National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

And the first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and I have received notification, under Standing Order 12.58, that the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, will answer questions today on behalf of the First Minister. The first question, Simon Thomas.

We continue to actively engage with the UK Government in relation to agriculture and countryside policies. Most recently, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs met with Ministers from both the UK Government and devolved administrations on 23 February in Edinburgh.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I’ve been interested in what happened in that meeting in Edinburgh. The Scottish rural economy Secretary, Fergus Ewing, said

‘Today’s meeting did not achieve anything. There was no factual information whatsoever on any of the serious matters that have been raised by farmers.’

Roseanna Cunnigham, who is the environment Secretary in Scotland, said that there had been a deflection at the meeting by Andrea Leadsom whenever the devolution issue was raised, and Scotland’s Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, said that Andrea Leadsom may have been at a different meeting than everyone else. Does the UK Government actually understand what devolution of agriculture and environmental policies means, and is the Minister, in place of the First Minister, able to give assurances that the Welsh Government will not allow any land grab of our devolved policies by the UK Government?

I can certainly assure Simon Thomas of that. And, of course, he would agree with me and the Welsh Government, in relation to the future of agriculture and environment policy in Wales, that, as a Government, we’ve been extensively engaging with stakeholders for the last six months through our round-table meetings on the implication of exiting the European Union. We’ve underlined how essential it is that devolved administrations play a full part in discussions to ensure that any negotiating position reflects the collective position of the UK as a whole, and, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government attended the EU joint committee council only 10 days ago with colleagues, of course, from the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland devolved administrations.

Health experts are now telling us that we shouldn’t just eat five a day, but we need to eat 10 a day if we want to live a long life. I just wondered what discussions have been had around food security, in the light particularly of the reduction in the value of the pound, and particularly in relation to making us more self-sufficient across the UK in the production of fruit and vegetables, and I wondered whether that has been at all discussed in these UK negotiations.

This is crucially important, and, of course, we have got our action plan for the food and drink industry, working closely with food security and food safety stakeholders and partners to sustain and enhance the food production base in Wales, and actively working with the industry. And that’s about improving resilience, productivity, competiveness of food and farming businesses, and adding value to our supply chains. And, clearly, food production does put Wales at a competitive advantage, ideally suited in terms of increasing the variety of food products, but also looking to our own needs. And that’s where Wales’s farming businesses make a critical contribution to safeguarding the UK’s food security.

Leader of the house, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for agriculture has said that a UK-wide agricultural framework may be appropriate. So, in light of this, can you tell us what kind of framework the Government would want to see introduced, and can you tell us what the Welsh Government’s objective is when it comes to such a framework?

We will play an active part in developing frameworks with the UK Government, and also with the other devolved nations. I think we need to look at where UK frameworks and structures are needed to replace those currently set by the EU, but we see these as being collectively developed and agreed. That’s crucially important—collectively developed and agreed, and not imposed, and, most importantly, there must be an independent arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes over interpretation.

Secretary, the Library of Wales series, thanks to Welsh Government investment—

You need to ask the question on the order paper.

Oh, I’m very sorry.

The Welsh Government continues to fund the Library of Wales series, through the Welsh Books Council. As part of our aim to promote the series, gift sets of one copy of each title are being sent to all secondary schools, colleges and library authorities when new titles are published.

Thank you very much. Thanks to the Welsh Government investment of some £600,000 over the last 10 years, 46 important literary works are now back in print in English. The two most recent books, ‘Ride the White Stallion’ and ‘Farewell Innocence’, by Llanelli-born author William Glynne-Jones, are an impressive addition to that canon. Just before the recess, Jon Gower and I held an event in Coleg Sir Gâr, where we discussed these books with local sixth-form students. Having invested so much in these titles, it’s vital now that local people get to know about these works about these communities. And Jon Gower is of the very firm view that every community in Wales has a title within this series that can tell them something about their community and about their past, to help us reflect on our common heritage. So, I’d welcome any further initiatives, to make sure that schools and colleges make use of the copies they now have, so we can reflect on this important investment.

