National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Janet Finch-Saunders.

Our priorities for the health service in the north, and throughout Wales, are to continue to protect investment and deliver the range of commitments set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’.

Well, clearly, your priorities are not orthopaedic care in north Wales, First Minister. I hope you are as shocked as I am with the recent findings of a 5,000 per cent increase in those having gone longer than the 36 weeks waiting time for orthopaedic and trauma services. That is 3,052 patients now having gone considerably longer than that. I have constituents—80 weeks requiring a knee replacement, 130 weeks for a hip replacement. These individuals are in constant and sickening pain 24 hours a day, seven days a week, fed up with popping several really serious painkillers. And then to learn yesterday that all orthopaedic replacement surgery in Ysbyty Gland Clwyd is now on hold. I’m also advised that the Enlli ward has closed currently for surgery. That frustrates me and my constituents even more. Such delays in this kind of treatment is a national scandal, and if this is an example of your Government putting a health board in special measures 18 months ago, then serious questions must be raised. How, under your watch, have you allowed such scandalous waiting times, and what will you do now, as First Minister, please, on behalf of my constituents, and those patients across north Wales, to investigate the matter urgently and to provide my constituents and others with the appropriate treatment they not only need—

You do need to bring your question to an end. You have asked several questions now.

[Continues.]—with the appropriate treatment they not only need, but deserve?

Well, the majority of patients waiting in north Wales are waiting less than 26 weeks, but we do recognise that trauma and orthopaedics is a challenging area, where some of the waiting times are not acceptable. Extra money has been made available to Betsi Cadwaladr local health board in order to reduce waiting times. They are outsourcing some activity now to alternative providers, and we expect to see the situation improve markedly over the course of the next two months.

Earlier this month, the annual safeguarding report from Betsi Cadwaladr health board was published, which was quite a frightening read, I must say. The risk register showed 13 serious risks, including failure to comply with various pieces of safeguarding legislation, or that there was a real risk that a child or a person on the at-risk register wouldn’t be identified if they were to go to the accident and emergency department, which could lead to serious harm to that individual. After a year and a half in special measures, do you believe that that is acceptable?

Well, of course, we know that the board isn’t yet ready to come out of special measures at present, but, having said that, we also know, looking broadly at the performance of the health board, that things have improved, and we saw that in looking at the framework in November, which showed that very good work had been done. What’s important now is to ensure that every part of the service being delivered by the health board improves in the same manner as the cancer treatment times, for example, and waiting times for diagnostic tests.

First Minister, how can you justify offering free prescriptions and additional childcare, regardless of income and at a huge cost, while the number of people waiting for orthopaedic treatment in north Wales has rocketed? Where are your priorities?

Because we were elected on that basis. I can’t speak for her party, but we like to keep our promises.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ confirms our commitment to ensuring veterans continue to receive healthcare that meets their needs. We will maintain the valuable national Veterans’ NHS Wales service, which provides access to evidence-based treatments for veterans with mental health problems.

First Minister, can I welcome what you’ve just said there about preserving the service. You are actually leading the way in the UK, and I commend you for that. But as we now review this service that has had a lot of initial success, I think we are perhaps too reliant on self-referral—that seems to be one of the things that has come through—at the moment. And I think one key objective should be to inform veterans at the resettlement stage, as they move into civilian life, of this service. That time of life can itself be very challenging, but, of course, they may then have information that could be very, very important to them a few months or years hence.

Yes, I take the point that the Member makes. We know that there are high levels of satisfaction with the service that is provided to veterans. It may be, of course—or I think we can do this—we can raise the issue with the Royal British Legion, and, indeed, the armed forces, to see what more could be done to inform veterans of the availability of the service, and, of course, to encourage them to seek help from the service, rather than hold back. But I will—well, the Minister will have heard what’s been said in the Chamber, and, if we can do more to improve communication, to ensure that people can benefit from the service that does have such high rates of satisfaction, then we will.

First Minister, I wonder if you know that I submitted a motion, as a Member’s legislative proposal, to bring about a ‘no soldier left behind’ Act. But the Business Committee decided not to support it at this time. But the fact is, there are just too many veterans coming to my surgery—

Can I just correct that? It is not timetabled. The decision taken by the Business Committee is not to be questioned on this floor, and it is not to be timetabled; priority has been given to another Member’s legislative proposal.

Okay, thank you, Llywydd, for your clarification. So, we do have an opportunity to bring it back, it seems. But too many veterans are struggling for healthcare, struggling for housing, and especially, as the colleague across the Chamber said, for mental health care. Local authorities don’t have to give veterans priority. Now, the reality is that we don’t leave soldiers behind on the battlefield, and we shouldn’t be leaving them behind when they come home. So, will your Government support a Bill, legislation, to make sure that what a lot of people are suffering at the minute no longer happens, and we make a difference and make a change to the lives of these people?

It depends what the Bill says. At the moment, all I know is that there’s a suggestion, and we have to see what the detail might be. It may be that a lot of the issues that the Member raises have already been covered by the service as it stands. We do make £585,000 available each year to fund the service. It does provide therapeutic interventions from dedicated veteran therapists in each local health board. It also has a referral pathway, to signpost veterans to other areas, in order for them to get help and support. I suppose the question would be, would a Bill add to that, and much of it would depend on what was in the Bill, before taking a proper view on whether a Bill would add to the service that’s available already.

First Minister, just over two years ago, a Welsh Government review of the Veterans’ NHS Wales service found that veterans were waiting up to 80 days for an initial assessment, and up to 140 days from assessment. The review also highlighted the fact that the service would face additional pressures, resulting from the UK defence and security review. In total, 15 recommendations were made as a result of the review. First Minister, can you update us on the progress that has been made by Welsh Government and the local health boards in implementing the recommendations, reducing waiting times for veterans and ensuring the service can respond to future demand?

Yes, that report was received in November 2014. It did show high satisfaction rates among veterans using the service. It did make a number of recommendations to improve service provision, and those recommendations have been accepted, and are being taken forward.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, following the announcement of President Trump’s racist travel ban, there have been demonstrations throughout the world, including here in Wales, rejecting the idea of division. But the issue is wider than just that specific ban. The whole question of migration has become a toxic debate. Will you join me, and others in this Assembly, to make it clear that Wales remains open for business, open to visitors, and, just as importantly, open to those fleeing persecution? And do you agree with me that this politics of division, on the grounds of national origin, or religion, has no place in Wales, or, indeed, anywhere else?

[Inaudible.]—those sentiments. We are, each and every one of us in this Chamber, the descendants of immigrants—it’s a question of when our families came to this island. Much more unites us as human beings than can possibly divide us. And I do share the view that the current debate in more than one country around the world regarding migration is toxic. It is ironic that the debate is sometimes at its most toxic in countries that are made up of immigrants who are first, second and third generation. That is the irony of this. But the reality is that we know that where nationalism, in terms of extreme right-wing nationalism, is allowed to take a grip, as we saw in the 1930s, the result is calamity.

Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I would agree with much of the sentiment that you expressed there. Now, one of the factors that was influential in the EU referendum result was the issue of wages and the undercutting of labour. Now, this exploitation is happening, there’s no doubt about that. You’ll be aware, as I am, of unscrupulous employers charging for accommodation and nominally deducting it from people’s wages. Those workers are not in trade unions, and they are often being effectively paid below the minimum wage. Now, migrant workers are being exploited and those employers are also undercutting Welsh workers. So, both types of workers are losing out. Yesterday, we met with the UK Government Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and this point was made, I think it’s fair to say, strongly. This morning, I’ve written to the UK Prime Minister, calling for much stronger enforcement, just as I called on previous Labour Governments to do. It has to be dealt with, because this undercutting and exploitation is being used by some politicians to exploit people’s concerns about migration. Even the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday was joining in, flying in the face of facts and evidence as to why wages have been stagnant. Does the First Minister agree with me that the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers has to stop, and will he agree to tackle it using whatever powers may be available to him, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations?

Well, indeed. She and I were at that meeting with David Davis yesterday. He agreed—he agreed with what we said, but the question is, of course, agreeing is one thing, action is another. The point was made—and she made the point—that we have not seen prosecutions for breaches of minimum-wage legislation, largely because it’s not quite as straightforward as that. She will know—I’ve mentioned in this Chamber before now—that I have heard believable testimony from Polish workers particularly that they are being paid the minimum wage, but there are other methods that are used in order to deduct money from them, such as unrealistic bonds when they go into accommodation—bonds against damage and, when they get there, they find the accommodation is white furniture, white carpets, white walls, and it’s very difficult to keep it in full order. We made the point, both of us, yesterday, that there’s a huge amount of work to do in order to make sure that these people are brought to account, these unscrupulous employers, because she is quite right—they exploit migrant workers and lower standards, as a result, for workers in the whole of the UK. Unfortunately, many of the people who sit at the moment in the UK Government are not interested in the rights either of migrant workers or British workers.

You’re right, First Minister, there are a number of ways that unscrupulous employers can exploit workers, but this question of the minimum wage is a key one. Last time I looked, HMRC only employed six people to enforce the national minimum wage, and it’s clearly not a priority for the UK Government. There have been minimal prosecutions in recent years, and that was the case under the previous Labour Government as well, it’s fair to say. Will you join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms those politicians who seek to peddle myths about the reasons behind people’s wages being squeezed, because while we are pointing at migrants instead of the Government’s inaction towards rogue employers, we are letting the real culprits off the hook? And will you also commit to this Assembly today to let us know what Welsh Government resources you’ll be able to identify to stop this exploitation so that enforcement and, if necessary, the naming and shaming of rogue employers, can take place?

What I would like to do is to work closely with those communities affected so they don’t feel afraid to come forward to offer their testimony. Quite often, that will be done under the promise of anonymity, and that is something that we will look to take forward. Recently, I finished reading Dennis Skinner’s autobiography. Now, he’s not normally a politician who I would share a huge amount in common with, perhaps, in many ways, but what he did say about Polish workers in the mines after the war was interesting. He said there was no animosity towards them because they were members of a trade union. They were not seen in any way as undercutting wages. They were seen as being in the same position and they had the same protections as workers in the UK, and that’s exactly what we need to get back to. Too many people have low wages, firstly because of austerity, and secondly because they don’t have the support of a trade union. And we know that workplaces that are unionised deliver better terms and conditions for those people who work in those workplaces. That’s why it’s important to make sure that all workers, as much as we can get them to that point, are covered through trade union membership, wherever they come from in the world.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Saturday is World Cancer Day, something that many Members in this Chamber would have been touched by, and I know yourself and my family have had an unfortunate episode where we’ve lost a loved one to cancer. One in two of us going forward will have an episode of cancer in our lives, down from one in three. So, the odds of people getting cancer are increasing by the day and by the week. Regrettably, the Welsh Government’s 62-day target time has not been met since 2008. That aside, there is much good progress as well going on in cancer services across Wales. What is your overview of the delivery of cancer services here in Wales, bearing in mind we have this national cancer day to look forward to on the weekend to reflect on where we are at, and that one in two of us will have an episode of cancer in our lifetime?

I declare an interest here. As Members will know, and as is registered in the register of interests, my wife is employed by Macmillan. What is clear over the next 10 years is that there are two developments that people will find if they are diagnosed with cancer. Firstly, more and more people are ‘living with cancer’—that’s the phrase that is used—cancers that perhaps cannot be cured in the conventional sense of five years’ remission, but that actually allow people to live a normal life and don’t necessarily shorten their lives as a result, with the right level of treatment. Secondly, huge progress is being made—and we are fortunate to have the centre for cancer genetics in Cardiff—in developing treatments that are tailored to the genetic needs of the individual. Cancer treatment has been, for many, many years, a rather blunt instrument. The same kinds of treatments were applied to people over the years. It was more like trial and error. We are at the forefront of the development of cancer genetics and treatment in Wales and I want to make sure that more and more people have the opportunity to be rid of cancer in the course of their lives, but also are able to live with cancer because they have the support, both pharmaceutical and moral, in order to do that.

You are right to point out the positives in cancer treatments and the developments and the way Wales is leading the field in some of these areas. The cancer bank at Velindre hospital is another very good example of pioneering science and technology. Your Government has targets for having a million Welsh speakers by 2050. There’s a statement this afternoon, ‘Towards 2030’, from the education Secretary. There is a goal that the UK Lung Cancer Coalition has, which is to increase the survival rates from lung cancer. Irrespective of where you live across the United Kingdom, the survival rates are very, very poor indeed: 16 per cent in other parts of the United Kingdom, 5 per cent or 6 per cent here in Wales. I think you’ll agree with me that that is something we’ve got to desperately improve. They have a target to increase the survival rate from lung cancer after five years up to 25 per cent by 2025. I’ve highlighted other goals your Government has set. Will you be prepared to set that as a goal for your Government to work to, certainly up to 2021, and hopefully to deliver?

Yes, I think that’s reasonable. We want to see more people live with and, ultimately, survive lung cancer. The survival rates are around about 8 per cent or 9 per cent, if I remember rightly. They’re in single figures and they are low. Much of it is because early diagnosis is so crucial to any type of cancer and the symptoms don’t manifest themselves quite often unless people present as acute cases in the hospitals. I do believe that our GPs are referring people as they should. There is no question to my mind that that is happening and that people are receiving the attention that they need. Where people have complex forms of cancer, of course, sometimes multiple tumours, then it does take some time to begin a course of treatment because that treatment has to be planned in the most effective way for them. But I have no difficulty, of course, in looking to support an initiative that wants to cut the number of deaths through lung cancer in the way that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has described.

Thank you for that commitment, First Minister, because if that commitment is made, it could potentially save 600 lives—people who are dying prematurely through lung cancer at the moment here in Wales. Ultimately, that is a goal, surely, we should all be striving to. Two weeks ago I held and event here for Cancer Patient Voices around cancer services, and at that event, Tom Crosby, who’s the clinical lead for cancer services here in Wales, highlighted the importance of bringing forward a cancer plan to underpin cancer development in services—about bringing oncologists into Wales and developing long-term sustainable services. If we’re going to hit that target of an increase in survival up to 25 per cent by 2025, and if we want to be serious about getting on the track now, we need to bring that plan forward. When people like Tom Crosby are identifying that as a need, I hope you will agree that the Government does need to listen to him and listen to others who are saying that is what is required to drive the strategy forward. Indeed, Macmillan, who you identified in a Member’s interest, identified only last week that there needs to be a dramatic improvement in the delivery of services for patients in 2017. Will you commit to bringing forward a cancer plan along the lines of what Tom Crosby has identified and, indeed, an improvement in services that Macmillan have called for in 2017?

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives will no doubt know that these are issues that are raised constantly in the house where I live, and the points are made very strongly, and rightly so. We will listen, of course, to those who suggest different ways in which cancer can be dealt with. We have our cancer delivery plan, of course. We want to ensure that we have the right level of medical staff in Wales; it’s why we have our recruitment campaign that we launched last year. And, of course, it’s hugely important to work with third sector organisations who provide support for people who are diagnosed. The shock of a cancer diagnosis can often be heightened by the need for treatment, hospital stays, the knock in someone’s income that that makes, the knock in the confidence of an individual that that makes, and so it’s a question as well of making sure people have support outside. I’ve seen, and he will have no doubt seen similar examples, people who, because they have received support and because they have kept their spirits in the right place and their mind in the right place, have survived cancer, whereas other people who have lost their spirit don’t survive, and I’ve seen that. So, it’s hugely important that, whilst he makes the point that we have the right level of medical staff in order to deliver the treatments, we’re also able to ensure that people have the most comprehensive and holistic support around them in order to help them fight the disease as well.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

The First Minister will know that the Ford Motor Company recently cancelled a £1.6 billion proposed investment in Mexico, and decided instead to increase investment in its plant in Michigan by $700 million. This is partly, they say, a vote of confidence in the Trump administration’s policy. One thousand, eight hundred and fifty jobs in Ford in Bridgend depend upon that company, despite their decision to slash a proposed investment by nearly £100 million last September. Does the First Minister think that those jobs are rendered more secure by his insulting call to cancel the proposed invitation to President Trump to make a state visit to the United Kingdom?

If he wishes to be—. May I remind him that the Ford Motor Company has condemned Donald Trump’s comments over the weekend? He might not have seen that, but they have done that. We all see the chaos that has resulted in America. It is for him to act as an advocate for the US Government, not for me. But what I can say to him is that the greatest threat to the Ford engine plant is the possibility of a barrier between it and its only customer in Germany. It exports every single engine that it makes. If there are barriers in place between that engine plant and Germany, Ford will be tempted over the years to shift their production to Craiova in Romania or to other plants in Europe. I want Ford to be on a level playing field with those other plants, and not be put in a position of weakness.

My point is the importance of a continued prospering trade relationship with the United States, which will, to an extent, depend upon having a positive relationship with the United States Government. Now, I appreciate that there will be different views around the Chamber on the domestic policies of the United States Government and, indeed, President Trump’s apparent views on world trade. But given that the United States is Wales’s biggest individual nation trading partner—we exported £2,664 million-worth of exports to that country to June 2016; that’s 22 per cent of all the exports from Wales—is it not vitally important that we should be as positive towards President Trump in our international relations, and therefore welcome a state visit from him later this year?

First of all, it is right that we engage the US Government; I’ll be in America at the end of next month, as I am, at Capitol Hill hosting a reception, working with the Welsh caucus of Congress members as well, and I’ll keep on doing that. But it was Theresa May herself who said that we should speak frankly to friends; she has not done that. She has not done that. And I think it’s hugely important that these points are made. The phrase that I’ve used is that I think it’s very difficult to imagine a successful state visit at the moment, given all the controversy. I’m also surprised at the timing of this. Bill Clinton never had a state visit, nor, to my knowledge, did George Bush, nor did Ronald Reagan. Two other Presidents had state visits, but at least two years after they became President. So, the timing is strange, I have to say. I don’t criticise Theresa May for trying to forge links with the US Government regardless of who is in power; that is the nature of international diplomacy. But it also means that if we are truly to be, as it were, friendly critics—if I can use that phrase—of the US Government, then the British Government surely should not refrain from doing that.

Theresa May, of course, has given friendly criticism to President Trump already in various ways, and I’m not against being candid with our allies, but there is a difference in diplomacy between candid criticism given in a polite and private way and the kind of megaphone diplomacy that is more concerned with grandstanding and virtue signalling, in this country, for domestic political gain.

I think he sat down when he heard the words ‘Nigel Farage’ being uttered in the Chamber—the master of megaphone diplomacy and somebody who is Donald Trump’s representative on earth at the moment. From my perspective, the words I have chosen, I believe, have been appropriate and I think they are self-evident to most people in Britain. As I said yesterday, if circumstances change, the circumstances surrounding the visit may well change as well, although given the events of the last few days—well, Members can make up their own minds about what’s been happening in the US. We still have no real clarity on what it means even for British passport holders, despite what Boris Johnson said yesterday. I think there are issues for the Prime Minister. The first question is: when did she know about this? If it was Friday, did she make representations? When did she know about the conditions that were attached to the executive order and, if so, did she make representations for British citizens and British passport holders? Why, when she was asked about the order, did she simply say, ‘Well, this is a matter for the US’? If it had been any other country, she would not, I believe, have made that response. Why did it take so long for Boris Johnson to get on the phone to clarify the position, even though it appears it’s not quite as clear as he has suggested in Parliament? These are all questions, I think, that the Prime Minister has to answer. Of course we have to have a relationship with the US Government. Of course we will continue our relationship with the US businesses who invest in Wales. Wales is open to US business, but that does not mean that we should say nothing about policies that are put in place with which we disagree. We have not done that with countries like China, we have not done that with countries like Russia. It is right, then, that we should also make our views known when we disagree with something that the US does, rather than be quiet and sit in the corner. That, I believe, is not the right way for the UK to conduct its affairs.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our ambition to increase levels of physical activity. Existing initiatives to encourage physical activity are having an impact and further measures are being considered. They will be outlined in the forthcoming healthy and active strategy.

First Minister, every Saturday morning at 9 a.m. right across Wales, thousands of people take part in parkruns. They’re volunteer led, they’re timed and people are able to chart their progress as they, hopefully, improve their times over the months and, indeed, the years. In Newport, the existing Tredegar House parkrun has just been added to with a city centre urban parkrun along the riverside. I took part in recent events and enjoyed the benefits as so many others do, First Minister, although my joy in setting a personal best was somewhat reduced when the man who finished in front of me confided that he’d just had a hip replacement. [Laughter.] But, nonetheless, they’re very important events and I have set a personal best. First Minister, will you join me in recognising and paying tribute to the importance and significance of these parkruns, which are making a growing contribution to getting a more physically active population right across the length and breadth of Wales?

Yes, I will. It’s hugely important that people feel comfortable in taking exercise in ways that are appropriate to them. There were two points that I feared he would make. The first one, he did make, namely that he has been involved in a parkrun himself. The second, he didn’t make which I welcome, and that was to invite me to join him at a parkrun. [Laughter.] I know full well that he would certainly have the edge on me there. But I think it’s hugely important that we’re able to encourage people to take exercise in new ways, and parkruns, of course, are an excellent example of how to do that.

Following on from John Griffiths’s question, the First Minister will recall that the last time I won an individual Member’s ballot in this place was around six years ago, and that was a Measure to safeguard playing fields. So, I do hope that there will be some developments along the lines that John suggested. But it’s also a matter of concern, as I read recently, that 13 per cent of children in Wales do no physical activity from one week to the next. So, what plans do you have in place to tackle that dreadful situation?

The Welsh healthy school network scheme does support schools to promote schemes to improve the health of pupils in schools. Ninety-nine per cent of schools are part of that programme—those schools that aren’t private schools. And, of course, we also work with the Welsh Local Government Association in order to support children in continuing with their exercise during the summer holidays, by ensuring that there are activities available for them to keep healthy.

First Minister, increasing access to the countryside for families for responsible recreation could bring substantial benefits to the health and well-being of the nation. The consultation on improving opportunities to access the outdoors closed on 2 October 2015. When will your Government be in a position to bring forward proposals that will encourage activities such as cycling and horse riding, while protecting the environment and the livelihoods of people who work in the countryside in Wales?

Well, let’s look at Let’s Walk Cymru: it’s a Welsh Government funded programme, which sets up walking groups all over Wales. The aim of that is to introduce walking into people’s daily lives to prevent the onset of conditions such as heart disease and obesity. That complements what we are already doing. Of course, it’s important that people know where they can walk and also that people know where they can cycle, and, of course, the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 is a piece of legislation that helps us to develop those methods of both exercise and transport in Wales in the future.

Thus far, it is not full of detail, but we have long called for a rebalancing of the UK economy and we will carefully consider the UK Government’s industrial strategy Green Paper when we see it in more detail.

Obviously, the industrial plan will impact on devolved matters in some way, but we won’t exactly know that until the Welsh Government publishes an industrial plan for Wales itself. In response to a question from my friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr last week, the economy Secretary dismissed any need for an urgent industrial plan for Wales, with some suggesting that we might have to wait until late in the summer for a Welsh economic plan, let alone an industrial plan. When will the Welsh Government stop playing hide and seek with the future prosperity of this country?

