 institutions are prepared to ensure that that journey does continue to run smoothly?

Llywydd, I want to agree with what David has said about the importance of having that seamless transition from the new curriculum for three to 16-year-olds and what happens in post-compulsory education. It's why FE colleges have been directly involved in the construction of the new curriculum, with representatives sitting on each of the groups that have developed the guidance for each of the new four areas of learning and experience. And their feedback has been very important in making sure that A-level syllabuses and A-level teaching are grounded in the new curriculum and everything that we hope it will bring. In the autumn of this year, Llywydd, Qualifications Wales will consult on the approach to qualifications to support that new curriculum. A key consideration in their work will be ensuring that new arrangements maintain access to the full range of A-levels, and, of course, FE colleges will be fully involved in that work.

I thank Russell George. Powys Teaching Health Board continues to strengthen pain management services in north Powys. Applications for new specialist posts in nursing and physiotherapy close later this month. The existing multidisciplinary service remains fully National Institute for Health and Care Excellence compliant.   

Thank you, First Minister, for your answer, but I would say I do think that the Welsh Government needs to have a good look at what pain management provision services are being offered across Wales. Can I ask the First Minister what your views are on the Welsh Government developing a fully funded multidisciplinary service, within the NICE guidelines, of course, to offer local services in particular that would prevent people from having to travel long distances?

I thank Russell George for that. He knows, I'm sure, that the reason why there is a particular focus on pain management services in north Powys is because the service across our border at Oswestry closed on 31 March, commissioners there having decided that the service was too fragile to continue. Four hundred Welsh patients were affected, and I wanted to thank Russell George for some of the help that he has provided in making sure that all those patients in that part of Powys who needed to be contacted—that their details have been released by the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital to Powys health board.

But I assure him that the service that is provided by Powys Teaching Health Board, with psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and nursing all involved in the pain management service, is fully NICE compliant. It's being expanded in order to take on the new patients who will rely on it in future. It's being developed so that it will, for example, have an increased ability to offer Skype consultations so that people don't have to travel those long distances. We are hopeful of being able to fill those specialist posts in nursing and physiotherapy, which are new and fully funded posts, to be able to expand the service. But, as the Member will know, these are scarce people and they're not always as easy to recruit as we would wish them to be, but the money will not be the barrier to that recruitment.

Llywydd, our economic action plan sets out our plans to increase employment across Wales. The establishment of regional units allows us to maximise the strengths of these distinct places and identify key economic priorities within each of those areas.

Thank you, First Minister. As has already been said, Ford's decision to close the Bridgend plant is a massive blow for my region, which has seen unprecedented job losses over the last few decades. With continuing uncertainty about Tata's Port Talbot steelworks, it is clear that we need a different strategy. Previous economic development plans have failed to improve the region, despite millions of pounds of investment. First Minister, what will you do differently to ensure that there are sufficient high-paid jobs in South Wales West?

Well, Llywydd, I don't agree with the Member that there haven't been improvements in the region. We have some of the best employment figures that we've ever had in Wales, and the improvement in reducing economic inactivity rates in Wales over the last 12 months has been seven times greater in Wales than across the United Kingdom as a whole. So, there clearly are improvements, and we shouldn't run those down as though they hadn't happened.

As far as Tata is concerned, we continue to work very closely with the company to make sure that there isn't uncertainty about its future, and we are fully focused on securing the future of steel making here in Wales. In an earlier answer, I referred to the Oxis Energy plant that has just been announced for Port Talbot in the Member's region. It will be a rechargeable battery manufacturer. It is supported with £3.2 million-worth of investment from the Development Bank of Wales, and is another sign—. Despite the difficulties that have been quite rightly explored on the floor of the Chamber his afternoon, it is part of our determination to fashion a successful future for that part of Wales.

And finally, question 8. Hefin David.

I thank the Member for that. It is through effective regulation that we protect the environment and achieve the best outcomes for agriculture through sustainable and resilient businesses. Regulation provides clarity for farmers and businesses, protects standards, and helps to maintain our natural resources.

On 14 November last year, the environment Minister outlined her intention to introduce a whole-Wales approach to tackling nitrate pollution, and Assembly Members were told that regulations would come into force next January—that's January 2020. Residents in the communities of Gelligaer, Nelson and Pen-y-Bryn, in the Caerphilly constituency, have long had to put up with the nuisance side-effects of agricultural activities caused by the Bryn Group at Gelliargwellt Farm in Gelligaer. Constituents regularly contact me about odour nuisance caused by regular slurry spreading. Designating all of Wales as a nitrate vulnerable zone, as recommended by a Welsh Government-commissioned expert panel, in addition to introducing the regulations that I've already mentioned, would help restrict and monitor such activities. Is the First Minister confident that the new regulations, therefore, will improve the situation in my constituency, and would he be amenable to meeting with me to discuss this, once the regulations have come into effect in 2020?

I thank the Member for that. We are confident that the regulations that will be introduced in January of next year will give a statutory basis to measures that, previously, the industry has voluntarily committed themselves to achieving, that the introduction of statutory obligations in nutrient management planning, in sustainable fertiliser application, in protecting water from pollution, in making sure that manure storage standards are properly observed, that those will have a genuinely positive impact in the industry. While I understand that it's a challenge for some in the industry, and we will provide extra time for those who need it, this will be to the advantage of the industry in the long term, because it will secure those standards that will protect the reputation of the industry—a reputation that is very hard won and very easily lost—and we know that there are too many examples in Wales of the sort to which the Member has referred. And of course, I'm very happy to meet with him and with Lesley Griffiths as those new standards come in and the statutory regulation is enforced, to hear about how they are making a positive difference in his constituency.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make the statement. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. The draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Minister, please could I have a statement from the Welsh Government on the findings of the recent report by Cardiff University and Nottingham Business School on poverty in Wales? The report says that some of Wales's most deprived areas are set to get poorer in the coming years, and raises serious questions about our city regions, which are known to be significantly less competitive than others in England and Scotland. In addition, the Bevan Foundation said that the figures show the failure of city region models to help outlying areas in the Heads of the Valleys. Please could we have a statement on the Welsh Government response to the concerns contained in this report? Thank you.

Well, Llywydd, it's quite staggering that having already tried to raise the issue of poverty with the First Minister, the Member tries to raise it again with me this afternoon. We've made it more than clear that, of course, there's something that the Member's own party could do in order to help prevent poverty, and that would be to back Welsh Government's calls to halt universal credit roll-out, which is clearly devastating families across Wales, and to stop its austerity agenda, which is having an incredibly harmful impact on people and is directly responsible for those poverty figures that the Member quotes.

Trefnydd—and I speak now as a Member of the cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—the issues faced by those people infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s is something, obviously, that we've given previous attention to in this Chamber, practically every year since 2001, I think. But, recent events, I believe, mean that we need to revisit this matter. You will be aware that the public inquiry into the scandal, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, has started its work, but there are issues that are specific to Wales that the Welsh Government needs to address.

In April, the UK Government announced that it was increasing the funding given to infected patients in England only by an additional £10,000 a year, but this did not apply to patients in Wales. Clearly, it cannot be right that patients in Wales receive less funding than patients in other nations of the UK, when the situation is a result of a scandal under the direct control of the then UK Governments in pre-devolution days. It is incumbent on the UK Government to fund this in every nation within the UK. It is absolutely disgraceful that this has not happened.

Therefore, would the Welsh Government be prepared to bring forward a statement on the contaminated blood scandal that would include details of the discussions and meeting being held with the UK Government on this matter nowadays, the financial discussions taking place around the Barnett consequential now, and how the Welsh Government is going to provide parity of infected blood support in Wales?

I thank the Member for raising this issue, and I completely agree with his assessment of the situation. Of course, Dai Lloyd did refer to the announcement made on 30 April by the then Prime Minister, and that was a completely unexpected statement. The Welsh Government was unsighted on the details despite previous UK Government Ministers' agreements to a four-nation approach.

The uplift announced for those infected and affected on the English infected blood scheme will not have any consequential uplift for the devolved administrations, we are told, but we remain committed to working across the UK to ensure parity of the schemes. Officials will continue to work with their counterparts to achieve this.

Members will recall that, in March, the health Minister announced additional support for those with hepatitis C and/or HIV via contaminated blood or blood products. The significant impact of such infections on many individuals' lives has been debated in this Assembly Chamber, but I'll certainly ask the health Minister to provide you with the most recent discussions that have been had on this important issue.

Trefnydd, can I ask for two statements from the Welsh Government please? The first one is actually, basically, a nice easy one for the health Minister. Over the weekend, we saw the news that NHS England is looking at trials for using MRIs for scanning for prostate cancer. Clearly, the means of identifying prostate cancer quicker and sooner could be a cause for appreciation for individuals that they will get caught earlier, because over 6,000 a year are identified in the late stages in prostate cancer, and over 11,000 die each year of prostate cancer across the UK. So, any means that we can have of addressing that as an early diagnosis is going to be acceptable.

But scans using MRIs mean that we need MRI scanners, we need radiographers who are trained in MRI scanners, and we need radiologists who can actually understand the outcomes of the scans. We need to put those into place because the MRI scanners that we have today are fully utilised and are being used. Therefore, if we can talk about scanning people, where are we going to fit them into the current schedules? So, we need to make sure that we have a plan in place. So, can the Minister come forward with a plan as to how he intends to look at radiological services across Wales to ensure that, as this approach comes forward, and once it's approved, it actually does give us the outcomes that we want, and that we are in a position to go straight into that and not have to wait as we look at funding for new scanners?

On the second statement, could I have a statement from the Minister for Economy and Transport in relation to the ownership of various structures, including tunnels, that are currently in the ownership of the Department for Transport? I understand that Highways England actually manages many of those structures in Wales on behalf of the Department for Transport—and I include the Rhondda tunnel as one of those and, obviously, other tunnels are included. We've asked many times about the ownership coming to Welsh Government, but I understand that the management contract for those expires next year. Therefore, there will be an opportunity next year, when the Department for Transport's contract with Highways England ends, to look at the ownership of these tunnels and other structures that are in Wales—they belong here, but they're being managed by the Department for Transport. Is it now time to have a statement to actually say what actions the Welsh Government will take to take those into ownership? Because that also addresses a very major question: if we want to do something with them, we need to have the funding, and we can't get the funding until we have the ownership, so that the liabilities come here. So, it is crucial. Things are on hold as a consequence of us not having that ownership here in Wales.

Thank you for raising both of those issues. I was able to provide a brief update to colleagues on the MRI and prostate cancer issue just a couple of weeks ago in the Plenary session during the business statement, but I'll certainly ask the health Minister to provide you with a more detailed update, in which we'd also include more information about our plans for radiography services in the round.FootnoteLink

On the matter of those structures that are currently managed and owned by the Department for Transport but which exist in Wales, such as the Rhondda tunnel, I do think there is certainly potential for us to maximise those resources, and certainly I think that the plans for the Rhondda tunnel are particularly exciting. Obviously we'd have to undertake some assessment in terms of the risk that we would be taking on were we to take on new assets, and explore whether there should be additional funding that comes alongside that from the UK Government, but perhaps if you were to write to the economy Minister outlining your particular areas of interest, he would be able to provide you with further detail.

Organiser, could I see a statement and maybe an update on how the Government are going to fill out their proposals on, first of all, the statement that was issued by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs this morning in relation to a response to the climate change 'Net Zero' report, the contents of which I welcome? In particular, the last paragraph but one says that this will be the biggest economic transition in modern times. That is a big, big move for the entire economy and the direction of Government, and in fairness, this statement does not do it justice, exactly how the Government proposes to make that move and that leap. I appreciate there have been announcements previously, but to actually upgrade its commitment to move to 95 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, and that particular statement from the climate change committee, really does require a detailed explanation of how the Government are going to pull all this together. I'd be grateful in your role as business manager for the Government if you could indicate whether there will be a further oral statement coming from the Government, so that we as AMs on the floor of the Chamber will be able to press the Minister and understand exactly how this transition is going to be accommodated within the Government parameters of policy and financial incentives that it can make available to the economy as a whole.

Secondly, I attended an event last week on pernicious anaemia, organised by Huw Irranca-Davies, the Member for Ogmore, and the figures are quite startling when you look at the people who suffer with this condition in Wales: 350,000 people have this condition. There has been much progress in treatment and solutions available for people who are diagnosed with it, many of which are still going through the NICE process getting ready for accreditation. I'd be grateful to understand what representations the Welsh Government in the form of the Minister has made to NICE about bringing these treatments to the market, so that they are available for patients once they receive a diagnosis, and in particular, when these treatments are made available, patients do have the information that they are able to access those treatments, because as I said, 350,000 people—one in 10, or 10 per cent of the population—suffer with pernicious anaemia, and it has a massive debilitating effect. I do congratulate the Member for Ogmore for bringing this event to the Senedd, because I certainly, until I attended, didn't realise it had such a massive impact in our society.

Thank you very much. I'm certainly happy to oblige in terms of the first statement that you asked for. The Minister, Lesley Griffiths, will be delivering a statement on a low-carbon Wales on the twenty-fifth of this month, and obviously that will encapsulate the statement that she made earlier today, but also the document that the Welsh Government published a few months ago, which set out our 100 policies, actions and priorities that we'll be taking in order to deliver on our low-carbon agenda.

I'd also congratulate Huw Irranca-Davies on his event on pernicious anaemia, which certainly raised a great deal of interest and a great deal of understanding amongst Assembly Members. I will ask the health Minister to write to both yourself and to Huw on the work that is being undertaken and discussions that are being had with NICE and with others in terms of treatment and the support that we're able to offer individuals with the condition.

Members may have heard about allegations that waste from Wales, including Rhondda Cynon Taf, was found piled up in a Malaysian jungle. This was said to be discovered by a team from the BBC, ahead of a programme on plastic waste. The allegation was that this waste from the UK was not being recycled, but was just dumped on a beauty spot. I've since seen other reports from Malaysia refuting these allegations, stating that the plastic waste was kept at legally operating premises and was destined to be turned into processed engineered fuel. Now, I'm concerned that there may be a level of mistrust now about recycling, and all the hard work that has got people to change their habits over the last 15 years risks now being undone. So, can you tell us what efforts are being made by the Government to ensure that our recycling is dealt with properly and ethically, ideally as close to home as possible? And how can you provide reassurance to recyclers in Wales that our green efforts are not in vain?

I'd also like to raise the failure of this Government to open a gender clinic here in Wales. This was promised for April of this year, after the budget agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Government. The Wales Equality Alliance say in an open letter that this threatens to undermine the commitment pledged by this Government to ensure good clinical care for transgender and non-binary trans patients in Wales. They are also of the view that Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board and the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee have signed off on a clinical proposal that is not fit for purpose. They say that the current system, which involves patients being referred to London, while not being ideal, would be preferable to providing a clinic in Wales that is inferior and potentially unsafe. How does this Government intend to overcome fears that the proposed gender clinic—? And when can we expect you to finally deliver on your promises for a much-needed, first-class service in Wales?

On the first issue, of course Welsh Government is concerned if we hear of waste that has not been disposed of in an appropriate way, which is why we're really keen to develop our own recycling and processing capacity here in Wales. And I know that the Deputy Minister is doing a lot of work in order to make this possible. Clearly, we have an excellent reputation here in Wales as being world leaders in recycling, and it's important that we maintain the people's trust and do undertake their recycling in good faith on a daily basis, so I'll certainly raise this matter directly with the Minister. I know that she is intending to bring forward a statement, but I'll see when we can accommodate that within the Plenary timetable. 

And on the matter of the gender clinic, I will ask the health Minister to have a discussion directly with your health spokesperson in order to flesh out the questions and the information that you've asked for today. 

Can I just begin by thanking Andrew R.T. Davies for raising the issue of the event we had here with pernicious anaemia, an event I couldn't attend myself because it coincided with the devastating Ford announcement? But, thank you, Andrew, for raising it. I'm delighted the Minister is going to write to us both, and I'm sure that will be the start of quite a long conversation now, with the campaigning by Martyn Hooper and Carol and others who attended that day. And thanks to Ministers and Assembly Members who attended; I really appreciate it. 

Can I ask for one statement, and a reminder of a debate I've asked for previously, actually? The first is a statement in the eventuality that Ministers are aware of any uncertainty over the announcement of First Bus—of any danger that that might pose to their services with First Cymru. We've had a letter of reassurance from the operators in Wales that, at present, they're fully committed to the service in Wales, but, of course, this goes on the back at the moment of uncertainty around local bus services, not least because of the continued squeeze on local authority funding, which means that some, including in my own area, are now unable to offer subsidy for bus routes. So, I wouldn't want to see First Cymru injecting further uncertainty in the bus routes that sustain people's ability to get to work and socialise and so on.

Secondly, could you send us off with a smile before the summer, please? We are shortly coming up to Co-operatives Fortnight. It's 24 June to 7 July. I know I've raised this in business questions before, but I didn't have a firm reply, although we've had some interesting discussions behind the scenes. We have a whole fortnight in which we can talk about the Government's excellent record of support for co-operatives, but also some of the innovations currently going on, in community transport, in community energy—the Pierhead event that was on today about what more we can do in that—a range of things, including food justice, local food networks. It would seem a missed opportunity. And I know that I, myself, as chair of the Assembly co-operative group of Assembly Members, plus Vikki, who chairs the co-ops and mutual cross-party group—we are very supportive of the idea of a debate. And I wonder: would the business manager have a discussion with us about whether we can facilitate this in Government time, and if not, perhaps she and the Llywydd could advise us how else we can secure a debate within Co-operatives Fortnight. Send us off with a smile.

Thank you very much to Huw Irranca-Davies for that invitation. I will start by firstly addressing some of the points about First Cymru. Obviously, the First Cymru buses operate predominantly in south-west Wales, based in Swansea, and, as Huw Irranca-Davies says, they have already provided reassurance that it does envisage business as usual for its bus network, as a result of a reorganisation of the FirstGroup's business. But, nonetheless, we will obviously be keeping a very close eye on the situation, and keeping in very close touch with the business, for any possible implications for bus services as a result of FirstGroup's proposals for reorganising its business, including any potential sale of the bus arm. I will ask the Minister for transport to provide you with some further information about our bus services support grant, which is a £25 million annual grant to local authorities to subsidise buses and community transport services, and also some further information about what we're doing to support buses in those areas that are more remote, and on those routes that might not be commercially viable.

I will have a further discussion with the Deputy Minister for economy in terms of the request for a statement, or a debate, on co-operatives. I know that he does have some plans to do some work on co-operatives during Co-operatives Fortnight. And in terms of opportunities for Members to contribute, we do have the opportunities to ask Ministers questions during their question time, and also the potential for individual Member debates and so on, although I can't recall when the next opportunity for that is.

Trefnydd, two points, if I may—two questions. Firstly, as part of Welsh National Opera's partnership with the Welsh Refugee Council, last week saw the performance of a piece of developmental music theatre called Beyond the Rainbow happening in the Wales Millennium Centre. That included a team with refugee artists and also members of Zim Voices—Members will know that I do a lot of work with Love Zimbabwe in my constituency, and they were also involved in this. From what I've heard about this production, it's done a lot to build up and develop links with refugees, and also to remove stigma that's sometimes associated with people when they come to this country. It's certainly had some good reports from Love Zimbabwe, and I'd be interested to hear from the Welsh Government what you're doing to support partnerships such as that with the Welsh National Opera.