Well, I’m glad that the Member for Llanelli has drawn attention to that most interesting, I’m sure, visit with Jon Gower, and also drawn attention to the fact that Llanelli author William Glynne-Jones is featured in the new series. It is important that it isn’t just gift sets going to schools—clearly, those books have to be used widely, they need to be borrowed, read, shared, discussed throughout schools, libraries and colleges. And I think, as the Member has said, the fact that we’ve brought this new generation of a series to readers—46 titles being published—is vitally important. But it actually is also crucial that we see this as part of developing our world-class education system, geared to equipping our children and young people to thrive amid the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Cabinet Secretary, whilst I welcome the continued commitment to the Library of Wales series, are you aware of the report that was published last week that talked about the reading trends and reading ability of pupils across the UK? In that particular report, it demonstrated that Wales had seen a slump in reading ages, so that, actually, in terms of the situation against chronological age, pupils in secondary schools are a full year behind, on average, than their actual chronological ages. And I wonder what action the Welsh Government is going to take to address this particular problem, in terms of addressing these reading ages in our secondary schools.

Well, in March, of course, we published our national literacy and numeracy programme, and that plan does give a very clear vision of our strategy for literacy and numeracy, going forward. It ensures that there’s significant ongoing support for literacy and numeracy across the curriculum. And Estyn’s 2015 annual report showed that standards are improving in Wales, and we will work to maintain that momentum.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, we were all horrified by the story about Ellie-May Clark’s death over the weekend and the tragedy that led up to the sequence of events—that her mother, obviously, went to the GP surgery, ultimately sought the appointment and, given the medical history of little Ellie, she should have been seen by the GP. No right-minded person could fail to be horrified by what led to those tragic events. I’d be grateful to understand what the Welsh Government is doing—and I’m not blaming the Welsh Government here. What I’m saying is, as the Government of Wales—and this happened in Wales—what is the Welsh Government doing to work with the regulator to address the matters that were raised in the report that looked into this incident?

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that question, because we are all aware here today of the tragic death of Ellie-May, and my thoughts are with her family at this difficult time. It is a professional regulatory matter for the General Medical Council, who oversee such cases at the UK level, as the leader of the Welsh Conservatives will recognise. And, as you’ve acknowledged, it’s what role we can play. It would be inappropriate for the Welsh Government to intervene, but I do think we have to say that, from our understanding, the GMC’s investigation of the GP’s actions underlines the need for high standards of care to be delivered at all times. I’m also aware that the coroner is now investigating and an inquest is due to be held.

Leader of the house, it is quite clear that if the ‘Mail on Sunday’ hadn’t undertaken its investigation, this report would have been buried in the deep, deep recesses of the GMC report and wouldn’t have come to light. We owe the ‘Mail on Sunday’ a great debt of gratitude because they have informed the family of the outcome, because, as I understand it, the family had not been informed of the outcome of the investigation. But it cannot be right that, when you look at these circumstances, these types of investigations are conducted behind closed doors, and that the family and those concerned with these matters are not fully informed of the process and the outcome. Do you believe, like me, leader of the house, that the GMC’s procedures in these matters leave a lot to be required and addressed, and are not fit for purpose?

I think the case was reviewed in accordance with the current GMC procedures. And it is important also to say this afternoon that the health board took the action to refer the doctor to the GMC, following their own internal investigation. So, I think that is, again, where we must recognise that responsibility—that action that was taken. I also notice that Sir Donald Irvine, the former president of the GMC, himself was calling for greater transparency as a result of this tragic case.

Maybe what I’m trying to elicit from you, leader of the house, is a proactive approach from the Welsh Government to identify that these processes are not fit for purpose, as you’ve identified that Sir Donald identified in his own assessment of this procedure. Many times, the Welsh Government is called to make representations on various matters. I would look to you to try and encourage the Cabinet Secretary for health to write to the GMC to address its protocols and procedures because the GMC is there not to look after its own, but to look after everyone. In this case in particular, it has fallen down. I hope that, in responding to my third question, you will indicate that the Welsh Government will be writing to the GMC to ask them to address the deeply, deeply, deeply held concerns of members of this institution, but the wider public in this specific case, which really has let the family down and, above all, is letting Ellie and Ellie’s memory down.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary for health and well-being is certainly going to be looking at this case in terms of the GMC’s role and procedures, but I think it is important that you’ve put your point on the record today, and I’m sure that those points can be made, and will be made, across this Chamber.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Leader of the house, you’ll be aware that, over the past few years, I have pressed the First Minister on the question of widening access to drugs and treatments in Wales. Today, we’ve got some people in the public gallery who are living with multiple sclerosis, and I’d like to welcome them to the Senedd. They’ve asked me to take forward an issue that is of utmost importance to their quality of life. Everyone in the Chamber is aware of the difficulties of accessing drugs and treatments specifically for MS. Leader of the house, what is the Welsh Government’s view on the availability of those drugs and treatments?