Far from it—the unemployment rate is 4.1 per cent, lower than in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we’ve just had the best figures for foreign direct investment for 30 years. We take the view that it’s hugely important that we look to develop business, setting up a development bank for Wales and the national infrastructure commission for Wales as well, and so supporting sectors where they need support. We’ve not seen support from the UK Government for steel; we’ve provided that support and it’s because of that support that there is a future in prospect for the Welsh steel industry. So, from our perspective, the figures speak for themselves in Wales. There’s heavy investment in skills as well to improve, ultimately, gross domestic product per person and GDP across Wales, and we believe that the story we can tell is a good one.

First Minister, you’ve just mentioned steel there, and are you as disappointed as I was when I read through the industrial plan from the UK Government that there’s very little reflection on steel? In fact, it reflects, perhaps, their whole approach to steel—non-existent, effectively. Will you look at the industrial strategy, because manufacturing is 16 per cent of the gross value added here in Wales? It’s a major sector, so when you produce the economic strategy, will you ensure that there’s an industrial strategy within that to ensure that our manufacturing sector and our steel sector is reflected in the actions we take?

By our actions, we are judged on what we have done for the steel sector in Wales: the financial support that we’ve provided; and the fact that we’ve engaged so much with Tata and other steelmakers, particularly, showing them that we steel as an important part of the Welsh economy. There’s scant reference to steel in the Green Paper itself, despite the assurances we’ve heard from the UK Government about its central importance. We need to see more detail on how the UK Government will do its bit to support the steel industry.

In regard to your White Paper on exiting the EU, First Minister, there’s much I can agree on. But there does appear to be a lack of strategic planning to leverage the opportunities, I think, to grow the Welsh economy. We know that Welsh exports were down in 2015 and new business start-ups since 2011 have reduced by 26 per cent. So, in growing the Welsh economy, how is your paper linking with your prosperous and secure strategy that your Cabinet Secretary talked about last week? What Welsh Government plans are there to reverse the export declines and indeed support particularly new business start-ups?

Firstly, I thank him for what he said about the White Paper, not describing it as ‘The Beano’, of course, as we heard others in his party describe it. He talked about small and medium-sized enterprises—well, we’ve got our repayable fund to SMEs, which offers repayable finance to SMEs. Immediately following the referendum we did launch the business confidence plan, which is a series of actions we’re developing aimed at promoting business confidence, and that includes the announcement of the new growth and prosperity fund, so that Wales remains an attractive place for businesses to invest. On top of that, Finance Wales has increased one fund and introduced two new funds as well. For example, the Wales technology venture investments fund and the Wales business fund. So, we are determined to make sure that we can provide as much support as SMEs need. It’s right to say there is still some uncertainty as to what happens post Brexit. We don’t know what the arrangements will be for accessing the single market, and until those questions are answered, then it’s natural that some businesses who wish to export will wish to wait and see what happens before they take investment decisions.

I was concerned to hear of the further proposed bank closures; they’re happening across Wales. What is absolutely crucial is that people, where they lose their bank branches, are able to access banking services through the post offices.

Thank you, First Minister. Just last week, HSBC announced its intention to close its branch in Holywell, hot on the heels of NatWest taking the same decision to shut its doors in the same town, the consequence of which is going to hit the high street hard. I was joined by members of the community and my parliamentary colleague last Friday to take a stand against this latest closure, and the hurt and the anger of local people was clearly palpable. They really feel enough is enough for the area. Indeed, when HSBC closed its bank in Flint last year, they advised customers they could relocate to use the Holywell branch, and they also shut their NatWest branch in Flint last year, leaving many, mostly the elderly, out on a limb. Whilst the banks make clear that it’s possible to use the local post office, this is obviously not applicable to business customers, and also the future of Holywell post office is far from certain at present.

First Minister, while I recognise that any legislation to protect our local bank branches would need to be done at a UK level, what is and can the Welsh Government do to enable people and businesses in my constituency and across Wales to continue to access face-to-face banking and support our high streets that will potentially suffer on the back of these closures?

We have, of course, over the years supported our post offices financially, and they are hugely important in local communities. It is right to say that, whilst personal banking services can be provided by post offices, the reality is that most business customers don’t get that kind of service, and that’s what the Post Office needs to deliver, working with the banks. When businesses cash up at the end of the day, where do they take their money? That’s one of the issues. We look then at having night safes in post offices—that’s the logical development. It helps the footfall of a post office as well. The difficulty with banking now is that footfall has dropped significantly in the branches, but there are people who need those services, and we must find a way of working with the Post Office to make sure that those services are available to those people who need them. We’ve made representations over the years to the Post Office, and indeed to the banks—I’ve done it personally—to make sure that, where banks decide they no longer want to be in a community, the post office is able to take over the service that they offer, and, of course, to look at ways in which credit unions can provide financial services as well, to fill the gaps that the commercial banks are leaving.

I’ve also raised concerns in this Chamber with the First Minister on a series of announcements in my constituency. There have been further announcements recently on financial institutions, not only banks, closing: HSBC in Holyhead, and the Yorkshire Building Society in Llangefni. They are the latest two. The outcome of this, of course, is that there is a centralisation of services in regional hubs. We’re seeing a pattern of that emerging at the moment and that does deprive people of services as other Members have said.

Does the First Minister agree that the Welsh Government needs to put pressure on the UK Government to ensure that banks, if not as individual companies but as a wider sector, ensure that there are financial services that are accessible to all communities in Wales?

That’s a fair point, and it’s all important. If the banks can’t do it, then, in my view, they are duty-bound to ensure that there are alternative ways of delivering the financial services via the Post Office, and also, of course, as a Government we’ve been supporting the credit unions to ensure that they can fill the gap that the commercial banks are leaving, as I said earlier. By so doing, I think it will be possible to ensure that people receive the service that they should receive.

As HSBC told me when I met them last year to discuss the closures in Flintshire, as NatWest replied to me as I opposed and wrote to them regarding their closure in Holywell, and as the Yorkshire Building Society is now saying, the reason for this is the switch from bank-based service usage to digital usage. Of course, that—as has been now said about HSBC in Holywell, Holyhead and Llanrwst—leaves older people, those without transport, those without internet access, shopkeepers, and small businesses losing out.

In that context, what dialogue and what submission did your Government make to Professor Griggs’s independent review into how banks have implemented the banking protocol to minimise the impact of bank closures, and any dialogue with the Post Office regarding their newly announced partnership to secure access to local banking services?

Well, we welcome the recommendations for better engagement and communication between the banks and customers, but it is important the UK Government, as the lead organisation here, to make sure that what the review actually suggested is taken forward, namely that the banks improve the way they engage with those communities facing branch closures, including working with small business customers to see how they can further mitigate the challenge of cash deposits and collection that closures bring to some of them. So, whilst we welcome the recommendations, we do need to see action now on the part of the UK Government.

Yes. Business support is available for entrepreneurs, micro, small and medium-sized businesses across Wales through our Business Wales service. Our focus remains on supporting innovation-driven entrepreneurs, jobs and the economy.

Thank you, First Minister. As well as the support you’ve referred to, I’m aware that Business Wales provides considerable practical support and guidance for developing businesses, such as business plans, research, marketing, managing et cetera. In Merthyr Tydfil we have a fabulous organisation called the Hwyl Hub, which offers facilitated office space for businesses to share resources and ideas under one roof. The facilitated space offers a one-stop, cost-effective environment to kick-start ideas and share skills, knowledge and success. An important part of the hub’s role is not just to provide the facilitated office space, but it provides a forum for these new or developing small businesses to share experience and good practice and mutual support.

Do you agree with me, First Minister, that initiatives like this can be incredibly beneficial to small businesses, particularly in their formative years, and have an important role to play in supporting the continued growth of new businesses in Wales, supplementing the work done by Business Wales?

Yes, I do, because sharing expertise, good practice and having a network of support is an important factor for start-ups. I know the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, in conjunction with the regional entrepreneurial acceleration programme, REAP, is currently reviewing the requirements for incubation space, including the type of spaces that are needed in Wales, in order to make sure that that provision is available in the future for microbusinesses, some of whom will grow to be substantially larger and employ more people.

We welcome it as it supports the case for developing a tidal lagoon energy industry in the UK and for the specific recognition it gives to the Welsh projects already under development around the Welsh coast.

Thank you for that. I think we all welcome it—you, me and other Assembly Members in this Chamber. What we don’t need, of course, is the issue of the marine licence holding up any progress. Bearing in mind that I raised the delay with the marine licence with you in September 2015, how often has your Government chased NRW to come forward with that licence in the last 16 months, and what reason has NRW given you for its very late species impact report, which, presumably, will inform the decision?

NRW are an arm’s-length organisation and there is a limit to what we can appropriately say to them as they’re determining a marine licensing application, although I will say this: the application needs to be determined as swiftly as possible. I think we all understand in this Chamber the importance of the tidal lagoon, too, in terms of jobs. We do also need to see, of course, a firm commitment now from the UK Government in terms of the strike price in order to ensure that this very worth-while project goes ahead.

Question 8, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. We were delighted that Charles Hendry took the time to visit the Assembly last week and to brief Assembly Members—

You need to ask the question—

I apologise. [Laughter.]

Could I thank the Member for the heads up on his supplementary? Not directly with the Prime Minister, but I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure met Charles Hendry last week, and officials are certainly in close contact with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in Whitehall.

Thank you for your patience, Llywydd.

You’re welcome.

Charles Hendry—we were delighted he was here last week briefing Assembly Members. It was a clear and resounding endorsement of the Swansea lagoon as a pathfinder, and he said in his report, and I quote,

‘The costs of a pathfinder project would be about 30p per household per year over the first 30 years.’

Thirty pence.

‘A large scale project would be less than 50p over the first 60 years. The benefits of that investment could be huge, especially in South Wales, but also in many other parts of the country. Having looked at all the evidence, spoken to many of the key players, on both sides of this debate, it is my view that we should seize the opportunity to move this technology forward now.’

So, would the First Minister note the cross- party support here in the Senedd, the cross-party support among many Welsh MPs, the cross-sectoral business support, the university support and, whilst we do need to deal with the remaining environmental concerns, the wider NGO support for this landmark sustainable energy scheme? Would he further agree that this, as I said to Charles Hendry when he first came here to take views, is a no-brainer, or, as he said in his report, ‘a no-regrets policy’ for Government, and we would welcome a supportive statement from the UK Government for the pathway project at the very earliest opportunity? What can he do to help get that supportive statement?

Very much so, and you’ve made that very, very clear. This is a project that does not just deliver green energy beyond our own lifetimes, which is not something we’re used to predicting in politics, but that’s the reality of it, it’s also a project that has the potential to create at least 1,300 jobs, particularly in the Neath Port Talbot area, in the maintenance and manufacturing of the kit that’s required to generate the energy. I hope we can get to a position where the marine licensing issue is dealt with, where the strike price is agreed and we can move forward with a project that can only be of benefit to the people of Wales.

I know the Member has a very firm interest in this issue, and we know that the Bevin boys, many of whom worked in dangerous conditions in the mines, played an integral part in helping to win the second world war. It is fitting that a memorial honouring them has been erected at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.

I thank the First Minister for that, and I was recently contacted by my constituent Mr William Beer of Llanbradach, who turns 91 this year and was a Bevin boy during the second world war. When the Bevin boys programme was wound up in 1948, they didn’t receive any medals and their efforts went unrecognised until the VE Day fiftieth anniversary celebrations in May 1995. In June 2007, the UK Government announced that former Bevin boys would receive a veterans badge in recognition of their service. I feel it’s still not enough. I’m going to be writing to the Bevin Boys Association to ask them to contact my constituent, but, in the meantime, will the First Minister pay tribute to Mr Beer and people like him, and recognise his contribution to our country’s security during the second world war?

Indeed, I would, because, even though they were not combatants, of course, without them, there would not have been the ability to release those who went into the armed forces, there would not have been the ability to fuel so many of the engines that were needed in ships particularly, and we know that the economy would have ground to a halt. That would have been as debilitating as military reversal. War pensions, for example, are not devolved. They have not been applied to Bevin boys. They are the responsibility of the UK Government, but I would be happy to write to the responsible Minister in the UK Government to make him aware of the issues that you’ve raised today and, of course, the issue of the war pensions and what should be done now to honour all those who are still with us who contributed so much to the war effort.

I thank the First Minister.

I have accepted two urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66. I call on Simon Thomas to ask the first urgent question.

Matters within the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions are not devolved to the Welsh Government. While the question is important, it is up to the DWP how it manages its estate in Wales. The Welsh Government has no responsibility over this. I understand that the department has indicated that all staff affected will be offered alternative roles subject to the standard DWP processes and staff consultations.

I thank the Minister for her reply. It’s not devolved, although we have long advocated in Plaid Cymru that job centres should be devolved, and the opportunity is missed in the Wales Bill to protect some of these jobs in Llanelli and elsewhere. I understand that the Llanelli back-office has been judged internally as one of the best-performing offices fairly recently. Therefore, there’s no question about the work that’s undertaken by people there. This is simply administrative convenience for DWP, which means that it is not taking into account its overall UK responsibilities to maintain local economies and to maintain a pattern of local working. I would have thought that the Welsh Government would be interested and concerned about that.

So, can I specifically ask you, Minister: although it’s not your devolved responsibility, has this Government—the Welsh Government—written yet to the DWP about this closure in Llanelli, but also the wider programme that affects many communities in Wales? Have you seen an equality impact assessment done, particularly as regards workers who may have mobility issues in travelling, as well as the impact assessments, of course, for the closure of local job centres over two and three miles away from claimants? You say that the proposal is that there shouldn’t be redundancies; however, there is no concrete guarantee that I can see from the DWP that there won’t be redundancies. Have you been given that guarantee, bearing in mind that the relocation could involve offices as far away as Pembroke Dock and Cardiff? That’s a very invidious position for somebody living in Llanelli or the Llanelli area to be put in. Finally, what further steps can you take to bring some pressure to bear on the DWP to take its wider social responsibility concerns into account, rather than this cut-and-slash approach that it has towards providing our public services?

I thank the Member for that series of questions. I can confirm that we have been in conversation with the DWP about wider employability, and about the possibility of the co-location of some offices, although not specifically about the office in Llanelli that he mentions. I, too, share his concern that this has been taken on narrow estate grounds only. My understanding is that a PFI contract has come to an end, and that this is an estates-driven rearrangement and nothing to do with the jobs. We haven’t had any additional information other than what the DWP has told everyone, which is that they are seeking to transfer the roles of the staff involved, and that they will be subject to the usual terms and conditions for that. We will be keeping a close eye on that. Officials are meeting with them around a range of issues. We will be taking up that particular point with them, not only for the Llanelli office, but for all of the offices affected.

I think I, personally, would like to say that I’m a bit disappointed that they couldn’t have given us more indication of what could have happened. They have taken it on very narrow grounds. They haven’t taken into account the local economy and other things. They actually haven’t even taken into account the possibility of co-location on a wider level. It is just an estates policy. We don’t have any power over it, however. It’s up to them if they want to do that. But I will say that we are continuing our conversation with them about co-location. It is essential that the services are seamless. My officials are working very hard with the DWP to make sure that, from the point of view of our citizens, employability and other services put through the DWP and Jobcentre Plus, for example, look as seamless as possible from the point of view of the person receiving the services.

Minister, I must tell you that workers in Llanelli have very little faith that the DWP proposals will result in no redundancies. They have been told that, if suitable jobs can’t be found in ‘nearby’ locations, they’ll be regarded as surplus, which is code for job losses. The nearby locations, we are told, include Pembroke Dock and Cardiff, which can only be the definition of a man in Whitehall—that a journey of 60 miles is a ‘nearby location’. Would the Minister speak to the Secretary of State for Wales and remind him of the words he’s issued about close economic co-operation between the Welsh and the UK Governments? The economic impact of losing 146 jobs in the heart of Llanelli will be significant at a time when there are deep-seated worries around the state of other jobs in the area. Would you also remind the Secretary of State of the words that the Prime Minister has issued post Brexit about spreading prosperity around the UK? These actions, which you say are justified on estates grounds, are entirely lacking in thought or strategic judgment or compassion about their impact on the economies of the constituency I represent in this Assembly.

Finally, Minister, if the grounds being justified by the DWP are in modernising the estate, would the Minister remind the DWP that both Carmarthenshire County Council and the Welsh Government would happily work with Whitehall to make sure they can find suitable alternative offices that meet their objectives under their new estates plan, but also safeguard jobs in my community?

I thank the Member for that. I’m very happy to write to both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister responsible for this on the grounds that the Member has outlined. There is the possibility that the Member would like to put his own views into the consultation. There is a consultation website at www.gov.uk/dwp/consultations. I’ve tried it myself and it’s very easy to find. I would urge all Members to put their own views in on that basis. But I’m more than happy to say that we will write directly to the Secretary of State and remind him of those words.

I would just emphasise, though, that we are in conversation with the DWP on the employability programme that we’re running, and we will be taking this forward as part of that. But I don’t have any more information than the Member about the job losses. It wasn’t shared with us in advance. We knew that there was an estate rationalisation going on, but we didn’t have the detail. It is not devolved, so they’re within their rights to do it in that way, although it’s disappointing that they didn’t see fit to share it with us in advance to see whether we could ameliorate some of the effects.

I thank the Minister.

I now call on Dawn Bowden to ask the second urgent question. Dawn Bowden.

Can I thank the Member for the question? Despite assurances from the foreign Secretary yesterday, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact of the travel ban. We will press for certainty, and I made it clear to the Prime Minister yesterday that the travel ban policy is beyond any rational defence.

Thank you for your response on that, First Minister, and can I also thank you for your speedy condemnation of the disgraceful action taken by the President of the United States—action that is in contravention of the Geneva convention, international law and, probably, the constitution of the United States? In sharp contrast, the British Prime Minister’s condemnation has been slow in coming, and has been mealy mouthed at best. Despite the potential impact of the executive order on British nationals, her initial response was simply that immigration policy is a matter for the USA and for the Government of the USA. It’s clear that her special relationship with the President did not lead to him giving her any special forewarning of what was to come.

Donald Trump is a man who feels it’s okay to mock those with disabilities, he’s a misogynist of the very worst kind and he’s an advocate of torture, all of which he’s tried unsuccessfully to justify. His attempt to justify this policy has also been equally risible, when he said,

‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban…This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe.’

Well, if Donald Trump wants to keep his country safe, maybe he should do something about gun control, because frankly Americans are far more of a danger to each other than anyone from any of the seven countries whose nationals are affected by this ban. Not one single American citizen can be identified has having been killed in a terrorist attack by anyone from any of these countries.

But, as you identified, First Minister, it’s not just the anxiety and distress caused to Muslim communities by the 90-day travel ban, the executive order also places a ban on the US refugees programme for 120 days and puts in place an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria. Trump’s executive order, coming on Holocaust Memorial Day, of all days, is indefensible, flies in the face of the moral duty of all us to help refugees, and, as we’ve already seen this week, can only serve to heighten religious and racial intolerance. He has sought to demonise an entire religion, and I’m reminded how actions like this can lead to atrocities and even genocide. The holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with religious demonisation and intolerance—

You do need to come to a question now.

So, will the First Minister reaffirm his position, and add his voice to those calling for Donald Trump not to be afforded the honour of a state visit to the UK at this point in time, and will he call upon the Prime Minister to show the same backbone as other world leaders in both unequivocally condemning Trump’s actions and taking whatever action is necessary to persuade him to reverse this decision?

I’ve already said my view in terms of the visit. What is clear over the last few days is that a ban was imposed without any rational basis. Of the terrorist attacks that have taken place in the US over the years, not one person has come from those seven countries—the twin towers people didn’t come from there. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, two countries where terrorists have come from, there is no ban on them, giving rise to the suspicion that it’s because of the business interests that exist in those countries by certain businesses in the US. So, there is no rationality to this policy. Secondly, of course, it was so badly executed that customs officials, border patrol officials—CBP officials as they’re called in America—had no idea how to implement it. It’s clear that the order was put in place without taking the advice of experts. One piece of advice I would give to the US President is this: it’s not a sign of weakness to take advice; it’s a sign of strength. Nobody can know everything, and we see the consequences as a result.

We know that British citizens were not able to travel to or through America as a result of what happened. There is the well-documented case of the Iranian vet who was stuck in Costa Rica. And we’re still not clear as to what the true position is. Sir Mo Farah—somebody who has done so much for British athletics, somebody who is such a great model for so many young men and women, was not sure whether he would be able to rejoin his family and children in the US as a result of this order. Despite the fact that that was made public, it took some hours for the UK Government to make representations, not just on his behalf, but on behalf of so many other people who are caught up as part of this ban. It’s not rational. It’s not justified. My experience of the people of America, as I’ve said publicly already, is that they are warm and courteous people; they are a welcoming people. This is not what America is about. People might say, ‘Well, why should America be judged on such high standards?’ It’s because of the high principles that the republic is built on. America is the leader of the free world, is the biggest democracy economically, though not in population, in the world, and it will be judged to higher standards than others, and it would expect itself to be so. What price now the words on the Statue of Liberty? So, my plea is quite simply this, that US security policy—and it is difficult, of course, in the modern world, to control security—should be based on rational decisions, based on the advice of experts, rather than taking a decision that appears to be easy, but proves to be hugely complicated and unfair in its execution.

At a meeting in Bangor last night I had the privilege of saying that Wales is a country that welcomes people that are fleeing from war, famine and persecution. Do you agree that one response to Trump’s terrible actions is to emphasise that Wales is a welcoming country, and that welcoming actions are the best way of actually showing that? There is good work being done by the Government under the Syrian refugee programme, but, on 19 January, the equalities committee heard that only 27 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were actually living in Wales. The committee was surprised that the number was so low, and the committee’s trying to understand why that is the position. Can you give me an assurance that your Government will do anything to move aside any obstacles so that we can be a truly welcoming and hospitable nation in actions in addition to in words?

There is no obstacle in that regard. We are reliant on Whitehall officials in this regard. We said quite openly in 2005 that Wales is a country that’s open to refugees, and I established a committee at that time to work with local government and others to ensure that people would be welcome when they come to Wales, and that remains the case now. Although there have been few people coming to Wales, those principles are still our guiding principles as a Government.

I agree with my colleagues that this ban is totally divisive, unacceptable and inhumane. It will only succeed in stirring up hate and fear of Muslims and exacerbate an already dangerous situation in the world. Stigmatising people because of their nationality cannot be defended, and I note that several federal judges have halted the deportation of visa holders, believing the ban to be unconstitutional.

Will the First Minister confirm the ban only applies to individuals travelling to the United States from one of the seven named countries? The ban does not apply to UK nationals travelling from one of those countries to the US, even if he or she was born in one of those countries. On the question of dual nationality, can the First Minister also confirm that someone holding dual nationality with one of the listed countries travelling to the US from outside those countries is also not covered by this order? However, a UK citizen holding dual nationality with one of the listed states travelling to the United States from a listed country may face extra checks.

And, First Minister, another area that Muslim countries, alongside the rest of the world, are also very concerned—and tit for tat can create an unprecedented problem for the whole world. Does the First Minister agree with me that all UK citizens, whether they hold dual nationality or not, deserve the right to be admitted to the United States in a fast and efficient and civilised manner, because that country is a beacon of human rights, as we all understand? Thank you.