Secondly, this week is Men's Health Week, and Dads Can Cymru are inviting people to support their campaign—not least by sucking a lemon. I will be taking part in this interesting ritual later on. I don't expect you to do it in the Chamber, by the way, Trefnydd, but I wonder if this would be a timely point for the Welsh Government to update us on what they're doing to progress the awareness of mental health issues, and, particularly, men's mental health issues. As we know, traditionally, men are less likely to discuss issues of mental health than women, and that's been a problem for them in the past. Organisations like Dads Can, which grew up as part of Monmouthshire Housing Association, have been doing their bit to try and reach men who are in this position. I wonder if we can have an update from the Welsh Government on what's being done to address mental health issues, but specifically with regard to men.

Thank you very much for raising both of those important issues. Of course, next week is Refugee Week, and I know that the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip intends to provide a written statement to update Members on Welsh Government action to support refugees, and to create a nation of sanctuary here in Wales.

In relation to the request for an update on mental health, I'll certainly ask the health Minister to write to you on that, but with a specific focus on what we're doing to support and promote good mental health amongst men.FootnoteLink 

I'd like to ask the Trefnydd to arrange with the health Minister to bring forward an oral statement to the Assembly on the new performance measures for eye care in Wales. The performance measures, of course, are welcome in themselves, but there are a number of issues in the Government's press release—I'm not aware that there was actually even a written statement—on which I believe this Chamber will wish to scrutinise the Minister. One is the issue with regard to finance. The headline of the press release speaks about £10 million. There are references elsewhere in the press release to £3.5 million, and then somewhere else a reference to £7 million. I'm sure we would appreciate the opportunity to be able to scrutinise the Minister as to whether or not this is new money, and whether it's going to be delivering new services. 

The other issue with regard to the statement is the huge variation in waiting times between different health boards. This is not the place to highlight those that are doing well and those that are doing badly, but I'm sure fellow Members could potentially have a bit of a guess. But I'm sure that I will not be the only Member on this Chamber who is deeply concerned to know—and, of course, without the new performance measures we would not have this figure available—that there are 34,500 of our fellow citizens on waiting lists for ophthalmic care who are at risk of serious harm including permanent sight loss. Now, I have to declare something of an interest here, Llywydd. My own father lost his sight as a result of waiting for too long for a cataract operation 30 years ago. I am profoundly shocked to know that over 34,000 of my fellow citizens are at risk of going through what my father went through, and I think this Chamber has the right to scrutinise the Minister on this statement, welcoming the performance measure itself, but I think we need to drill down into the detail. 

I'm grateful to you for raising this particular issue and, as Helen Mary Jones says, we are introducing new performance measures for eye care patients. At present, all new referrals for eye care are required to be seen within the referral-to-treatment target, and that has served the majority of new patients well. However, for most patients, the start of treatment is only the first point on their journey of required care, and there is no current target to ensure that those patients requiring ongoing follow-up care are seen in a timely manner. So, this is precisely why the Minister was concerned about the high clinical risk to those patients should their appointment be delayed, for example. And he set up a task and finish group to develop some recommendations in this area, and that group advocated the introduction of the new eye care measure regime, which combines both new and follow-up patients. And the outcome measure is the result of that work, and it's designed to account for both new and existing patients, but it is based particularly on clinical need and risk of adverse outcomes. So, hopefully it will address the kind of issues that were identified by Helen Mary. 

I will say, in terms of the funding, we've allocated £3.3 million of funding to health boards to make the necessary changes in order for them to transform the eye care services and to implement the new nationally agreed pathway across Wales.  

Finally, Mick Antoniw. 

Trefnydd, I wonder if the Government will make time available for a debate on the situation with regard to the Welsh NHS in light of there being a 'no deal' Brexit. It's becoming increasingly clear that the price of a 'no deal' Brexit may well be to sacrifice the national health service. You will be aware of the concerns that many of us have about the potential for a reserved matter, that is an international trade deal with the United States, in light of the various comments that have been made by President Trump with regard to the NHS, and the fact that the United States's own published negotiating objectives make it very clear that all services are up for grabs in a trade deal, despite the hasty retraction of President Trump. You'll be aware also of the supportive privatisation comments that have been made by people such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. We must have serious concerns about how an international trade deal might override devolved responsibilities in respect of health, and I think this is a matter that we ought to be debating as a matter of some urgency and some importance within this Chamber. 

I thank Mick Antoniw for raising this issue, and, of course, we do have frequent opportunities to discuss various aspects of Brexit and the impact that it might have on people in Wales across all parts of life, not least including the health service and health provision. The US ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, has said that healthcare will be a strong focus of any post-Brexit trade deal between the two countries, and that should be of real concern to us, because, clearly, the US wants the UK to buy more of its drugs after Brexit, but also it wants Britain to pay more. Medicines in the UK currently cost about a third of what they cost in the USA, and there really is a grave danger that any deal could undermine one of the UK's most prized health system components, and that is the value assessments conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the All Wales Medicine Strategy Group on new medicines to keep costs in proportion with how well those medicines work. And that does limit the amount that is then paid out to drug manufacturers. So, clearly this is an area of real concern to us. Decisions about the future of the Welsh NHS will continue to be taken here in Wales, and we have been very clear that the Welsh NHS is not up for sale, and these are messages that we will strongly continue to be pushing to the UK Government.

I thank the Trefnydd.

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Minister for Education on managing workload and reducing bureaucracy. I call on the Minister for Education to make her statement. Kirsty Williams.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm in no doubt that managing workload and reducing classroom bureaucracy is essential if we're to support our teachers to raise standards. This Government remains determined to give teachers the time to do what they do best: planning and teaching the best possible lessons for their pupils.

Finding better ways to manage workload and reduce bureaucracy is a significant challenge, but one that we need to meet head on if we want to ensure a high-quality, motivated education workforce. I'm pleased that we have made good progress in a short space of time to support our heads and our teachers. For example, over the last two years we have been developing a new evaluation and accountability system based on trust, respectful professional dialogue, and proportionality; we have produced reducing workload resources, training materials and guidance in conjunction with our stakeholders, including Estyn, regional consortia and unions; we're investing £36 million to reduce infant class sizes, ensuring teachers can devote more time and attention to pupils; we're replacing paper-based tests with less burdensome online assessments to support pupil progress and learning; we've introduced improvements to ensure equity of access for teachers to digital resources and services via Hwb; and we've established school business manager pilots, and over 100 schools were identified by local authorities as part of that programme, which has been running for now nearly two years, providing additional administrative support to school leaders. 

Now, those are just some examples of the actions that, working together, we have delivered. And of course, I'm conscious that schools need to be supported as we prepare for the roll-out of the new curriculum. My officials continue to identify best practice to minimise the impact of any workload issues as the new curriculum begins to roll out in 2022. However, while it’s clear that we are making progress in addressing workload, more can and more must be done. I recognise the importance of continuing to work collaboratively with the sector to find further ways to support the workforce. And to that effect, in April, I established a managing workload and reducing bureaucracy group, consisting of stakeholders from across all tiers and trade unions. This group has considered the priorities that we can start work on immediately, as well as additional short, medium and longer term actions as part of a broad plan that identifies work to be carried out to support teachers to manage workload.

From the many actions to be considered going forward, we have decided to concentrate on four immediate key priorities that we can deliver during the autumn term, before revisiting the medium and the longer term proposals of the group. These four priorities are (1) to develop a workload and well-being charter and toolkit for the school workforce, (2) to refresh and promote the reducing workload resources and training pack and, crucially, to monitor its take-up, (3) to further develop and circulate the training models and exemplar case studies produced across all four regional consortia to develop a cohesive approach to be applied on a national basis, and (4) to carry out a sector-wide audit exercise to examine what data is collected across all tiers, and how impact assessment on workload should be considered as part of any policy development.

The managing workload and reducing bureaucracy group met to discuss taking forward these four priorities on 5 June. Stakeholders across all tiers and trade unions have committed to ensure that these priorities get under way as quickly as possible. However, once these have been met, the group will continue to work through the action plan to address the shorter, medium and longer term actions identified to help manage workload better and reduce bureaucracy wherever possible.

It is extremely important that we keep focused on this task to ensure the smooth roll-out of our educational reforms going forward. I recognise the work and time commitment that all stakeholders have provided to help tackle this important issue and I look forward to their future engagement and commitment. It is really important that we continue to work collaboratively to meet challenges head on and to ensure we identify all possible ways to manage workload better and to reduce bureaucracy.

Additionally, will be looking to support this work by undertaking another school workforce survey within the next 12 months and will be commencing discussions with stakeholders shortly regarding the delivery of that survey. I'm confident that the work we are doing will support our goal of developing a high-quality education profession that is well supported. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you very much, Minister. I'm sure, like everybody in this Chamber, actually, we come across teachers who still tell us that workload is one of the main issues for them and the update we've had today will help us understand and perhaps ask them whether they've had the kind of support that you've just been talking about in the schools in which they teach, because I suppose one of the things that you'd be interested in finding out as well is whether the steps that have been taken to improve workload have made their way to the chalkface, so to speak. 

We have, as we know, a teacher recruitment problem perhaps verging on the threshold of crisis now—not unique to Wales, of course, but particularly acute in certain parts of Wales, as evidenced by difficulties we have with meeting the demand for supply teachers in certain parts of Wales. The Children, Young People and Education Committee certainly agreed with you in 2017 that workload was affecting the potential to teach to good standards, but also damaging the well-being of staff as well. That's why it recommended immediate work to establish the level that workload was a barrier to recruitment. 

Since then, of course, we've had the pay and conditions review as well, which you didn't mention in your statement, but I think it's pertinent to the general point. I'm a bit curious, though, why the managing workload and reducing bureaucracy group was only established in April this year and why it's only now that they've identified the need to carry out a sector-wide audit and to, if I understand this correctly, assess the impact of impact assessments. Do you wonder—? Well, perhaps I wonder whether the delay has extended the period during which teacher recruitment is a challenge. 

Just on the point of the school business manager pilot, that of course was one of the actions that had some attention at the time. I'm not 100 per cent sure quite when the first managers went into the schools, but perhaps you can give us some indication of the reporting back that you've had during that time, as requested by the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Can you also tell us how much of that £1.28 million cost, which was earmarked for this work, has been spent and how straightforward it's been, particularly in the current climate, to get the local authorities to share that cost, as of course that was part of the original intention? 

I've spoken to teachers in my region who speak really, really highly of Hwb—so much so that some of the private schools, as you know, are very willing to pay to have access to that service as well. But what can you tell us about some of the other resources you've mentioned in your statement and the take-up for that and perhaps who's paying for those as well? In particular, I've got some concerns about this one-page guidance issued by Estyn to help teachers understand how to reduce their workload. The pay review concluded that it had fallen on stony ground, with teachers still working up to 50 hours a week and high rates of teacher absence. 

I guess I'm asking how the findings of the 2018 pay review, or pay and conditions review, have adjusted your priorities for reducing workload and bureaucracy and are they mitigating that extra work that is now being undertaken by teachers to make up for the staff that schools are letting go as a result of schools' core budget allocations having shrunk so considerably in these last couple of years? Because it would be disappointing, I'm sure you'd agree, for progress to be made in reducing workload only for that then to have to be rolled back simply because the number of teachers in schools has diminished. 

Briefly, because supply teachers are a big player in helping to reduce workload—we probably need another statement on this, but if you can just give us an indication about the work that's going on to retain supply teachers to build capacity within the workforce, if you like. And then finally, perhaps related to that, the preparation for the new curriculum. New entrants, of course, will be trained in this from the beginning, but you found £9 million last year and £15 million this year to prepare the existing workforce for the future. With the shortages of supply cover and shortages of in-school capacity now and an existing heavy workload, how can you be sure that, even though you might have found the money, the teachers are finding the time to become Donaldson ready? And, if teachers are already leaving because of high workload, I don't think that £24 million will stop them leaving, and I'm wondering then how you can explain how that money could be used to help teachers stay in the system, because I don't think the connection's being made, by the teachers that I've spoken to anyway, at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Suzy, for those questions. As I outlined in my statement, we have not been tone deaf to the concerns that have been raised by teaching unions with regard to workload. I outlined a number of actions the Government has already taken. The establishment of the group was to move these issues forward at greater pace and to ensure that all voices are heard. That means that all the unions, whether they represent headteachers, whether they represent the teaching workforce and, crucially, those that support teachers and teaching assistants are part of that group as well as regional consortia and Estyn. It is they that have decided that these are the four areas that they want to see progress on in the autumn term and I'm delighted that, collectively, Government, the middle tier and the unions have agreed that way forward, because you are correct to say that workload is one issue that the profession has cited as an issue that perhaps works against us in our attempts to bring more people into the profession, although I have to say constantly talking about what a difficult, challenging job it is doesn't help our recruitment efforts. Undoubtedly, teaching is a challenging role, but it is a highly, highly rewarding career and we want to make sure that more people choose it and that more people who choose to train stay in that profession for the entirety of their careers.

The Member asked some specific questions about the school business manager pilot. As I said, over 100 schools were identified by local authorities as part of the pilot. Originally, 11 local authorities submitted proposals to take part. They included Anglesey, Monmouthshire, Caerphilly, Cardiff, Conwy, Powys, Carmarthenshire, the Vale of Glamorgan, Torfaen, Bridgend and Swansea. And, in the end, 10 out of the 11 authorities have schools that have taken part in the programme. In July 2018, officials commissioned Miller Research to conduct an independent interim review of the performance and the operation of the pilot in its first year, and the interim evaluation report found that the vast majority of the feedback from headteachers and school leaders was very positive. The main benefits are around time savings, reduced workload and actually driving value for money in the way in which the school utilises its budget. And having a business manager had had a positive impact in reducing the admin workload on primary, and in some cases secondary, headteachers. The posts had also allowed them to see improvements in the effectiveness of business management systems across clusters as well as, as I said, cost-effective school financial management.

Some of the figures that have been saved on school photocopying contracts are literally eye-watering, and perhaps I will be able to give Members further details on that. But having that one person that has a certain set of skills and, crucially, has the time to turn their attention to these issues, has made an impact. I was lucky enough to visit the business managers that are working in the Monmouthshire pilots and the Conwy pilots, and they have worked collectively as a team of people to manage their workload as well, to ensure that they're not reinventing the wheel when designing, for instance, responses to changes in data protection. So, they do it once for their school and then they share that with the other business managers. So, there's some excellent practice. We're aiming to commission a full independent evaluation during the spring term of 2020, and best practice examples will form part of that evaluation. We'll be providing exemplar cases that we can share across the system. So, that independent evaluation of that scheme has been done on an interim basis, and will continue.

With regard to Hwb, I'm glad that the Member has had positive feedback from the profession regarding the usefulness of Hwb. Can I give an example of just one way in which we're improving access to that? In March this year, I announced that Wales will be one of the first countries in the world to centrally fund Microsoft classroom software applications for all maintained schools, thanks to new investment by the Welsh Government. Not only will this new £1.2 million investment improve equity of access to digital classroom software, it actually allows teachers free access to that, and they can use that licence to have that software on up to five devices. So, they don't need to be able to pay for multiple licences if they want to have access to that; for instance, if they are working from home or working remotely at any time. So, that just takes the burden and makes sure that they have the resources that they need.

The Member is right that there could have been a separate statement on supply, but the Member will be aware that the priority for me has been to improve the terms and conditions of the work of supply teachers with a new national contact for supply agency, which I believe will drive up standards and, crucially, provide an underpinning with regards to pay and conditions, which I hope will be of real benefit to those that find themselves working in supply, which is a very important aspect of our education workforce.

And finally, on the issue of professional learning, let's be clear that the money in itself is not there to persuade people to stay and be teachers; the money is there primarily to ensure that those teachers are best prepared and are able to take advantage of the new curriculum. But what we do know from research that is currently being undertaken by some of our IT providers is that ensuring that teachers have access to career-long professional development is one of the ways in which we can attract the best and the brightest into the profession. When we benchmark teaching against other professions that other highly skilled graduates may want to go into, one of the things that they say they're looking for is that ongoing professional development and that route to progression within that profession. So, professional learning in this context is about delivering the curriculum, but actually that commitment to those individuals that we will support their career throughout their time in our schools with continuous professional learning is really important.

And with regard to time, the Member will be aware we've recently consulted, for instance, on one additional INSET day to supplement the INSET days that schools already have for professional learning, and I hope to be able to move forward with those regulations shortly.

Thank you for the statement. There is no doubt that reducing teachers’ workload and reducing bureaucracy is an important part of the improvements that need to be made in order to improve standards in Wales. The relationship between a teacher and a pupil is crucial to the success of teaching in the classroom, and anything that has an impact on that relationship needs to be questioned and scrutinised regularly. I'm sure you would agree that we do need to create a profession that is more attractive to young people, and reducing workload and bureaucracy is all part of that circle of making the profession more attractive, I believe.

Can I ask first of all about the data audit that you mention in the fourth point that you make here? What will be the scope of this exercise? Are you looking at it from the point of view of reducing the amount of data that teachers are expected to record? I'm sure that would be welcomed. All this data collection must be a burden that could be reduced substantially. So, I do welcome this audit as a starting point for that.

In the longer term, do you believe that we need a more comprehensive review for the future, looking not only at the data that needs to be recorded and collected but also the fact that all these different bodies and organisations need responses, very often? So, a teacher has to be responsive to various layers and various people involved within the school, and I sometimes wonder whether there is too much of that happening and if there's duplication of what is monitored and what teachers have to respond to. That duplication is often unnecessary and we need to look at streamlining that whole aspect of teachers' work, which is, again, an intervention that can have an impact on that relationship I mentioned earlier. Elements of it, of course, are things that have to happen. But I'm just wondering if there is too much of the same happening. That's my question there. In the longer term, perhaps we may need to look at that in greater detail.

Suzy Davies mentioned the business managers in schools, and I listened to you talking about the pilot where 100 schools have been participating for two years. It's also my understanding that the business manager role works well, and you outlined some of the benefits in your statement. But because of all of the other demands on school funding, I wonder whether this function is sustainable in a climate of cuts. And anecdotally, at least, I hear that fewer and fewer schools are investing in that role or that the business manager role is perhaps the first to disappear in periods of financial cuts, despite the clear benefits. And, of course, having a business manager isn't a realistic option for some of our smaller schools. I just wonder whether we need to work there on some sort of business manager working across a number of schools. And I do know that that happens in some areas, and that is perhaps good practice that could be rolled out.

Finally, may I ask you about the review carried out by Mick Waters and Melanie Jones on the devolution of pay and conditions to Wales? I assume that part of this statement is a response to some of their comments. But there were 37 recommendations in that report, and I know that you responded to some of them, and some still stand. It would be good to have a further statement on some of those remaining issues. For example—this is worthy of consideration, I think—they suggested a system of career management and support for teachers and suggested a new employment model for school heads where leaders work on a regional level rather than being linked to individual schools. Now, it would be interesting to have your response to that. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree the with it, but it would be interesting to see how that debate would develop. There could be benefits if one needed leadership at a higher level than the level of the individual school, and the skills of heads could perhaps be shared across a number of schools or on a regional basis. So, when do you intend to respond to all of those recommendations made in the report by Waters and Jones?

And finally, how much scope do you see in the longer term to improve the conditions, including workload and bureaucracy, by means of the new devolved powers on teachers’ pay and conditions? Perhaps you can explain how you see the remit of the independent body developing as we see these new powers taking root and as we get a better understanding of what the possibilities are in using these new powers in moving forward.