Well, there’s clearly an opportunity now, and as a result of the discussions that we’ve had, to look very carefully at the opportunities for those drugs to be made available. Of course, this is part of the way forward in terms of the review of the prescribing of those drugs.

Thank you, leader of the house. We know that Wales was the first country in the UK to approve Sativex, which is a cannabis-based drug, and that was approved back in 2014. The evidence from patients who are prescribed Sativex is consistent and clear: it’s effective, it reduces pain, it reduces spasms, but access to the drug is patchy. A survey for the MS Society found that only 1 per cent of people who said they were eligible for Sativex actually had access to it. The survey also suggested that the number of people living with MS who take disease-modifying therapies appears to be lower than in Scotland or England. There’s a real concern that other new drugs and treatments coming through the system will be equally as difficult to access. If you accept that there is a patchy availability of these drugs, and that that is a major obstacle to the quality of life for citizens in Wales, what resources is the Welsh Government prepared to allocate to the infrastructure around MS, around MS nursing and neurology in order to help patients get the support that they need?

Well, I very much welcome the engagement of the MS Society, an organisation that has represented patients with multiple sclerosis so effectively in Wales, and of course their evidence is vitally important to inform us in the considerations of very clear clinical arrangements in terms of the prescribing of drugs. But it is very important that we look particularly to the effect and beneficial impact, and also availability and access in terms of those medications such as Sativex, which you have just raised.

I think your second question also relates to the wider services that we can provide to MS sufferers. Much progress has been made in terms of availability, in terms of research, drugs and appropriate treatment, but it also has to be the wider care pathway as well.

Well, I very much hope that we do see extra resources for this, leader of the house. The lack of availability of Sativex has led people to pursue alternatives of their own. I recently met with a 64-year-old woman from Cwmbran who has primary progressive MS. She experiences pain and spasms on a daily basis, and her daily drug regime includes morphine, codeine, paracetamol, pregabalin and diazepam. Because Sativex isn’t available in her area, she uses cannabis as a replacement, obviously risking problems there with the law. How is it okay to take morphine, but by buying cannabis she risks prosecution?

On 10 February, following a Government-commissioned review, Ireland joined Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and many other countries around the world in recommending that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal use. There’s also support for this in Scotland, and we’ve heard at least one police and crime commissioner from Wales recommend that the same thing happens here. Will the Welsh Government follow our Irish and Scottish counterparts and advocate the decriminalisation of cannabis to relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and other conditions?

What I would like to do is to ensure that we can make those medications, those drugs, available, such as Sativex, which obviously has proven benefits. I certainly would want to ensure, from your questions today, leader of Plaid Cymru, that we look very carefully at access to and the availability of those clinically proven and beneficial medications for people with MS in Wales.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. Two weeks ago at First Minister’s questions the leader of Plaid Cymru raised the dispute that’s going on in Llangennech over the conversion of their primary school from bilingual to Welsh-medium instruction only, and described the atmosphere in the village as toxic. The First Minister appealed for calm. Since then, the leader of Plaid Cymru has interpreted calmness in a rather unusual way. Plaid Cymru have set their internet trolls upon the activists who want to maintain dual-stream education in Llangennech and have twisted innocent Facebook posts in an attempted character assassination of their opponents. Jonathan Edwards, the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, supported by the leader of Plaid Cymru, has engaged in a public campaign of intimidation of one of those activists for having the temerity to seek my help as one of their AMs in the fight against Plaid Cymru intolerance. Indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru has even published on her Facebook page a photograph of one of them, following which this lady has been verbally abused in the street and spat at.

As leader of the house, will you defend our collective rights as Members in this Assembly, as representatives of the people of Wales, to seek redress of grievances on behalf of all our constituents, regardless of their political views, and condemn the attack on the constitutional right of all my constituents to seek my help on the future education of their children?

Well, I have to say that I’m a bit concerned that the leader of UKIP is not helping to reduce the toxic situation that has been described. I think this is something where, in terms of our responsibilities, indeed, your responsibilities—and we must be very clear here, and perhaps the leader of UKIP needs to be reminded of this: the Welsh Government can’t comment on any proposals for change that are under consideration by a local authority. It is the responsibility of local authorities, the planning of school places—it rests with them.