Well, I only know what I heard Boris Johnson say in Parliament. I also know that the German Government is not convinced that that is the interpretation that is wholly correct. We have to wait and see what is said in writing, actually, not just what is said orally to any British Government Minister, and we’ve not seen any written confirmation of that. My concern is that the situation on the ground in the US changes on a regular basis. There are reports of officials on the ground being given conflicting advice within a short space of time. So, it’s hugely difficult to understand what the situation will be, and it needs to settle, of course, as quickly as possible.

But at the heart of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of where the nature of the threat comes from. Most people who are the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims themselves, as the people of Turkey will tell you, as the people of Syria will tell you. The problem with an order like this is that it gives the appearance that, somehow, all Muslims are the same. Now, he knows that’s not the case; I know that’s not the case. A very small minority of people are Islamist in Islam. The people who committed genocide in Srebrenica were not representative of Christianity even though they called themselves Christians. They were a very small group of people who were bigoted in themselves. It’s the same with Islamist terrorism.

What struck me was, given the different responses from the UK Government and the Iranian Government, how reasonable the Iranian Government appeared to be. Now, we know that Iran, over the years, has had a record of supporting movements of terrorism across the world. Iran is on the right track now, I believe; some way to go in terms of the way that we would see Iran, but certainly Iran has come some way from where it was. But the US is a country built on accepting refugees. Yes, of course, it has its issues with security, and those issues of security must be dealt with appropriately. But to issue a ban on seven countries, apparently at random, then execute it in such a way that no-one really knows what’s happening—you know, that doesn’t do the US’s image any good. And we need the US to be in a stable position for the good of all the democracies of the world. Unfortunately, the impression that is being given at the moment is that it does things at random, without any kind of rational explanation, and we all see of course what appears to be turmoil in some cities in the US. That’s in no-one’s interest, and I hope that sensible voices prevail soon.

Well, the First Minister makes some fair points, but will he accept that the restrictions that have recently been introduced are temporary, pending the introduction of enhanced vetting procedures, and that the immigration and security policies adopted by the American administration must be a matter for them and for the American people? We wouldn’t want them interfering in our immigration and security policies in this country. When President Obama was foolish enough as to attempt to intervene in the Brexit debate, it blew up in his face, if that’s not an inappropriate metaphor in the context of this question. Therefore, we have to be very careful in this place, as indeed in the UK Parliament, before expressing grandstanding views that may well be counterproductive in terms of changing the policy of the United States Government.

Is the First Minister aware that the executive order is actually based upon legislation that President Obama signed in relation to the visa-waiver programme in December of last year, and that the seven countries on the list are the seven countries that were removed from the visa-waiver programme of the United States Government, and that, in 2011, President Obama did exactly what President Trump has now done in relation to Iraq, where he placed on hold all applications for entry to the United States from Iraqi citizens? There was no protest then, as far as I can recall, in this Assembly. I’m wondering why there is a protest now.

A man came to America, he was an Iraqi, he had helped US forces, he was a translator—he was denied entry. In the end, he came and he was denied entry. What kind of message does that give, that, where people help US forces in the fight against Islamist terrorism, they are then dropped as a result of the help that they give? He cannot surely defend that. He cannot surely defend a policy where people who are permanent residents of the US, green-card holders, were also turned away because no-one understood what the regulations actually meant. It’s not if they’re temporary or not—wrong is wrong at the end of the day. People were turned away, they were not allowed—. An Iranian vet was not allowed transit through the USA on her way home to Glasgow from San José in Costa Rica. How does he—? Is she a terrorist? How does he defend that?

The reality is that we must be very careful not to give the impression, which plays into the hands of ISIL, that this is a clash of religions. ‘What do you expect the US to do apart from this?’ Then he said—it wasn’t heard on the microphone, but I heard him—he said, ‘What about the twin towers?’, he said. Can I remind him that none of those involved in the twin towers atrocity, which is what it was, came from those countries? They came from other countries that are not included on this list. Why? Why is that? No rational explanation has been given for that.

We have to remember as well two things. One of our biggest allies is Turkey, itself an Islamic country. Secondly, in order to win the battle against ISIL on the ground, you need Iranian ground troops to do it. The last thing you should be doing is creating a problem with the very country—you may not agree with many of the things that go on there—you are relying on to defeat an evil organisation like ISIL.

At the heart of it is, I think, a complete misunderstanding about Islam. Shia and Sunni Muslims have been killing each other in many countries for many years. The impression that’s given is that there are some people who seem to take the view that somehow Islam is all the same religion. [Interruption.] Well, I can tell him. I can tell him this: it wasn’t that long ago when the main security threat to the UK came from Catholics. So, does that mean that Catholics should have been vetted as they entered the UK? Could I remind him that Christians were killing each other in Northern Ireland for 25 years? Could I remind him that people calling themselves Christians were beheading women and children on bridges over rivers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that there were massacres taking place in places like Srebrenica?

We cannot say that any religion has a monopoly on evil, but what I do hope is the US regains its ability to see sense.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement. I call on Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, I’ve no changes to report to this week’s business, and business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the agenda papers available to Members electronically.

Last week, I asked the leader of the house for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy on interventions to defend community assets, particularly those that enrich our heritage. Over the weekend, there were reports about the future of the old Tredegar General Hospital building, an important building in the history of the NHS and, sadly, a building that has been empty for several years. I think we undersell our health heritage in this country and we’ve got a unique place to sell as a destination in terms of health heritage. Can we have a statement from the Welsh Government on a feasibility study into opening an Aneurin Bevan memorial library and national health service museum in Tredegar?

Well, I think Steffan Lewis raises a very good opportunity to recognise that heritage, and particularly relevant, of course, in the Aneurin Bevan area, thinking back to the birth and the creation of the NHS, and I’m sure that this is something that will be looked at carefully.

I call for a single statement on cervical cancer, recognising that last week was Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. It was highlighting that, although cervical cancer is largely preventable, the number of women being diagnosed in Wales is worryingly high, and the number attending cervical screening at its lowest for 10 years. More than one in five women are now delaying or not attending this potentially life-saving test. We therefore need a statement outlining what steps are being taken to increase cervical screening coverage in Wales, what discussions have taken place about plans to increase cervical screening coverage amongst women from disadvantaged backgrounds, women with learning disabilities, and black and minority ethnic women; what steps are being taken to make cervical screening more accessible in order to increase coverage; whether cervical screening is available to all women at contraception and sexual health clinics; and whether the Welsh Government plans to roll out an awareness campaign to improve the cervical screening coverage. I hope the Welsh Government will respond favourably to this request.

I thank the Member for that question, and, of course, I’m sure the Member will welcome the announcement by the Minister for Social Services and Public Health that, in future, women will be screened for the main cause of cervical cancer instead—the high-risk human papilloma virus, HRHPV. Under those new arrangements, women will continue to receive what is commonly known as a smear test, but the sample will then be tested for HRHPV.

Yes, the number of women invited for screening has declined as a result of changes in the age range, and in frequency of invitation, which was introduced in 2013, when we stopped inviting women aged 20-25. But we, of course, now need to recognise that we’re going to be implementing better and more user-friendly testing for both cervical cancer screening and, indeed, for bowel cancer screening. The test for HPV is more sensitive and it will allow the NHS to identify those requiring treatment more effectively. So, a pilot programme reaching around 20 per cent of women will roll out across Wales from April of this year, and a full roll-out is expected to start next year, 2018-19.

Leader of the house, I would like to request that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport makes a statement on the temporary overnight closure of Llandrindod Wells minor injuries unit. On Friday, I was informed by Powys Teaching Local Health Board that its minor injuries unit at Llandrindod Wells will temporarily have to shut between midnight and 7 a.m. for the whole month of February. And I do understand that that is due to a combination of staff absence and that the measure is the safest option for all concerned—patients and staff. However, that temporary overnight closure may cause some anxiety for some of the people who may wish to use this service, and Powys teaching health board are going, to be fair, to great length to inform patients, but it is likely that the message will not reach everyone. It would be most welcome if the Cabinet Secretary would reassure people in Powys who use the MIU that these changes are just temporary, especially as the nearest alternative is 24 miles away, in Brecon, in one direction, depending on your starting point.

Well, this is an operational matter for the health board—Powys teaching health board—and I’m very reassured, as I’m sure you were, that it was the health board that contacted Assembly Members, councillors and members of the public, making them aware of the closure as part of their communications. Of course, I’m sure it was shared with Joyce Watson that the health board is working hard to share information about alternative sources of advice and treatment during the temporary closure. I’m aware that the local community health council has also been fully engaged in this decision, and supportive. It is a temporary closure, as the Member said—it’s temporarily closed overnight between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m. from 1 February to 28 February, but available, of course, otherwise, as usual. It’s important to recognise that, actually, there are very low numbers attending the minor injuries unit at that time but this is, of course, a matter which will be handled by the Powys teaching health board.

At the end of February, it is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and I was wondering whether you would be able to table a debate from the Government on the work that’s being done in Wales on eating disorders. I know and appreciate that we’ve agreed some more funding for eating disorders via the discussions between Plaid Cymru and Labour during the budget negotiations, and there still needs to be clarity around where that funding is going. So, I would welcome a debate on that.

I’d also like a debate or a statement on the progress that you’re making towards speeding up diagnosis of ovarian cancer. It seems to be one of those cancers that is diagnosed quite late and it can spread further if it’s not identified sooner. You said in 2013, as a Government, that you’d be looking to speed up diagnosis, and so I wondered whether we could have an update on that in the Chamber.

Bethan Jenkins has consistently raised issues and championed the need for appropriate action and treatment for eating disorders, and, of course, more money has been allocated as a result of our agreement. I’m sure there will be an update in due course on how that will be implemented. On your second point, in terms of ovarian cancer, yes, this is an issue that is regularly brought, I’m sure, by Assembly Members’ constituents to our attention. Of course, this is where we have to rely on the evidence and developments in terms of screening opportunities to detect ovarian cancer.

Could I ask once again for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on the local government settlement for Newport please? I have been inundated with concerns from taxi drivers in Newport about recent acts of vandalism, particularly in the Ringland and Alway areas. Stones, eggs and bricks have been thrown at cars, including emergency vehicles, which is really a shame, causing considerable damage and actually is a danger to public health. It seems the police are under-resourced there. The recent poor local government settlement for Newport is bound to put pressure on budgets aimed at tackling the social problems in these districts that can lead to such anti-social behaviour. There are certain areas, Cabinet Secretary, that, in the night time, are really no-go areas in Newport, which is really not good in this century. Could we have statement on this matter urgently, please?

Well, of course, this is a matter for Newport City Council and, indeed, I answered a question last week, when I reminded the Member of the difficult, very challenging settlement—that continuing austerity, financial, arranged settlement—for the Welsh Government. But I would also say that Newport council is ensuring that it is working with local partners in terms of safer Newport measures, and that is something which, of course, I’m sure will address the point you raised.

I’ve been contacted by constituents concerned that the military covenant is not being implemented in Wales due to front-line staff not being aware of it. I’m asking for the Government to commission a study to see how it is being implemented across Wales because the evidence I have got is only anecdotal, and I’m asking the Government to provide an oral statement on the results.

Mike Hedges, we’re very committed—and, of course it was raised earlier on this afternoon—as a Welsh Government to supporting the armed forces covenant. We’ve got a refreshed package of support and ‘Welcome to Wales’ documents, and, in fact, I think David Melding reflected on the fact that we’re ahead in Wales in terms of the way in which, as a Welsh Government, we’re trying to take this forward to ensure that the armed forces community in Wales does have the support and services it needs. I am aware that the Forces in Mind Trust, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, has undertaken research recently on how we can improve local delivery, which is your question, of the armed forces covenant, and we are now getting a clearer picture of some of the findings of the research. Our armed forces expert group will discuss the findings of that research and the ways we can take it forward.

There are three things. First of all, I wonder if you can provide a Government statement on, ideally, supporting a new train station at Mynachdy. There’s no bus service to the station, in relation to the metro. The location would be by the coal sidings.

The second one is a statement about Anaya Aid, a charity run totally by volunteers; it is a real charity. I think it’s the only charity in Wales taking supplies over to Syria. They’ve no funding whatsoever, and there is a strong interest there to provide medical supplies. But, unfortunately, because of the bureaucracy, lots of medicines are thrown out unopened in many circumstances. That charity could transport those badly needed drugs to Syria.

The third one is that—I did ask you this two weeks ago, and you didn’t reply; I thought I’d wait a week. I haven’t seen a statement, but it’s about the alleged use of the ministerial car by David Goldstone. So, could you possibly update us with a statement on the use or not the use—whatever happened with the car, if it went up to Mayfair and picked him up and came back to Cardiff, or if it didn’t. I think it would be nice for us to know here in this Chamber. Thank you.

I think your first point, in terms of the possible options and the feasibility of a station in Mynachdy, will of course be considered as part of the metro plans, which are developing, also recognising that this is something where we’ve progressed in terms of our powers and opportunities and responsibilities in terms of the rail infrastructure.

On your second point, I think it’s important that we recognise the work of the voluntary charity that you mentioned, particularly in relation to the need to get appropriately—and, of course, this is critical in terms of clinical guidance and evidence—drugs to those who need them, particularly through this charity, and recognise the voluntary work.

I have no comment to make on the third question.

As the leader of the house may know, today is the first day of the latest capacity market auction, by which the National Grid buys back-up capacity for the grid. In the latest auction, at the end of 2016, a proportion of that market was won by diesel farms, which was a smaller proportion than previous years, but still significant. Diesel farms are noisy, they are polluting and they can be in place for 10 to 15 years. Will the Government bring forward a statement on the prevalence of those farms in Wales, what contribution they make to poor air quality and obstacle they present to the Government to achieve its environmental targets, and whether, as has happened in England, public bodies in Wales have been approached by the grid to make use of their diesel generators to provide back-up capacity?

Jeremy Miles brings to the attention of this Chamber a development that is of great concern. I understand that the Welsh Government is currently consulting jointly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on proposals to introduce new legislation that would impose controls on emissions from diesel generators in order to protect human health and the environment.

Can I first of all thank the Minister? I think, a fortnight ago, I asked her for a debate on tidal power, and with particular reference to the Hendry review and the Swansea lagoon. That debate is coming forward in Government time, so I’d like to thank the Government for listening there. I think it will, and I hope, allow the whole Assembly to unite in support of that proposal and then really put pressure on the UK Government to come forward with a positive decision—positive for energy in Wales, but positive for job creation and skills as well. I hope that I’ll be as successful with my request today, however I doubt it. But I would like to support the request that’s already been made around a statement on the closure of the Llandrindod Wells minor injuries unit overnight just in February. I actually want to use that as a request to have a wider policy statement from the Welsh Government about the use of minor injuries units, because there’s a lot of confusion out there amongst people about what minor injuries units are for. We have a proposal in Tenby for a walk-in service, and I don’t know what the difference is between a walk-in service and a minor injuries unit, what’s the difference between something that’s associated with the hospital and simply where the GP is present. And it’s this confusion that actually drives people to ignore the Choose Well message from the Welsh Government and to simply go to A&E. I suggest that the reason that so many people present in A&E with, perhaps, injuries that could be dealt with in a different context is they don’t know if the units are open, they don’t know if they deal with the condition they have and they don’t self-diagnose in that sense. They need a consistent and reliable service that they can depend upon. Closing overnight in February—I understand why it’s happening, but that doesn’t help get that message across. The delay in Tenby on establishing that walk-in service after the minor injuries unit closed suddenly, overnight, for emergency reasons and was never reinstated, again, does not build that public confidence.

So, I think a statement from the Welsh Government, which, before the last election was criticising some parties here—both my party and the Conservatives, actually—for talking about minor injuries units and saying they undermined A&E—. There’s a confusion in Welsh Government itself about the relationship between A&E, minor injuries units and late opening, if you like, for GPs. Let’s have a consistent message. Surely a statement, a policy statement, or even a debate around these things would help clarify some of these messages.

I thank Simon Thomas for recognising the importance of the business statement and the fact that I do take back requests not only for debates and statements but also questions, which often can be answered by Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers. But it is important that we have the debate on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon in Government time. Now it’s scheduled, and I’m sure all will want to take part, because of the cross-party support for this in discussion earlier during First Minister’s questions.

Your second point, I think, is important in terms of the whole picture of how we can support people to access minor injuries units as opposed to the accident and emergency services. There is a variation on how those minor injuries units are provided in terms of timing and staffing across Wales, and they are the responsibility of the health boards. But I will certainly draw this, as I’m sure you will, to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for health.

I thank the Minister.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on local government reform, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. In October, I set out the broad parameters of a way forward on local government reform. Today, I have published for consultation a White Paper, ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’. I am grateful to those in this Assembly, in local government and in wider public service who have offered significant help in refining the original proposals. This engagement has shown a shared commitment to greater regional working. It has helped to confirm those areas where a more systematic approach to regional working would benefit people and communities, and support the local government workforce to deliver essential public services.

The proposals in the White Paper are the outcome of this shared endeavour. They reflect the many discussions held with leaders, members and officers across all local authorities and their partners in other public services and in the voluntary sector. The White Paper sets out proposed arrangements for regional working; a strengthened role for councils and councillors; a framework for any future voluntary mergers; and an outline of the way forward for community councils.

My starting point has always been the vital importance of good local government here in Wales. We need local government to be resilient and be able to work with citizens and other public services to create sustainability for the future. Those who work in local government, or represent it, want the same thing. This requires more progress on collaborative working.

Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, Lywydd, y mae’r Papur Gwyn yn adeiladu ar yr ymagwedd ddeublyg a nodwyd yn natganiad mis Hydref. Mae'n cadarnhau'r bwriad i fandadu gweithio rhanbarthol ar gyfer cynllunio trafnidiaeth strategol, rhai swyddogaethau cynllunio defnydd tir a datblygu economaidd, ac yn cynnig y dylid cyflawni’r cyfrifoldebau hyn ar y tri ôl troed a gynrychiolir gan ranbarthau presennol Cymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru.

Un o nodweddion calonogol y trafodaethau ers mis Hydref yw bod awdurdodau lleol eu hunain wedi nodi ystod ehangach o wasanaethau sy'n addas i’w cyflawni ar lefel ranbarthol. Ym mis Hydref, roedd cydbwysedd y cyngor yn ffafrio mandadu olion troed y byrddau iechyd ar gyfer cyflawni dibenion fel gwella addysg, diogelu'r cyhoedd a gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn rhanbarthol. Mae'r drafodaeth fanylach wedi amlygu pryderon y gallai glynu’n gaeth at ôl troed y byrddau iechyd ar gyfer gwasanaethau eraill olygu darnio unedau mwy o gydweithio sydd eisoes yn bodoli, neu rwystro datblygiad trefniadau newydd ar raddfa fwy.

Mae'r Papur Gwyn felly yn cynnig rhywfaint o hyblygrwydd ychwanegol i gytuno ar olion traed ar gyfer y dibenion hyn sydd wedi’u mandadu. Byddai’r dewis hwnnw yn gweithredu o fewn fframwaith a bennir gan Lywodraeth Cymru gyda’r nod o gael gwared ar orgyffwrdd a hyrwyddo symlrwydd. Bydd hyblygrwydd dan arweiniad yn osgoi'r angen am newid trafferthus i drefniadau rhanbarthol sefydledig ac effeithiol, gan greu posibilrwydd o drefniadau mwy arloesol pan fo hynny'n briodol. Mae'r adroddiad iaith, gwaith a gwasanaethau dwyieithog a gomisiynwyd gan fy rhagflaenydd, er enghraifft, yn argymell datblygu strategaeth ieithyddol-gymdeithasol ar gyfer siroedd Ynys Môn, Gwynedd, Ceredigion a Sir Gaerfyrddin. Gallai hyblygrwydd o ran trefniadau gwaith rhanbarthol ganiatáu inni ystyried dull o'r fath, ac rwy'n edrych ymlaen at wneud mwy i archwilio hyn a phosibiliadau eraill yn ystod y cyfnod ymgynghori.

Lywydd, gadewch imi droi yn awr at fater llywodraethu. Mewn trafodaethau manwl ers mis Hydref, mae cydbwyllgor statudol cryfach, neu bwyllgor cydlywodraethu, wedi dod i'r amlwg fel y model llywodraethu a ffefrir. Mae'r Papur Gwyn yn cynnig y dylai'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ddeddfu i greu llwyfan cyffredin cyson a chadarn y byddai pob awdurdod lleol yn gweithredu arno, gan roi sail statudol i waith y pwyllgorau cydlywodraethu hyn.

Rwyf hefyd yn bwriadu manteisio ar y cyfle a gynigir gan y Papur Gwyn hwn i gynnig rhoi darpariaeth ar gyfer awdurdodau cyfun ar y llyfr statud. Bydd hyn yn sicrhau bod y pwerau angenrheidiol wedi eu sefydlu os bydd awdurdodau lleol yn dangos y byddai dull awdurdod cyfun yn helpu i gyflawni ein hamcanion cyffredin yn y dyfodol.

Mae'r Papur Gwyn yn amlinellu ffordd o ddefnyddio model cyfuno cyfraniadau i ariannu'r trefniadau rhanbarthol. Bydd eisiau i’r Aelodau hefyd fod yn ymwybodol fy mod i’n bwriadu cyhoeddi datganiad ysgrifenedig y prynhawn yma i ymdrin â'r agenda ddiwygio ehangach o ran system cyllid llywodraeth leol.

Lywydd, dylwn dynnu sylw at un agwedd arall ar y Papur Gwyn sy'n ymwneud â mwy o gydweithio. Mae'r ddogfen yn amlinellu cyfres o gamau gweithredu i gyflymu cynnydd awdurdodau lleol o ran rhannu gwasanaethau cefn swyddfa. Mae hwn yn faes lle mae cynnydd wedi bod yn anghyson a lle mae'n debygol y bydd potensial i wella effeithlonrwydd, cydnerthedd ac ansawdd gwasanaethau; mae’n rhaid inni ddechrau manteisio ar hyn.

Cyn belled ag y mae cynghorau cymuned dan sylw, mae'r Papur Gwyn yn tynnu sylw at y rhan bwysig y maen nhw’n ei chwarae mewn rhai rhannau o Gymru gan gydnabod yr amrywiaeth enfawr yn y trefniadau presennol. Fel y cyhoeddwyd ym mis Hydref, rwy’n bwriadu cymryd camau i gefnogi cynghorau cymuned i fod yn fwy effeithiol yn y tymor byr, ond rwyf hefyd yn bwriadu comisiynu adolygiad annibynnol cynhwysfawr o'r sector. Bydd hwn yn llywio trafodaeth am ddyfodol cynghorau cymuned a beth yw’r ffordd orau o ddefnyddio'r trefniadau presennol a’u gwneud yn nodweddiadol o'r system yn ei chyfanrwydd.