Can I thank Siân Gwenllian for those comments and questions? She began by asking a question about the extent of the data audit. The Welsh Government will lead on this priority, and work is under way to conduct an audit on the mandatory data currently collected, as is required by regulations, and crucially, what is that data used for. Does it actually add to raising standards, closing the attainment gap and the goals of the national mission? So, we're starting with our own asks of schools. Once that has been completed, a further audit will be carried out on what data the middle tier collects from schools—that's local education authorities and the regional consortia. And again, crucially, what is that data used for? Does it add to teaching and learning, or are we just collecting it for the sake of collecting it and it sits in a computer file or in a paper file somewhere? The group will then be in a position to review these data collections to identify whether there is duplication, and whether the collections are still necessary and whether they are relevant, and if any can be more streamlined or, crucially, removed from requirements altogether. So, that's the purpose of the audit, starting with what we ask first as a Government and then looking to what the middle tier asks.

That led, then, onto questions about the middle tier. The Member suggested that perhaps this was for the longer term. Well, it's certainly not for the longer term as far as I'm concerned. Earlier this year, we set up the middle tier group that is chaired by Dylan Jones of Trinity Saint David, a very experienced and successful ex-headteacher who now leads the school of education in Carmarthen. The purpose of that group is to do exactly what Siân Gwenllian said: to ensure that there is greater alignment between aspects of the middle tier, to ensure that there is no duplication and that the asks that are being placed upon headteachers and teachers are consistent—so no headteacher should ask themselves, 'Whose hoop am I jumping through today? Is it the LEAs, is it the regional consortia, it it Estyn, is it Welsh Government?' and so that there is an alignment and a very clear line of sight about what is being asked of our schools, and, crucially, whose job it is to do what. There is not enough money in the system for us to be falling over ourselves and duplicating the roles of other players in the field. So, that's the purpose of that group—to get clarity for our middle tier about whose job is it to do what, when it is their job to do it, and to ensure that there is clarity for our school leaders about what is being asked of them. That work is ongoing at the moment.

With regard to school business managers, perhaps it is inevitable that people will ask about whether it's right to use resources to employ non-teaching professionals, but as I said, the interim evaluation of the pilot to date has been very much welcomed by the headteachers involved, and in many cases, the savings that those business managers have been able to drive, for instance, in some of their purchasing decisions, has actually paid for the cost of their salaries in some cases. Now, of course, that can't be repeated, necessarily, year on year, but there is real value in those posts. And the Member is quite right; it may not be possible for a single school to employ a business manager because of the size of that school, and in many of the pilot areas, what we have seen is a single business manager working across a cluster of schools, especially small primary schools. And I know from the pilot in my own area, that's what has happened: a single business manager has been working for a number of primary schools that, on their own, cannot afford that resource, but actually, that's the most efficient way of doing it and doing it very, very successfully. Welsh Government places a big emphasis on the contribution school business managers can bring to our education system. So much so that in our Welsh teaching awards, we actually do present an award to the school business manager of the year—the individual who has added so much to their school. And we're never short of nominations for that particular award.

I will certainly update Members on where we are with the individual recommendations of the Waters report. Of course, some of those recommendations that were made are not a matter for me, but they do need to be duly considered by the independent review process that we have set up for teachers' pay and conditions, and they are rightly a matter for that body to consider. This will be the first year that Wales will be responsible for setting teachers' pay and conditions, and the Member, I'm sure, will be cognisant of the content of my remit letter to the board. In this case, we want to establish the system, demonstrate that we are capable of running the system ourselves in Wales. Primarily, in this first year, we are looking at issues around pay. I'm sure, in years to come, the Welsh Government's remit will indeed look to ask the board to consider other aspects of teachers' pay and conditions in the round. This year, the priority is the successful establishment of that system and looking at a potential pay rise—a potential increase for our workforce. But I'm happy to update Members on the work that has been done on other aspects of the Waters report.

Thank you very much for your statement and for your earlier remarks, particularly about the fair pay for supply teachers—that is very welcome.

I just wanted to probe a little bit further on how standard is it to have lesson planning and evaluation done by teachers collectively, appropriately, in their year group or key stage, because we've all read the alarming figures about burn-out of the teaching profession, and people leaving the profession only a few years after they've been trained. So, this is obviously a very important issue. But in St Teilo's Church in Wales High School where I am a governor, as you'll be aware, all the teachers do their lesson planning and evaluation collaboratively with other members of staff, which enables them to share good practice, share good ideas and share their strengths and weaknesses. It seems to me rather obvious that that is a positive outcome for the pupils, because we don't need good ideas to be monopolised, we need them to be shared for the benefit of all pupils. So, I just wondered if you could tell us how this workload and well-being charter and toolkit are going to roll out the good practice that's going on, I'm sure, across many parts of the education system, to ensure that that collaborative working becomes standard and that people think it's fun to work together on ensuring that the challenges of the next day or the next week are going to be shared and, therefore, less burdensome.

Can I thank the Member for that contribution? What she refers to is indeed standard good practice. Many of our schools employ such mechanisms as teaching triads across disciplines, and there is much professional learning and support going on between professionals within schools and, indeed, also between schools. So, for instance, in some of our rural schools, you may find yourself in a department where you may be the single person or maybe one of two people, then, obviously, that can be burdensome. So, actually, schools working together, especially when it comes to developing new materials or in response to the new curriculum, but historians and humanities specialists in different schools working together to be able to plan is a very, very effective way of delivering that.

With regard to the workload and well-being charter and toolkit for schools, to take this forward, the group will be identifying roles and responsibilities and actions from now through to the autumn term, and then the steering group will meet throughout that period to ensure that this particular aspect of the charter and toolkit is delivered. The reason why this is seen to be important is that this can be a very practical tool that can be given to school leaders and practitioners in our schools the length and breadth of Wales to really challenge their thinking about how they're managing these processes within their own individual locations, so that we can get that national approach, rather than leaving individual leaders on their own, maybe looking for solutions, but actually challenge thinking, challenge existing practices in schools and ensure themselves that they are taking the action that is needed. That, then, will be reinforced by a refresh of the workload resources and training path that already exists, because there are materials out there, and we need to make sure that they are as relevant and up to date as they should be, make sure that they're got back out to schools and, crucially, look to work with our regional consortia to look at take-up of those resources. It's one thing producing them, but as Suzy Davies said, with some of the resources that have gone there before, does that actually impact upon practice in schools? We'll be looking at working with regional consortia to measure that impact as we go forward.

Finally, Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Minister sets out four priorities, and I just wonder if she could clarify a little the differences between them. We have the workload and well-being charter and toolkit, and then the reducing workload resources and training pack, and then, separately, the training models, I think, coming from the consortium. I wonder if she could just help us understand a little better how those three initiatives will interact with each other.

On the sector-wide audit exercise, again, could I just clarify whether this has been done before, and if so, how long ago? Is there anything to build on here?

There's a middle tier, actually. Education Minister, you've said quite a lot in your answers to other statements about the local education authorities, but I was struck that there was no mention of them in your actual written statement. I just wonder, in this field, what is their role. What would you like them to be doing to help reduce bureaucracy? You put emphasis on alignment and consistency in how teachers and others deal with data requests, but do you also recognise that particular local authorities may have a particular approach that works for their schools and deals with their local democratic priorities and needs of schools in their areas? Are there such areas where it may be appropriate for LEAs to get the extra information that they need to feed those particular local priorities?

Finally, in terms of the school business managers, I was very struck with some of the Challenge Cymru schools, when looking around with the Children, Young People and Education Committee, how impressed we, I believe, were—and certainly I was—with those business managers and the roles they were doing. From what the Minister says, I think they should be able to replicate the cost savings. If they find cost savings, they should hopefully continue and compare salaries going forward. But I hadn't appreciated, when visiting those Challenge Cymru schools, how unusual the business managers were or the extent to which that was a pilot. We have 100 of these. About where are they spread? How realistic is it for a large secondary to hope to do all the things the business manager does if they don't have that business manager in place?

Can I thank Mr Reckless for his questions? With regard to the four priorities that have been identified by the members of the group, they build upon one another. First of all, the development of a workload and well-being charter and toolkit, that is the first step in the process of identifying within your school how you're doing, and to help you self-evaluate, and to be able to demonstrate as school leaders to your staff, and potential staff, that this is an issue that you take seriously if you have signed up to that charter. Then, of course, sometimes, schools will need particular help and support to implement new practices. That's where, then, we have the reducing workload resources and training pack, so having identified that maybe there is more that you need to do in your school, some schools may need some additional support to actually understand what best practice looks like and how they can take effective action if they have found themselves to be needing to do so. That's where the resources come in.

Practices in schools change quite a lot, so those resources were developed primarily back in 2017, and we need to make sure that they're refreshed and updated for where we are now in the system. We also, then, need to work with our regional consortia, our school improvement services, because we need to see workload and bureaucracy reduction as part of a school improvement system, rather than just for its own sake. It's got to be there for a purpose. They will then have the lead responsibility to ensure that they are circulating training models and exemplar case studies across all four consortia, on a consistent basis, so no matter where you are working in Wales you will know that you are getting a set level of information and support, and also to help feed back to me on monitoring of uptake of those training materials, so that we in the centre have a better idea that, actually, these processes are being impactful in individual education settings.

With regard to the middle tier and the role of local education authorities, can I assure the Member that they are represented on this group? So, they're not excluded from this group. They are key members of this group, and crucially, they too have agreed to sign up to the audit. There may well be a justifiable case why an individual local education authority requires schools to collect data in a certain way. They just need to demonstrate why that is relevant and why that is necessary, and that they're not just asking the schools to do that for the sake of it and that data, then, is not used to inform policy development from an LEA perspective. So, I've got no problem with collecting data as long as it is useful, it is used, and actually leads to raising standards in our schools. So if an individual local authority could justify that to its schools, its headteachers, there's no reason why they should be precluded from doing that, but you have to take the beam out of your own eye first, which is why we're starting with the Welsh Government requirements, to make sure that we are practising what we preach with regard to the data that we're asking schools to collect. Because how many times in this Chamber have we stood here and sometimes paucity of data is an issue for us, and then we say, 'Well, we should ask schools to do more of that'? So sometimes, we ourselves are responsible for driving this demand for schools to do more and more and more paperwork, and we need to stop and reflect and really think about what we're asking schools to do, and does it add value.

With regard to business managers, some individual schools were already employing business managers. The pilot is an attempt to spread that best practice, and by using some Welsh Government money, match funded by local authority money, to be able to prove the case maybe to some of those people who doubt the value of those particular roles, that actually it can make a big difference in terms of reducing workload and driving other benefits by employing that person. Sometimes, understandably, individual schools, individual local authorities, may have been reluctant to be able to experiment and to drive these posts forward. By using Welsh Government money, we've tried to demonstrate—and hopefully the evaluation will demonstrate—the effectiveness of those roles and why they're important. In secondary schools, especially our large secondary schools, they are providing a really important role that is highly valued not only by headteachers and senior managers, but often really valued by the pupils, because there is a different type of professional with whom a pupil can have a relationship, and sometimes it is the school business managers and not the professional teachers that children will want to talk to about their problems. So actually, not only are they sorting out the paper, the photocopiers, all the orders, paying the bills, organising things; actually, many of them have really, really established important relationships with children within the schools, and they are valued members of the school community. I applaud all the business managers who are working so hard in our schools in Wales today, and hopefully the pilot will demonstrate their worth even more.

Thank you very much, Minister.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister on the implications of the UK Government's immigration proposals for Welsh public services and the wider economy. I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I made a statement to you last week about Brexit and the damaging impact the political stasis and ongoing uncertainty is having on the economy. I am keenly aware that the uncertainty will be particularly felt by European Union citizens who have made their homes in Wales. We have always been clear that we recognise the invaluable contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and society, and that any new immigration policy should be built around that. 

I know that the result of the 2016 referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union has created considerable uncertainty for EU citizens living in Wales. I would like to be clear that we want EU nationals who have made Wales their home to stay here. They will always be welcome here. Our message to them as a Government is, 'We value your contribution to Welsh life, our economy, our public services, our communities, and you will always be welcome here.' We the Welsh Government are doing all that we can to influence the UK Government to protect the interests of EU nationals in Wales, in the UK, and to ensure that they retain the same rights as they have today.

In September 2017, we published 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People'. This explored the role of migration in Wales, focusing on migration from the European Economic Area, and analysed the potential models that the UK Government might adopt for a future migration system, and the impact that these could have in Wales. Based on that evidence, the Welsh Government has been proactive in seeking to contribute and to shape the development of migration policy in the UK, emphasising the importance and benefits of migration to Wales. I would like to have been able to say that the UK Government listened to the proposals that we put forward, and have been able to take on board the evidence that was presented, not just from Wales but across the UK. But sadly we know this is not the case.

When the UK Government published a White Paper in December last year, outlining its plans for immigration after we leave the European Union, there had been no prior engagement with the Welsh Government, despite previous assurances that this would happen. The plans in the White Paper ignore the weight of evidence presented to the Migration Advisory Committee about the negative impact on the economy of a more restrictive approach to migration. Work that we commissioned from the Wales Centre for Public Policy, which I'll refer to in more detail in a moment, has confirmed that we are right to remain deeply concerned about this approach, which is highly restrictive and will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the Welsh economy and public services.

In 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' we had proposed a flexible but managed approach to migration, where people from Europe would be able to move to the UK if they had a prior job offer or had the ability to find a job quickly. We argued that this relatively open approach to migration should be complemented by a rigorous enforcement of legislation to prevent the exploitation of workers and the undermining of wages and conditions, whilst supporting our economy. We set out a rational framework for migration that we believed would not only meet Wales’s needs, but would work for the whole of the UK. However, in contrast to our proposals, the White Paper proposes introducing a single immigration system that will end free movement and the preferential treatment of EU citizens. Both EU and non-EU citizens who wish to come to the UK to work will normally have to apply for a visa, and those earning below a wage threshold will simply not qualify. In the White Paper, the Government suggests the threshold might be set at £30,000, although that isn't yet, thankfully, established policy.

The impact of those proposals would be substantially to reduce EU migration to the UK. The changes would not just impact what the White Paper calls 'low skilled' workers and their employers—those with intermediate skills, for example nurses, care managers and others, would likely also be affected. And I should say that we in the Welsh Government do not wish to describe workers who do work we depend upon as 'low skilled'. We believe that workers with all types of skills add value to our society and to our economy.

To address a number of concerns about the Whitehall plans for immigration, it was crucial that we gathered evidence about how serious the impacts would be. And so, the Welsh Government asked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to examine how the proposed immigration system would affect Wales. This included examining the impact of stopping overseas workers from staying in the UK for more than a year if they earn less than £30,000. The Wales centre published their report in March and, sadly, it only confirmed our fears that the UK Government’s migration proposals would do nothing to help employers and would hit the Welsh economy hard. The Government’s plans would have a real impact on both the private and the public sectors. Wales would be affected proportionally more than the UK as a whole, in terms of the number of people migrating for work, and there would be an estimated reduction to gross domestic product in Wales of between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent over 10 years.

I am extremely concerned that such a restrictive immigration system after Brexit would lead to real skills shortages in our key economic sectors. For example, we already have a high number of EU citizens working in the food processing and the food hygiene sectors. We also have other vulnerable sectors that are facing challenges with recruitment and retention of staff, such as social care and manufacturing. Demand for care is increasing, and manufacturing is heavily reliant on workers from the EU. Restricting access for labour from the EU is not the answer. Neither is another aspect of the White Paper, which appears to have been introduced at the last minute in a vain attempt to reassure employers—the proposal to introduce a temporary workers scheme, which would enable individuals from certain countries to work in the UK for 12 months only, after which they would have to leave. Dirprwy Lywydd, is it not obvious that such a scheme is absolutely not the answer to skills and labour shortages in sectors such as social care, where what we need is to reduce, not to increase, the turnover of staff. Such a scheme would be both morally repugnant and ineffective.

By contrast, we are clear that if and when we leave the EU, we will continue to need a migration policy that allows Wales to attract the right type of workers to all areas, whether it is health, social care, tourism, higher education or food production. I do not want nurses, junior doctors, and other workers who want to work in our public services and our industries to find it more difficult and less attractive to come to Wales in the future. And this is not just about curtailing rights for those who want to come to our country, Welsh employers are quite rightly worried about whether they will be able to recruit and retain workers from the EU. The sustainability of their businesses often depends on those workers from the EU, as does the job security of the Welsh workers in those businesses.

Even for those jobs that pay salaries above the salary threshold, there will be new burdens. At present, migration from the EEA and Switzerland places very little administrative burden on workers, on employers, or on the UK Government—a passport or identity card suffices to prove EEA or Swiss nationality—and there are no direct costs of immigration. Depending on the system that's implemented and the extent of control exerted, there will be additional financial and administrative burdens on a number of levels. The risks of these costs being extended to include EEA and Swiss nationals will create a significant and costly burden on businesses and is very much a deterrent to growth within the UK. More broadly, there are a whole series of risks relating to the administration, implementation and enforcement of any new system. 

As I made clear last week, the Welsh Government's position is to campaign for a referendum and to remain within the EU. But if we are to leave, it is essential that we persuade the UK Government that their migration policy would simply compound the wilful damage they are inflicting on the Welsh and the UK economy. We need a flexible and managed approach to immigration that is fair and can contribute to our prosperity.

As the WCPP report makes clear, if the UK has to have a salary threshold at all, it should be at a far lower level, perhaps £20,000. The proposal to give Wales, like Scotland, a separate shortage occupations list, whilst welcome, is not the answer if, as at present, occupations on the list are still subject to the same salary threshold. Indeed, the whole concept of a shortage occupations list, as the MAC report of 29 May makes clear, only makes sense in a situation where there are numeric limits on the number of visas available—one malign aspect of the current system that the White Paper does not propose to replicate post Brexit.

Dirprwy Lywydd, to conclude, we must have a fair migration policy in place, one that protects EU citizens who have made Wales their home and that ensures that our future labour market needs are met. Any salary threshold should be well below £30,000. There is broad support for doing this, as well as making sure that the new system is as flexible and as user-friendly as possible. We need to ensure that Wales is still seen as an attractive place to live and to work and that we are still a welcoming nation. My officials are involved in a 12-month engagement process with the Home Office, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, where different aspects of the immigration White Paper are being discussed every month. I will continue to persist in more engagement with the Home Office, at a ministerial level and on official level, and I will continue to make sure that the best interests of Wales and of our people are fully represented.

It's very clear to me that the ability to control immigration was something that was on many people's minds when they voted to leave the European Union in June 2016. And even amongst those who voted to remain, there were still many people who had concerns about what they perceive to be unsustainable levels of immigration coming into the UK, and, of course, the people of Wales also held some of those concerns. In fact, the British social attitudes survey suggests that 86 per cent of respondents in Wales thought that immigration should be reduced, and that is a higher level than across the UK as a whole. I think that has to be at the forefront of all of our minds when we consider this issue of immigration.

Like you, my party's made it very, very clear that, whilst wanting to make sure that we've got the ability to control our own borders and have our own immigration policy, we've got to do so recognising the enormous contribution that immigration has played here in Wales and the wider UK over the years, enriching our communities and, indeed, bringing many new, different perspectives to life and helping to fuel the growth that we've seen in our economy in recent years as well. So, that's certainly not lost on us. And I was a little bit disappointed that you didn't refer to the fact that the UK Government's actually coming from the same place as the Welsh Government in terms of reflecting on the value of immigration more widely. 

Now, when the people of Wales voted to leave, one thing that they didn't vote for was to continue with the status quo and, of course, I appreciate that your party's position is one where you want to see us remain in the EU now, but, of course, when the people of Wales have been asked, they don't want that, what they actually want to see is some change. And they also want a fair immigration system, I believe. Now, your Government document, the 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' document, makes it very clear that your ambition, should the UK leave the EU, is to have a very similar system to the one that existed before. In other words, no change from the previous system in that migrants from the European Economic Area and from Switzerland who are already coming to work in the UK should still be able to access the same work opportunities and same benefit opportunities. Now, I don't think that that's what people in Wales want to see. That's why I think it weighed very heavily in people's minds in that referendum.

And I don't think, actually, that that's a fair attitude to immigration, either, because what it does is it favours those immigrants who want to come to the UK from the EEA and Switzerland and, actually, causes problems for those who want to come from outside, in the wider world. So there's no level playing field there and I don't think that that is right. So, do you accept that it's not right to treat people differently depending on where they come from? Can you also tell us whether you welcome the promises that have been made in the White Paper? I heard what you said about the need to protect people's rights, for those who are already here, and of course the White Paper makes it very clear that we want to cause no disruption to those people who have already settled here and set up a home, whether they're from the EU or elsewhere and that, on that basis, they should be allowed to continue to remain here. And, of course, that's one of the other things that the White Paper proposes: that there should be guarantees about that. 

You made reference to the £30,000 limit, and I would agree with you that there are some concerns that we hold on these benches around that limit and whether that's an appropriate limit for Wales, given the fact that, unfortunately, we are the lowest wage economy in Britain. So, do you welcome the recent announcements by the Home Secretary that they are reviewing that limit, and I expect very much that limit to come down? It may be regional—I think that's one of the other things that has been proposed as well. You made reference to the £20,000 suggestion that the Wales Centre for Public Policy has put forward; I'm not sure whether that is the right level for Wales. It may, indeed, need to be lower than that in some places, but it would be good to see some of the rationale behind that £20,000 figure that they came up with. 

You made no reference to students in your statement at all, but, obviously, one of the things that the White Paper does say—the UK Government's White Paper—is it gives a clear commitment that there'll be no limits on the number of international students who can come to study here, and I would hope very much that you would welcome that commitment too. You made no reference, either, to the exploitation that many are suffering due to modern-day slavery. And I know that both the Welsh and UK Governments have been determined to stamp out modern-day slavery here in Wales. Unfortunately, we do see evidence of it in our communities. Can you assure us that the Welsh Government is still as committed to stamping out modern-day slavery and its impacts? I want to pay tribute to the chair of the cross-party group, Joyce Watson, for her work on this. It obviously is important that we don't drop our guard on that by simply allowing the completely free movement of people. 

And one final—[Interruption.] One final—

No, there are no interventions on statements. And he's going to wind up shortly. 

And one final question, if I may. One of the reasons that we have gaps in some of our public service professions, particularly healthcare and teaching is, frankly, a failure to plan for the workforce needs of our public services over the years. And, of course, the responsibility for planning for the workforce and making sure that we've got sufficient numbers of teachers, doctors and nurses et cetera coming through the system is entirely the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Do you accept your responsibility for failing to plan for the workforce, and that that is causing a need to plug some of these shortages in our workforce because of your failure to plan adequately? Thank you.  

I thank Darren Millar for some of those questions. I accept that for some people, perhaps many people, the question of migration was a key factor in their decision to vote in the way that they did in 2016. And I also accept that it is important for us to address people's perceptions in relation to migration. But part of the process of addressing those perceptions surely is to tether those perceptions to the realities on the ground, rather than simply reinforce perceptions that we all know to be false. That is part of the task that we should set ourselves as an Assembly in all parties—not simply to accept that people have a set of perceptions, but to engage with people and make the case for why those perceptions are, we know, based upon misapprehensions in many cases. 

We know that public services in Wales—many public services, many economic sectors have a significant reliance on migrants from the European Union. There's no point pretending that isn't the case. So, we need to articulate that with people. We need to articulate the risks to people in food production businesses for their employment and their future well-being of these changes. We need to engage with people and articulate those views, not simply reflect that perception back at people. We need to say to people that people moving to Wales from the European Union are less likely to be on benefits than people who are living here anyway, they're more likely to be in work, their contribution to the taxes gathered by the UK Government is beneficial, they have a broadly positive impact on public finances, that high levels of immigration have a positive impact on productivity, on innovation. These are fundamental parts of the debate, which was not had, and I think it's important to recognise that, whilst perception is one thing, surely what we should be engaging with is the reality and explaining to people what the consequences are of just simply reflecting their perceptions back at them. These are complex questions, but we have to base our discussions on the facts, not simply on perceptions.  

He invited me to congratulate the UK Government on its approach. I'm going to decline that invitation, and the reason I'm going to do that is—. Take one example, of the settled status scheme. That is not the kind of scheme a Government that wanted to signal a commitment to EU citizens' well-being in the UK would put in place: a scheme that charges people to establish their right to stay in the UK—people who've been living here, in many cases, for many, many years, who've brought up families here. [Interruption.] Well, there's no charge—there never should have been a charge. It was dropped by the Government, but it was frankly a disgrace that people were being asked to pay it in the first place. A scheme that—. If you are living in Wales, there is only one centre in Wales, in Caerphilly, where, if you happen not to have an Android phone, you cannot upload documents that are required in order for you to get settled status. That is not the action of a Government seeking to make sure that people at large are able to qualify easily or without stress for this scheme.There are people, we know—. The proposals that the Government has on a 'no deal' basis are even more draconian, so these are not measures a Government would take if it were seeking to embrace the contribution of EU citizens to Wales and to the broader UK. 

You talked about—. The Member talked in his question about managed migration. 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' describes a version of a migration policy that is much more closely linked to employment—whether you have a job or the ability to have a job. And I welcome his acknowledgement of the importance of tackling exploitation—absolutely at the heart of that policy document, and I'm glad to hear him raise that and his commitment to that in the Chamber. 

I welcome the possibility—indeed, I hope the probability—that the £30,000 figure will be discarded. It does not work for Wales; £20,000 is a better figure. Indeed, we've advocated for that with the UK Government and I would invite them to bring forward changes at an early opportunity to put employers' minds at rest. I welcome the reference he made to students. What I would say is that, had the UK Government engaged better with the devolved administrations, it would have designed a scheme better reflecting the needs of the devolved administrations in relation to higher education. The Scottish system, for example, has four-year degrees as standard. That wasn't reflected in the original scheme. So, I would encourage the UK Government in the weeks and months ahead to engage in a way that is much better than they engaged in the preparation of the White Paper.

Ultimately, this is a question of the extent to which we are prepared to reflect people's anxieties and concerns or to explain and discuss this vitally important policy area on the basis of facts, and I would encourage the party opposite to engage on that basis, as I intend to do.

I'd like to start with a simple message: migrants have always been welcome in Wales and this will continue to be the case in the future. You are welcome, you are valued, and Plaid Cymru will always work to protect your rights. Every week, we discuss in this Chamber risks that Brexit poses to our economy and public services, and here we are again discussing huge changes proposed by the Westminster Government, this time in the field of migration, which have the potential to cause serious harm. Having prepared in advance of this statement, I'm encouraged that the Minister has identified the same risks as I did in terms of the threat the UK Government proposals present to our economy and public services, and I would also like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Wales Centre for Public Policy in providing a thoroughly detailed analysis of the issues at hand.

I must say, however, that I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to put forward any proactive steps he intends to take. Having admitted that the UK Government has completely ignored Welsh Government concerns up until now, he says there was no prior engagement—which should be shocking, except that it isn't, because this is how Westminster has always treated Wales. It simply isn't good enough to say now that he hopes that they will listen in the future. He knows they won't; I know they won't; every sensible Member in this Chamber knows they won't. The time has come to demand more powers for Wales, Minister, so that we can take action ourselves to protect the economy rather than make repeated requests that fall on deaf ears.

Thousands of non-UK EU citizens are directly employed in the Welsh NHS and spend their working lives looking after the health of people living in Wales and we are extremely grateful to them for their efforts. The Welsh NHS is facing the frightening prospect of being sold off by the UK Government on one hand, and seeing its potential workforce atrophied on the other. Of course, both eventualities could be avoided if we were to have a referendum and decide to remain in the EU, which is, of course, the cause that Plaid Cymru supports.

Migrant workers are also over-represented in the social care sector, which is a huge concern, as demographic changes mean that the ratio of older people compared to younger workers will increase, meaning we're potentially looking at a situation where there will be more people requiring care and fewer people of working age there to support them, which is a serious concern.

Minister, Plaid Cymru believes that education visas should not form part of any immigration quotas so that our universities aren't disadvantaged. Welsh Government should, therefore, obtain powers over immigration rules for academic staff and students. Other parts of the Welsh economy, especially manufacturing, catering and the food and drink sector, are heavily reliant on migrant workers and we will be looking to Welsh Government for assurances that they're taking all appropriate steps to protect their interests.

Plaid Cymru disagrees with the Welsh Labour Government that free movement should come to an end. Free movement is morally right and makes economic sense. However, if the UK Government does end it, I agree with the Minister that the proposed £30,000 income threshold should not apply to Wales, and I, at least, am glad to hear agreement on that on all sides of the Chamber, since lower average wages here means we will not be able to attract the workers we need. Nurses, junior doctors, vets and many others will find it much more difficult to come to Wales unless these proposals are dropped. We want a Wales that welcomes people of all backgrounds, not just those fortunate enough to afford it. In terms of what Plaid Cymru would like to see, first of all, Welsh Government should be calling for the devolution of immigration policy so that we can be in control of setting quotas that make the most sense for our economy. And, finally, we should certainly be in control of our population share of UK immigration, which is 5 per cent, and should also have the flexibility to increase this with a percentage variable if our economy requires it, or if our population is growing too slowly. Will you now support Plaid Cymru in calling for this, Minister?

I would also call on Welsh Government to create a skill shortage occupation register to identify where we have skill gaps now, while also working out where they are likely to arise in different sectors, with particular emphasis being given to ensuring that our health and social care services have access to the staff they need. Where the shortages are severe, Welsh Government should put plans in place immediately to train additional workers domestically to prevent damaging shortfalls in the future. Will the Minister finally commit to doing this?

I thank the Member for, in particular, the way in which she started her question with the welcome to migrants from the European Union. It's important, in difficult times such as these are, for that to be repeated as often as possible in this Chamber, so that people have the reassurance of our commitment to their well-being and their welcome in Wales. 

She asked what steps the Welsh Government is taking in relation to this. There are a number of specific steps that we have taken and are taking. The kind of policies described in 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' mostly could be delivered even in the context of remaining as a member of the European Union, so that's a contribution to the policy debate that we feel still carries weight and still merits reflection and consideration. 

We gave evidence, as she knows, to the Migration Advisory Committee specifically in relation to the point that she raised towards the end of her questions around the arrangements in Wales for occupations for which there is a particular shortage. We gave evidence in relation to social care, food production, where dependence on the vets trained in the European Union is very, very high, manufacturing, higher education and the health service and, indeed, some other sectors. We gave that evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee and she will also know that the MAC report of about a week or so ago recommended, in principle, a shortage occupation list for Wales. It took on board the points we made in particular around vets in the food production sector, but recognised that some of these shortages are felt right across the UK, and therefore, for the time being at least, have decided to amend the UK or the England-and-Wales shortage occupation list. We obviously welcome the prospect of a separate shortage occupation list for Wales, but the truth of the matter is that, actually, that isn't the principal solution to the challenges that we face. The principal solution is looking at a migration policy that reflects the different salary need and different skills needs in the Welsh economy. So, whilst it's a thing to welcome, I think we need to be cautious about simply looking at separate administrative arrangements, when, actually, what we want is substantive change that impacts the Welsh economy.

We've funded, through the European Union transition fund, as she may know, the EU citizens immigration advice service, which helps, particularly, EU citizens who are vulnerable, who may be elderly or living alone, or are in other ways difficult to reach, as it were, through more conventional means. It provides a specific advice service to those individuals and a broadly based public awareness campaign of their rights as EU citizens. The Welsh Government is also undertaking a co-ordination exercise so that the various organisations in Wales that have been commissioned to provide advice services of that sort, either funded by ourselves or by the UK Government, are working together collaboratively in a way that avoids duplication and makes sure that gaps are avoided wherever that is possible. And that forum, we hope, will meet regularly to ensure co-ordination of that advice and support for EU citizens across Wales.

As I mentioned also in my statement, we have been lobbying, both at a ministerial and an official level, in terms of individual ministerial meetings, but also round-tables at which the Home Office and other devolved administrations are represented. We will continue to do that and we will do that based upon an evidential base, which is where we have—where we've been able to move the UK Government's position in the area of Brexit, it has been by tenacious advocates of an evidenced position, and that will continue, we hope, in relation to migration as well. Many of the advances we have achieved in relation to this area have been done in conjunction with the SNP Government in Scotland, and the area of migration is one where we have got a number of shared interests and concerns, even though, perhaps, the destination that both Governments might seek from this policy objective may be different.

Could I just say to the Minister that the concerns that he's outlined today in this welcome update and statement are echoed by many of those feelings that he will have heard from the European advisory group, those stakeholders that represent industry, that represent the third sector, that represent a wide cross-section of Welsh society and act as an expert sounding board for Welsh Government? So, this is not coming out of the blue, neither was it coming out of the blue when the round-table was convened about two months ago, I think it was, in Cathays Park, when the UK Government sent their advisers to come and listen to Welsh concerns, and we expressed those Welsh concerns, as was stated here, around the £30,000 arbitrary figure, around the issue of what was termed—that horrible phrase—'low-skilled work' and the impact that that would have on things such as the social care sector, where we had many—the Welsh Government's own analysis that was undertaken over the winter and the spring actually showed the extent of exposure of the care sector in Wales, both domiciliary and residential care, to these very proposals.

But also, what does concern me in the statement today is what seems to be something of a tin ear from the UK Government. We see very clearly that Welsh Government has put forward some very constructive, tangible, meaningful suggestions of how Welsh needs, in terms of immigration—not departing a million miles from what the UK Government is trying to do, not destroying their proposals, but actually looking for some flexibility that would reflect, in the national scheme, the Welsh needs. But there's been a tin ear to it, nothing has been taken on, and that is very disappointing, I have to say. It does not bode well for discussions around the shared prosperity fund, which we're all waiting to hear outcomes on as well.

So, a couple of questions, Minister. One is: could I urge him not to give up the argument, the discussion with UK Ministers? Because on some of these areas that are not bolted down, such as the £30,000 limit, if we keep on pushing, perhaps that tin ear will crumble and we will have some leeway on that. Because we do need a UK national scheme, not a scheme for here, a scheme for there, a scheme for everywhere else; we need a UK national scheme that can reflect what the devolved Governments are asking for.

Could I also ask what does this mean, going forward, in terms of the discussions around reforms of UK inter-ministerial, inter-governmental arrangements? Because this tin ear approach from the UK Government surely, again, doesn't bode well, not simply in terms of the shared prosperity fund, but general aspects to do with future trade discussions on a wide range of things. Surely, they actually have to listen to what Scotland and Northern Ireland and what Wales are saying. We have vested interests. There are some, I appreciate, who will say this is the equivalent, in a sense, of what I've heard some ardent Brexiteers argue about the Welsh lamb sector, which is, 'There's no answer to it. If we go into a 'no deal' situation, Welsh lamb will be trashed, quite simply. But, hey, you know, it's a price worth paying.' We seem to be in a similar situation here, with the UK Government saying, 'Well, we understand your concerns, but we're not going to listen to you.' So, we need to get beyond that. What does this mean for those inter-governmental relations?

So, those two questions: will you continue to actually push the arguments on this and, secondly, what's the read-through of this for future inter-governmental relations?

I thank the Member for those questions. I can give him a categorical response to his first question: that I will continue to and the Welsh Government will continue to press this case with UK Government. He's right to say that, in the publication of the White Paper, they have not listened to the position we were advocating—indeed, in relation to salary levels, but also in relation to that 12-month temporary workers scheme and the very idea of having an EEA and non-EEA integrated scheme, which obviously goes to the heart of—. We have always advocated a differentiated scheme, which enables a closer alignment with our partners in the European Union.

On the point that he makes—and I should have acknowledged this in Delyth Jewell's question as well—about this question of a kind of spatial dimension, if you like, a Wales-specific dimension, we would prefer to see a scheme that reflects the needs of the UK economy at large, recognising how integrated in particular the Wales economy is in parts of the English economy specifically. But I should be absolutely clear; if we do not end up with a scheme like that, we will be pressing for a spatial dimension in recognition of arrangements that work for Wales. But the truth of the matter is, for example on the question of the salary level, actually, £30,000 doesn't work for really any part of the UK apart from the the south-east of England. So, actually, we have much more in common with other parts of the UK apart from the south-east of England.

On that second question that he raised, about the inter-governmental relations and what this tells us about that, I think it does tell us something quite important about that, which is to say the world in which we can simply regard things as reserved or devolved is being left behind by Brexit. What is increasingly clear is that in a number of these areas we have common interests regardless of whether the constitutional settlement tells us that a matter is reserved or devolved. So, migration cuts right through that, doesn't it, as we've been discussing today. The delivery of the health service, the delivery of social care, the delivery of higher education depends, to a significant extent, on the migration policy. So, it's not possible, in a sense, to divorce those two questions, and I think that goes to the heart of how we need to take forward the discussions we're having in relation to the inter-governmental review, for example, one that recognises that whereas we might not expect, within the constitutional realities that we face, that we have a veto over those issues, that we should always be seeking, as four parts of the United Kingdom—we should always be seeking, at least, a shared understanding of how these policies should operate in all four parts of the UK. That has not been the case to date in relation to migration, but we will continue to press the case clearly and hard on behalf of Wales.

Counsel General, is it not true that the whole of your statement confirms to this establishment and to the people of Wales that the Welsh Government is committed to an open-door policy on immigration? It matters not how you dress it up with references such as lowering the salary base of the UK Government White Paper proposals or simply not curtailing the rights of EU workers. The full thrust of this document is that this Government, this Welsh Government, wants mass immigration to carry on. And let's define this business of immigration. We have never, none of us in either of the two parties I've ever represented, talked about no immigration. We've only ever talked about mass immigration: the sort of mass immigration that allows exploitation of immigrants coming into the country, the sort of mass immigration that allows people to come into this country who have no opportunity or possibility of having a job, the sort of mass immigration that allows people who have only criminal desires to come into this country. That is what we're talking about—mass immigration, not immigration per se. We've always argued that we should have the people that we need to come into this country to be allowed to come into this country.

By your own statement, Counsel General, you say that a salary base of £30,000 will affect Wales more than the rest of the UK. Isn't this a stark admission that the oversupply of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, which has occurred in Wales since the extension of the EU countries that have unrestricted access to our labour market, has contributed to keeping the salaries of the indigenous Welsh workforce at an unacceptably low level? Indeed, your statement reeks of low salaries, and you also totally ignore the fact that we still have 68,000 unemployed people in Wales, most in low-skilled areas.

Again in this document you argue against an immigration system that will end free movement and preferential treatment of UK citizens. Counsel General, is that not yet again a stark admission that your Government is against any restrictions on economic migrants, whether the economy needs them or not? You talk about allowing migrants in if they have a job, or will get a job in the near future. Can you please explain to us how on earth this would be monitored? And how would you go about deporting those who did not find work? Quite a harrowing situation.