Lywydd, mae’r Papur Gwyn yn disgrifio sut yr ydym yn bwriadu bwrw ymlaen â’r agweddau hynny ar y Bil drafft llywodraeth leol, a gyhoeddwyd yn 2015, a gafodd gefnogaeth eang, fel darparu pŵer cymhwysedd cyffredinol, dull newydd o wella perfformiad a strategaethau i ymgysylltu’n well â’r cyhoedd. Rydym wedi ail-lunio’r cynigion hynny ac eraill, fodd bynnag, i daro eglurder newydd ar nodau cyffredin, gan ddarparu hyblygrwydd i awdurdodau lleol i benderfynu sut i gyflawni’r amcanion cyffredin hyn. Mae'r dull hwn i’w weld, er enghraifft, yn ein cynigion i roi pwerau i'r awdurdodau lleol i ddewis rhwng gweithredu drwy system lywodraethu â chabinet neu bwyllgor, neu i benderfynu beth yw’r ffordd orau o roi gwybod i’w hetholwyr am weithgareddau cynghorwyr. Mae'r Papur Gwyn hefyd yn gwahodd barn gychwynnol am gyfres o ddiwygiadau i'r trefniadau etholiadol ar gyfer llywodraeth leol. Mae hyn yn cynnwys mesurau i wella cofrestru pleidleiswyr a phleidleisio, fel cofrestr Cymru gyfan a phleidleisio drwy'r post neu’n electronig, yn ogystal â gostwng yr oedran pleidleisio ar gyfer etholiadau llywodraeth leol i 16. Rwyf hefyd yn ceisio barn am gyflwyno cynrychiolaeth gyfrannol ganiataol i alluogi prif awdurdodau i ddewis mabwysiadu naill ai system etholiadol cyntaf i’r felin neu system pleidlais sengl drosglwyddadwy, gan fod Bil Cymru wedi cwblhau ei daith drwy'r Senedd erbyn hyn. Rwy'n bwriadu ymgynghori ymhellach am y pecyn hwn o fesurau yn ddiweddarach eleni.

Lywydd, mae diwygio yn hanfodol er mwyn i awdurdodau lleol fod yn ariannol gadarn a gallu cynnal a gwella ansawdd eu gwasanaethau. Mae'r cynigion yn y Papur Gwyn hwn â’r nod o ddarparu’r cydnerthedd hwnnw a ffurfio perthynas newydd rhwng llywodraeth genedlaethol a lleol a'r cymunedau y maent yn eu gwasanaethu. Mae wedi bod yn nod imi ers imi ddod yn Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid a Llywodraeth Leol i adeiladu consensws ynglŷn â’r ffordd ymlaen. Rwy’n ddiolchgar iawn i'r rhai yr wyf wedi siarad â nhw, gan gynnwys aelodau o bleidiau eraill yn y Siambr hon. Bydd llawer ohonynt, rwy’n gobeithio, yn adnabod eu cyfraniadau a'u hawgrymiadau yn y Papur Gwyn ei hun, wrth iddo geisio llunio dyfodol dichonadwy a llwyddiannus i lywodraeth leol yng Nghymru. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at glywed barn yr Aelodau y prynhawn yma.

The White Paper and your inclusive approach as Cabinet Secretary are to be welcomed. The county councils have certainly welcomed the opportunity to present their views, and that is reflected to a certain extent in the White Paper. For example, the way they’re to have flexibility in certain areas with collaboration, and the map that they can turn to, do respond to some of the concerns that have been previously raised when these issues have been discussed. The councils themselves often know what will work best, and each area is different—and there is recognition of that in the White Paper. But I also believe that we need a national policy on certain issues for the sake of consistency and to see more effective action.

I have three specific questions, hoping to engender some debate in this Chamber, but more importantly, perhaps, in the councils themselves and among our councillors. Certainly, Plaid Cymru will be discussing the content of your White Paper broadly, including in our local government forum in just a few weeks’ time. The first question is this: do you believe that all of these different layers and maps that will be created will create confusion in the minds of the public? Have you considered how you can overcome this in bringing the White Paper together?

Reducing complexity was one of the recommendations of the Williams commission, and there is a risk that you may create an even more complex and confusing system through this White Paper. I believe that the governance model that is to be adopted will be crucial to all of this. You’ve proposed a joint committee approach, with representatives of all councils coming around the table and, I assume, selecting a chair from their midst. Perhaps an alternative model would make it easier for the public to understand where accountability lies, namely a model that includes a joint committee or a cabinet but would also include a mayor, elected by the people of the region to be a chair or leader of the new joint body. In that regard, the public would know exactly where accountability lay.

The second question relates to a proportional vote as an optional proposal in holding local government elections under the new powers available to Wales. Plaid Cymru welcomes this as a step in the right direction, and it is an issue that we have argued in favour of a number of times in this Chamber. But we would go further, making a proportional single transferrable vote mandatory for all councils. Can you, perhaps, explain why you haven’t taken that particular step? Wouldn’t having consistency and a system that will be fairer provide that consistency across Wales, and wouldn’t that make it easier for everyone to understand? We’ve heard about the complexities of various systems in various states of the United States, for example, but shouldn’t the emphasis be on a system that’s easily understood for all? But we do welcome the move in that direction, and introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds is also another important step forward that we are pleased to support. These issues are a practical way of enlivening local democracy where people feel that their vote actually counts.

Thirdly, I turn to the Welsh Language, and I welcome the opportunity that we’ve had to discuss a few ideas. If we are to reach the aim of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, we must acknowledge the importance of economic linguistic planning as a means of strengthening the traditional Welsh-speaking heartlands. Making it mandatory for western councils, namely Anglesey, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, to collaborate on strategic economic issues that would benefit the Welsh language would be an important first step, and would show the Government’s specific commitment to the need to link the development of the language with economic development, so I’d ask for your views on that. Will you, in due time, be willing to consider legislating in order to ensure that this western collaboration for the benefit of the Welsh language does actually occur? I look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you.

May I thank Sian Gwenllian for her comments this afternoon and for the opportunity to speak to her over the past months, when we were endeavouring to develop on what’s in the statement to the Assembly this afternoon? Just to say something on the final point that she raised on the Welsh language—there are many issues in the White Paper referring to the Welsh language, and how we can collaborate in the local authorities for the benefit of the Welsh language and future planning. The White Paper alludes twice to Rhodri Glyn Thomas’s report—in chapter 2 of the White Paper. The White Paper is silent on whether that should be mandatory—bringing the county councils together, as Rhodri Glyn referred to, as regards economic development. But, of course, the White Paper is up for discussion and to collate the views of the people from those local authorities to see what they thought was the best way forward for the future.

Ynglŷn â nifer o'r pwyntiau eraill a wnaeth Siân Gwenllian, Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno â hi, wrth gwrs, bod y Papur Gwyn, yn y bôn, yn rhoi dyfarniad ynglŷn â fframweithiau polisi cenedlaethol a materion y mae’n well eu gadael i awdurdodau lleol eu hunain, gan eu bod yn deall eu poblogaethau lleol a'u hanghenion yn well. Credaf fod y Papur Gwyn hwn yn ailfwrw'r berthynas honno o blaid yr awdurdodau lleol eu hunain. Fy agwedd i at hyn yw y dylem weithio'n galed gydag awdurdodau lleol fel partneriaid allweddol i gytuno ar amcanion allweddol, ac yna mae'n rhaid inni fod yn gwbl ymrwymedig i’r amcanion hynny, a gwrthod cael ein taro oddi ar y llwybr. Ond yn aml mae awdurdodau lleol eu hunain mewn gwell sefyllfa i wneud penderfyniadau am sut y gellir cyflawni’r amcanion hynny. Mae'r Papur Gwyn yn adlewyrchu’r meddylfryd hwnnw.

Rwy’n cytuno â hi hefyd bod y mater o gymhlethdod wedi bod yn un yr ydym wedi brwydro yn ei erbyn drwy gydol y broses hon. Rwy'n credu bod yna ffyrdd y gallwn helpu aelodau'r cyhoedd i ddeall sut y mae penderfyniadau sy'n bwysig iddynt yn cael eu gwneud, ble maent yn cael eu gwneud, a sut y gall pobl ddylanwadu ar y penderfyniadau hynny pan eu bod yn dymuno ymgysylltu â nhw. Rwy'n meddwl y bydd swyddogaeth aelodau etholedig yn arbennig o bwysig yn y dyfodol. Rwy'n credu y bydd yn waith newydd ac arwyddocaol y byddwn yn disgwyl i aelodau etholedig gynorthwyo aelodau'r cyhoedd i ddeall y dirwedd newydd, i fod yn eiriolwyr drostynt, ac i wneud yn siŵr bod ganddynt arweiniad arbenigol i ddeall ble mae penderfyniadau pwysig yn cael eu gwneud. Yn bersonol, nid yw syniad meiri etholedig erioed wedi apelio ataf fi, ond mae darpariaeth ar y llyfr statud ar hyn o bryd sy'n caniatáu profi hynny â phoblogaethau lleol lle ceir awydd i wneud hynny.

Yn olaf, o ran y cynnig am gynrychiolaeth gyfrannol ganiataol, rwy’n ymdrin â hynny yn yr un ffordd yn union, Lywydd, ag yr wyf wedi ceisio llunio gweddill y Papur Gwyn hwn: drwy roi penderfyniadau yn nwylo awdurdodau lleol eu hunain. Nid wyf yn credu ei fod yn fater lle bydd un dull yn addas i bob awdurdod lleol, ond yn union fel yr ydym ni yn y Cynulliad hwn yn mynd i allu gwneud penderfyniadau am sut i ethol y Cynulliad hwn yn y dyfodol, rwyf hefyd yn credu ei bod yn deg rhoi’r gallu hwnnw i awdurdodau lleol hefyd fel y gallant hwy eu hunain wneud y penderfyniad hwnnw yn eu hamgylchiadau lleol gyda'u dealltwriaeth leol ac y gallant raddnodi’r ffordd o ymdrin â materion mewn ffordd sy'n adlewyrchu’r ddealltwriaeth leol.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cabinet Secretary. Having worked with three former predecessors on the issue of moving towards local government reform, I find it extremely refreshing that we as a party have been able to be consulted and engage with you, and I know I’ve enjoyed the meetings we’ve had. I do expect to see that reflected—our policy proposals, our suggestions—throughout the White Paper when it actually arrives.

We do have concerns, however, as a group in terms of how, in terms of local government reform, you are now grafting electoral reform onto the process, and we do feel that this is more about appeasing the political group Plaid Cymru in order to get their support. We would rather have seen a more consensual approach, where we could have all worked together and had a model that worked well for our authorities to deliver efficient and good-quality public services for our electorate. We know that the Williams commission, implemented by your Government—technically cross-party—made some firm recommendations, and, to date, we are wanting to see some of those recommendations implemented.

The Welsh Government’s top priority in local government reform should be what our residents and our council tax payers are asking for. They deserve and they want efficient, well-run services and they also want fair levels of council tax. I can honestly say, in my own constituency of Aberconwy, I haven’t had a single person coming through my office or contacting me about the need for electoral reform here in Wales. What they have come to see me about is how the Welsh Government is moving forward after three years of what has been a chaotic period for local government under Welsh Labour.

Sian Gwenllian did make some very valid points, actually, about the kind of confusion that might arise from some of the proposals mentioned in the statement today and whether there is a real danger that subdividing local government into different regional layers will create a perception of increased bureaucracy and succeed in taking decision making further away from residents. I welcome your mention, on those benches, of elected mayors. We’ve advocated directly elected mayors previously. However, in this instance, I would seek assurances from the Cabinet Secretary here today that any proposals going forward for local reform will not actually, ultimately, cost our council tax payers more and that the process doesn’t become unwieldy in terms of bureaucracy and cost.

Moving on, voluntary mergers are still on the table, and I would ask, Cabinet Secretary, what discussions you’ve actually had with those authorities that came forward bravely during the last term, put forward really good proposals for joint-authority working and were just rejected out of hand by the previous Minister. It would be interesting to know whether you are taking forward any conversations currently about how, if they want to—it’s a cost-effective model—that can go forward?

Going on to council tax, when we last looked at this, when the previous Minister was in post, there was the potential for band D property rates to vary by an extra £624 per year. That would not be welcomed in my constituency. We must remember that council tax under Labour in Wales has gone up 178 per cent, and people now really question what you will do as Cabinet Secretary in Government to actually help our hard-working council tax payers and our pensioners. Do you consider council tax harmonisation to be an issue in relation to regional working, and if you do, how do you propose to address this?

Cabinet Secretary, you have suggested that there will be no additional reimbursement for any of the structures coming forward in your proposed model, either in scrutiny or the regional actual governance. I would ask you to put that on record here today because, again, I know that my constituents would be very unhappy if they were to see extra costings to the political side of any bureaucracy that may come from this. How will regional working really be scrutinised at regional level, but more importantly, at local level? And how will my constituents be able to feed into a north Wales model in terms of being able to have confidence that there will be really strong, robust scrutiny and financial probity? How will portfolio holders be held to account for the actions of their regional working? And where does the democratic accountability lie in that regard?

Now, community councils—I’ll move on—the Wales Office report out today found that many councils do not follow the basic procedural requirements set out in law. In 2015-16, community councils received over £43 million of income, yet incurred over £40 million of expenditure, managing reserves worth over £32 million and long-term assets worth over £180 million. I’ve raised it several times in this Chamber, and with yourself privately, about the need for a fundamental review of our community council system. Thirty-six per cent of councils do not set an appropriate budget. Over 50 councils fail to comply with a statutory timetable for preparing and improving the account statements. Again, what immediate action will you take to ensure that there are far higher rates of compliance with legal requirements in this regard? How will you ensure proper openness and transparency for this level of government, when many of our smaller community councils have had the funding to maintain a website, to maintain published minutes, to maintain a published agenda, and to maintain financial probity, transparency and democratic accountability?

So, you know where my views, and those of my Welsh Conservative colleagues, stand here. We wish you luck, moving forward, with local government reform. We want to be a part of it but, as I said, for us, it’s not about gerrymandering the electoral system. It is about true local government reform. Thank you.

Well, Llywydd, I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for a comprehensive set of questions. Thank you for what she said at the beginning. I look forward to continuing to have opportunities to discuss the detail of these ideas as the consultation period goes on. I understand her party has a different view of electoral reform, but there’s absolutely no suggestion of gerrymandering. These are choices that we will be able to debate here, and we’ve already heard different views of them in the Chamber.

I want to deal as best as I can with the series of very specific questions that the Member has raised. I’m glad she took the trouble to mention voluntary mergers. They do come back onto the table in this White Paper. I have had the opportunity to hear from a number of those councils that previously put forward voluntary merger proposals. I know that some background work will be going on to look at those ideas again. I think what they would say to the Member, as they said to me, is that this point in the electoral cycle isn’t helpful to them and that, before they are able to enter such discussions in any determined way, they would wish to have a refreshed mandate from their local populations.

Tax harmonisation is not a factor in the regional arrangements. The proposal that the White Paper sets out is that money should continue to flow through the 22 local authorities, and then be pooled upwards by them to discharge the new mandatory regional responsibilities. Local authorities have regularly pointed out to me that they do this successfully now. For example, in the education consortia, they agree amongst themselves how much each is to put into that collective pot. And I want a relationship that regards local authorities as mature organisations, capable of grappling with serious challenges, and with a democratic franchise of their own. The role of Government is to provide for a backstop when things don’t work out in the way that we would expect. So, as far as budgets are concerned, the White Paper says the default position would be for local authorities to agree this themselves. We will set out in any legislation a fall-back formula that they would have to apply in circumstances where they were unable to come to agreement.

As far as scrutiny is concerned, the White Paper suggests a menu approach, consistent with the way I’ve already described—the overall methodology behind it. It says that local authorities will be able to choose from a range of different ways of organising scrutiny, deciding which method best suits their local circumstances. Janet asked a very important question about portfolio holders. The joint committee model that we endorse in the White Paper would see portfolio holders from participating local authorities coming together to make those regional decisions. I am determined, despite wanting to be as consensual as possible and wanting to discuss as many things as possible, on these two things, I feel strongly myself: one, that in the end, decisions must rest on the desk of elected members. And one of the dangers of regional committees is that they can provide too much power to officers rather than elected members. I think decisions must be made by people whom other people can get rid of if they decide that that’s what they want to do. And I also wanted to design these regional structures in a way that makes it clear that regional decisions will be made by those portfolio holders coming together. They will go back to their component local authorities to be scrutinised, to answer questions, to be held accountable, but they will not be going back to ask for permission. The law will make it clear that those regional decisions must be regionally discharged, and with the best interest of the whole region at the forefront of the minds of those people making those decisions.

The Member has taken a very close interest, and a very well-informed interest too, in community councils, and I look forward to further discussions with her about the root-and-branch review of community councils that this White Paper signals. The frustration of the auditor general’s report today is that he says that the errors he sees are common errors. They’re the same mistakes being made everywhere, and that they’re very easy to put right. So, the frustration is that we are yet to make the progress we want to in getting community councils to attend to those basic issues that the Member highlighted in her contribution. The White Paper sets out a series of immediate steps we can take to improve the performance of community councils in the here and now, but the purpose of the fundamental review is to take the best of what they do, and there are good examples of them doing very important work in Wales, and to make that characteristic of the system as a whole.

Thanks to the Minister for his statement today. We in UKIP broadly support the intention to reduce the bureaucracy of local government, while, at the same time, striving to preserve some meaningful link between elected local councillors and their constituents. As with most things in politics, this reorganisation needs to be a balancing act. On one hand, we have public concerns over too many administrators, whose work is replicated currently by 22 different departments in Wales, many of them essentially doing the same thing. On the other hand, if we went down the route that the last local government Minister, Leighton Andrews, advocated, then we would end up with eight or nine councils. I fear this outcome may have fatally and irreparably broken the relationship between local members and their electorate.

We have problems enough with councillors trying to represent their communities, notably in the area of planning. For years, local members have tried to fight planning applications, only for the council to be advised by the planning directors that, ‘We will probably lose this one on appeal if we vote against it’, and the developer duly wins his application. So, the local members have little enough influence as it is, and reducing the number of councils to eight or nine would only render them ever more impotent. Really, what we need in the planning process are legally binding local referenda, which is UKIP policy, and we would urge the Minister to look at this in future, if he does genuinely want to empower local people in decisions that have a major bearing on their communities.

Going back to the specific proposals presented today, on paper they do seem to represent a reasonable basis on which to begin what will, clearly, be complicated negotiations with the 22 local authorities. We have to ensure that the Welsh council tax payer gets better value for money, and that we do reduce excess numbers of administrators. At the same time, we cannot be cavalier over this, bearing in mind, as we must, that these are people’s jobs. It’s another balancing act, as is the task of manoeuvring the councils delicately towards implementing more shared services.

We await the eventual outcome of the local government reorganisation keenly, but we are also keen that the Minister ends up with the standardised rulebook that he has spoken of regarding the operation of the joint regional committees, or the joint governance committees, as he calls them. We agree with the principle that all substantive decisions have to be made by elected members, and not officers, and we want to avoid rendering decision making more cumbersome. So, we support the concept that the regional committee itself makes the decisions, and does not simply make recommendations that then have to go back to the respective local councils.

We also have mention for the first time from the Minister of a putative proposal to allow councils to introduce the single transferable vote, or STV, at their own elections, if they so wish. We don’t think this goes far enough, but we do very much welcome the Minister’s movement in this direction. We also like the proposal to allow councils to decide, if they wish, to go back to the old system of governance by committee, rather than council cabinet. Many council tax payers recall with fondness the old system, and would welcome the chance to return to it.

In closing, there is still a long way to go to put this whole reorganisation plan into practice. But this statement does seem to represent a reasonable starting point. Thank you.

I thank the Member for his contribution, and for those parts of the White Paper that he has endorsed. Let me just take the last point first, really, which is, I don’t think it’s possible to do anything other than have a consistent approach to the way that we allocate responsibilities. If it’s right for councils to be able to decide whether they want a committee structure or a cabinet structure, if it’s right to allow councils to decide whether they want to be elected en bloc, or on a third, one third, one third basis, which this White Paper will allow, then it’s right to allow local councils themselves to take the decision on the form of election that best suits them. It’s a consistent thread that runs through the White Paper, and I want to maintain that consistency.

I agree with what Mr Bennett said about the paper being a balancing act; there are different tensions in it. I want to make sure that we do reinforce that meaningful link between local councils, councillors, and the populations that elect them. But, there again, the White Paper suggests that, while it is an obligation on those councillors to demonstrate that they have a continuous relationship with the people who have elected them, it suggests that there is a range of different ways in which a councillor could demonstrate that they are discharging that obligation, and the way that you might do it in a densely populated inner city part of Cardiff might be very different than if you were a councillor in a rural part of Powys or Ceredigion.

I’m not attracted to the idea of planning by referenda, but the White Paper does have a significant section in chapter 2 on some complex planning matters and this is a consultation, so Members who have different views and think that the system could work better in other ways, then of course I hope very much that they will take part in the consultation and allow those views to be explored further.

Firstly, can I welcome the statement and most of the proposals? For the last 25 years I’ve seen proposals for local government change based on the certainty of ignorance. It’s a very welcome break from that. This is so much better than any of the previous proposals, some implemented and most not.

First, could I welcome the proposed power of general competence, something that local government has requested for decades? Secondly, can I welcome the use of the city regions as the footprints for local government? It appears that every time a new proposal for joint working in an area is proposed, a new area is created, and that causes nothing but confusion. So, I think, in answer to perhaps what Sian Gwenllian was saying, this could be better than the current system. I live in Swansea, in what they call a Janus area, because we either look east or west depending on which service it is, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me and most of my constituents.

If city regions are to mean anything, then they have to be the basis for service provision. Otherwise they’ll be seen solely as artificial constructs for economic development only. Shared back-office services will obviously save money—what some people call a ‘no-brainer’—but will mean that some highly paid jobs will move from one area to another, and that might mean moving highly paid jobs out of some of our poorer communities. So there are advantages in terms of saving money, but it’s not just about that, is it? It’s about supporting some of our poorer communities.

I’ve got three questions to the Cabinet Secretary. The first question is: whilst I feel that STV, or ‘guess how many seats you can win, but with seats for everyone’, is not a suitable electoral system, I’m sure others will disagree with me; will the Cabinet Secretary include a supermajority system, that is, that two thirds of a council must support it before a change can be made?

Second question: as I have previously argued, some would probably say ad nauseam, there are services that are best provided at a local level and those that benefit from being large organisations—I think that education and social services are two that immediately come to mind, as the two great county council services; but not only those, trading standards, again, is another service that does benefit from scale—but will the Cabinet Secretary allow councils to decide the size and membership of these joint boards?

Thirdly, while most are outside his remit, will the Cabinet Secretary work with other members of the Government to work towards moving all Welsh Government-funded public services to within the city region footprint?

Can I thank Mike Hedges for what he said in opening? He will know that some of my thinking has been much influenced by discussions with him, and some of his views and in-depth experience of the way that local government works on the ground. In relation to his point about back-office services, a number of Members have made this point—Gareth Bennett made it as well—about the way in which jobs are affected when services are consolidated. The White Paper suggests a gradualist approach to this, but a determined sense that we are on that journey together. In the health service, it took 10 years to go from every health body providing everything for itself to a single national shared service, and sensitivity was needed along the way when it was people’s jobs that were being affected by those decisions. I would hope that I would be very determined that if highly paid jobs were to be affected by back-office consolidation, those jobs would be located in a way that is consistent with the Welsh Government’s economic approach—in other words, those jobs would be deliberately located in those places where the jobs would make the greatest difference. So, I think there are ways in which we can address the issue that the Member very properly raises.