You cannot deny, Counsel General—. I'm sorry. At the beginning of this statement you talked about upholding the rights of domiciled EU citizens. The UK Government has given an unequivocal guarantee that their rights would be protected, but is it not true that it is the European Union that is refusing to give those same rights to UK citizens living in the EU, and only that is in dispute? Yet again, the Counsel General brings up that oft-quoted mantra that we need foreign doctors and nurses and care workers to run our health service. Well, the truth is most of these come from third-world countries, not the EU, and what an indictment that is. It is because of the decision by the Blair Government to cut 50 per cent of doctor and nurse training places that we still need to plunder these third-world economies for their much-needed clinicians.

You cannot deny, Counsel General, that the whole of this document is testimony to a Government in denial. In denial over the overwhelming evidence that the Welsh people want an end to mass immigration, in denial at the referendum result, in denial at the latest European election result—in fact, in denial about just about everything the Welsh electorate has voted for over the last five years.

Lastly, Counsel General, you say there is broad support for your proposals. Could you please clarify where that broad support comes from? It may be the case in this place but it certainly is not true for the people of Wales outside this institution. But of course it appears their opinion either doesn't matter, or is simply to be read as being based on ignorance.

Counsel General, you'll notice that we are over time as well, so perhaps you'll just take the one question.

I'll keep this brief, Dirprwy Lywydd. I suggest to the Member that, rather than spend his time preparing his dog-whistle rhetoric masquerading as a question, he might spend a little more time listening to the statement and the contributions in the Chamber before, which utterly refute the pejorative and discriminatory rhetoric that he's indulged in for the last five minutes.

Thank you very much.

Item 5 on the agenda is a statement by the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip—an upadte on advancing equality and human rights in Wales. I call on the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

I welcome today’s opportunity to update Members on the work that the Welsh Government is undertaking to advance and strengthen equality and human rights in Wales. In the First Minister’s office I have the responsibility and scope to make a step change in our goals to create a fairer, more equal Wales. 

We continue to live in difficult and uncertain times, where austerity is falling disproportionately on those least able to bear it. This is having a direct impact on their human rights. Too often it is those whose needs are greatest whose rights are denied first: the poor, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, single parents and disabled people. We also continue to live under the uncertainty of Brexit. We must prepare carefully to ensure that the rights and benefits the people of Wales have received through membership of the EU are not lost.

In this very challenging context, we are seeking to introduce a new, distinctly Welsh approach to promoting and safeguarding equality, social justice and human rights in Wales. The Welsh Government has a clear commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. This is embedded in our founding legislation. The actions of the Welsh Government must be compatible with international obligations, as set out in section 82 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. These obligations include the seven UN conventions signed and ratified by the UK state party. Section 81 of Government of Wales Act also requires the Welsh Government to act compatibly with the European convention on human rights, as reflected in our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. We're fully engaged in the UN reporting process. We welcome and value scrutiny, feedback and guidance from the UN committees.  

To demonstrate and reaffirm our commitment to these principles, we're taking forward work to explore options to safeguard equality and human rights in Wales. This will begin with commencing the socioeconomic duty in Wales, as well as working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review and strengthen the Welsh regulations for the public sector equality duty.

We're also commissioning research to explore wider options, including how we might incorporate UN conventions, including the convention on the rights of disabled people, into Welsh law. We will take an inclusive approach with regard to different aspects of equality and human rights, drawing on all available evidence, including the data from the annual population survey on ethnicity, disability status, marital status and religion that's been released this morning on the StatsWales website. And I expect this work to be complete by the end of 2020.

Commencing the socioeconomic duty—Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010—will be at the heart of the new work we're doing in this area. We know only too well that shocking levels of poverty exist across Wales and the rest of the UK, due to UK Government austerity and welfare reform measures, as the UN rapporteur Professor Philip Alston has laid out so clearly. The commencement of the socioeconomic duty, together with fair and living wages and improvements in procurement, were seen as the first phase of work on strengthening and advancing equality and human rights, being levers to tackle poverty. Also needed swiftly is practical support for people to apply current legislation and guidance, to enable them to hold agencies to account and seek redress if rights have been breached. The First Minister has also made clear his commitment to introduce legislation to embed a model of social partnership in Wales, and consolidate our social partnership work and functions within a new statutory framework.

I'm expecting rapid progress over the next few months with a view to the socioeconomic duty being commenced later this year. We will require Welsh public bodies to make decisions in a way that tackles unequal outcomes caused by socioeconomic disadvantage. This will provide a lodestar around which other options for strengthening equality and human rights in Wales can be considered. Stakeholders have already told us that it's important that we make best possible use of existing legislation and regulations. The public sector equality duty is a vital tool, and we're considering how the 2011 Welsh regulations could be strengthened. We've recently written to Welsh public bodies asking them to partner with us in this project. Initial responses were due back on 31 May, to be followed by data from their annual reports for 2017-18, which we've asked for by the end of June.

We're working closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review the public sector equality duty regulations themselves. This will include looking at gender, disability and race pay gaps, as well as other aspects of the regulations. We're co-hosting a symposium on 11 July where this will be looked at in detail. I see this as an important strand of our overall approach to strengthening equality and human rights.

The commission has just published a series of briefings arising from the work they commissioned last year to monitor compliance with PSED in Wales. They're contacting all public bodies to meet and discuss how the commission can advise and support the sector to ensure obligations are met and inequality is tackled effectively. And I strongly recommend the take-up of this offer.

Our new framework, titled 'Action on disability: the right to independent living', was published for consultation last October and closed with 67 responses. The framework has been developed since 2017 through engagement with disabled people, under the guidance of the independent living steering group, made up of disability stakeholders and chaired by the chief executive of Disability Wales.

The new framework is rooted in the social model of disability, recognising there are organisational, attitudinal and environmental barriers to equality and inclusion, which must be removed to create a level playing field. There has been a series of stakeholder events held throughout Wales, looking at the social model of disability, which will help to inform the development of new policies and programmes.

Our approach remains cross-cutting with regard to all protected characteristics and UN conventions. In particular, we have committed to embed older people's rights across public service delivery in Wales. To achieve this, we must identify how to use rights as a practical tool to combat ageism and inequalities, and to improve the daily lives of all older people. As part of our human rights agenda, I will also be reporting on progress with Travelling Ahead, our action plan for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in Wales.

In Wales, the ongoing gender equality review has a major focus on pay gap, but we are already working to remove some of the barriers. Actions include providing childcare support, creating training opportunities, tackling discrimination and supporting women into non-traditional careers. The review recognises that intersectional factors, including disability, race and poverty, have a great impact on life outcomes. Conversely, a strong focus on gender equality has the potential to drive forward equality and fairness for everyone in Wales, including the most disadvantaged groups in our society.

I will also be reporting shortly on progress made as a result of the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. I welcome the outcome of the Sally Challen case, in recognition of the devastating impact of coercive control. Earlier this year, Welsh Government launched a powerful campaign on the subject, called 'This is Not Love. This is Control'.

The Welsh Government is taking specific and targeted action to increase the diversity of public appointments in Wales. A diversity strategy is being developed in partnership with under-represented groups. On the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I announced £40,000 of new Welsh Government funding so that BAME community groups can mark Windrush Day, celebrating the contributions of the Windrush generation and all migrants to Welsh society, economy and history.

On 19 June 2019, Welsh Government, in partnership with Cymru'n Cofio and Race Council Cymru, will also be holding a commemorative event to mark the centenary of the 1919 race riots. Next week, I will also be reporting on progress on our 'Nation of Sanctuary—Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan' for refugees and asylum seekers during Refugee Week. I also regard our recently published blueprints on female offending and youth justice as part of my mission to advance and safeguard equality and human rights in Wales.

I have made clear my intention to place a very high priority on advancing and safeguarding equality and human rights in Wales. As you can see, this is driving a wide range of work in relation to many aspects of equality. Dirprwy Lywydd, the action we are taking, and will take in future, sends out a strong message about the importance to Wales of equality and human rights. But, outcomes matter more than symbols. It's vital that rights are implemented in a way that gives them practical effect, so that they have a real, positive impact on the lives of the people of Wales.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. As I mentioned when you briefed me earlier, I've been out this afternoon to NWAMI's second international panel meeting, held at Cardiff University student union building. NWAMI being originally the North Wales Association for Multicultural Integration, now the Network for World Awareness of Multicultural Integration. Statements from both yourself and the First Minister were read out there by a senior official, whose name I will not embarrass him by mentioning, unless you wish to, but he read it out very well. 

In my speech, I referred to the launch last year by the UK Government of an initiative to build a more integrated and cohesive society, the 'Integrated Communities Strategy', described by Professor Cantle, who had previously worked with the last UK Labour Government, as

'a very real shift in approach in which the Government will support practical action to promote cohesion and integration.'

The 'Integrated Communities Action Plan' of 2019 takes the UK Government's 2018 strategy forward by providing practical details of the schemes it is developing and supporting. What engagement has the Welsh Government had with that, either by invitation or a proactive intervention, if any?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's 'Is Wales Fairer?' report for 2018 made a series of recommendations, including the strengthening of human rights infrastructure in Wales, calling on the Welsh Government to incorporate UN treaties into Welsh law and to ensure that equality and human rights protections are safeguarded and enhanced during the Brexit process and beyond. And of course, in your statement, you made reference to the Brexit process. 

The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Northern Ireland and the European Union, which hasn't gone through Westminster, stated that the UK 

'shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union'.

So, again, as we go forward—and I appreciate we're in a situation of uncertainty and I don't want to party-politicise this—but as we go forward, how will you be further engaging with the UK Government in that context?

You referred to the need to and how Welsh Government might incorporate UN conventions, including the convention on the rights of disabled people, into Welsh law. When we debated this here last September, I said that there is no merit in incorporating the convention into Welsh law in order to strengthen and promote the rights—. Sorry, there is merit. Sorry. 

'There is merit in incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Welsh law in order to strengthen and promote the rights of disabled people, as the Welsh Government did with children's rights by incorporating the convention on the rights of the child into Welsh law in 2011.'

So what consideration might you give to adopting a similar model, when you say you're commissioning research to explore wider options, or do you now have a better way, you think, possibly, of looking at this?

You referred, rightly, to the socioeconomic duty. We know, again, this was debated here not so long ago. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that the Wales Act 2017 has given the Welsh Government the opportunity to enact a socioeconomic duty, enabling public bodies to work together to tackle the biggest driver of inequality in Wales: poverty. In last July's response, the First Minister stated he would work with the UK Government and EHRC on these issues, so what work has followed with the UK Government and the EHRC in the intervening 11 months?

You referred to the UN rapporteur, Professor Philip Alston. As you know, he said that Wales faced the highest relative poverty rate in the UK and that the Welsh Government's new 'Prosperity for All' strategy

'has no strategic focus or ministerial responsibility for poverty reduction, and lacks clear performance targets and progress indicators.'

How is the Welsh Government going to respond to the section in that report that was specifically targeted at the Welsh Government and asking the Welsh Government to take specific actions?

You rightly referred to the public sector equality duty, to the action on disability right to independent living framework and social model of disability. I've previously described this in the context of co-production, about seeing everyone as equal partners in local services, breaking down the barriers between people who provide services and those who use them, going beyond models of service-user consultation to the better delivery of health and social services and other services to an ageing population, people facing illness and disability, the economically inactive and those living in social isolation. But I have yet to encounter a senior officer in any local authority or health board that admits the existence of these matters or the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 or the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 until I mention it to them and remind them of their duties and responsibilities. So, in addition to looking further at this, how will the Welsh Government monitor implementation and intervene? Not necessarily to criticise with a big stick, but to ensure better understanding on implementation, so it's understood on the top floors of these public organisations that this isn't a threat, this is an opportunity for them to do things better, to improve lives, and if they get it right, to help them manage their budgets better, too. 

Are you winding up, please?

Okay. I'll conclude with a question from Welsh Women's Aid. They've asked: could the Deputy Minister provide an update on the cost of the nationally funded review into domestic and sexual violence provision and when the nationally funded review will engage with providers in Wales, and comment on whether the funds allocated to such reviews could be better spent on securing and expanding local services to meet the increasing demand for support in Wales?

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood, and you did tell me this morning that you were attending an event at Cardiff University, and I'm sure that, indeed, the statement made by the First Minister and me would have been welcome because, of course, we also welcome the fact that the North Wales Association for Multicultural Integration network is an important partner in terms of taking forward this important agenda to strengthen equality and human rights.

I think you cover a great deal of ground in your questions. I think it is very important that we do look at the issue of human rights, particularly in relation to the opportunities that we have to build on the founding legislation of the Welsh Government. You will be aware, of course, that we are looking at a holistic approach to human rights in Wales, because we want to fully support the need to uphold and protect the human rights of all our citizens. Of course, this is something that the Equality and Human Rights Commission were very keen to engage in in terms of looking at ways in which we can possibly incorporate conventions, particularly, as you say, the UN convention on disabled people. We have had a seminar to look at the way forward and, indeed, research that's been undertaken.

We need to look, of course, at how we can build on existing legislation and specific duties, and I think that's something where we can work together in terms of our work with other agencies. Of course, the Welsh Government was the first Government to bring in specific equality duties as set out in the Equality Act 2010, and that does cover engagement, review and reporting arrangements as well as equality impact assessments. But it is important that we then review that and, as you say, not only monitor how public bodies are delivering on those duties, but consider whether we can take this forward in terms of strengthening it and looking at the way forward. 'Is Wales Fairer?', the EHRC report, does provide valuable evidence of the efforts of all our public bodies to reduce inequality in Wales.  

You do raise issues in terms of impact of Brexit, and I think it's important that, last week, the Counsel General and I went and met with the civic forum who are bringing together disabled people, and they raised with us concerns that they had about the impact of Brexit. And I think it's important to recognise in terms of the impact of Brexit, particularly on disabled people, that they were looking at the impacts on them. It actually relates to the previous statement. Many of them were concerned about the impact of the loss of people who work with them in terms of disabled people, and the fact that they will not be able to recruit those staff who work with them. But it will also impact on access to medical treatment, as I said, barriers to sourcing personal assistants and carers from the EU after Brexit, food shortages, blue badge portability, and a wider impact on funding in local communities in terms of community cohesion and hate crime.

In fact, Disability Rights UK have developed a Brexit manifesto that Disability Wales have contributed and signed up to. It is important that we consult our colleagues, those who are most vulnerable across all of the equality groups that we support, in terms of the impact of Brexit, but also that we support those who are victims of hate crime. We have used the EU transition funding to support our community cohesion co-ordinators, and I know that you will welcome the events that are happening next week, not just in terms of the nation of sanctuary—Refugee Week—but also the Windrush event that I believe you're also supporting in north Wales. 

I have to say that, in terms of the UN report and the rapporteur's work, it is true that this leading UN poverty expert has compared Conservative welfare policies to the creation of nineteenth-century workhouses, and he's warned that unless austerity is ended, the UK's poorest people face lives that are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. We can mitigate, we can decide on our priorities, but I think, also, if you look at the 'State of the Nation' report from the Social Mobility Commission, we have to recognise, again, their findings, where they are saying, again, that

'The middle class is being supported while the most disadvantaged are left behind.'

And that goes back to some comments earlier on about leadership contenders in your party. But they're saying also that this work that they undertake is more critical than ever, as

'Research shows that living standards are getting worse for the working class and for young people. If we do not address the soaring costs of housing, the wellbeing of our nation and the rising rates of child poverty, social mobility is predicted to get even worse in future years.'

So, we have got to address this evidence and also ensure that we are looking to ways we can strengthen equality and human rights in Wales, as well as safeguard and defend them.

There's nothing, really, in this statement that tells us anything fresh about the Government's approach, so, if I may, I'd like to address one particular aspect of the equality and human rights agenda that needs much more focus than it is currently getting, and that aspect is neurodiversity, and, in particular, the way public services still operate on the assumption that everybody is neurotypical. I believe that this question should be seen as an equalities question.

There's increasing recognition that not everyone's brain works in the same way. With new and increasing understanding emerging from neuroscience, it's likely that this understanding will further grow, and all of this, then, clearly has an impact upon human rights. Now, the arguments around legislation on autism have been rehearsed in this Chamber on numerous occasions. We in Plaid Cymru believe that legislation is needed to improve services and to protect the rights of people who are not neurotypical. The Government doesn't believe that we should have such legislation. This means that many people on the autism spectrum can wait for years for a diagnosis. It means that there is a near-total lack of adult autism support services available, with many people often referred to inappropriate services that regard their neurotype as a mental health condition or a behavioural problem, blocking them from receiving the support that they require.

I'd like to highlight two examples of where public bodies are not respecting the rights of non-neurotypical people. A 15-year-old girl on the spectrum in my constituency was referred to child and adolescent mental health services. After waiting, it was clear that she did not need a CAMHS intervention, but there was little else available. So, she has now stopped going to school, she rarely leaves her home, and her mother doesn't know where to turn. Where is the equality for this young woman? A second example is Bridgend's decision to reorganise school transport, which involved changing transport arrangements for pupils on the autism spectrum. The change was communicated poorly with no consideration that a sudden change of routine is especially stressful and potentially harmful to some children who are on the autism spectrum.

So, my questions are as follows: do you, Minister, think that neurodiversity needs to be considered as an equalities issue in its own right, with having a non-neurotypical brain becoming a protected characteristic? Do you accept that, currently, many public services are designed and delivered around the assumption that everyone is neurotypical and therefore fail to take into account the needs of people of a different neurotype? Do you think that the response of public services needs to move beyond treating autism as a medical condition and, instead, begin to see having a neurologically different brain not as a defect, but, rather, as a form of neurodiversity that requires social acceptance, and social inclusion as much as it does practical support? And will you therefore ensure that this shift in thinking can move across Government? And do you accept that this is a basic human right and to achieve what I have outlined here this afternoon will require legislation and that nothing will happen with a business-as-usual approach? And, finally, would you agree that non-neurotypical people are best placed to represent and advocate for their neurotype, and that all education and awareness-raising campaigns should ensure that the authentic autistic voice is front and centre of policy formation and service provision, through inclusion of members of the rapidly growing neurodiversity self-advocacy movement?

I'd like to thank Leanne Wood for raising a very important dimension. I think it's a dimension in terms of understanding and strengthening equality and human rights that we obviously now need to look at across Government, not just in terms of my portfolio. Interestingly, this did come up last week when Jeremy Miles and I went to the civic forum to talk to disabled people about the impact of Brexit. That was the focus, but many issues came forward in terms of the impact of policy on disabled people's lives. And, of course, I talked again about the social model of disability, which, actually—and some people were here then in 2002, when this National Assembly did adopt the social model of disability, and it's enshrined in the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. But we need to ensure that that's now imbued in all our policy making and that it enables, of course, Assembly Members, committees and disabled people to scrutinise us on the basis of delivering the social model of disability.

So, the issue that you're raising in terms of non-neurotypical people and neurodiversity has got to be clearly addressed. You've raised an important issue and I think also it's not just an issue that we may want explored in terms of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, but the Children, Young People and Education Committee as well, because it is something—there needs to be awareness raised of these issues. But, certainly, it is something that we need to look at.

I hope, also, that you would consider, Leanne Wood, that the scope that we have in Wales to strengthen equality and human rights is laid out in the statement today. It covers a lot of ground and we have a great deal to do to safeguard the rights, particularly of disabled people and those who are impacted by the non-neurotypical situations that they find themselves in as people, and what that means for their rights. And I hope that we can follow this discussion.

I very much welcome the statement today. As Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, these matters are central to our work, and, indeed, in our report on human rights in Wales, in the inquiry that we conducted, we made many recommendations that I think are relevant to this statement today. And, of course, in the joint debate with the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, and correspondence that surrounded that, we've engaged with Welsh Government to try and take this agenda forward.

One of our key concerns was the protections provided by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and trying to ensure that they remain in place, post Brexit, if Brexit occurs. And at the time, the former First Minister was in correspondence with the UK Government to try and take forward some sort of political agreement that would endorse that existing framework of equal treatment legislation. And I'd be interested, Dirprwy Lywydd, to hear whether the Minister is able to provide us with an update today in terms of those discussions—how they're progressing and the stage and any understanding that has been reached, and also whether we might have further information on the practicalities of commencing the socioeconomic duty of the Equality Act, because I think those practicalities are very significant in terms of effective implementation.

Also, in terms of my committee's inquiry into parenting and employment in Wales, we made a number of recommendations around the public sector equality duties, including calling for data on maternity retention rates to be collected, and for the Welsh Government to refine the employment data required by the public sector equality duties, with the aim of reducing the administrative burden on authorities. These recommendations were accepted by Welsh Government, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and Fair Work Commission have also recommended improving these duties. So, further information, Minister, on work Welsh Government is doing to update the duties and when you expect that work to be completed would be useful.

Just two other matters, very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd—it's very good to hear what you mentioned on the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Week coming up next week, Minister. Again, my committee did a report, and we're very keen on the nation of sanctuary work, as I know you're aware of. I very much look forward to next week, and I hope some meaningful and substantive proposals and work from Welsh Government to take forward that very important agenda.

Just finally on Windrush, again, I very much welcome what you said about that, Minister. I just wonder, in terms of Welsh Government's relationship with UK Government, whether you are representing some of the points that have been put forward by members of the Windrush community in Wales, and, hopefully, applying pressure on UK Government. One example, I think, is the cap on compensation, because I am aware of cases where very substantial loss has taken place as a result of the UK Government's actions, and people have lost their homes, for example, as a result of that. So, any cap on compensation that doesn't reflect the extent and the scale of loss is a very real and practical issue for members of our communities here, and I would hope that Welsh Government would put those points forward to UK Government.

Thank you very much, John Griffiths, and can I thank your committee for being such an important force—a force of scrutiny and also of inquiry and providing evidence in terms of the way we should be addressing these issues in terms of equality and human rights? I was a member of the external affairs committee where we worked together on that letter to the First Minister and had that response, and I will get an updated response on that from our First Minister, in terms of where we're taking this forward, particularly in relation to Brexit. We're concerned about the potential erosion of human rights within the UK if Brexit takes place. We've been clear—Welsh Government—that UK withdrawal from the EU should in no way lead to a dilution in human rights protections—of course, that has been made very clear on so many occasions—but, indeed, in any other social, environmental or employment protections, which are also crucial in terms of strengthening and safeguarding equality. So, that's why we're looking at ways in which we could help strengthen the rights of the people of Wales post Brexit to assess the benefits of possible actions. I've talked about not only the possibility of incorporating UN conventions into Welsh law, but also strengthening existing regulation. The enactment of the socioeconomic duty is important, but also we need to look at legislative provision relating to relevant international treaties.

We've provided £150,000 to fund research into how the Brexit process could impact on community services in Wales and help the third sector plan for all eventualities. And they have—. I've mentioned the Disability Wales group and forum that we met, but they have a civic forum looking at equality and impacts on equality, and I know that you have met with them.

It's important that we look to—in terms of delivering on public sector duties, we look also to our strategic equality plan, which is now being—. There's a consultation and we'll be moving forward in terms of engagement on a refreshed plan. It's ensuring that we deliver the outcomes that really matter: eliminating discrimination, fostering good relations. That's going to drive forward Welsh Government actions for tackling inequality, very much responding to issues that have been raised in your committee in terms of those concerns, and the evidence that we have and the concerns that we have in terms of the most vulnerable in our communities.

I think it's important that we do recognise next week, Refugee Week, as a time to also take stock of the plan for refugees and asylum seekers in Wales, 'Nation of Sanctuary', and we have refugees coming next week. I will be making a written statement on actions to deliver on the 'Nation of Sanctuary' and, indeed, in terms of the Windrush community, we have events being funded all over Wales, but I have also raised my concerns about the unfair treatment of the Windrush community, and met with elders, particularly in terms of the cap on compensation. I am awaiting a response from the UK Government on this important issue. But I think the way in which the committee acts as an important source of evidence, engaging with people who are vulnerable, and also holding the Government to account in terms of strengthening and safeguarding equality and human rights, is key to the work that I'm undertaking.

Thank you for your statement, Deputy Minister. I'm sure all of us share the Government's wish to create a fairer and more equal Wales. It's been 70 years since the United Nations' universal declaration of human rights was adopted, and we have come a long way in the past seven decades. Deputy Minister, I welcome the fact that your Government is looking at incorporating some UN conventions into Welsh law. I note you expect the work to be completed by the end of next year. Can you indicate at this stage whether you expect to place duties outlined in all the UN conventions on Welsh Ministers, and whether you will look at extending those duties across the public sector?

I welcome the move to a social model of disability. Deputy Minister, can you explain how changes to the independent living fund fit with the Government's framework on disability? I am pleased that you have decided to embed older people's rights across public service delivery in Wales. Do you believe this move will help ensure that older people's rights under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 are implemented and also improved upon, and will this move ensure that older people receive the carers' rights assessments to which they are entitled?

Staying on with people with a disability, and even those without a disability, with the closure of our public services, public conveniences, some of our elderly feel that they are confined to their homes, so this leads to social inactivity. Libraries are closing, and, again, these were the body of the whole community in bringing people together. So, I wonder how we can bring services such as these back, although they are local government services and decisions, often. But I am concerned about people being confined to their homes, even those with young children and families, because of the lack of public services available to them. So, I wonder how those with a disability are also going to be looked at with this lack of public services, please, and how we can cope with this.

Within my region, child poverty is high in many constituencies across my region, often reaching 26 per cent, and with child poverty and family poverty comes inequality, lack of opportunities, and I wonder how we can all work together to improve this for children, and even families, to reach their full potential. As Leanne Wood has referred to, many children—. I've had people come to me about being referred to the CAMHS register, but there is such a lengthy wait for diagnosis of autism or ADHD, and families are concerned that they're very often unable to cope 24 hours a day with a child who has been undiagnosed. So, I wonder if we can improve upon these areas, please.

I thank the Deputy Minister once again for her statement, and I look forward to scrutinising her detailed proposals for improving equality within our nation. Thank you. 

I thank the Member for her questions. Of course, there have been calls over recent years for us to undertake our own legislative action to strengthen and advance equality and human rights, particularly in the context of the UK's exit from the EU. We have to ensure that we do take the right actions in terms of the strengthening of those rights, including issues that might arise in light of calls to incorporate UN conventions and treaties into Welsh law. But I think we also, as I said in response to other questions, need to look at how we can strengthen our regulation under the Welsh-specific duties, guidance and monitoring, taking forward—. That's as a result of consultations that we've had—there is a very strong feeling that we should look at existing law and regulation, see how this also accords with our well-being of future generations legislation, pioneering legislation, and also enact duties like the socioeconomic duty under Part 1 of the Equality Act, which of course will tackle socioeconomic disadvantage. It will be a duty on public bodies and we are now starting on the commencement Order and the statutory guidance that will, once we've had drafting—. We're also looking at how they've taken this forward in Scotland in terms of that Scotland has already enacted the socioeconomic duty, so we are learning from them. It's often useful to learn from others. They've learned from us in other respects in terms of policy, but this is also very linked to the gender equality review, so we're consulting on the legislative models that could emerge from this research and also to look at the opportunities that this will—how this will take us forward.

In terms of independent living, the way forward, which is being taken forward in terms of independent living by my colleague Julie Morgan, Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, is entirely in accord with the social model of disability. This is a way forward that is also very much based on the experience and views and evidence from people, from disabled people themselves, and, in terms of our action framework for disability, this is about how we can ensure that disabled people are informing us in terms of policy. Of course, it does mean then we have to ensure we, as a Government, adopt this as a priority and deliver it in partnership with those who are most affected.

There are many issues here, and I've already given my views and the evidence of others, such as the UN rapporteur and indeed the Social Mobility Commission and End Child Poverty alliance today. We heard the evidence in terms of child poverty and the impact of UK Government policies that have led to the deepening of that child poverty here in Wales. Clearly, that is a very political issue, but it's not just our evidence, and evidence from those who advise us and enable us to respond to that policy, but it is the evidence of the UN rapporteur, and to those who can understand what it means in terms of those levels of poverty that are shocking and getting worse. And the First Minister outlined that very clearly in his answers to questions this afternoon.

Finally, Suzy Davies.

Thank you very much—diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

That was a very full statement, and I appreciate your answers today. But, in response to what you were saying to John Griffiths, it's my understanding that the Welsh Government's responsibility for human rights and equality cuts across all Government departments. This isn't just a matter for the Assembly, and one of the things that perhaps I want to ask you about today is economic activity. Now, this is an area where I actually would expect participation to help create a more equal and fair society, but it's not doing that. I'm just referring to the Chwarae Teg 'State of the Nation 2019' report, which shows—and this is not new, Minister—that our constituents still do not have equal opportunities to contribute to and benefit from the Welsh economy, depending on particular personal characteristics or combinations of those, every bit as much as an accident of geography or education. Now, personally, I'd say these are elements of a wider anti-poverty strategy, but, if we're not going to be having one of those, perhaps you can tell us what you expect the economy department, in particular, to do to mainstream some targeted interventions that develop pro-equality, as opposed to anti-discrimination, work to make sure that those words 'equal opportunities' actually genuinely become equally accessible opportunities. And just to give you an example, the state of the nation report shows that the majority of men who are economically inactive are so because of ill health, whereas—and this is worth remembering in carers week—for women, the reason is household and caring responsibilities. And for the economy department in particular to be looking at those two different reasons for economic activity—I would like some reassurance that one of those reasons will not receive more attention than the other. Thank you.

I think, Suzy Davies, you raise a key point. In terms of delivering on strengthening equality and human rights, it has to be a cross-Government responsibility. I think it's very relevant if we look at the Fair Work Commission's report, in terms of understanding how we can address this. I mentioned in my statement that, actually, in terms of commencing the socioeconomic duty—which I believe will have a profound impact on socioeconomic disadvantages affecting all the protected characteristics and disadvantaged communities—it's a fair and living wage, improvements in procurement that are crucial, and that's going to be the first phase of our work in terms of strengthening and advancing equality and human rights.

This is about tackling poverty, but also it's building on the work, which also is the finance Minister's responsibility as well as the economy and infrastructure Minister in terms of the ethical code on procurement and supply chains, and our economic contract promotes fair work and inclusive growth. It is crucial, in terms of economic development, that we look at the quality of jobs, that we look at issues in terms of low pay, low skill and insecure jobs. And I have also mentioned, of course, the pay gap—not just in terms of the gender pay gap, but disability and race pay gaps, and the intersectionality that obviously has an impact, in terms of addressing equality and human rights. And this, of course, is something where we have to work with the UK Government, in terms of the powers that we have and the powers that take us forward in terms of employment legislation and, indeed, protecting, of course, progressive EU employment law in the way that I've described.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the shared prosperity fund, and I call on the Minister for Finance and the Trefnydd to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This debate takes place during a time of absolute chaos brought about by the UK Government's handling of Brexit. Parliament is gridlocked, and the election of a new Conservative leader means the prospect of a catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit is very real. We're likely to face a straight choice between a 'no deal' Brexit or remaining in the EU. Faced with this prospect, we will campaign to remain in the EU and believe that Parliament must legislate as soon as possible for a referendum to decide on this issue.

The chaos being inflicted by the UK Government also extends to the lack of clarity on how the vital £370 million a year of EU structural and investment funds in Wales will be replaced. Over the last two decades, EU funding has helped to bring new and better jobs to Wales, and given people the skills to do them. Twenty years ago, Wales had some of the highest levels of worklessness in the UK. Over the last 12 months, unemployment and economic inactivity have been at record lows and better than most parts of the UK. EU funds have supported the creation of 48,000 new jobs and 13,000 new businesses. They've assisted 25,000 businesses with funding or support, and helped 86,000 people into employment. Over 300,000 new qualifications have been delivered. 

EU funds have improved broadband coverage, built research capacity, invested in renewable energy, and developed vital infrastructure for transport, tourism and business. These and a wide range of other benefits are at risk without continued long-term and needs-based investment. 

Despite the significant improvements across Wales since devolution, inequalities within the UK persist and are the highest in the EU by a large margin. These problems will not go away with Brexit. The vast and overwhelming majority of credible economic analysis suggests it's the most economically vulnerable areas that will be hardest hit by Brexit. So, we need to ensure ongoing investment to avoid undoing the progress that we've made. 

What is the UK Government's message to the people, businesses and communities across Wales whose future this funding is supporting every day? The UK Government proposed a UK-wide shared prosperity fund to replace EU funding over two years ago and promised repeatedly to consult on it during the course of 2018. They have not done so. Meanwhile, they have repeatedly refused to engage meaningfully with us on replacing this funding in Wales. 

Since the referendum, our calls have been consistent and clear. We have called for not a penny less than we would have expected within the EU, simply asking for the promises made to the people of Wales during the 2016 referendum to be honoured. We have also called for the Welsh Government to retain autonomy in the development and delivery of successor arrangements, simply asking for devolution, voted for twice by the people of Wales, to be respected. The UK Government has committed a number of times to respecting devolution in developing the shared prosperity fund, but their actions have resolutely not done so.

So, let us be clear—the prevarication and lack of clarity from the UK Government is putting the future livelihoods of people, communities and businesses across Wales at risk. Ignoring long-standing conventions on inter-governmental working and undermining devolution settlements puts our whole union at risk. In stark contrast, the Welsh Government's approach to the development of a future regional investment approach has been immediate, clear and outward looking. We've engaged widely with Assembly committees and all-party parliamentary groups. Stakeholders including the FSB, WLGA, Universities Wales, HEFCW, and WCVA, and think tanks including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research, all support the Welsh Government's position. 

My colleagues and I continue to raise the issue of replacement funding, reinforcing our positions and pressing for clarity from the UK Government, and this has included in meetings of the joint ministerial committee, my finance Ministers' quadrilateral meetings, and through correspondence. The First Minister has raised these issues with the Prime Minister, and, of course, we will continue to press hard our position with the new Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

We've been told decisions on replacement funding will be made during the comprehensive spending review. With this now likely to be delayed, we need urgent clarity on a long-term, needs-based funding settlement. Within the EU, we would already have had this certainty, and we would be planning new programmes with the confidence of replacement funding and the autonomy to deliver it. What we cannot and will not do is stand still until these issues are resolved. It's not what our communities, our people and our businesses would expect of us, and Wales's future is too important. 

Over the last 18 months, we have had detailed contributions to the debate on successor arrangements in Wales from stakeholders and Assembly committees. These build on the direction of travel in our Brexit policy paper, 'Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit'. We've established a regional investment for Wales steering group to provide us with advice on successor arrangements, drawing on expertise from business, local government, academia and the third sector. Detailed work will continue with partners in Wales and beyond over the summer, whilst the UK Government looks inwards yet again.

I thank the chair, Huw Irranca-Davies, and members of the steering group for their commitment to date. In response to views from stakeholders, my predecessor set out the principles to underpin our preferred approach in October of last year. We'll ensure that replacement funding is invested in regional development and in reducing inequality. We'll do this on a multi-annual basis within our own budget framework. We want a stronger focus on outcomes, aligned with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and our economic action plan. As part of this, we'll strengthen the role for Welsh regions in decision making. We're also looking outwards. Our work with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development will ensure that international best practice on regional development and governance are built into our future plans.

So, in conclusion, we urgently need certainty around this funding. I hope a new Prime Minister will reconsider the UK Government's approach and respect devolution in actions as well as words. Our voice in those debates is louder when it is at one, and I therefore urge Members to support this motion.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move the amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Nick Ramsay. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank the Minister for opening this debate? I'm pleased to contribute to it, and to agree, in fact, with many—though not all, as you would not be surprised to hear me say—of the points that have been made, but, nonetheless, many of the points you did make were something that, I think, we could all agree with, Minister, in terms of developing a system that is fair, that guarantees future funding to Wales, that mitigates some of the uncertainties of the Brexit process, of which we're all aware, and ultimately delivers effective funding for Wales that can be relied upon both by the Welsh Government and by the people of Wales and by businesses.

The motion recognises that Wales receives around £370 million every year in structural and investment funds as a result of the UK's membership of the EU and also calls on us to remember the promises made during the EU referendum that Wales would not lose a penny as a result of Wales leaving the EU. That is something we would all want to achieve. However you phrase it and whatever language you use, it's emotive saying about not losing a penny, but the point is well made that we were promised that Wales would financially not be worse off in terms of replacement European funding after the Brexit process is completed, and that's something that we on this side believe should happen. Wales should continue to receive the financial support that we need.

On the matter of the shared prosperity fund, which is explicitly mentioned within the motion, yes, of course we would all like to see more detail on that fund and at the earliest opportunity. That is, clearly, imperative. I do think, however, that to simply write the fund off in whatever form it may be at the moment, as this motion seems to try to do, is, I would say, unwise and unrealistic. It is at least an attempt to try and replace European funding with a mechanism that is fair and that not just supports—there's an attempt to do that—Wales and Scotland and the nations of the UK, but also the regions of the UK. I believe that was the original principle behind it. And as the Minister herself said, currently there are unanswered questions, which we would accept and I think that the UK Government would accept, which have yet to be ironed out, and only when those are ironed out and we can see the final form of that UK prosperity fund that we can say, 'Okay, it isn't going to deliver in the way that we want', or we'll be able to say that it does go a significant way along that course to delivering the sort of support that Wales needs.

In principle, it's a good idea, but it does have to be seen as compatible with devolution, and that was a point that the Minister made. I think, throughout all of this debate and discussion, we've had this ongoing argument about whether—. On the one hand, you've got a UK prosperity fund. How is that compatible with devolution? Is there some sort of rowing back of devolution? That was never the understanding at the start of this process, about how this would proceed, and that should certainly not be the case. The replacement of EU funds should not lead to a rowing back of devolution and of the powers of this Assembly. That was not what we anticipated and that was not what the people of Wales voted for.

Thank you for taking the intervention. In that case, why is it that you're proposing to reject paragraph 3 of the motion, which basically says to reject,

'the idea of a centralised UK-directed fund or one which seeks to bypass the devolved administration',

because, effectively, you just said that you actually totally agree with that? So, why are you rejecting it?

[Inaudible.]—lawyer sometimes. Well, first of all, I don't like the tone of the motion. I think that if we all discussed—. I know you had a cosy discussion with Plaid Cymru about how the motion would be phrased and you're very happy with that, but I think that there was a wider agreement that could have been sought on that motion, actually, and I think we could have had a better tone. I've already said to the Minister that I think that whilst there are details of the shared prosperity fund that are still up in the air, some of them understandably so, then it is unfair to simply dismiss the whole fund at this point in time. I accept further down the line you may want to say it's not to be accepted and you can get rid of it, but at this point in time I don't think that point 3 should be there. In fact, we do accept point 4, which follows on from point 3—probably an obvious thing to point out to you—but point 4 does say that there is a need for equity. It does say—. I can see that Mick Antoniw is now reading that point 4. And you'll see that the points made in point 4 I think make the points of point 3 in a far more effective way and with a better tone, and that's why we voted to remove point 3. [Interruption.] Can I just make a little bit of progress? Then I'll let you in.