In relation to his three specific questions, there will be different views—we’ve heard them already—on the way in which we can approach a permissive system of choosing electoral arrangements, and where people have ideas to add to the pool that we have laid out in the White Paper, then I’ll be very keen to hear those in the consultation. I do hope, Llywydd, that Members of all political parties here, and the political parties themselves, will want to be interested in the wider set of reforms that the White Paper sets out, using the new powers that we will have to change the way in which we conduct elections in order to make them more accessible and available to people who we want to see participating in them.

Mike Hedges asks me about the size of regional committees. There is a section in the White Paper, in part 2, from memory, that provides some flexibility over the membership of the regional governance committees. I think the only principle it sets down as one that we are currently committed to is that, if there is flexibility, it still means that the flexibility is equally available to all local authorities who are members of the committee. In other words, if you have three members from one council, you’ve got to have three members from them all, and so on.

Finally, in relation to moving all Welsh Government activity into these footprints, we discussed this White Paper, of course, at the Cabinet. I know that my colleagues are committed to that same wish to try and simplify the pattern of regional footprints in Wales, to try and consolidate the work we do on fewer footprints, but to do that in a way that allows time to migrate from things that we have working today to the arrangements we will have in the future, and to do that in a way that is sensitive to those arrangements that are currently working and that we wouldn’t want to disrupt.

Can I make it clear I’m speaking as an individual, rather than representing the Welsh Conservative view on what I’m going to say? It’s not particularly interesting, I suspect, but—[Interruption.] I’ve now obviously—[Interruption.] I’ve now raised expectations. [Laughter.] Can I just say, on extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, I warmly welcome this, if it’s going to happen? I think we should consult on it. I think it would be marvellous to actually be held to account by people going through compulsory education. I think that would be fantastic. I would ask him whether he will be having discussions with his colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, about how we could reform the curriculum in terms of how we teach civic education, because this would be an ideal opportunity to do that.

I have to say, I did intend to launch a ferocious attack on this incredible STV policy of not having a central organising principle behind a reform, but just to let anything go in terms of what each council wished to do, but then I realised I’d put the same policy in the 2007 Conservative manifesto. [Laughter.] I have to say that I had a pretty difficult commission, because our own executive didn’t want proportional representation, and we had to sort of show a bit of leg, as it were, in terms of PR to potential partners in a rainbow coalition. So, the wheeze I came up with was, ‘Well, just let councils decide’.

But I have to say, on reflection, it’s really important, if we don’t believe that our electoral system at local level, and also, indeed, at the Assembly level, is not ensuring representation of what is now a political society that has a variety of parties, a multi-party system—if that is breaking down and not delivering good, effective, responsive and efficient local government, then I think we should really address this as a big principle that needs to be sorted out. I really think we should be consistent and that that part of your proposal in the White Paper is, frankly, weak.

Well, of course, I’m always interested in what David Melding has to say. Thank you for what you said on 16 and 17-year-olds. I absolutely agree with him that one of the key arguments for extending the franchise in that way is that it allows you to create an educated and informed citizenry early on in their lives, and hopefully then to be able to go on harnessing the benefits of that during the remainder of the time that we will hope they will be interested in democracy.

When we’ve debated it across the Chamber here, it’s an idea that has had very widespread support. The experience of the Scottish referendum, which we’ve rehearsed here in those debates, is very heartening in the way in which young people at that point in their lives were so engaged in matters that would make such a difference, potentially, to their own futures.

The permissive PR—not only has it appeared in other manifestos here in Wales, but it was put on the statute book, is on the statue book, in New Zealand. Our model in this Chamber has been the New Zealand model. A Labour Government in New Zealand put permissive PR on the statute book there over a decade ago. It has worked in exactly the way that I’ve described here this afternoon. Some local authorities have decided that their circumstances are better suited to one method than the other. There has been a gradual change in the pattern over time, but my understanding is about half of local authorities in New Zealand are now elected by one method and half by another. Only one local authority has changed its system and decided to revert to the one it had before.

There is no great organising principle, I think, at stake here. What is at stake, I believe, is the general principle of this White Paper, which is that we allow local authorities themselves to make the decisions that are right for them, rather than thinking that we, here, in the centre, are better placed than they are to know what is right for their localities. And I don’t think I have been convinced this afternoon by Members who stand up saying that they’re glad that local authorities are going to be able to have the choice in this area, or that area, or that area, but, when it comes to this matter, suddenly decide that we know better than they do. I think consistency of allowing local authorities themselves a menu of choices—choices that will be determined by this Assembly when we come to legislate—but then allowing them to do things in a way that reflects their own needs and circumstances; I think that’s a principle, and it’s one, I hope, that this White Paper reflects.

On Friday, I hosted a meeting, a mini summit, on climate change with 16 and 17-year-olds in the Tŷ Hywel chamber, and it illustrated just how well-equipped 16 and 17-year-olds can be to engage in political matters, because their ideas for changing the world and for delivering on Wales’s climate change obligations were absolutely excellent. So, I very much welcome that proposal and I hope that it will be widely supported.

I think that I also very much like the section of your White Paper on distributed leadership—‘What contribution can I make to resolving this matter?’, which everybody should need to be asking themselves—and the ethos that you are proposing, that we have learning organisations, where the needs of local people and communities are put at the heart of decision making, based on a co-productive relationship. And, in that context, I just wanted to ask you about how this White Paper might address improving our relationship with the third sector, because the auditor general’s recent report is highlighting that local authorities have a rather inconsistent approach to working with the third sector, and they don’t seem to have a methodical, data-driven, accurate quality approach when they’re awarding contracts, which is somewhat worrying. I also reflect on the testimony of the NEA, National Energy Action, saying how difficult it is to work with both many local authorities, and, indeed, with many health boards, to ensure that their expertise is properly used to ensure that people understand how they can improve energy efficiency and reduce their bills. So, I just wondered if you could tell us how the White Paper addresses the need to ensure all local authorities are as methodical in all the other issues you lay out and also in their approach to working with the third sector.

Can I thank Jenny Rathbone for those comments, and particularly for drawing attention to something that we haven’t rehearsed so far in the discussion this afternoon? The White Paper says that, just as we want a new relationship between the Welsh Government and local authorities, so local authorities themselves need to develop a new relationship with the populations that they serve: a relationship based on a view of their local populations as assets, as people who have strengths, as people who have a contribution to make, rather than problems that have to be solved. So, at the heart of the White Paper is that different relationship, that co-productive relationship. It says to local authorities that, in the very tough times—very tough times—that lie ahead, if you’re not able to mobilise the contribution that your population can make to act jointly with you in pursuit of things that matter to local populations, your ability to go on doing the important things you do will be much compromised. The idea of distributive leadership is that everybody who works for a local authority has some leadership responsibilities and the first question you should ask yourself when you come across a problem is not, ‘Who should I report this problem to so that I can make it somebody else’s responsibility?’ The first question you should ask yourself is, ‘What contribution can I make to solving this problem?’ What can I do to make a difference here?’ Then, of course, you will need to mobilise the contributions of lots of other people if you’re going to make a real difference. But it does try to move the debate on from that sort of hierarchical sense that my job is simply to find somebody else who I can make responsible for solving a problem—‘What can I do to make a contribution to it?’

In the points that Jenny raised about the involvement of the third sector and organisations that need to relate to local authorities, I meet third sector organisations twice a year formally to discuss their relations with local authorities. I think they broadly support the regional approach that this White Paper sets out, because I think they believe it will simplify their ability to interact with local authorities, it will allow them to take the good relations that they have in some places and try and make them characteristic of the whole of that region, and it will provide a different set of entry points to other organisations. Instead of having to deal with 22 local authorities about everything, they will have a smaller number and, as a result, more effective opportunities to form those very important contacts and relationships.

I welcome this statement. I think it does represent great progress. I particularly welcome the proposals that will ensure councils work together over issues like regional planning and transport. Of course, we’ve got a very good example already happening in the Cardiff capital region, with 10 local authorities already working closely together to deliver the city deal and, of course, the metro. I’ve also been very pleased to work with my colleague Hefin David on supporting a green belt between Cardiff and Caerphilly, and, last year, we worked together to press for a regional approach to the development of housing on the Caerphilly side of the mountain, which, of course, impacts on the Cardiff North side in terms of traffic. Does he agree that these proposals will make it much easier to tackle these sorts of issues in a regional way and in a way that takes the local authorities’ views—surrounding views—into account?

I also am very pleased about the proposal for the votes for 16 and 17 year olds. I think this is a great opportunity to include young people in our decision making. Does he think that we will have 16 and 17 year olds standing as councillors? Would he welcome that, and would he perhaps agree that we do need a much greater diversification of councillors in any case, and, if we have a lot of young people, that will help towards that? But, of course, there are other groups as well, and some of my concerns about joint governance committees are, if, for example, there’s a joint governance committee of the leaders of the local authorities, as things stand at the moment, most of those would be almost totally male, and we have very few women council leaders—one or two, perhaps. I don’t know whether there’s any way that that can be tackled through this legislation, but, obviously, it could be a consequence of this legislation that the governance committees are not representative of the people as a whole. But, overall, I think this is a great step forward.

I thank Julie Morgan, Llywydd, for what she said. She’s right to point to the fact that the experience of the Cardiff capital region has been very influential in drawing up this White Paper. It’s very regularly pointed to by council leaders of different parties when I’m discussing it with them as an example of how they have been able to come together. But it’s not just Cardiff; the Swansea region and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board are two other examples of where local authorities are demonstrating the advantages that they can obtain through working in the way that the White Paper sets out. We’ve learnt a lot from them and it’s on their advice that we have identified economic development, regional transport and regional land use planning as the three key levers that they need to make a difference to the sorts of issues that Julie Morgan outlined.

Will we see 16 and 17-year-olds as councillors in the future? Well, I don’t see why not, but let’s make sure that they can participate through the actions that we can take here. There is a significant section in the White Paper about diversification of representation, and that is a real ambition, I think, that we ought to grasp here in Wales. There is a new generation of leaders emerging in local authorities, and that’s much to be welcomed, but we have only two women leaders, both of them formidable actors in the local government field, and hopefully role models to others who will want to follow them. There are a series of practical actions that we set out here, and through the different actions of our political parties, each of which has a responsibility to play their part in the diversification agenda, I am confident we can do more on that here in Wales.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and also, as Janet Finch-Saunders said earlier, for the tone that you’ve set in this statement. It’s slightly different to that of your predecessor. You appear—I don’t mean Jane Hutt; I mean your local government predecessor—slightly more to be listening. That is really to be welcomed, and I think that has come out in the tone of this statement today. Can I ask you—? I really do welcome the way that you’ve moved on from the previous plans—from what I saw as being flawed local government reorganisation. I know there were different views on that, but I think we would have lost a lot of what was good about the system without getting the benefits that we thought.

You do in your statement say that you do not rule out—to paraphrase that—the combined model of local government if local authorities can demonstrate that a combined authority approach would help deliver shared objectives. I know that the combined model was something that my local council in Monmouthshire and the south-east area authorities were very keen on, but it was ruled out by your predecessor, as I said before. At what point would you ascertain that those local authorities have demonstrated that that type of model is something that you and the Welsh Government would accept, if they did want to go down that route?

I thank Nick Ramsay. He’s right to say that Monmouthshire council has been one of the ones that have advocated a combined authority model. I think when he has a chance to look closely at the White Paper, he’ll see some other places where discussions with Monmouthshire have had an impact in the White Paper, and some of the ways that we have amended the proposals for how local authorities can organise themselves at a sub-local authority level. Discussions with Gwynedd have been equally important in shaping some of our thinking there.

My conclusion has been this, Nick: that local government Bills don’t come in front of the Assembly very often, and although the joint governance committee is the model that I think most regional arrangements will want to use in the first instance, I felt it was right to see whether we could put the combined authority model on the statute book, so that if the system matures rapidly and local authorities themselves come forward saying that they would rather adopt a combined authority model, we don’t need another piece of primary legislation here in order to give them that ability. So, it is consistent with the theme I’ve developed throughout the afternoon, Llywydd, which is putting choices into the legislation that local authorities themselves can draw down when their circumstances mean that they think that that will be the right thing for them to do. I don’t have a timescale in my mind for when that might happen, but where local authorities want to move in that direction and can show that that would be to the advantage of their local populations, I think it makes sense for us as a National Assembly to make provision so that the Bill will be futureproofed against those intentions.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on the Hazelkorn review of Welsh education. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today I’m announcing the Welsh Government’s response to Professor Ellen Hazelkorn’s report ‘Towards 2030—A Framework for Building a World-class Post-Compulsory Education System for Wales’, which was published on 10 March 2016.

I would like to express my appreciation for Professor Hazelkorn’s work, alongside the many stakeholders, in reviewing the current arrangements and drawing on her extensive international experience. Indeed, in her most recent co-authored book, ‘The Civic University’, she has argued that pursing a civic mission must be a way of both organising higher education and the value of institutions in partnership, committing to improving the lives of communities and nations. I have previously set a challenge to Welsh higher education to recapture its sense of civic mission following the Brexit vote. But I also recognise that the wider framework for our post-compulsory education system itself needs clarity, both in terms of its sense of purpose and how we ensure high-quality options and outcomes for our citizens.

The previous administration commissioned the review because of concerns about the growing complexity of the post-compulsory education and training system. This includes further education, higher education, work-based learning and adult community education. The various sectors and providers are regulated and funded in different ways by different bodies and the result can be unhelpful competition between education and training providers, duplication or gaps in provision and confusion for learners. New types of providers have entered the system in recent years and a significant number of HE courses are now taught in FE institutions. Boundaries between higher education and further education, which once were clear, are now breaking down.

I am conscious of significant changes in the approach to post-compulsory education and training in other parts of the United Kingdom. These will have a knock-on effect on Wales and we need to ensure that our system is fit for purpose and benefits learners of all ages, employers and communities. Working lives are now longer, and they change rapidly, and we need a system that makes it easier for people to learn and acquire skills throughout their careers. Our lives and economy are undergoing huge technological change. We know that the skills requirements of our economy are constantly changing and, of course, we must respond to the impact of Brexit. Doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo, is not a viable option.

Professor Hazelkorn concluded that the current system does not focus sufficiently on learners and nor does it fully achieve value for money. Her report emphasised the need for post-compulsory education and training to operate as a single sector. It also proposed how the post-compulsory sector should be regulated and monitored to ensure sustainability, coherence and effectiveness into the future. Her recommendations included: developing an overarching vision, based on stronger links between education policy, providers and provision and social and economic goals; establishing a single regulatory, oversight and co-ordinating authority for the post-compulsory sector—this would be responsible for funding provision at all levels, monitoring governance practice, ensuring quality and be the lead funder of research; placing the needs of learners at the heart of the education system by establishing a clear and flexible learning and career pathway; and there should be parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways and connections between qualifications and the labour market, and they have to be improved.

Over the past few months, I have given these proposals careful consideration, alongside ministerial colleagues. As set out in my agreement with the First Minister, we want to promote and enhance both academic and vocational routes into and through further and higher education, ensuring that we widen access so that learners benefit throughout their lives. Raising standards in schools is crucial, but we also know that lifelong learning, part-time learning and work-based learning is essential to social mobility and national prosperity.

I recognise that the model proposed by Professor Hazelkorn builds on what is tried and tested in successful systems such as the ones in Ontario and New Zealand, and I want Wales to enjoy those same advantages. Therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, I plan to consult, later on this year, on proposals for establishing a single strategic authority, responsible for overseeing all aspects of post-compulsory education and training. It is critical that we hear from learners, leaders and practitioners on how post-compulsory education and training meets their needs and can be an even greater force for the social mobility and national prosperity I mentioned earlier.

It is intended that the new body would be given responsibility for planning, funding, contracting, ensuring quality, financial monitoring, audit and performance, and be the lead funder of research. In line with Professor Hazelkorn’s recommendations, the current functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales would be transferred to the new authority, which would operate at arm’s length from the Welsh Government. Let me be clear: our universities were founded, grew and now prosper as autonomous institutions with academic freedom—a principle that remains secure. This is an opportunity to shape a system where institutions of all types are encouraged to work together to meet learners’ needs, enabling progression and building strong links with businesses, so that skills gaps can be addressed. The new body would develop strong links with others, including schools and business, so that young people can move smoothly to further or higher education and find the opportunities that best meet their needs and aspirations.

Following consultation, Deputy Presiding Officer, I plan to bring forward legislative proposals later on in this Assembly term. To help manage the transition, the current chair of HEFCW has provisionally agreed to continue in this role for a further three years, for which I am grateful. Alongside this, I am seeking new members for the HEFCW council with experience in a wider range of areas, including work-based learning, further education and major public and private sector employment, in addition to existing strengths in higher education, innovation and research. In addition, we continue to seek the best advice and support for raising standards and enhancing opportunities.

Building on the work undertaken by Professor Hazelkorn and Professor Ian Diamond, I am able to announce that Professor Graeme Reid will oversee a review of research and innovation activity investment made by Welsh Government and related agencies. Later in the spring, I also intend to review how we monitor and improve effectiveness and outcomes in our post-compulsory education system.

So, Llywydd, I see these proposals and the other work I have announced today as the start of an informed debate. It must involve the education sector as a whole, business, learners and all who have an interest in making our post-compulsory education and training system the very best that it can be.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon and can I reiterate her thanks to Professor Hazelkorn for her work, of course, leading the review? Plaid Cymru supports the general thrust of your statement this afternoon and we are committed, of course, to work in the spirit of Hazelkorn to promote equity between academic and vocational education to eliminate much of the wasteful competition that has emerged in post-16 education in recent years and, of course, to develop clearer and more flexible post-16 learning pathways.

So, just a few questions, really, in terms of detail, maybe, more than anything else, although I would start by asking you to clarify that I am right, I think, in reading into your statement a clear signal that the Welsh Government will now pursue vigorously a move away from a market-demand-driven system to a better mix, as Hazelkorn says, of regulation and competition-based funding.

In terms of the tertiary education authority—and we have to get used to new acronyms every day in this place—as you know, one of the key decisions that will need to be made is where sixth forms sit in this new proposed structure. I’m just interested in your initial thoughts around whether they should remain as they are—very much part of the school system, beholden to Estyn in terms of inspections, et cetera—or whether you do see them actually coming now as a post-16 provision under the proposed new tertiary education authority, if or when that comes into being.

Likewise, of course, we are aware of the proposed extension of the remit of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol into FE, with the Coleg Cymraeg being directly funded now by Welsh Government. Where will that discussion happen in relation to its relationship with the proposed TEA? You say in your statement that it’s critical that we hear from learners, leaders and practitioners in this process, and I couldn’t agree more, but would you not agree that that needs to be an ongoing thing, and that when it comes, for example, to the TEA governing board, staff and students should have a representation on that board, so that obviously those voices can continue to be heard?

There’s no specifics around timescale here, although I do note the agreement of a further three-year period for the chair of HEFCW—maybe you could give us an idea of whether you therefore expect this process to conclude within those three years.

You slipped in announcements about two further reviews towards the end of the statement. The review of research and innovation activity—clearly we’ve had the Diamond review, which, one would imagine, would have overlapped somewhat. Maybe you could elaborate a bit about what you expect from the review by Professor Graeme Reid over and above Diamond and the thinking behind asking for that. And finally, the other review that you’ve announced this afternoon around how we monitor and improve effectiveness and outcomes: is this your first move, maybe, in creating a Welsh version of the teaching excellence framework? Or would it be, potentially, your first move in rebutting the TEF in Wales?

Can I thank Llyr for his questions and the shared understanding and agreement I think there is between us around the issues that we need to solve with regard to post-compulsory education. You’re absolutely right, the current system does lead to duplication and competition in a way that is often unhelpful. It does not provide, as Hazelkorn said herself in the report, good value for public money, and at a time of austerity we need to make sure that the Welsh pound is working really, really hard and delivering good outcomes. We need to ensure that there is collaboration across the sector, rather than competition, which sometimes does not promote the best interests of the individual student. Sometimes, understandably, it promotes the best interests of the institution rather than the learner, and that’s what we need to address here.

So, with regard to the tertiary education authority, which is known as a TEA—and if somebody could come up with a better name for it during the consultation, I would be grateful, because I think the ‘TEA’ is not a great term, so we need to call it something else, but it is referred to as a TEA in the Hazelkorn report. With regard to the issue around sixth forms, the Member says at the moment sixth forms are part of the school system—actually, they’re not part of the school system at all. Sixth forms are funded directly by Welsh Government in terms of allocations to local authorities. They’re not part of the revenue support grant. Sixth forms are not actually inspected by Estyn—this may be of surprise to some people, but that is not necessarily what Estyn do when they go into a school—to look at sixth-form provision. They are there to look at the compulsory education system, and I think that is a problem.

Hazelkorn herself says in the review that it is undecided about where best sixth forms sit in this debate, and there is merit in moving them as part of the post-compulsory education system into the TEA, but there is also merit, as there is in some countries that I’ve alluded to, where they sit very firmly in the education system. The consultation gives us an opportunity to explore the pros and cons of both sections. I’m open-minded to this. I think there is merit in terms of simplicity and the role of Estyn in keeping them and putting them very much in the schools framework. But at the same time, if we want to ensure that there is no competition and there is overall planning, there is a reason why you would put them into the tertiary education authority. But the consultation is an opportunity to tease through in greater detail some of those issues.

With regard to the ‘coleg’, as you know, the task and finish group is currently looking at the future remit of the ‘coleg’. The ‘coleg’ has done fantastic work in expanding the opportunities in higher education to study through the medium of Welsh, and the fact that they’ve done such a good job of that gives me some confidence that we can, at this stage, look to extend their remit into further education. We know that there is a paucity of provision in FE learning through the medium of Welsh, which this Government wants to do something about, and therefore we need to look at the most effective ways of doing that. The future remit of what the ‘coleg’ will do, of course, is subject to that task and finish review group, and I don’t want to pre-empt anything that Delyth Evans’s group will come forward with. But, obviously, the future commissioning of some of these issues will, again, form part of the consultation with regard to the TEA. What was important to me at this stage was to secure the funding for the ‘coleg’ going forward in the short-to-medium term, so that there was some certainty about their work.

With regard to representation—again, the details of how exactly the TEA and the board will look—it would be my expectation that if we were to have an organisation that truly is learner focused and learner centered, we would want all stakeholders to have a seat around that and be able to hear from those voices, and that would include the student voice. That would include the student voice in the way that it is heard in HEFCW, in the current arrangements, and I don’t see this in any way as an attempt to water down the student voice, or to water down the voice of the people who are delivering the services.

With regard to the other issues, Professor Graeme Reid’s review will identify research and innovation strengths in Wales, and outline how these assets can be used more effectively by business, by communities and, indeed, by the Government itself. We know, because of changes arising out of the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17 in England, there are potential issues around research and how we organise research, so we want Graeme Reid to look at this to make sure, again, we’re getting the best value for money and how we can protect Welsh interests at this changing time.