We're all agreed on the need for a fair settlement for the nations and regions of the entirety of the UK, addressing inequalities and underinvestment across the country. We also agree that the new arrangements need to respect devolution and ensure that Wales retains the autonomy to devolve and deliver successful arrangements for successor funds—the point that's made in point 4. I give way. 

Thank you for giving way, Nick. If I'm listening accurately to what you're saying, you are actually supporting at least the principle behind points No. 2 and No. 3, but you don't like the tone. The principle of No. is 2 about the lack of detail you've just spoken about more eloquently than I can; you also regret the lack of detail. And you do reject the idea of a centralised or UK-directed fund; you want it to be directed from here in Wales. So, can I just at least get clarity on the record that whilst you may not like the tone of something in here, you do accept the principle of the Government's motion?   

First of all, yes, there is a tone issue. With regard to point 2, it says, 

'Regrets the lack of detail from the UK Government'.

I've already said we want to see more detail, and that will be forthcoming. Okay. Leaving that aside, point 3

'Rejects the idea of a centralised or UK-directed fund or one which seeks to bypass the devolved administrations post-Brexit.'

We do not accept that there is an attempt to bypass. It's the language—you might say tone—that is unacceptable to us, because it is weighting the debate in a certain direction that we feel is not acceptable. And it would have been far better had we all agreed on the language of this motion, so that then we could have all accepted it. But point 4 is retained. [Interruption.] If I've got time, I will give way. I think they are making an important point, but it's a matter for the Llywydd. 

Indeed, and I welcome you giving way because it helps the debate. 

All I can say is the more interventions happen, the less likely some people are to be called later on in the debate.

And if I suffer, I'll accept it, Llywydd. 

It's simply to say you don't accept the idea that the UK Government in No. 3 is trying to avoid that. But the idea of a centralised or UK-directed fund, rejecting that—do you accept rejecting that? 

Just to be totally clear about this, I believe that point 3, and we believe that point 3, suggests that the UK Government is deliberately trying to bypass to claw back powers, which it is not. That that might actually—[Interruption.] That that result might actually be an unseen consequence longer down the line is something we can discuss, which is why I think point 4 is far more effective at making the point, but I don't think point 3 does. I realise I'm virtually out of time, so if I can just finish off. 

I totally agree—the 'leave' campaign are very vocal over there—with the 'leave' campaign's comments from before the referendum that Wales should not be a penny worse off after all this is done and dusted. Let's hope that that does actually turn out to be the case and it wasn't just words. I appreciate that there are some understandable reasons why we have this current confusion, but I think if we all work together here then we can deliver a message to the UK Government that I think we all find acceptable, and that will say that Wales does want to have autonomy, control and financial accountability here, and does not want to see that lost to the UK. 

A week or so before the referendum in 2016, a group of ‘leave’ campaigners signed a letter saying not that Wales should get the same amount of money after Brexit, but that money Wales currently gets from Brussels would be maintained by the UK Government after we left the EU. I'll be kind and rather than say they were lying—though others can come to their own conclusions—I'll say they were just making it up. You might recognise some of the signatories of that letter—Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab were among them. Three years on, we still don't have a promise of funding for Wales post Brexit. Just like the evidence has been stacking up that Brexit would cause deep damage to Wales's economy, the UK Government has provide ample evidence that it just couldn't care less about what it means to Wales to be the recipient of EU funding according to need—something, of course, the outdated Barnett formula just doesn't do.

The Conservative manifesto in 2017 stated that they will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom shared prosperity fund, specially designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations. There would be a consultation and it would be completed before the end of 2018. A chance for us sceptics, perhaps, to challenge the UK Government, to push them on their promises. But we still have had no consultation. There are no promises anymore. No plan, no detail, no proposal. Earlier this year, I and my Plaid Cymru colleague Ben Lake MP published this report, 'Not a Penny Less'—our response to the shared prosperity fund consultation. It was a rather unusual thing to do, because we were responding to a consultation paper that hadn't even been published. But we had to.

The announcement of the shared prosperity fund had been welcomed back in 2017 by the then leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Andrew R.T. Davies, who can't be here this afternoon I'm told. It was hugely welcome he said, and further evidence that Wales would be better off out of the European Union. It's a strange kind of 'better off'. One of those romantic Brexity better offs, I guess, rather than better off as in we'd actually be better off—better funded, better placed economically. Because the evidence now is clear—[Interruption.] No, he said he couldn't be here this afternoon, so I'm pointing out that he's not here this afternoon. [Interruption.] I was talking about Andrew R.T. Davies, and explaining that he's not here this afternoon.

Talk about the shared prosperity fund.

The evidence now is clear. The risk is clear that Whitehall will just repeat its traditional formula of distribution of economic development funding. And look at what the figures published yesterday by the Communities in Charge organisation tell us about what that would mean. One of the campaign's organisers said it will be like handing every Londoner a cheque for over £200 and taking £700 from every Welsh person. Wales could lose over £2.3 billion over six years, with money flowing to the prosperous south-east of England. Now, rather than reduce inequalities, a business-as-usual UK Government would only increase the inequality between the regions of the UK and the nations of the UK. This is the Brexit reality, this is what faces Wales, and that's without taking into account the damage that would flow from the economic disaster of a 'no deal' Brexit.

Llywydd, the report that I've mentioned emphasises the value of European funds to Wales, in terms of skills, infrastructure and so on. We can't accept the loss of a penny if we leave the European Union. But at the moment, there is no certainty at all of that, and that, to me, is proof of how little priority the needs of Wales are given in all of that. We have a list of requirements. We need assurance that funding will be prioritised ahead of time, not through competitive bids. It has to be a multi-year scheme. It has to reflect the current situation, of course, where funding is allocated according to demand, not population. At the moment, Wales receives 22 per cent of structural funds from Europe. You hear our message—not a penny less.

But it's not just certainty about the amount of funding that we're seeking—this has been referred to already. We need certainty that it will be managed by Wales. We see already what can happen through the city deals and the regional deal for the north, for example. Of course I'm going to welcome any funding that will come from the Treasury to support developments in Wales, but what's happening is that Ministers in Whitehall want to manage and have the final word on expenditure. We need to respect the devolution settlement, and realise that it's here in Wales that these decisions should be made on setting priorities for creating a more vibrant Wales. And I'm sorry; the fact that the Conservatives in their amendment withdraw the clause that says we need to empower the devolved administrations says it all about the threats facing us.

I do want to support the Government motion, so I hoped I'd be able to make consensual comments, but I do have to say at the beginning that the Minister said that she wants to see promises from the 2016 referendum honoured. Yes, and how about we start by honouring the result of the referendum? She spoke about wanting to see legislation brought in for a referendum on our membership of the European Union, without drawing attention to the fact that we have had one. Wales voted to leave, and the problem is that she and the cohorts behind her think they know better than the people who, in the main, elect them, and don't want to implement the result. That is all there is to that point. The issues—[Interruption.] The issues we face—[Interruption.]

Can we allow the Member to continue with his contributions in some silence, please?

Having said those two initial points, I will seek to return the more consensual approach I had intended. I agree with the Government's motion. I think it's been worded with restraint and, generally, good sense. Point 1(a)—I do note the comparison that even if we accept that figure of £370 million a year, it compares to the amount that we pay over to the European Union. Now, of course, it can be either a gross figure, it can be a net figure, and there are various different sources through which we can estimate. But, even at the lower end of the estimates for the net contribution, we are looking at approximately £9 billion per year, and with the Welsh population accounting for 5 per cent approximately of the UK population, our share of that is a minimum of £450 million—i.e. more that we receive back even on these numbers.

Point 1(b) is quite correct that these promises were made. A particular letter was pointed out just now. I think, in the main, these promises were made by 'leave' campaigners, and not by the UK Government. It's an important distinction, and I think it is one that we should recall. However, what I would say is that many of the people who made those statements—and again, the Member mentioned, I think, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab—are currently running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and therefore, at least potentially, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And I think one good thing, potentially, about the delay—. I agree and regret the lack of detail that we've seen on the shared prosperity fund, but I wonder if it's for the best, because what we saw was a remainer, Theresa May, take over the Government, put some leavers in particular posts as window dressing, so it looked like they were in charge of Brexit-related matters, but then negotiated something through a secret back channel, through civil servants, doing something completely different from what those Brexit Ministers thought they were leading. [Interruption.] Yes, I will give way. 

Thank you for taking an intervention. I must say I see it as another symptom about the lack of clarity about the direction of travel in which we're heading. One of the big issues that I have about the referendum in 2016 is that we still do not know what people voted for. You might have an idea; others in this room might have an idea. Again, after three years of failing to reach a conclusion on that, neither have we, after three years, reached a conclusion about how a shared prosperity fund could work. 

We voted to leave, and I'm sorry the Member no longer respects that. I note that his members didn't vote against triggering article 50, yet now try and undo the result.

However, what I do think, to develop the point I was making, is that if we see Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Dominic Raab, or certainly if we see Boris Johnson or Michael Gove come in—sorry, not Michael Gove, but Dominic Raab—who have been very clear on this, is that hopefully these things can come back together, and the actual people who are making those promises, who are giving those commitments, will then be leading the Government of the United Kingdom and in a position to implement those commitments. And I think, therefore, it may be to the good that we haven't seen the detail in the shared prosperity fund, to the extent that we may now, before long, have a Government led by the people who are making those promises, from whom we can say, 'Well, look, this is what you told us back then; make sure that Wales gets what you promised.' Theresa May didn't look like she did want to deliver that. I hope that whoever wins this leadership election will want to deliver that. 

On point 1(c), I've seen, David Rees, that you've done quite a lot of publicising this all-party parliamentary group that Stephen Kinnock is leading. I don't know whether that's just because you share a constituency, or whether Stephen has got wider pick-up for this APPG. I hope to discuss it with him later in the week. But, certainly, I think it is encouraging that he's bringing people into this, and I hope Members from the Conservative side will also link into that APPG. Yes.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Just to clarify: my colleague Stephen Kinnock, who is my constituency MP as you pointed out, the APPG actually has cross-party membership—the SNP, Conservatives, various groups—and it is therefore a collective view, it's not just simply his view, and it is a view also of academics who have put in the research into the report. This is based upon academic research, and therefore clearly the report highlights the concerns that they have.

Good. Well, I wish it well and congratulate Stephen Kinnock on the work he's doing here, and also on the constancy of his position on Brexit. Unlike Members here, he hasn't changed it, and that I do welcome. I encourage the Conservative side as well, I hope, to link in to this APPG, to think where they can influence the debate as it's happening. There is a leadership contest. People are discussing issues. Let's try and make sure that UK Government policy links in with the Welsh Government policy on our getting the money that was promised.

I'm disappointed that the Conservatives are not supporting this motion today, because point 3, to me, I think, is actually well phrased. We don't want a centralised or UK-directed fund; we want one over which we have more influence than we did when it was run by the EU. We don't want to bypass the devolved administrations; we want to try and agree something that works for Wales and for the United Kingdom. I look forward to supporting the motion.

In terms of taking this debate forward, I don't actually dismiss the funding the way that the Member for Monmouthshire suggested in an earlier contribution, but what I do find deeply concerning is that we don't have any vision or identifiable ambition for this fund. Years after it's been announced, we don't know what the objectives of the fund are, except for a couple of sentences in the Conservatives' 2017 election. We don't know what's the funding that's going to be available, we don't know how that funding is going to be distributed, we don't know what measures will be used to distribute that funding, and we don't understand how devolution will be recognised and regarded, both in the development of policy and in the delivery of policy. That is an important part of this debate, because this debate tells us more about the United Kingdom than it tells us about past funding from the European Union. I will take an intervention.

I think there needs to be a reality check here. We should have had a withdrawal agreement approved by Parliament last autumn. That's obviously what the Government was aiming to do. We should have left in March and should now be in a transition period in which all the current payments would be guaranteed until the end of this cycle, and during this period we would have then constructed the shared prosperity fund, and the consultation would have occurred. It's all the people here who have either directly or through your support of your colleagues in Westminster prevented a withdrawal agreement getting through Parliament that have put us in this position. You can't discuss these really important issues that are a consequence of the withdrawal agreement and leaving before you've done that.

I have to say, Presiding Officer, I think it's extraordinary that the Government blames the opposition if they can't get their business done. That's the most absurd argument I've heard put down at any point in this place. And I will say this to David Melding as well: he did make a point earlier, during an intervention earlier, saying that he would be directed by Brussels—directed by Europe, I think he said—in terms of the structure of this funding. That is not true. It's simply not true. I remember as a Minister attending the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg when we had debates over these matters. I remember it was my officials that helped draw up parts of this legislation; that it was Welsh Government officials working with the UK Government, working with UKREP as well, that actually designed and developed this fund. There wasn't opaque policy making that took place either in the Treasury or Whitehall with occasional speeches from Ministers. The Welsh Government were a part of the development of the legislation and the policy that was given life by that legislation.

So, in terms of how we take this forward, for me, what is important is that we don't simply have devolution in the delivery of policy, but we have a recognition of a multimodal United Kingdom, if that's possible, in the development of policy. So it's Welsh Government officials, Welsh Government Ministers, working together with our colleagues in Scotland and with the United Kingdom Government in London, developing policy and developing what the fund should be, and to blame the opposition for that not happening, frankly, isn't a serious point.

But, what we have got, rather than that, is smoke and mirrors, and what we've got is obstruction of policy development taking place. And that is taking place from the UK and not elsewhere, because I hear the weasel words of UK Ministers saying that we will accrue additional powers following any Brexit, but they don't seem to understand or appreciate what that means for them and what that means for how they operate and how they develop their policy. I hope that we will be able to ensure that we do have a shared prosperity fund that reflects not the wishes of London, but the needs of the United Kingdom.

My final point is this: many of us will have seen numbers circulated on social media yesterday produced by the Huffington Post, which sought to provide an example, as far as I could see, of how different parts of the union would fare if this shared prosperity fund were to be distributed according to existing funding methodologies. And what was most shocking about these numbers wasn't simply the loss of funding for Wales and the net transfer of funds from Wales to the relatively wealthy parts of the United Kingdom, but that these funding transfers reflect current UK policy and the current UK approach, that funding flows from the poor to the rich, from the powerless to the powerful and from the periphery to the centre. What does this tell us about the current United Kingdom's view of the United Kingdom? If the UK is to mean anything, then it's to mean not simply a political union, but a union of social solidarity where resources are shared, where funds are distributed according to need and where there is a distribution and redistribution to those parts of the United Kingdom where those funds are needed. The United Kingdom Government does not seem to realise or understand this, and their proposals certainly do not recognise that.

So, in closing, Presiding Officer, let me say this: this certainly is a test and it certainly is a test for this Tory Government, but it's also a test, not simply of how they deliver economic development or a shared prosperity, it is a test of their future view of what the United Kingdom can be. Are we a family of nations where each one works with and respects the other? Or, are we simply to be told what to do and to be grateful for the crumbs we receive, promises or not? For me, the United Kingdom has to be that family of nations where we work together, where we respect each other. At the moment, it is clear that we do not have that from this current Government.

Too often in debates like this that focus on finances, we can get bogged down in the detail of percentages and far-off numbers that seem so remote that it's hard to track their relationship to people's lives. Actually, the proposals we're talking about, that is, how funds will be allocated post Brexit to help our communities, will have an indelible impact on people's lives. And, as is too often the case, it is the people who need the help most who stand to bear the brunt of whatever shocks our economy is subjected to.

One of the main criticisms of the 2016 referendum was that the 'remain' side failed to communicate the vast benefits that being a member of the EU offered us. Arguably, local authorities and other bodies, including maybe this place, had also, for years, failed to tell the story of how specific funds helped our communities. So, let's tell that story now. Let's spell out how structural funds benefit Wales and our citizens most in need of support. These vital funds are distributed based on need—a mechanism that seems anathema to the Westminster Government, who simply favour per head population as the only measure of distributing wealth. And the fund's aim is to tackle the injustices of poverty and social exclusion. 

The funds have supported numerous projects in Wales, such as STEMCymru 2, which supports young people in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects to encourage more young women to pursue engineering. And the Parents, Childcare and Employment programme, which helps unemployed parents into work or training by helping them with their childcare costs. The Workways+ programme, meanwhile, helps those over 25 without a job into employment. These programmes provide a lifeline for people when they need it most. The shared prosperity fund has to honour the protections offered by the current system, and it has to be distributed based on similar principles. Prosperity is not only about finances; of course that is the central plank, but it's also about ensuring well-being and addressing structural differences that underpin the inequity of inequality in our society.

We know this bit of the story, at least: Wales gets a higher portion of structural funds per head than the rest of the UK. In fact, we in Wales receive six times the amount of EU funding per capita than England. That translates as £230 per head on average in Wales, compared with £85 per head in England. But Chwarae Teg have pointed out that it is women who will be most adversely affected if these funds are removed, as well as other minority groups, disabled people, and people from BAME communities. These are the groups who benefit at the moment from programmes funded by the EU, like those I just mentioned. It is them who we should be thinking about in this debate.

The UK Government has conducted an equality impact assessment of the potential impacts of Brexit, but it isn't specific to Wales. We need a Wales-specific audit of the likely impact of Brexit—particularly, now, a hard Brexit—on our economy. Again, the EU has a strong record of protecting sections of society most in need of protection, not just through administering funds, but also through legislating for gender equality, human rights, and workers' rights. Westminster has given no guarantee that it will protect all of these rights. Removing ourselves from this system in these circumstances would be like taking away the scaffolding surrounding a house when the foundations haven't been fixed. Nothing will be there to stop us crumbling to the ground.

The UK Government has promised 'Not a penny less' for our communities; I'm sure that phrase will haunt them, but we must not let them forget it.

Strangely, I speak today in two capacities, both as Chair of the external affairs committee, which has looked very carefully at this, but also as a constituency Member whose constituency has benefited from the funds from Europe. I'll start by reflecting on that last point, particularly on the contribution by Delyth Jewell, because we often talk about European funding on buildings and roads and structures, but the real benefits of European funding have been the programmes that we've seen operating in our own constituencies, in the disadvantaged communities, helping people gain qualifications, move on with skills, move into employment, full-time or part-time, to be able to build their lives. That's the real benefit we've seen with these funds, and very often those programmes are forgotten when we talk about structural funds.

The motion rightly notes that we receive £370 million a year, and can I remind Mark Reckless that the structural funds don't refer to anything on the agricultural side? So, when you quoted your figure, we were actually benefiters not losers on this, as a consequence of funding to European—[Interruption.] Of course I will.

What about all the extra money that Welsh residents pay in terms of the higher prices for food he mentioned, but also, indeed, for clothing and footwear?

Here we go again. I don't want to get into an argument about World Trade Organization rules, but you know full well that if we enter WTO rules, the cost for goods that people have to pay will go up very high, and that is something my constituents don't wish to pay. But never mind; we're not talking about those. We are actually talking about structural funds, so let's go back to the topic that we are actually here to talk about.

We can't forget, during the 2016 referendum—and we have to keep reminding everybody—about the comments being made that we would not be a penny worse off, because it's our duty to represent our constituents and to make sure that those who make the promise keep the promise, and those who are promoting 'leave' make sure we are not a penny poorer and that we do not lose any powers. It's their responsibility to do that, and it's our responsibility to remind them. Anyone who says 'leave', they need to remember that.