With regard to the other review about outcomes, this is the issue as we—. In some ways, we monitor schools to death. We spend a lot of time worrying about level 2 plus inclusives and what children get in their GCSEs and performance measures. We spend less time worrying about what the outcomes look like at A-level and we spend less time looking at the outcomes of work based learning opportunities, so this is about making sure that there is the same rigour in terms of progress and moving forward in all aspects of learning than just the specific sectors we tend to look at at the moment. This is not an attempt to introduce TEF into Wales. You will be aware that I have not ruled out Welsh universities and institutions participating in TEF—it is their decision to do so—but I do note the move by many Scottish institutions recently to say that they will not be participating in TEF because there are grave concerns about how the TEF framework is developed in England, and what that means for institutions. It is a matter for individual Welsh institutions, but this is not an attempt to introduce TEF, but it is to make sure that we have rigorous systems to check the outcomes that learners are getting and that Welsh Government is getting for its investment.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon? We on this side of the Chamber welcome today’s statement, but perhaps, from the outset, can I just clarify that the Welsh Government will be accepting in full all the recommendations in Professor Hazelkorn’s report? Can I also take this opportunity to thank Professor Hazelkorn for undertaking this important piece of work, and I believe that she’s absolutely right to say that education plays a vital role in shaping our society?

We can’t deny that there has been a raft of strategic policy documents generated by successive Welsh Governments, however those strategies have failed to deliver significant outcomes for learners, and quite clearly, there has been an absence of strategic capacity and joined-up thinking between the Welsh Government and education institutions in recent years. Within the post-compulsory education sector, there needs to be greater choice, but there also needs to be collaboration to ensure critical mass. There are good examples of that collaboration, the Centre for Aging and Dementia Research being just one.

It is vitally important we grasp this new opportunity now because, as the report points out, Wales does face demographic, social and economic challenges. We also face further change in relationships between the UK nations, between the UK and the European Union, and between Wales and rest of the world. I agree with today’s statement that doing nothing or maintaining the status quo is not a viable option. Therefore, it’s crucial that we ensure our post-compulsory education system is characterised by open and competitive education, offering the widest chance and choice to the broadest number of students.

Now, I note from today’s statement, Cabinet Secretary, that you plan to consult later this year on proposals for establishing a single strategic authority responsible for overseeing all aspects of post-compulsory education and training. Given that HEFCW will be transferred to this new authority, can you tell us how the individual post-compulsory sectors will be prioritised within this new body, and how will you ensure that all aspects of the different sectors will be appropriately reflected by this new authority?

Of course, it’s essential that the new organisation is properly resourced so it has the capacity to undertake and execute its functions. Therefore, do you have an initial financial envelope in mind at this stage? Or is the resourcing of such a body something that needs to be discussed in much more detail as you go forward, and will this be part of your consultation? Now, I ask this question because we know that HEFCW’s budget has been significantly squeezed over the past six years, and that has had an impact on the funding it has allocated to Welsh universities. Therefore, it’s important that this new body is properly and appropriately funded so that it can function effectively and serve the needs of the post-compulsory education sector. And can you, at this stage, give us an indication of what the cost implications of winding up HEFCW are and whether you believe there will be significant cost savings? How do you intend to approach the human resources implications of its dissolution?

Now, establishing this new body will obviously result in a new service level agreement between the Welsh Government and this new body. Can I ask you, therefore, how you envisage the service level agreement between the Welsh Government and the tertiary education authority operating in relation to an agreed programme of work? I hope you can also give us reassurances that any new service level agreement will be sufficient from the start, because we certainly don’t want a repeat of other insufficient service level agreements, such as Estyn’s service level agreement with the Government where it has had to go to Welsh Ministers to ask for additional resources to undertake certain aspects of its work. Therefore, it’s essential that any new service level agreement is appropriate from the outset. Given that a whole new organisation is being proposed, do you envisage further mergers or federal partnerships within the FE and HE sectors as a result of this restructuring?

Now, due to the complexity of the current post-compulsory system, it’s right to say that quality assurance across FE and HE has been mixed, and quality assurance is going to be a vital component of the new body to ensure that standards and governance are high. Can you therefore tell us how will the establishment of this new body affect Estyn’s role, because, as we know, Estyn regulates FE, vocational work-based learning, as well as community learning? So, how will its role change in the future and, crucially, Cabinet Secretary, do you intend to review Estyn’s role and functions before making any substantive legislative changes?

Of course, as you’ve said today, ensuring parity of esteem is essential for our FE and vocational providers because they have been underappreciated in the last few decades. We need to recognise the vital contribution that FE and vocational skills make to the Welsh economy, especially in our most disadvantaged communities, and that they should be properly resourced. Therefore, can you tell us how the new body will ensure that FE institutions develop and operate to their full potential? In other words, how do you see this new body making a real difference to FE institutions compared to the current structure?

Therefore, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement? We look forward to hearing more about the Welsh Government’s plans in this area in due course.

Once again, can I thank Paul Davies for stepping into the breach and for his questions this afternoon? If we start from the point of principle, I think that addresses many of the issues that you’ve raised. Establishing a single authority to oversee the whole of post-compulsory education and training, I believe, will improve strategic planning; it will help prevent duplication, which has occurred, and unhealthy competition; but it will also address gaps in provision where students and learners have not been able to fulfil their aspirations, because those opportunities haven’t been available. I expect it to promote collaboration between institutions, making it easier, for instance, for a learner to be able to move seamlessly between work-based learning and FE, FE and HE, schools and FE, so that collaboration would create pathways that really, really do focus on the needs of individual learners at all points during their educational journey. As well, crucially, we need to strengthen links between schools, but also employers. It’s crucial—crucial—that we get this right, and the current system, at the moment, can be devilishly, fiendishly difficult for employers to engage with and to know whom to work with. So, again, this is one of the reasons why we need to have this single authority.

Now, I believe if we do that, it will enhance support for learners as well as getting better value for money. At this stage, some very initial financial planning is being undertaken, and this is a genuine consultation about how the TEA will actually work and how it will be constituted. So, therefore, at this stage, it’s difficult to be able to put a figure on it, but we do know that the current system can often be wasteful. You will also be aware, with regard to funding, that despite the difficult situation we find ourselves in, we have been able to find additional resources for HEFCW this year and, of course, one of the whole rationales behind our Diamond reforms is to put the funding of HE in the round, for both institutions and individual students, on a more sound and sustainable footing going forward. That’s one of the rationales behind our reform programme.

So, at this stage, I will admit that there will be mainly questions about how the new authority would operate, and we will give careful consideration to those in the consultation. I’m hopeful that the consultation will be able to begin in the spring and—I’m sorry—I didn’t really answer Llyr’s question about the timescales. We would look to seek to have a legislative opportunity in consultation with the legislative liaison committee that exists between the Government and Plaid Cymru, but I have applied for a legislative slot that would see this process, hopefully, complete within a three-year time frame. You’re right; potentially, there are human resource issues that will need to be carefully and sensitively handled as we take this process forward. Therefore, I am giving myself quite a broad timescale for doing it because it needs to be done right, and avoid some of the pitfalls that we have experienced in bringing organisations together in the past. We need to learn the lessons of that and to make sure that it’s done successfully, going forward.

Paul asked about the hierarchy of need and who gets priority. The whole point of having this organisation is that there is, indeed, parity of esteem within the organisation. So, this isn’t about prioritising FE over HE, or work-based learning over learning in a university or college. The whole point of this is that there is intrinsic value in all these learning and educational opportunities. We need to plan that on a strategic basis. I truly believe that—and it was in the feedback from Hazelkorn herself—both the FE institutions and HE want to see themselves as a single system, but often it’s difficult to do that. Bringing people into one organisation, I believe, will help to address some of those problems that they themselves have identified. Second, in having this authority, with learners at the centre, it will allow the progression that I’ve talked about earlier. Thirdly, other systems, such as in New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, maybe, Scotland, that parity of esteem is the central guiding principle within the organisation itself. That leadership then reverberates throughout the system.

I welcome the comprehensive response of the statement to the Hazelkorn review, but I’ll confine my remarks to a specific but—I think—very important issue. Hazelkorn and this statement recognise that there must be a concerted attempt to deliver parity of esteem of vocational and academic pathways. I believe that this means that new and vastly improved advice, guidance and training, as appropriate, will need to be provided to schools, teachers and careers advisers on how to guide our young people—and parents—towards the appropriate pathways. To ascertain the scale of the challenge, we may first need to do some analysis of the current level of awareness and understanding of parents, guardians and educators of the different pathways available. I think that that’s a simple fact. Nowadays, many parents and older pupils increasingly turn to the internet for careers advice, or to seek information on colleges, FEIs and universities, for apprenticeship opportunities or traineeships. The Careers Wales portal is having a refresh, which is very welcome, because it needs to be the go-to site for timely appropriate guidance and for specific opportunities. It hasn’t served that function well in the recent past. So, I would ask the Minister to encourage them to continue improving that portal and the wider service they provide.

Can I ask the Minister to consider how the wider UK offer is incorporated into this advice? Often, larger companies with a UK presence offer opportunities outside of Wales. Whilst I’d love for all of our aspirant aerospace engineers or civil engineers to want to spend their whole lives working here, in their homeland, the reality is that—like me, when I was a young sports centre manager—people will find that the call takes them away before ‘hiraeth’ brings them back. So, how do we incorporate that within the advice that we’re giving?

And would she agree with me that we will know when we’ve done success? It’s when she and I step into those school prize-giving and award ceremonies and they give equal prominence to vocational success as to academic success; they celebrate BTEC and BTEC higher rewards, offers of apprenticeships and traineeships and higher apprenticeships with leading Welsh and UK companies, alongside offers of university places. Then we’ll know we’ve really succeeded.

Huw, you raise a fundamentally important point that we can have the best structure and the best strategic planning of these opportunities, but unless we successfully engage with young people, potential students and learners of all kinds, and the people who influence their choices, then we won’t realise the full benefit of this. We’re all guilty of it. Our children, often, are the prisoners of our own experience. So, if mum and dad did it a certain way, whatever way that is, if mum and dad did it that way, that’s the way you think it should be done. Sometimes it’s difficult to break free of your own experience and, sometimes, your own prejudices about how children should move forward.

My Cabinet colleague the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language is actively engaged in discussions with Careers Wales about making sure that children and students have access to the very best possible careers advice that gives them the widest possible range of choices and opportunities, whatever that is, and is based purely not on advantages for individual institutions, but on the advantages for and the needs of that particular student. If we need to do more research, and we need to do more work on this, then I’m sure the Minister has heard you, and we’re not frightened to do that.

I must say, I already go to prize-givings where there are celebrations of a wide variety of achievements of all kinds, whether those be academic or social—the child that has contributed to the school through their caring for other students, through their commitment to trying to be helpful to the school, as well as people who have taken different courses. So, I see that out there, but it is patchy and it is not commonplace, and we need to make it so. But I also come across young people who are making very positive decisions. I know of one young man—his mum is a friend of mine—who this summer had the choice between an engineering degree at a Welsh university or an apprenticeship with a engineering company, and he has gone for the apprenticeship, because he is savvy enough to know that, eventually, that company will pay for his degree for him, and he wants to learn on the job. That’s a very positive choice for him. So, we need to make sure that other students have those opportunities and have the ability to make choices that are best for them. I will continue to work with the Minister for Lifelong Learning and the Welsh Language to ensure that we have a system of advice and guidance that will make the most of the structural changes that we’re making.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you also to Professor Hazelkorn for all her work. I’ve read the report, obviously. It’s an excellent report, and it’s a very, very interesting report.

The problems identified in this report have been raised in a variety of other reports since 2001. Those problems have been left unsolved since that time. The Hazelkorn report makes many excellent recommendations, and I agree that there should be a single new authority established, but I would say that it’s a shame that the self-proclaimed party of education haven’t done it already. I also go along with the need for clear delineated roles and functions for the executive—the new tertiary education authority—Welsh Government and institutions, including a service level agreement between the TEA and Welsh Government. If you implement this recommendation, and I think you should, will we see the SLA before it’s implemented?

The biggest question this report raises for me is why the Welsh Government hasn’t come up with these ideas already. Why didn’t the previous Welsh Labour administrations listen to the earlier reports? Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that the fact that the Government need to be told by the authors of this report that they have to do more to create the appropriate policies and practices to encourage better long-term and joined-up thinking shows that it is the Welsh Government that should be back in the classroom? Surely, that is such a basic requirement of Government that there is no excuse for not getting it right.

Both your party and your new friends in Labour falsely claim that UKIP’s plans to develop a new generation of grammar and technical schools might lead to inequality of esteem between vocational and academic pathways. Welsh Labour have been and continue to be dazzled by Tony Blair’s counterproductive obsession with getting as many people through the doors of a university as possible. Why is that, and where does that come from?

This report confirms that Labour itself has been throwing those who are not academically minded onto the scrap heap. It says that the Government is not doing enough to value and reward parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary will be good enough to admit the hypocrisy of those trying to appear to be protecting the interests of those who would benefit the most from a vocational learning path, while all the time being guilty of doing the opposite.

I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary has only recently taken up post as Cabinet Secretary for Education, but I wonder can she tell me what it is that the Labour education Ministers before here were getting wrong for so long that it’s led to this rather unfortunate report.

Does the Cabinet Secretary endorse and agree with the report in its entirety and, if not, why not? If she does, what steps will be taken to implement its recommendations and what is the timetable? As well, how will you ensure that sufficient resources are provided to give effect to the reforms? Thank you.

Thank you very much to Michelle Brown for her questions. With regard to the recommendations, I have indicated that I’m accepting the recommendations. The consultation will take place in the spring. To give effect to this, I will need to bring forward legislation and that needs to find its way into the timetable of general legislation across the entire Government. But as I indicated earlier, I’m hopeful that we can do that, this entire process—the consultation, the proper scrutiny processes of legislation that the Bill will need to go through in this Chamber—in the period of three years.

I’m not responsible for the actions of the previous Ministers, but I should point out that it was a previous Minister that commissioned this report, having identified the need to make progress in this area. It should also be noted that, not a similar attempt, but an attempt in this agenda was made in the early days of the National Assembly for Wales, but unfortunately we did not have the legislative powers to create this authority. I remember those days very well, when we struggled to create that single entity because of the lack of ability within this Chamber to make the changes that we wanted to be made. Now, that is no longer a reason for no action. We have the powers there. We said, when we got those powers, they would be powers with a purpose and I am applying those to the purpose of reforming this particular part of education.

Parity of esteem—it’s an issue that has dogged us. As we’ve just heard from Huw Irranca-Davies, some of that is cultural. Some of that we’re guilty of ourselves in our own daily lives and the conversations that we’ve had with our children. The aim of this system, as I explained to Paul Davies in response to his question, is to create a structure that does promote parity of esteem. But I’ll tell you one way we do not promote parity of esteem is dividing children up at the age of 11 into whether they do vocational or academic qualifications. This system will allow children to pursue both routes, if that is what they want to do, to move seamlessly between vocational and work-based learning, between practical education and the more academic routes. That’s the whole purpose of being able to bring these routes together, because there is nothing—nothing—that promotes parity of esteem in saying to an 11-year-old, ‘You are going one way and your friend is going the other’, and dividing those children at that time.

As one who has been most fortunate to be able to contribute to education and governance across this system for very many years, may I first of all congratulate the Minister on her courage? It is about time that we had a Minister who is willing to get to grips with the differences and inequality that have been part of the post-16 system from the very outset. I’m grateful to her for doing that. I am pleased that she has been able to take advantage of the work of genius provided by Ellen Hazelkorn and the people arguing the importance of having a civic mission in education, because there is no other mission available in education—I’m sure the Minister would agree with me on that.

I do want to ask just one or two questions. Would she consider, for example, that one way of undermining any opposition that may appear from certain dinosaurs in this sector would be to publish a draft Bill? So, rather than carrying out a consultation and then legislating, she should ask her officials—. The Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is sitting across the way from me, and I’m sure that we would be more than happy to assist in any scrutiny of any draft Bill—not that we’re looking for work, but we would be happy to undertake that kind of thing, because that would give an opportunity for the consultation and for the pre-legislative scrutiny to happen simultaneously.

May I thank her for continuing to use the services of David Allen? He is an excellent man, who has made contributions to universities in Wales and England. What’s important to recall about David—I’m sure that the Minister would agree with me on this—is that he continues, as we speak, to be a governor of Exeter further education college, as a former registrar of the university, and continues to work for us here in Wales too, and he understands fully what the needs of the sector are. I’m afraid that I do have some quite radical ideas on the need to mainstream bilingual education throughout the whole system. I do have some even more aggressive ideas that she couldn’t imagine about abolishing the sixth-form system, as we have done in Dwyfor Meirionnydd over many decades, but that’s for another day, I believe.

Could I thank Dafydd Elis-Thomas for his comments? I will, indeed, give due consideration to the most appropriate legislative formats that we can pursue. I think there is merit in looking at a draft Bill, and I will want to give this institution—to pay it all due respect and give every opportunity for colleagues across the Chamber to play a part in developing the policy further. Can I also agree with you about the ongoing commitment of David Allen to the sector? I’m very grateful to him for the leadership that he has provided and his willingness to continue in that role. That will be a very important thing.

With regard to tertiary systems, I’m sure the Member will have heard me answer questions before. I don’t see it as my job to dictate to local communities an education system that best suits their area. There are some parts of Wales where a tertiary education system has flourished and serves its students very well; there are other parts of Wales where a more traditional sixth form is a system that, again, serves the local population very well. What’s important to me is not the nature of the provision, except that that provision is high quality, it meets the needs and aspirations of our young people, and it delivers for them, whether that is in a tertiary system or in a sixth form. And one of the things that we will consider is where best sixth forms can sit within this system.

And, as I announced, I’ll be looking at ways in which we can better monitor outcomes of post-compulsory education in a way that, perhaps, we have taken our eye off the ball, for instance, with A-levels. In the past, we have never set ourselves stringent targets for A-level performance. Maybe it was because we felt that it was a minority sport and those children, well, they will get on anyway, and we don’t need to worry about it. But students studying at that level now, it’s not a minority sport—the majority of our young people go on to study post compulsory, and we need to make sure that we are paying as much attention to performance in that area as we’re doing in the compulsory sector.

And, finally, Suzy Davies.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your statement. I heartily endorse your comments on needing employers’ buy-in to this, particularly for workplace learning and, of course, for parity of esteem. You mentioned a few times that this is based not on the institution, but that the focus is on the learner and fulfilling the aspirations of learners. Can you give us some indication of how this structural change will help those who are hoping to study post-16 education through the medium of Welsh?

Thank you for that, Suzy. The advantage of having this single body is that we can plan strategically and we can address gaps, as I said. And one of the gaps that we have at present, I believe, is a gap in Welsh-medium provision. We know that there is a growing demand for people who have skills in the Welsh language in a whole variety of areas. I’m particularly interested in, as is my ministerial colleague, how we can ensure we have caring roles—that people have Welsh language skills to do that, whether that is for older people, or, for instance, as we roll out the Government’s childcare offer, that needs to be available through the medium of Welsh, and therefore having training opportunities to qualify those people to be able to do that job and to be able to do it through the medium of Welsh is vitally important. Therefore, having a strategic body that looks at the plan overall I think will help improve that, as well as the work of Delyth Evans, who is currently looking at the remit of the ‘coleg’ and whether we can extend that into FE. I don’t want to prejudge the outcomes of that, but I believe the ‘coleg’ has done a very good job in terms of HE. I think they have proven their ability to get things done and, therefore, I think it’s right that we should look now to see whether they can plan that. But having a more strategic overview of what we’re commissioning and monitoring the quality of outcomes, I think will make a difference to provision in the Welsh language.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on to the next item, which is the Education Workforce Council (Registration Fees) Regulations 2017. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to move the motion—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I may make a few brief remarks regarding the regulations that are before the Chamber today, Wales remains at the forefront of ensuring greater coherence and recognising the contribution that the whole education workforce makes to learner outcomes in Wales. I am sure that Members will agree that the registration of the wider educational workforce is good news, as it provides the reassurance that the workforce is deemed suitable for registration. Since 2015, the Education Workforce Council register has been expanded to include FE teachers and learning support workers in both schools and FE settings. From April 2017, the youth work sector and work-based learning practitioners will also be included.

The fee regulations set out the fee structures that categories of registrants will be required to pay annually from 1 April 2017, a fee contribution that is unchanged from that set for 1 April 2016. Both the 2014 and 2016 fee consultation set out a preferred fee model that required an amendment to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document and the redistribution of the £33 allowance that teachers working in maintained schools in Wales received. Members will also be aware that the STPCD is non-devolved and that, as of August 2016, the Secretary of State for Education approved the removal of the school teacher’s £33 allowance. These regulations will set the fee levels for all registration practitioners at £46, regardless of what category of registration they wish to register under. However, from 1 April 2017 and thereafter, the Welsh Government has set aside and ring-fenced a £1 million subsidy for the registration fee for the whole education workforce. This subsidy is aligned to the fact that the Welsh Minsters set the fee level and, in real terms, ensures that the practitioners’ contributions are kept low. It also recognises that learning support workers and youth support workers in Wales earn less compared to school or FE teachers, and, therefore, the subsidy reduces their actual fee contribution to £15. The remaining categories are provided with a smaller subsidy, which reduces the actual fee contribution of £45.

I, therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, ask the Chamber to support the motion today.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, for introducing this today and I very much support the registration of all teaching and support staff. It is just particularly on support staff that I just wanted to make a comment, because, in the explanatory memorandum that you’ve just talked about, with the fee model being fair and equitable across the whole workforce, just to be clear it’s not only the grade and the pay scale that makes a significant difference. Most school and FE learning support workers are not only amongst the lowest paid of the registered staff, but they generally tend to be part-time employees, they’re term-time only, unlike most qualified teachers. Therefore, while I welcome the subsidy regime built into the regulations, the £15 fee can still be burdensome for some of the lowest paid part-time and term-time-only, predominantly women, workers. So, could I say that—? I think that it is 11 local authorities, including Merthyr and Caerphilly, which cover my constituency, that actually agreed to bear the full cost of the LSWs’ registration last year in recognition of that low pay aspect. So, could I ask the Cabinet Secretary, and, indeed, perhaps every Member in the Chamber, to encourage all 22 local authorities to follow the lead given by those 11 councils this year in meeting the full registration costs for learning support workers?

The Cabinet Secretary to reply. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Dawn, and I would welcome very much indeed the approach that’s been taken by some of the councils that you’ve outlined, and there are others in Wales that have taken that. Welsh Government recognises that some of the people that we’re requiring to register are paid at a lower level, hence the nature of the regulations—that we have tried to subsidise those on the lower pay scales more than those perhaps higher paid colleagues. The fee model proposed has been developed with three key principles in mind, and those are sustainability, proportionality, and cost-effectiveness. Now, we could create a fee model that looks at different pay scales, that looks at full-time and looks at part-time, but, in doing so in analysing that model, we’ve discovered that it could be so burdensome, cumbersome, it could become so complex, that, actually, that might lead to higher fees having to be paid for people. So, trying to keep it as simple as we have allows us to try and keep fees as low as possible, but I would commend the actions of those councils you’ve mentioned in wanting to make that contribution in the way that they have. Thank you.