But can I also remind people, actually, of the socioeconomic imperative of the work the European funding aims to achieve? That's lifting the economic performance of the most deprived areas up to the best standards across Europe. We must continue that after we leave the European Union, and therefore we must ensure that we continue the proper funding. And when I talk about funding—. We mentioned the European funding. I think Rhun mentioned about the money—it was quoted that the amount we get from Europe goes into the shared prosperity fund. Let's not forget the contribution the UK makes in that funding as well; we can't lose sight of that, because as councils across England—. In fact, I got a response from Cornwall Council today to our request on shared prosperity, and they remind us, not just the European funding but the UK contribution that would go along with that, the match funding, also has to go into that shared prosperity fund, so that we do not lose any aspects of that funding.

The committee outlined its work on structural funds and the clear risks of allocating future funding on the basis of anything that is called, like, Barnett, as a possibility. No, we need, as has been pointed out, a needs-based approach. We cannot do anything other than that, because that is the reason that this funding is there, the needs of our communities, and that must continue to be addressed.

Now, it's been mentioned in this report—and I've got a copy, if anyone wants a copy—it also reflects everything we said in our committee. That report makes 18 recommendations, which basically back up what we've been saying about how this fund must address the needs of the nations and regions across the UK. We can't ignore the fact that this is not just Wales—this affects places like Cornwall and the Scilly Isles and it affects the north-west of England; it affects Northern Ireland and it affects Scotland. We must ensure that this fund is fair and is agreed by the nations and regions. And that's one problem we have to address. At the moment, we don't know the detail, as Nick Ramsay said—we don't know the detail, we haven't got any information on it, but we do need to ensure that any decision on the fund has to be agreed by the nations. And Alun is quite right: this is about nations working together and not about being instructed by Westminster.

Now, we also want the Welsh Government to contain oversight of these funds and therefore meet the purposes of what we need, but, of course, that means putting budgets down to local authorities as well, because they are closer to the ground. It's about working in partnership—something that I think has been shown to be excellent in Wales in this European funding approach. The partnership between Welsh Government and local government, and deciding how those budgets have worked, has been excellent and we need to ensure that continues and is not interfered with by criteria set by Westminster and Whitehall, and that we continue to ensure that the criteria are fitting for Wales and that the decisions are made here in Wales and that funding is allocated.

Llywydd, we're one of the most unequal countries in Europe. Actually, the GDP graph between Wales and London makes us the most unbalanced member state in the EU in terms of regional economic disparities. And, really, actually, if you think about it, that's a shocking statistic—that we're one of the most prosperous countries and yet we're one of the most unbalanced countries in the EU. The gap between the richest, which is actually in central London, and the poorest, which is actually one of us, is bigger than it is anywhere else in the EU. So, we need to address that and this is what it was, and London must understand that it cannot ignore the need to address that gap. It can't dictate and it can't ensure that that money is shared amongst its friends in the more rural constituencies of England; it actually has to address the needs of the communities we represent.

Llywydd, I see that my time is almost up, but I just want to remind everyone of one thing. Please, to the members of the opposition, when you talk to your colleagues in London, remind them that this fund is about making sure that we all are able to be prosperous. And it should be reflected and it should allow for the needs of Wales to be decided in Wales and not in Westminster. To the rest of us: hold them to account because they're the ones that are making the decisions in Whitehall. We've got to make sure that Boris, Dominic, Michael—whoever gets in—honour the commitments that were made to the people of Wales and that we will not be a penny worse off and that we will not lose a single power. That's the job we have to do. 

I was eager, as Chair of the Finance Committee, to make a contribution to this debate and to point to the work that the committee has done on this issue, because last year the Finance Committee undertook an inquiry to assess the preparations for replacing EU funding in Wales, as we were concerned, as were a number of Assembly Members, that very little information was known about how funding would be replaced. Now, as a committee we supported the Welsh Government’s position that Wales should not be a penny worse off after Brexit, of course, and that securing post-Brexit funding would be essential for Wales.

Wales currently receives, as we have heard, by far the highest amount of EU funding per head of population of the devolved nations and English regions. It was clear from the evidence that we received during our inquiry that, unless funding continues on a needs-based basis, Wales will be severely impacted. We concluded that it is vital that Wales should continue to receive at least the funding equivalent to the amount it would have received through EU sources had the UK not voted to leave the EU. Equally as important, of course, is to ensure that funding continues to be managed and administered in Wales—that is just as important in the committee's opinion.

At the time of our inquiry, the UK Government had announced that structural funds would be replaced by a UK shared prosperity fund, but very little detail was available on how this fund would operate. We invited the Secretary of State for Wales, therefore, to attend an evidence session with the committee, but as you are aware, of course, he declined that opportunity. We were disappointed with the lack of engagement from the UK Government, and that key decisions around how funding would be allocated to devolved administrations have yet to be agreed.

In response to our report as a committee, when we published our report, the Secretary of State said that the UK Government was intending to consult on the shared prosperity fund by the end of 2018. So, it's very disappointing, and it says it all, in my opinion, that this still has not happened.

Two things happened this week that should give everyone pause for thought when it comes to the prospect of a shared prosperity fund designed by this current UK Government. The first is the report from Communities in Charge, already referred to by my colleague Alun Davies. Those stark figures—a £200 cheque for every Londoner, a £700 bill for every Welsh person—show what awaits this country from a Whitehall-managed scheme. The fact that these numbers are based on current economic development spending by the UK Government merely underlines how far we are away in Wales from getting a fair deal from the Tories. You can be sure that if the deal is bad for Wales it will be worse still for the south Wales Valleys, the area that benefits most from current structural funds.

The second development, which happened almost simultaneously to the Communities in Charge publication, was the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales to back Boris Johnson in the Tory leadership campaign. Now, we can argue that this contest shouldn't matter to the debate, but it does. It matters hugely. The person who has asked us to trust him to be Wales's voice at the Cabinet table made his decision on who to support after Boris supported tax cuts for the better off, a move that would see nearly £200 million put into the pockets of the richest people in Wales, whilst nearly £500 million would be lost for Welsh schools and hospitals. Does that really sound like someone looking after Wales's interests? Tax cuts for the wealthy is anathema to the aims of the European structural fund programme, which is about economic solidarity and support for those who need it most.

So, it is the Secretary of State, who has already overseen the loss of the tidal lagoon, rail electrification and Wylfa Newydd, who is asking us to trust him to deliver a shared prosperity fund that will be fair for Wales—a Secretary of State who would rather back Bristol Airport than Cardiff, and who claims we should look on economic development spending in England as a godsend for Wales. There is nothing in the track record of this UK Government that gives credence to their claims that devolution will be respected in the development of a new fund. It has from the start been a naked power grab by the Secretaries of State in Wales and Scotland in a desperate bid to exercise relevance in a world that has passed them by.

We are not talking about a shared prosperity fund, we are talking about a shambolic, preposterous fraud. Indeed, the only rationale on which a new, centralised scheme is being defended by the Tories is what they see as inefficiency in how the latest rounds of European funding have been spent, and yet the evidence to the contrary is here for all to see.

Will you take an intervention?

Very quickly.

Thank you. You made reference to the evidence—would you accept that the evidence about the way that your Government has carved up the spending of public resources in Wales is also very much wanting? If you look at the local authority settlements, for example, across this country over the past decade, you'll find that north Wales has lost out significantly when compared to local authorities in the south, and much of that resource has been invested in Labour-run local authorities, rather than fairly across the country. 

Well, this isn't a debate about the local government formula. Decisions taken by this Government have been as a result of Tory austerity. And as I was saying about European funding, it has created 48,000 new jobs and 13,000 new businesses, 25,000 businesses assisted with funding or support, and 86,000 people helped into employment. There were no regulatory obstacles that stopped the electrification of the Swansea line, yet the UK Government couldn't deliver it. There were plenty of challenges in delivering the new £300 million Swansea University campus, yet partners in Wales worked together to deliver it using vital EU funds. The Tories say that European funding doesn't sufficiently support poorer communities outside of west Wales and the Valleys, as though this was a zero-sum game. Well, if there are areas that they think need more support, there are no obstacles to them providing additional resources for the whole of Wales, and yet they have chosen to do the opposite. The truth when it comes to structural funding, as with many other Brexit-related promises, is that the people of Wales were lied to by the 'leave' campaign. Far from taking back control of regional funding, Welsh communities will be losing control of how that money is spent.

Any objective view agrees on what should happen next. Preparations are well under way in Wales to build on the current funding programmes, involving businesses, the third sector and local government. Reports from, amongst others, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the IPPR all make it clear that a replacement funding programme must be delivered locally where the expertise and understanding already exist. At no stage of the process has the UK Government engaged meaningfully with these partners. Yet again, devolved administrations are being locked out from decisions they are best placed to shape and deliver than most Whitehall departments who have only a scant understanding of delivery, subsidiarity and regional policy.

The shared prosperity fund promises to be just another example in a growing list of economic and social disasters visited upon Wales by the unholy mix of a shambolic Tory Government and a Brexit vote built on deceit.

It's a pleasure to speak in support of the motion tabled in front of us today because this topic is a really important one, both practically and in principle—practically as this concerns the replacement of funding worth £370 million to Wales annually, funding that has been used to create tens of thousands of new jobs in Wales, to assist and establish tens of thousands of businesses, to help Welsh people like the people I represent in Cynon Valley gain hundreds of thousands of new qualifications, making big differences across Wales and in constituencies like mine, changing lives, giving new opportunities and supporting those who need it most. This motion is also important in principle as it gets to the heart of the devolution settlement. The UK Government's failure to confirm that Wales will get the say over how any funding is allocated and spent ignores the reality of devolution. It is crass, insensitive and fails to recognise the very different policy direction that we have taken here in Wales.

Here in Wales, we have a focus on future generations and a holistic economic approach, which contrasts sharply with the scorched earth austerity obsession of Tory Westminster politicians. But it's not just about Wales. As other contributors have suggested, this approach really shows a tin-eared lack of understanding of sensitivities in Scotland and Northern Ireland too. The all-party parliamentary group on post-Brexit funding for regions, nations and local areas noted in their inquiry into the shared prosperity fund that there is no compelling reason why the UK Government should earmark how money is spent in the devolved nations. The allocation of funding should be a devolved matter for the devolved nations. Importantly, this was the overwhelming consensus of contributors to the APPG inquiry. I wholeheartedly agree with these findings, and I'm glad that the motion makes reference to this.

Earlier in the year, the cross-party group on industrial communities, of which I am the chair, had the chance to consider in detail the APPG investigation into the shared prosperity fund. Indeed, their report had been shaped by the experiences of stakeholders who are delivering current EU programmes, drawing on their expertise and best practice to identify how any fund should work going forward, and that report contains clear red lines. Wales should not receive a penny less in post-Brexit funding; any money or power grab from Westminster must be resisted. We heard a woeful litany of delays, obfuscations and refusals to meet, but the APPG's report clearly provides a useful framework going forward and, moreover, one that enjoys cross-party support in Westminster. In that vein, I also welcome that today's motion is a genuinely collaborative one. This is an issue where we all need to sing with one voice. Several important points are made in the report here—which I would urge all Members to read, if they haven't done so already—by Professor Steven Fothergill, who is the national director of the Industrial Communities Alliance. Professor Fothergill looked into likely outcomes, and reiterated that any future funding should be no less, in real terms, than current funding streams, existing shares between the four nations should be maintained, and any fund should operate on the basis of multi-annual allocations, with devolved management and setting of priorities. The workings of any fund, he said, could offer a real chance to meet the needs of left-behind communities. But, for that to happen, the UK Government must be transparent and not be afraid to recognise the devolved reality of the UK.

That CPG meeting was well attended by a range of stakeholders, many of whom had submitted evidence to the APPG's inquiry. And that turnout showed to me just how important and emotive a topic the future of the shared prosperity fund is. Similarly, the points made by stakeholders must be addressed as plans for a fund develop. For example, concerns were raised that the proposals emerging very much reflected governance structures in England alone. Partnership arrangements need to be robust, and any mechanism must ensure inclusivity and equality of outcome. There could be opportunities in terms of regionalising funds within Wales. Funds should be outside of the Barnett formula, and any allocations made have to be underpinned with primary legislation. All in all, those present at that meeting heard of the importance of a consistent response from Wales, to ensure that we do not lose out. Today's motion is a final part of that process.

As I conclude, I want to reiterate the scale of the challenge. If we are under any illusion as to how critical that is, the statistics in that Communities in Charge report that was issued yesterday set that out so starkly for us. If we don't make our arguments successfully, if we fail to build our case, Wales could lose in funding the equivalent of £743.11 for every citizen. And that is something that we simply cannot accept.

The Minister for finance to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very grateful to all Members for their contributions in the debate today. I always look to find consensus where I can find it, and I do think that there was some of that demonstrated in the debate that we've had this afternoon. One of the themes, I think, that came through really strongly was just simply the scarcity of information that we do have about the UK shared prosperity fund. It featured in the Conservative manifesto, back in the first half of 2017, but since then we have had no real tangible information. Despite repeated questions to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and also, of course, to the Secretary of State for Wales, we still have no further detail. Whilst the oft-repeated promises to respect devolution settlements and engage with the devolved administrations on the development of a shared prosperity fund were very welcome, they haven't been followed up by any meaningful action. We are aware that there's a draft consultation document in existence, but we are being refused sight of it, or refused any input into it. And I think, unless that document is explicitly limited to England, then this process certainly doesn't respect devolution, because we are a Parliament, and we are a Government, and we are not consultees in any consultation that the UK Government might bring forward in due course.

We're speaking to colleagues at both ministerial and official level about the shared prosperity fund, but those conversations, again, are very much one way. We're very clear about what we want, but the UK Government is being deliberately vague, I think, in terms of what their plans are. Much of what we think that we know about the shared prosperity fund is therefore conjecture and rumour, but some of the fears that the UK Government is seeking a new role in steering funding appear to be confirmed in some of the recent statements by UK Government Ministers. For example, Michael Gove recently expressed frustration at the Scottish Conservative conference when he said that the UK Government cannot direct some funding in devolved nations where it involves areas of devolved policy. Well, of course they can't—that's the devolved nations' administrations' job. But he was frustrated by that. And, of course, we know the Secretary of State for Wales is desperately trying to find a role for himself, and he is eyeing up the shared prosperity fund in that regard.

There are some inherent contradictions in terms of the UK Government's position on the shared prosperity fund. It can't be respecting devolution if the UK Government intends to dictate the terms of funding, have a key role in the Welsh economic policy and seek to bypass the Welsh Government. The city deals, for example, have been mooted as one example of the way in which the shared prosperity fund could work. Well, of course the city deals have provided some welcome additional investment in Wales, but they're certainly not a model for the replacement of EU funds and not for supporting the regional economic development policy that we describe through our economic action plan. So, a really simple confirmation that the Welsh Government will retain autonomy over where and how to spend future regional funding is required, together with the opening of detailed discussions on the funding settlement for each nation of the UK and an opportunity to discuss the areas in which Wales may want to co-ordinate or collaborate.

Because, turning to inter-governmental relations, the fact that longstanding—

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, of course.

It's an appropriate point to remember something that Vikki Howells said—I think it was Vikki—in her contribution—that there might be big concerns about the shared prosperity fund, but there are also issues about Barnettisation of funding coming to Wales as well. So, would you agree with me that we have got to make sure, when detail does become more clear around the prosperity fund, that money that does come to Wales, if it is to be used by the Welsh Government, doesn't go through the Barnettisation process, which, in the past, has short-changed Wales for many, many years?

I absolutely agree with you and I'm glad that you feel that way as well. I really would urge you to be making those representations to the candidates for the new leader of the Conservative Party. Because I'm sure that—. Well, we're certainly on the same page and I would hope that they would be as well. And I do intend to come back to address some of the comments in relation to the Communities in Charge report, which a number of Members have alluded to.

But I did want to talk a little bit about inter-governmental relations. The working conventions that we've established are being ignored and that's particularly troubling, given the absolute need for increased co-operation between administrations in the context of Brexit. The UK Government's approach to replacing structural funds is really at odds with and is undermining the good work that actually is generally happening across the UK to strengthen inter-governmental working in a wide range of areas as we approach Brexit. And we've repeatedly emphasised that, if we are involved meaningfully and in a spirit of mutual respect, then UK Government will find us absolutely constructive partners. We've done a huge body of work that we can share with them. Unfortunately, as yet, our offer has not been taken up.

We've been clear that economic development is a devolved competence, with the administration of regional funding having been under Welsh Government control since devolution. And respecting that competence implies the need for each nation within the UK to be allowed to put in place its own arrangements. And it's simply inappropriate for the UK Government to be considering setting priorities or dictating delivery approaches for this funding in Wales.

Should the UK Government be intent on pursuing a UK-wide consultation on the shared prosperity fund, then we would obviously expect any reference to Wales to be discussed and agreed with us in advance, as allocations or governance arrangements within Wales are a matter for the Welsh Government, in discussion with our partners here in Wales. We do, however, recognise that there may be benefit in co-ordinating approaches across the UK, but that has to be done on the basis of the devolved nations being treated as equal partners, with any agreements reached through negotiation and not imposed unilaterally. For example, recognising the interconnectedness of our economies, we've indicated that we are supportive of a new approach to regional investment that would enable cross-border investments between Wales and England. However, those investments would need to reflect Welsh Government policy priorities and produce tangible benefits for Wales. And having control over funding that we've had since devolution is not about isolationism. Closer working with the English regions will be vital, and greater flexibility in how we use replacement funding will help us to do this more effectively.

But I just will briefly touch on the Communities in Charge report, which a number of Members have referred to, and that showed that, if allocations for future funding are based on Barnett, then Wales would lose out significantly from these vital funds to support our businesses, people and communities, and, of course, London would gain. The figures are familiar to us now—so, Wales would lose out on more than £700 per person, London would gain £200 per person, and, in total, Wales would lose out £2.23 billion. But I think a staggering fact that nobody has mentioned yet in the debate that comes through that report is that, of the other six areas that lose out, Wales loses more than all of them combined. 

The long-term challenges that we face are reflected in those stark regional disparities so evidenced across the UK, and those don't disappear with Brexit. Perhaps if we just look briefly as I close at what we could have had, based on Eurostat figures, if there was no Brexit the UK share of European structural and investment funds would have increased, given the fact that gross domestic product has fallen relative to the EU average on the Tories' watch, and more regions in the UK would qualify as less developed. And, if there was no Brexit, an analysis by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe estimates that the UK share of ESI funds would have increased by 22 per cent, given the poor performance of the UK relative to the EU average. And, if Wales maintained the same share of that pot, it could equate to an additional £450 million over the scheme period, or some £65 million extra a year for Wales. So, we'll continue to press the UK Government to ensure that promises made that Wales would not be worse off outside the EU—we'll make sure that those promises are kept.

I'm grateful, as I say, to all Members for their contributions. I hope that their support for the content, if not the tone, of the debate will allow us to send a united message to the UK Government and the incoming Prime Minister that what we need is an approach that is fair to Wales, that respects devolution and that keeps the promises that were made.  

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

And that brings us to voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung. Then we will take the vote on the debate that's just been held on the shared prosperity fund. And I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, two abstentions, 34 against, and therefore amendment 1 is not agreed. 

I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 12 against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

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