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

We now move on to item 6, which is the Welsh Language Standards (No. 6) Regulations 2017. I call on the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to move the motion—Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s my pleasure today to present these regulations to the Chamber. I ask Members this afternoon to pass these regulations. Some Members, of course, will recall that we had this debate on the very last day of the Assembly that concluded last year. Members will also know that these regulations were rejected by the Assembly at that time. I do hope that Members will appreciate the fact that I have taken some time to read the record of the debate that we had on that afternoon, and I have taken time to read the contributions of Aled Roberts, Simon Thomas and Suzy Davies. I’ve read what the contributions were at that time, and I very much hope that these regulations will respond to that debate and to the vote taken last year.

I would not be content, and the Government wouldn’t be presenting these regulations today, unless we were confident that we had responded to the concerns of Assembly Members as they were expressed in March and prior to that, and after the vote. Since then, I have tried to have discussions with Members and various organisations to understand why the regulations were rejected, and I have amended the regulations as a result of these discussions.

The changes that we have made respond to the points raised by Members, and I hope that the amendments reflect the views of the Assembly as they were expressed then and the views of the Assembly today. The changes I have made are as follows: we have given students the right to express a wish to have Welsh-medium accommodation; we have created a right to have signs in the buildings of universities and colleges in Welsh; we’ve created a right to a Welsh language intranet; we have added arts centres to the standards; and we are ensuring that students will have a right to a personal tutor who is able to communicate in Welsh.

The final point is that I would thank Sian Gwenllian and Plaid Cymru for the debate that we had on this issue. I welcome the contribution that Plaid Cymru has made, and I thank Sian Gwenllian for her contribution during these discussions. Members will be aware that these regulations were discussed by the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee some weeks ago. As a result of the amendments that we have made, and on the basis of the fact that there have been broad-ranging discussions on these regulations, I ask Members today to agree the regulations as amended.

Of course, I do commit to amend the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 during this Assembly in order to ensure that the system of imposing standards is less bureaucratic. I am eager to start gathering evidence, and we will begin that process by engaging with partners prior to the publication of a White Paper. We will consult very broadly over the summer months. Consultation and legislation take time. I am eager that we should commence the process as soon as possible.

I very much hope that I have responded to the debate held here, and I very much hope that I’ve responded to the concerns that we have heard expressed about these regulations. On that basis, I propose that Members do agree these regulations this afternoon. Thank you.

Diolch. I call on the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you. Having received concerns from stakeholders, and taking into account the fact that the Assembly rejected the Welsh Language Standards (No. 3) Regulations, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee agreed that it should consider the regulations under Standing Order 27.8 and report our conclusions to the Assembly.

After the regulations were laid, we wrote to Cymdeithas yr Iaith and to student unions in Wales, who had raised a number of concerns about the previous No.3 regulations prior to the Assembly’s rejection of them in March this year. As they’ve had a chance to see them, we asked them to detail any concerns they may have about the new regulations. The National Union of Students Wales and Cymdeithas yr Iaith responded, and their written observations are annexed to the report. I have to emphasise on the record today that written evidence is just as robust as oral evidence.

Subsequently, the committee took oral evidence on 18 January from Fflur Elin, the president of NUS Wales, and from Dafydd Trystan, the registrar of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol. The ‘coleg’ works with universities across Wales to develop Welsh-medium opportunities for students. The committee also took oral evidence at the meeting from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language. In addition, Colleges Wales, a charity that aims to improve further education opportunities, also submitted comments. Unfortunately, due to timing of their submission, the committee was unable to consider these, although they are also annexed to the report.

Much of the written evidence we received concerned the general process for making the regulations and the nature of the standards regime established by the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. It is fair to say that the committee, without coming to a specific view on the matter, shares some of those concerns. The regulations we have before us certainly appear to be a cumbersome and bureaucratic way of trying to enshrine rights to use and receive services through the medium of Welsh.

However, whatever our concerns about the wider process for making and approving standards regulations, and the nature of those regulations, our consideration was concerned—as is this debate today—with the much narrower point of whether this particular set of regulations should be approved.

Having said that, the committee has noted the Minister’s intention to review the primary legislation under which the standards are made, namely the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. In our view, that is the appropriate point at which to consider wider issues of process and principle, and I am sure that the committee will wish to engage positively with the Minister in any review that’s undertaken.

As to the regulations before us, it is clear that they are far from perfect, and all those who gave evidence to us acknowledged weaknesses in the regulations. In particular, I want to draw attention to the concerns expressed by NUS Wales about issues surrounding the definition of student welfare and the provision of accommodation.

However, all of the evidence that we received indicated that these regulations, for all their flaws, do address most of the main concerns raised by student organisations and by Members during the plenary debate in relation to the regulations that were rejected in March last year. Therefore, even though they’re imperfect, they’re better than the rejected regulations. We were also pleased to note the Minister’s assurances to keep the operation of the regulations under review and to bring forward amending regulations if it becomes clear that these are not working in practice as intended. Subject to these assurances, the committee recommends that the Assembly approves the regulations. Thank you very much.

We as Plaid Cymru do support these amended regulations. You mention that they were rejected by the fourth Assembly. I wasn’t here personally at that time, but they were weak, and a number of concerns were raised by student representatives and by Plaid Cymru at that point. There was some further delay prior to Christmas—just a week, I hasten to say—at the request of Plaid Cymru once we’d seen the draft regulations at that point. I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for that opportunity to express a view, and I am pleased to see that he did listen and that many of the concerns that we raised have now been addressed.

The amended regulations do include a number of rights for Welsh students: the right to express a desire to have Welsh language accommodation; to use the student intranet through the medium of Welsh; the right to the allocation of a personal tutor who is a Welsh speaker; the right to see the Welsh language on all signs in HE and FE colleges in Wales; and to use the Welsh language at arts centres. In looking at one of these—the right to a Welsh-speaking personal tutor—I think this is crucial to the success of a Welsh-speaking student in institutions that can often be quite alien places for young people when they arrive there first. Having a consistent relationship through the medium of Welsh with a member of staff is sure to enhance the student experience and will, therefore, lead to enhanced academic attainment.

The standards are, therefore, a step forward—there’s no doubt about that—although there are some gaps that remain. As I said, we will be supporting them today, but I would endorse the call of the Welsh language committee in doing that. I thank the committee for its detailed scrutiny work in contributing to where we are today. We endorse the committee’s demand that we should keep a very close eye on the implementation of these standards, and that they should be reviewed again to deal with any gaps that emerge.

We will also need workforce planning within institutions in order to deliver these regulations, and that, in turn, will contribute towards the million Welsh speakers strategy in due course.

I’ve also looked at what Colleges Wales had to say in their evidence and support what they had to say, namely that the regulations must go hand in hand with plans to expand Welsh-medium education in our education institutions, because without having the educational content available through the medium of Welsh, much of this is simply superficial. In bringing the two together, particularly terms of FE, we do now need to see progress in including far more Welsh-medium courses in FE and, perhaps, bring that sector under the auspices of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, too. But, there’s no doubt that these regulations will make it easier for students to live their lives through the medium of Welsh while studying, having left school, in the years to come.

Thank you. I call on the Minister to reply to the debate—Minister.

Thank you very much. I’m very grateful to Sian and Bethan for the comments that they’ve made. I haven’t had an opportunity to read all of the evidence that the committee has received on the standards in its entirety, and the general comments about the system that we have, but I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with the committee Chair, if that’s possible, the way in which she would like us to consider the way in which we reform the current system and process. I haven’t seen it, but I am sure that I will agree with a lot of what has been said in evidence. I do agree with her comments this afternoon—damned with faint praise. I do agree with what she said when it comes to the system, and I’m very eager to play a role in changing the system for the future so that we don’t go through this again.

At the same time, I agree with the comments made by Sian Gwenllian on expanding the place of the Welsh language in the educational world. That’s what we want to do, while the students are in the classroom, are in the lecture room and are also outside the classroom: allowing students to live their lives through the medium of Welsh and to receive their education through the medium of Welsh, and then to socialise and live through the medium of Welsh as well. That’s our objective and our vision. I agree that it’s difficult to say that any set of standards or set of legislation is going to be perfect. We have to consider how these are implemented, and that is going to be very important. I do agree with the comments that we need to monitor how they’re implemented. I will do that, but I do hope that we can move ahead now and have a richer conversation about how we implement this policy, how we implement this legislation and how we legislate for the future, and legislate for a bilingual nation. Thank you very much.

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

We now move on to item 7 on our agenda, which is a debate on the annual report on equality 2015-2016, including the Welsh Ministers’ interim report on equality 2016. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to open this debate on promoting greater equality, focusing in particular on the progress made in partnership with other public bodies and that of the third sector. We recently published the annual report on equality for 2015-2016, which provides an update on how the Welsh Government has met its equality duties. This year, the annual report on equality was published alongside the Welsh Ministers’ interim report on equality 2016. This additional report gives an overview of the progress made by public sector authorities in Wales towards compliance with the public sector equality duty. These combined reports capture a range of cross-cutting and collaborative steps to promote equality of opportunity in Wales, and reflect past achievements and look forward towards the challenges ahead.

This annual report on equality covers the final year of the strategic equality plan of 2012-16, and this was a challenging period for Wales, where the impact of welfare reform being felt by many people across the country—we know that inequality is more likely to grow during times of economic uncertainty. Nevertheless, over the past four years, we have introduced some truly groundbreaking policies and legislation, including the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, the tackling hate crime and incidents framework, the framework for action on independent living and the children’s rights scheme. These examples were all developed to improve different aspects of life in Wales and support people in greatest need or facing particular challenges. They are continuing to make Wales a fairer nation, and clearly demonstrate our commitment to advancing equality.

The other thing these examples have in common is that they were all developed following engagement with people across Wales, including the third sector, and this commitment to engage communities continues to be the central and strategic direction of the Welsh Government. Under the Welsh specific equalities duty, we are required to review and refresh our equality objectives every four years. This ensures we are continuing to address the areas of inequality that impact on the people of Wales. In March 2016, we published our equality objectives for the next four years, and these objectives are based extensively on engagement and consultation with protected groups and stakeholders. This engagement provided the opportunity for them to shape the development of the equality objectives.

Our stakeholders strongly support retaining the core subject matters of the previous equality objectives, as they address long-term challenges that require focus and sustained action. Our new objectives will, therefore, build on the actions we’ve undertaken as part of the first strategic equality plan. The strategic equality plan of 2016-2020 contains the actions we are taking to drive forward our equality objectives. Our plan will help to continue to mainstream equality and diversity across all ministerial portfolios, tackling the areas of inequality that matter most to the people of Wales. As I mentioned during the recent Plenary debate on the Equality and Human Rights Commission annual report, our equality objectives are strongly linked with the seven key challenges identified in the commission’s ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ It was pleasing to discover that public authorities are also setting equality objectives based on those challenges. The EHRC review highlighted we have in making Wales a fairer and more equal nation. We strongly encourage public, private and third sector organisations to work together and take a joint approach to tackling inequality.

The Welsh Government continues to bring together groups representing people with protected characteristics through our various ministerial forums and stakeholder groups, and these include the disability equality forum, the faith communities forum, and the Wales race forum. These meetings keep us informed of the key issues and barriers facing people in Wales. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our engagement with third sector organisations, and we remain extremely grateful to those stakeholders, and we value their support and their dedication to making Wales a fairer, more equal nation.

Llywydd, this support is reciprocal, the Welsh Government is assisting third sector organisations with the equality and inclusion funding programme for 2017-20, and the programme consists of equality grants to support organisations that represent the equality for race, gender, disability and gender reassignment and sexual orientation. It also covers inclusion projects supporting Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, and tackling hate crime. The funding will support the important work of the third sector in contributing to the Welsh Government’s delivery on the SEP. The Welsh Government will continue to provide leadership and cross-Government action to promote equality. We value the role of others in taking forward our policy and legislation, including its implementation.

Llywydd, we fully recognise that collaborative working with public, private and third sector organisations is vital when tackling inequalities in Wales, so let us build on the progress made, and remain committed to removing those barriers that prevent people from reaching their full potential. Thank you.

Diolch. Rwyf wedi dethol y ddau welliant i'r cynnig a galwaf ar Mark Isherwood i gynnig gwelliannau 1 a 2 a gyflwynwyd yn enw Paul Davies.

Diolch. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and wider society on the grounds, as we’ve heard, of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation. This annual equality report states that the Welsh Government’s evaluation of the strategic equality plan and equality objectives 2012-16

‘focuses on the extent to which there has been measurable progress on the Objectives’.

However, the evaluation itself reports large gaps in evidence and states that a priority for the Welsh Government will be working with other public sector organisations, and with the third sector to prioritise filling these gaps.

Well, it’s a decade since I and others on the then Equality of Opportunity Committee first called on the Welsh Government to implement effective action plans to progress equality in Wales, with measurable objectives and outcomes created for all future reports. In a 2009 debate on equalities here, I moved an amendment, again calling on the Welsh Government to deliver this. Hence our amendment 2 today, where the report and evaluation being debated today confirm that the Welsh Government has still not done this.

As the report records:

‘public sector bodies must “involve people who it considers representative of one or more of the protected groups and who have an interest in how an authority carries out its functions”.’

It is a principle of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 that a local authority should respond in a person-centred, co-productive way to each individual’s particular circumstances. That’s taken form the Act. As the Minister for Social Services and Public Health has confirmed to me, the Act places a specific duty on local authorities to promote the involvement of people in the design and delivery of care and support services.

However, there are worrying reports of local authorities failing to understand this. The local deaf community in Conwy told me that there was no consultation, advance notice, information or transition planning when Conwy removed the vital third sector-commissioned sign language services on which they relied. The council said they had adequate provision to deliver these services in-house, that they were acting in accordance with the social services and well-being Act, but instead of intervention and prevention services delivering independence and reducing pressure on statutory services, the deaf community told me that the council showed no deaf awareness and that their independence had been taken away from them.

To the detriment of affected constituents, Wrexham was unaware that the Act applied to the tender process for residential care and Flintshire that it applied to employment or to access the public pathways in accordance with the Welsh Government’s framework for action on independent living. Hence our amendment 1, calling

‘on the Welsh Government to clarify the progress made in relation to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, Part 2 Code of Practice, which requires local authorities to work in partnership with people to co-produce the solutions to meet their personal well-being outcomes.’

I hosted December’s Sanctuary in the Senedd event with the Welsh Refugee Coalition. We need a measurable action plan for Wales to become a nation of sanctuary, as we do to address the increasing problem of older people being targeted by criminals due to their supposed vulnerabilities.

Calling for action to close the attainment gap, the Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales report quotes strikingly low GCSE attainment amongst Gypsy and Traveller children, looked-after children, children with special educational needs and children eligible for free school meals. Yet, Flintshire has been allowed to close a school that engaged with these very groups and improved their educational outcomes.

The commission reports only 42 per cent of disabled people in employment, including just 1 in 10 people with autism, compared to 71 per cent of non-disabled people. With 42 being the average age of retirement for someone living with multiple sclerosis, what steps can the Welsh Government take to enable them to remain in work for as long as possible?

The Welsh independent living grant helps disabled people to live independently. A fortnight ago, the First Minister told me the decision to transfer this to local authorities followed advice from the Welsh Government stakeholder advisory group, but membership organisation Disability Wales advises that their preferred option of a Wales independent living fund was not included for the stakeholder group’s consideration. Nearly two decades after devolution, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission reporting nearly one in four people in Wales living in poverty, and with child poverty above UK levels, it is time that recycled warm words were replaced with real action.

The debate on the annual report on equality is timely, given what’s happening not only in the UK in this post-European Union era but also in the United States, with the racist and discriminatory attitudes taken by the new President against Muslim refugees. Future generations will look at this period in history, and we, as politicians, will be at risk of being harshly judged for not taking a stand in the rise of the extreme right wing. Too often these days, I’m reminded that politics is no longer a battle of ideas—socialism against conservatism, individualism against communism. Rather, it is an unremitting battle between the politics of mercy on the one hand and the politics of intolerance and prejudice on the other.

This report does demonstrate that Wales is not an equal nation. Almost one in four people in Wales is living in poverty; 32 per cent of children are living in poverty; 27 per cent of disabled people, and 38 per cent of ethnic minority people are living in poverty. Wales is not an equal nation. A little over three quarters of hate crimes that are reported to the police are race related, and it is black people who are most likely to suffer these attacks.

What’s most striking, generally speaking, in this report is that there hasn’t been much progress against many of the indicators included in the report. In those areas where there have been changes, progress has been slow. In the report, the Government notes that this reflects the nature of the indicators, where any movement tends to be gradual and over a long period of time. But in looking at the indicators, their content makes it very difficult to measure any successes. So, Plaid Cymru will be supporting the Conservative amendments today that call on the Government

‘to implement effective action plans…with measurable objectives and outcomes created for all future reports.’

But I must say that there is no doubt that it’s the Conservatives and their policies that are responsible for much for the inequality and unfairness that currently exist in Wales.

There is one specific element that isn’t included as part of the Government’s equality strategy and I do want to highlight in concluding my contribution to this afternoon’s debate, and that is geographical equality here in Wales. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider including geographical elements in any strategy or any new reviews in future. There are major differences between salaries in different areas of Wales. For example, workers in Dwyfor Meirionnydd earn over £100 less per week than the Welsh average, and this is also true for a number of Valleys areas.

We’re all aware that a historical lack of investment by the UK Government has tended to benefit one part of the country, namely the south-east of England, over and above any other part of the country. But in looking at the per capita spend by the Welsh Government over the past four years, it is clear that that pattern has been adopted here in Wales, too. According to your own Government figures, capital investment in north Wales next year will be half of what it is expected to be in the south-east of Wales. So, if we are to tackle this lack of equality in Wales, we must ensure that any debate or any future strategies to make Wales a more equal nation do include geographical equality.

We heard mention earlier in the Chamber about the need for an economic strategy for Wales as a matter of urgency. Any such strategy should give full consideration to issues of equality—poverty, the geographical unfairness that exists in Wales, the inequality faced by minority groups, and also the inequality between women and men in the workplace, with 29 per cent of women earning less than the living wage. The figure for men is 20 per cent.

I look forward to seeing the eight equality objectives of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 starting to take root in Wales, but far, far, far more work needs to take place in order to achieve the aim of a more equal Wales. And crucial to all of this will be the local well-being plans that are to be published by 2018. We as an Assembly must scrutinise those in great detail to ensure that they do work effectively.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today’s debate. We broadly support the aims of the report, and we also support the Conservative amendments. One of these deals with having measurable objectives. We can occasionally become overly obsessive about targets. However, an absence of meaningful targets will make it increasingly difficult for any Government to gauge how well its policies are going. I did comment on a comparative lack of targets in the ‘Taking Wales Forward’ document when we discussed it last year. I’m sure that many other Members did as well. This is also a feature of this equalities report. It is a basic rule of management technique that organisations need to be SMART. In the other words: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed. So, the lack of targets does cause some anxiety.

We have a number of regulations in Wales that attempt to tackle the problems of lack of equality. The question is: how effective are they, in practice, and how effective can they be made to be? This morning, I sat in the Petitions Committee where we had a very good presentation from the Whizz-Kidz group. This was all about the problems faced by wheelchair users in accessing public transport. It was extremely eye-opening. There is clearly still a whole catalogue of problems facing wheelchair users, whether they travel, or rather attempt to travel by train, bus or taxi. The briefing we received from the Assembly’s research department indicated some of the regulations governing this area, some of which have been introduced in relatively recent years, yet still these problems persist. I asked the Whizz-Kidz if these problems needed stronger legislation, in their opinion, or simply better enforcement of the laws and regulations that already exist. The answer given was that what we needed was better enforcement.

My conclusion is that, sometimes, the Assembly legislates in a broadly appropriate manner but that, somehow, within a short period, there is a lack of effective enforcement, which allows inequalities to persist. This has also been apparent from recent inquiries undertaken by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. It seems that we need very regular engagement with the affected groups to tackle this problem. One possible solution, or partial solution, being proposed by the Conservatives today, and which has also been included in recent legislation, is co-production. This is a policy that is being repeatedly pushed by my next-door neighbour, Mark Isherwood. So, given the problems that I heard about today, would a greater use of co-production allow or help facilitate better enforcement of existing regulations? Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your report. I wanted to focus on the provision for Gypsies and Travellers. I know that many Members of the Assembly did attend the Holocaust memorial service last week on the steps of the Senedd, which was organised by the cross-party group on Gypsies and Travellers. I’m sure we were all very moved by the stories we heard about Gypsies and Travellers who had suffered in the Holocaust. I know that many people are unaware of the large numbers of those, the many hundreds of thousands, who died during that period. So, I think that was an opportunity for us to hear something about the Gypsy and Traveller community that is not generally known.

In many ways, the situation of Gypsies and Travellers in Wales has improved. One of the big steps that we took forward was to put a duty on local authorities to provide sites. I have contact with the all-party group in Westminster for Gypsy and Traveller law reform, and they are absolutely thrilled that we have been able to achieve that duty here in Wales, because that is something that was lost, and something that they‘ve struggled to get back on the agenda—of course, totally unsuccessfully, and the provision in England now doesn’t compare with what we’re doing in Wales.

So, that is a great step forward, and local needs assessments have been undertaken. Money has been made available to improve sites, so I do feel that we are moving along in the right direction. However, there are some areas of concern. Mark Isherwood has already mentioned in his contribution the very low education achievement of Gypsy/Traveller children. In fact, it is staggeringly low—I think it’s about 15 per cent compared to 68 per cent of the average school population. So, we’ve got huge strides to make in order to improve that situation. In the Children, Young People and Education Committee, we have been taking evidence about the changes to the education improvement grant, which mean that the Gypsy/Traveller element of it is no longer ring-fenced, and neither is the ethnic minority part. I think there are quite a lot of concerns coming out about whether this money is now being successfully targeted to the different Gypsy and Traveller projects, and so I hope the Minister will keep a careful eye on the results of that inquiry, because it does look as if the provision for Gypsies and Travellers is diminishing.

Then the other point I wanted to make was a particular point about the Unity project in Pembrokeshire. The Unity project in Pembrokeshire has worked very closely with the Traveller education service, based at Monkton Priory Community Primary School. This project has been held up as a beacon—a shining beacon. They’ve worked with the Traveller education service to establish trust with all the Traveller sites in the area, to encourage the children to come to school. The parents in the community have confidence in the school and in the work the Traveller education service are doing. But it has been very disappointing that the lottery-funded project, which funded three workers to work with the Traveller education service to do the outreach work, the trust building, comes to an end on the thirty-first of the month—I think that may be today—and the Pembrokeshire local authority has not taken on the project as it was highly expected that they would do.

So, this means that we have a situation where a project that’s been held up throughout Wales—the work with Gypsies and Travellers—is really at a stage where we fear it may deteriorate. I can’t emphasise too much how successful that project has been. It’s fairly unusual for Gypsy and Traveller children to move on and get degrees, and there are three young women who’ve actually got degrees through going through that service. Many have got employment in the area, and altogether it has been very successful. So, I wanted to draw this to the attention of the Minister. There has been intense lobbying by the young people themselves down there, of the local authority, to try to urge them to change their minds and really support what has been such a successful project, and it’s by the work of those three workers that young people have been able to come here, young Gypsy/Traveller men and women, and make their contribution to the cross-party group. Indeed, they were here last week saying how bitterly upset they are, and they are lobbying the councillors. So, I will end on asking the Minister if it’s possible he could comment on one of our really successful Welsh projects and see whether anything can be done to save that.

I think we live in a very unequal Wales. I’m going to flag up some of the issues here. I think violence is violence, abuse is abuse, and I oppose all forms of abuse. If we look at the document in relation to domestic violence, there is no mention of men in the objectives. If you look at the figures, I think it’s one in four females are victims of domestic abuse; one in six males are also victims and the document seems to forget that.

If we look at the funding of domestic abuse support, female support is financed to the tune of millions—as it should be—yet there’s a huge gap with funding for helping men who are victims of domestic abuse. In this city, Both Parents Matter have had £4,500 in the last 12 months, and that organisation stops men killing themselves. It supports grandmothers, it supports aunties and it also supports mothers.

If you look at the publicity on domestic abuse, you never see a female perpetrator, it’s always a male playing up to the very sexist stereotype—you could even say a misandrist stereotype. If you look at the document before the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, information was provided by a female domestic abuse charity, there was nothing—nothing at all—from a male perspective. Nobody had bothered speaking to any organisation helping males in the same situation, and that is sexist.

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

If I could just come back on that point, during the last term, during the domestic abuse Bill, I was on the committee and the figures were there for all to see of actual domestic abuse perpetrators. The statistics were there. We did acknowledge that there are male victims, but, certainly in Wales, the figures are quite categorically there, in fact, that women are subjected to domestic abuse in a much larger proportion.

There is a larger proportion, but if you look at the Home Office figures, it’s fairly clear there’s a large percentage of men, albeit a minority—I concede that. But also, one issue in south Wales, if you’re a male, is it’s very difficult to persuade the police to accept a complaint. I’ve stood next to people and complaints have not been accepted.

In terms of the victims, when they go for help, males are screened. Females are not screened. I’ll give you an example. The Live Fear Free helpline will screen males as perpetrators and they won’t screen females.

There’s discrimination in housing. If you’re a non-resident parent—usually male, but not always nowadays—you will only qualify for a one-bedroomed property if you have three children and you’re not the principal carer. So, be you a mother or a father, you’re stuck in a one-bedroomed property with three children and you will lose overnight contact. That is not equal. That is not equal at all. And you’re also subject to bedroom tax, which is wrong. And that is class discrimination. It’s discrimination against parents on the basis of economic income.

If you look at transgender parents, I think there needs to be legislation in Wales to protect them because there was a case yesterday where a transgender parent lost contact with the child for simply being transgender. That is discrimination and we need legislation to stop that.

I think, in Wales, we also suffer from linguistic discrimination because there are parents in this city—the capital of Wales—who cannot choose Welsh-medium education. That’s wrong. The deaf community as well, if you receive education from a tutor, there is no minimum qualification of British Sign Language for a teacher and that is wrong.

Gypsies and Travellers. One thing I’m looking forward to hopefully putting right after May is, if you go to Rover Way, and I invite anyone to go down there, the state of the place—. That is not equality. There’s not even a play area for the children and there’s no path to school. It’s a hugely dangerous road. So, that isn’t equality either.

There’s also gender discrimination and abuse of colleagues in local government. What has this Government done? We’ve got a Minister who is going to pontificate now about domestic abuse and the rights of females, and yet he has done nothing—nothing at all—to look after females in local government who are the victims of abuse, and members of his own party have acknowledged that.

If you look at the disabled, very often care plans are failing, and disabled people have to have residential care. It’s not their fault; the condition doesn’t—. They don’t have to have residential care, it’s because the care plans are failing, and residential care is more expensive.

You do need to bring your comments to an end, now.

Okay, I’ll bring my remarks to a close, and I’ll finish on racism, which I know all about. To be honest, I think from the age of four I’ve known what it’s like to appear different and to have slightly darker skin and be treated in a different way because of that. And I’m appealing now, without attacking anybody, I’m appealing for some responsibility across the whole spectrum of politics and especially from some people who see themselves on the left, because the terms ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ are being abused, and they’re being thrown at everyone, and when you do that, the term loses its value, and you’re helping fascists and you’re helping those who actually are racist. I’m not blaming colleagues here, but we know what we’re talking about—you probably know what I’m talking about, and what I’m asking for from you is an end to the silence on such unacceptable use and abuse of the terms ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’. Diolch yn fawr.

It’s positive that we’re having this debate in Plenary today, and perhaps all the more important and prescient, given world events and what’s happening outside this Chamber. The Welsh Government’s commitment to equality and its cross-cutting approach to furthering this agenda is to be applauded, but the challenge for us all, and not solely the Welsh Government, is to ensure that these overarching objectives and principles translate into reality and everyday practice for the people they are set up to serve.

Equality, to me, is not simply a matter for the minority, it is for the majority to embrace and champion in shaping the nature of our nation, and we should believe that equality in today’s Wales is an absolute, not an add-on. I know from my experience in the trade union movement that mainstreaming equality is done largely through equality representatives and representation on branches. It makes it an everyday, accepted occurrence and it embeds a culture of understanding, fairness and respect that we’re all together in striving for the same social justice. Whether that is a fair day’s pay or eliminating discrimination in the workplace, equality of opportunity or extending rights and protections, it’s all about creating a more equal Wales and wider world.

I’m proud that it was a Labour Government that led the way in legislation that enabled me, and many others, to live my life as I am and for who I am. We’ve come a long way on equality when it comes to changing legislation and implementing guidance, but we need to make sure that this actually changes lives. We should rightly celebrate how far we have come as a country and society, but we should never become complacent and should absolutely remain vigilant. That is why it’s right that the Welsh Government reiterates its commitment to reducing the incidence of all forms of harassment and abuse, including hate crime, as outlined in objective 4 of the equality report 2015-16, and the same objective in the Welsh Government’s equality objectives for 2016-20. Indeed, we are aware that there’s been a continued increase in the reporting of hate crime in Wales, with 2,259 hate crimes recorded in Wales in 2014-15, an increase on the number recorded in 2012-13. And this probably hides the true figure as the nature of the crime means there’s probably an element—a large element—of underreporting.

We’ve taken positive steps forward to tackle hate crime in Wales, funding Victim Support Cymru to run National Hate Crime Report and Support Centre Wales, and participating in hate crime awareness every October. On National Hate Crime Awareness Week, Cabinet Secretary, I’d like to see more done with schools and communities across Wales in order to educate, break down barriers and open up access to support. Nobody is born with prejudice, and no-one should live in fear in their own community, without a safe space to turn to. And on that, there should be no hierarchy of hate, no degree of separation when it comes to discrimination and ensuring that people are able to live their lives free from fear.

And on that, we all have a duty to call out hate. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who feels, at best, uneasy at how the tone of some political debate seems to have shifted recently. What was once deemed beyond the pale some now feel it is okay to say. And this isn’t about political correctness, it’s about behaving with basic dignity and respect to each other as fellow human beings—a lesson in dignity that, in fact, the new President of the USA could do with learning. We’ve already heard a clear condemnation in this Chamber today, and the First Minister is right that President Trump’s travel plan policy is beyond any rational defence. The very real fear is that it’s just the beginning and reports began circulating last night that the White House under President Trump was considering reversing many LGBT protections.

Looking at events unfolding around us, I must confess that I’ve had my moments when I’ve wondered whether this is the right time to stick my head above the parapet but, actually, now more than ever, it’s important that we are prepared to stand up and speak out. The debate today is not only significant in terms of timing, but this Government’s commitment to equality is both imperative and of immense value, and we should not forget this.

I certainly welcome this report. The monitoring of how our public sector bodies comply with their equality duties is essential, and only this week we’ve seen Rhondda Cynon Taf council criticised for spending £80,000 on a bus station revamp, whilst omitting to make step-free access provision so that it’s available for all. This demonstrates the utmost importance of this annual debate, and how critical it is for the Welsh Government to actually work hard to ensure their equality policies are enforced across Wales.

I welcome the figures noted in relation to procurement in public sector procurement, showing that £1.1 billion invested and that £232 million went directly on salaries to Welsh citizens, £706 million with Welsh-based businesses, of which 78 per cent were SMEs, helping 1,595 disadvantaged people into employment. Additionally, £83,000 was reinvested in Wales—a commendable figure, but just 1 per cent more than 2013, so there is a spending gap there.

There are a couple of areas I would like to focus on today, and that is health and social care, refugees, and equal pay. The Welsh Government’s revised health and care standards noted in its report how services should provide high-quality, safe and reliable care, centred on the person. Further to this, our amendment today, our first one, calls on the Welsh Government

‘to clarify the progress made in relation to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, Part 2 Code of Practice, which requires local authorities to work in partnership with people to co-produce the solutions to meet their personal well-being outcomes.’

Cabinet Secretary, as we’ve seen in the news and in our own constituencies, this is not happening consistently across Wales. People able to return home from hospital are still forced to bedblock until a suitable care package is available. At present, we have 239 people in Wales who have been waiting more than three weeks to leave hospital, to go home—64 have been waiting over three months, and 25 over six. Equality of service, care provision, treatment, and joined-up working is not happening as it should, and I ask you how you are working to address this.

The Syrian resettlement programme noted in the report is intended to help resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees across the UK. In evidence taken by our committee—the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—there has been much criticism from mainly everybody who has given us evidence that there is now a two-tier system in Wales. We’ve heard that whilst the support given to the resettled Syrian families is the gold standard with regard to housing, through the Welsh Refugee Council and Displaced People in Action, yet it does contrast so hugely with the support available—in some cases, none—for refugees from other countries who turn up at the Welsh Refugee Council every day. In response to my recent written Assembly question, you advised that you are aiming to achieve parity. I wonder if you would go into more detail today as to how this is being undertaken and how this will actually get through to the front line and onto the ground.

Now then, the Equal Pay Act came into force in 1970, and I’ve had cases that have gone on for nine years. In one case, one lady, begrudged her payment to bring her in line with law of £800, it took her nine years until my intervention to get her that money. In response to my raising this issue, the Cabinet Secretary for local government requested the WLGA to look at equal pay in more detail, and to put pressure on local authorities to settle. There are hundreds of cases of people—women—who have not received their equal pay for the work that they have carried out, and it’s wrong. Since 2011-12, councils have spent over £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money fighting these very valued front-line workers to settling their claims. This money is owed—it belongs to them—and they have missed out on this through inequality at its worst. Cabinet Secretary, under objectives 2 and 8 of the strategic equality plan, will you seek to look into this? The Welsh Government’s assessment of the strategic plan and equality objectives did not address this in the November 2016 report.

As a scrutinising and law-making body, we have an obligation to ensure that our local authorities and all public bodies don’t just produce the strategies, but they actually run the thread of equality across every single public service that’s delivered across Wales. Thank you.

It’s really great to be able to speak in such an important debate today. I do welcome the annual report on equalities and I want to actually focus specifically on objective 4, which is hate crime. I’m doing that because we are living in a time where that is growing, and hate crime across the protected characteristics of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity is really what we’re talking about. I’m not going to rehearse what Hannah Blythyn has said about the under-reporting; she is absolutely right that there is evidence that, of the high number that we have, it is the case that, most often, hate crime is not reported for whatever reason that might be. But there is a statistic that says 79 per cent of those incidents that are reported are race-related hate crimes, and they have really substantive impacts on both the victims and the victims’ families. They are both physical and also psychological, and that, again, was reported by the all-Wales hate crime research project earlier this year.

It is really important that, when we are debating this today, we actually do think about the impact of hate crime as being an impact on an individual and an impact on their family, rather than just reeling off statistics. That is why the Welsh Government’s ‘Tackling Hate Crimes and Incidents: A Framework for Action’ is important, because it does aim to tackle hate crime across all the protected characteristics. It is the case, I’m pleased to see, that age has now been added, because there are, recently, reports that people are being discriminated against purely because of their age, whatever that age might be. So, we have reports of elderly people being discriminated against purely because they’re elderly people, but we are also now getting reports of young people being discriminated against because they are young people.

But there is a characteristic that I would ask you to add to that, Cabinet Secretary, and that is gender. I think, if we could add gender as a protected characteristic, we would capture an awful lot of the hate crime that has been discussed here today. By ‘gender’, we have to look at gender in all its meanings, not just being a woman—very often, if you say the word ‘gender’, people immediately think you are just talking about women. So, I would like, really, very much, to see that as an added characteristic.

There is support that is available by the hate crimes support centre, and there’s £488,000 of Welsh Government funding that has been put in as part of that framework to tackle hate crime, and I very much welcome that. I know that the centre has aimed to help 2,000 victims over the last three years. You know, again, if we think of these as not victims, but as individuals and families around them, that is a significant level of support.

But we can’t get away from the fact that, in some cases, people are subject to hate crime because of the conversation that happens in places like this. And if I have one appeal today to all of us, it is to be extremely mindful of the language that we use, because we’ve all seen what happens when the language that we use somehow gets out of control, and gets fed back into the communities that then think it’s okay to use in those communities. Trump, in my opinion, has taken that to the extreme, but, nonetheless, the fact that hate crime has gone up during the last year, in my opinion, needs close examination and close scrutiny to see if that is being aligned, in any way, to the language that we’ve seen used in the Brexit debate last year.

Can I start by thanking the Cabinet Secretary and his staff for producing this comprehensive report? There have, undoubtedly, been many achievements here in Wales during the period of the Welsh Government’s 2015-16 strategic equality plan and objectives, not least of which was the landmark legislation that the Cabinet Secretary referred to earlier on, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. There are many positive initiatives identified in the report that have already been covered, so I want to focus on one specific area. But, before I do, can I make brief reference to the section on our international obligations?

I’m pleased that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance recognised the work of the Welsh Government in introducing the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 in relation to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments. Given what we’ve witnessed this week in the USA and Canada, coupled with the rise in hate crimes that we saw post the European referendum last year, our work in this area will undoubtedly remain a priority.

However, I want to focus particularly on the area of improving the democratic diversity and governance of local authorities. I very much welcome the work that has been done through the expert group on local government diversity. There’s no doubt that, like other parts of the UK, the lack of diversity amongst elected councillors in Wales has been an area of concern. Unfortunately, the improvements that we’ve seen in women securing senior posts in private and public sector employment in Wales has not been mirrored in representation at local council level. It’s certainly good to see an increase in the representation of both women and younger people here in the National Assembly, but disappointing to note that it’s not replicated when it comes to local councillors.

It’s understandable, therefore, that the perception of people in Wales is that councils are largely dominated by older white males, as diversity is generally not apparent. A survey of candidates in the 2012 local government elections in Wales showed that the majority were over 60, 99.5 per cent identified their ethnicity as white, 83 per cent state their religion as Christian, and only 30 per cent were female. At present, only two council leaders in Wales are women. There has, of course, been some progress when it comes to the election of women to our local authorities in Wales, but the progress is slow. A survey in 1999 showed that 19.5 per cent of councillors were women. This rose to 21.8 per cent after the 2004 elections, and, whilst there was no definitive survey for Wales following the 2008 election, research by the BBC suggested that the figure had risen to 22 per cent. Progress is, of course, always to be welcomed, but, at this rate, we will not achieve gender balance for our councils for another 35 to 40 years.

Llywydd, the highest representation of women in councils is in Swansea, which is 39 per cent, which is still well below half; six councils are below 20 per cent, including Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council—something that I will be working with the council to address in the years ahead.

Will you give way?

Indeed.

Thank you. The figures you came out with about the percentages of females on local councils: it’s a big problem. I just want to reiterate what I said earlier and maybe get your support, because what is happening in local government is that people are being treated so badly—women councillors followed around, shouted at, abused—and, unless you react well in a bear pit, then you’re not really cut out for local government with the way that it is. So, I’d appeal to you to maybe talk to your group, and let’s get something going in terms of assessing exactly how female councillors feel in Wales, because the system at the minute just completely—completely—excludes them.

Thank you. I think my contribution is more to do with how we get women involved in the first place, but I take your point about the necessity to encourage as many women as possible to come forward and to be used to the kind of rough and tumble of local authority contributions et cetera. But I think it is fair to say that political parties have a role to play in all of this. We’ve already seen significant strides towards achieving and retaining a gender balance here in the National Assembly, but I’m realistic enough to recognise that if it were not for the all-women shortlist policy operated by the Labour Party in Wales, I might not be here today. However, that positive approach by Labour to the selection of women through all-women shortlists and the twinning of constituencies for Assemblies has meant that we now represent more than 50 per cent of our group here in the Assembly, therefore reflecting the gender balance of the electorate as a whole.

But we still have some way to go in securing gender balance in our local councils, and even further to go to achieve fair representation for ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, transgender and disabled people in our society. So, I particularly welcome the Welsh Government’s initiative set out in the report, such as the local government mentoring programme, the Diversity In Democracy publicity campaign, and the Diversity In Democracy employers scheme and the Door to Democracy fund. There are certainly real challenges to be met, but I believe that these initiatives demonstrate a Welsh Government committed to bringing about a situation where our local councils can be seen to be truly representative of all sections of Welsh society.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to the reply to the debate—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to respond to this debate today. Turning to the amendments first, if I may, we will be supporting amendment 1. The Welsh Government has already outlined its three-phase approach to evaluating the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, which will include assessments of eligibility of individuals requiring care and support. The approach being taken will provide information on whether the Act is achieving the aims the Welsh Government has set out, which place the individual at the centre and require local authorities to co-produce care plans with individuals to determine and achieve the specific care and support outcomes.

Llywydd, we will be opposing amendment 2, but I do recognise the sentiment of the Conservatives in this. The recently published national indicators for the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 set the framework for reporting on ‘The Wales We Want’. To introduce a new set of indicators for the strategic equality plan would be very likely to duplicate the work and would be a cause of duplication and confusion with specific departmental targets and indicators for the work that underpins the delivery of the equality objectives. So, while we recognise that, we don’t think that is necessary and we do believe this is already covered. Equality is built into our founding legislation and it influences everything we do, Llywydd. Our actions continue to be impact assessed for equality, and our policies and legislation are developed to meet the needs of people, with careful consideration placed on equality of opportunity.

If I can turn to the points raised by many Members and the contributions in today’s debate, and, first of all, the issue of Mark Isherwood. Mark Isherwood opened the debate and finished off by saying that warm words needed to be changed into action. Well, I agree with the Member, but he also has to recognise the indirect consequences of actions placed by others onto us here in Wales. I refer the Member to the UK Government in terms of benefit sanctions that are imposed on people across the UK, and, if the Member isn’t aware of that, I’d also ask the Member to perhaps have a look at the film ‘I, Daniel Blake’, which will be very vivid in terms of how that Member may then have a refreshed view.

Sian, thank you for your contribution. An interesting proposal regarding geographical strategy and how that may operate, and I’m sympathetic to the approach, but the simple facts are that two thirds of the population live in the south of Wales, and a million around the rest. We’d have to look very carefully about distribution on a needs basis, but I will take your point seriously and ask my team to have a look further on this. The well-being plans will be critical in the way that we move forward into equality moving forward.

Gareth Bennett mentioned his experience with some people recently. I think I share his point, actually—we’re not short of legislation on equality here in Wales or in the UK, but I think it’s about the way we interpret that and deliver. I think we can have all the legislation in the world, but if it doesn’t work at the front door then that’s the bit we need to concentrate on—making sure that public bodies, including Welsh Government, act upon what the legislation says.

Julie Morgan’s contribution, again, was on Gypsy/Travellers—a champion for this cause—and I’m grateful for her continued support around equality. The issue of ring-fenced funding and specific elements of that, whether that be Gypsy/Travellers or school uniforms, is one of controversy in local government, and has been for a number of years. But I will ask my colleague for local government and finance to have a conversation with him about specific issues around Gypsy/Traveller families and how they could be disadvantaged if finance, like the Member raised with me, does have the unintended consequences on the ability to deliver for this very vulnerable group.

Hannah Blythyn’s contribution was on the LGBT network, and, again, championing that. Thank you for her contribution. I know she continues to be very open about the fact that people are disadvantaged by the whole process, and her and her colleague, actually, who sits next to her, are very good companions to have in this field, which drives this project forward.

Janet—the equality of refugees. I just refer the Member to the point that I recall giving evidence to the committee about the two-tier system that the Member refers to. I don’t recognise that there’s a two-tier system, but what I do recognise is that the UK Government has many strands of refugee/asylum packages, and I have made representation to UK Ministers to say we need to streamline that so people are treated equally at the start of that process. I hope that the Member will be able to help me with that proposal.

Joyce is absolutely right, and the issue around hate crime is one that has concerned me for many years. I think the fact that it is considered a crime on the basis of being critique of the colour of a person’s skin or a person’s sexuality, but yet it isn’t an action around everyday sexism, whether that’s male or female generated, and I’ve asked my team to look into that very specifically, because I think they are under-reported crimes that happen on a daily basis, and it becomes the norm, which is not acceptable.

Dawn, thank you for your contribution in terms of the local government diversification budget. The issue for us has to be about how can we get democracy to reflect the make-up of our communities, and I know there are some great pieces of work that have gone on. I pay tribute to South Wales Police in the fact that they’re moving towards the ethnic minority groups to try and introduce them back into policing, because that reflects better the communities that they represent and it’s something that we can learn from.

I pick up the final points from Councillor McEvoy in his contribution. Some of those were just simply wrong. It concerns me that he made reference to the violence against women strategy, and made a very specific point about my commitment to the way I’ve not changed any legislation, or had an impact on the issue around violence against women. I beg to differ, but that is the Member’s opinion. I can say that two women will escape from domestic violence this week, because they will be dead. The fact is that two women a week die across England and Wales from domestic violence, and I will not stop—and I know Members in this Chamber will not stop either—until we have tackled those very issues that we have to around equality in relation to that. [Assembly Members: ‘Hear, hear’.] The Member is wrong, also, to suggest that there aren’t any projects for men, and particularly in Cardiff. We have the Dyn project, which the Member should be aware of. I remain committed to supporting all victims of domestic abuse, regardless of their gender or sexuality—

Will you give way, Minister? You’re wrong.

[Continues.]— as set out in the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015.

The Minister’s not giving way. Carry on, Minister.

The Member, of all people in this Chamber, should also reflect on his contribution today. He was right when he said abuse is abuse. Well, the Member should know very well about that in terms of his contribution in this Chamber. I would just remember that many people in this Chamber know the real Neil McEvoy, and I would just suggest that we all make sure that where there are issues of domestic violence in any of the arenas we face, that it is appropriate that we call that principle out.

Llywydd, this has been a very interesting debate today. We do continue to work on our issue around equalities, and many Members have referred to the very important processes we have in place in Wales. But it is a challenge not only for Government, but also for our third sector partners, and we have to work together to challenge this. I am grateful for the contribution made by many today and will continue to work with you in order to continue our equality strand.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? [Objection.]. Therefore, we will go to voting time.

I now move to voting time. I call for a vote on the debate that we’ve just had. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 23, no abstentions and 28 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I call, therefore, for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.