I fully accept that, but the process by which the decision was arrived at in Carmarthenshire County Council has wider implications and calls for a change in legislation. There was a consultation exercise that was carried out, which was a complete sham. There were 1,418 responses—698 responses were in support of the proposal and 720 were against it. But, one of the responses against had 757 signatures and that was regarded as one vote out of the 1,418. You don’t have to provide an address or a post code if you respond to the consultation—27 of these were anonymous, there wasn’t even a name.

In these circumstances, given that there is clearly very substantial opposition within the catchment area of the school to the imposition of Welsh-medium only instruction, surely there is a case here for a stay in the proceedings whilst we consider whether this change—which in the longer term may well be desirable—should be brought in? Let’s take public opinion with us rather than fight it.

These are, as I’ve said, matters for Carmarthenshire council. As a Government, we’re supportive of the Welsh language. We want to see an extension of Welsh-medium education and more children involved in it. It is for Carmarthenshire council to justify the decisions it takes—clearly, sensitive to the fact that local authorities must comply with the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the code and look at the range of factors when proposing change.

It is certainly true that they must comply with the legislation, but they can comply with the letter of the law whilst wholly ignoring its spirit, and that is exactly what has happened in this case. There hasn’t been a consultation, there’s been a ‘non-sultation’, because the decision was arrived at even before the consultation exercise was begun. Is it not time now for Carmarthenshire County Council to have a proper consultation exercise, which is independently conducted, with all those within the catchment area of Llangennech alone, and ignoring the responses that have nothing to do with the area that is most concerned?

Again, I have to say, Llywydd, it’s not a matter for Welsh Government to intervene. Of course it’s important that any local authority does take into account the views of those who live locally and, indeed, a consultation was held between 28 January 2016 and 18 March, to which there were 267 responses. It is now for us to let the process progress in terms of the legislation, the school standards Act 2013 and the school organisation code.

We continue to provide support for start-up businesses through the Business Wales service and we encourage business start-up from a young age through our Big Ideas campaign.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. Last week, I met with representatives from Merthyr county borough council and Tydfil Training to talk about the support that they give to new businesses starting up in the Merthyr area, in particular their town centre enterprise development initiative, operating at the Merthyr Tydfil enterprise centre. One of their successes is the meanwhile use programme, which uses Vibrant and Viable Places funding.

Under that scheme, the enterprise centre encourages local landlords with vacant properties to let them out to new businesses. Potential start-up businesses are supported with payments of the rental on the property for an agreed period. That enables new enterprises to test out and amend their business models, based on working experience, and allows the landlord to realise the potential benefit of letting out vacant premises for business development. This has enabled seven new businesses to start up in vacant premises in the town centre.

Additionally, through the Effect programme, Merthyr Tydfil Enterprise Centre has given support to around 170 businesses in the area, created 51 jobs and safeguarded a further 151 jobs. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that it is support like this that has contributed to the situation where Merthyr Tydfil has become the leading growth centre for new business in Wales? Can she give an assurance that funding under Vibrant and Viable Places, which has been so crucial to the success of these schemes, will remain a key component of the Welsh Government’s strategy to encourage new start-ups for small businesses?

Dawn Bowden does illustrate a very good way, a constructive way, in which we have been able to invest the Vibrant and Viable Places investment in the regeneration programme in Merthyr Tydfil, obviously in partnership with the local authority and other partners. I think, in terms of the way forward, this is a flagship regeneration programme—over £124 million of capital funding to support regeneration activities in 18 areas across Wales, forecasting that the programme will deliver more than 2,000 jobs, support 9,000 people into work and lever in £300 million in additional investment. So, this, of course, now takes us forward with regard to the future, particularly of the capital regeneration programme, as the current funding round draws to a close in March.

Leader of the house, data from BankSearch for Lloyds Bank show that the number of new businesses starting up across Wales has fallen by a staggering 26 per cent over the last five years. Can I ask what the Welsh Government is doing to reverse this trend? Also, can I ask what the Welsh Government is doing to encourage younger people to consider starting up their own business as a positive life choice following leaving school?

I don’t know where those figures that Russell George quotes this afternoon are emanating from, in terms of the evidence. I would like to put the record straight that the latest data show that the number of business births in Wales has grown every year since the financial crisis, and in 2015 reached a record high of 11,525. I’m sure that Russell George would agree with me that these results are extremely encouraging, and they demonstrate a climate in Wales where businesses are confident to start, grow and thrive.

A group of London-based investors, Accelerate Me, are looking to create a new fund with £4 million of their own money, hopefully backed by £6 million of Welsh Government money, to back Welsh start-ups and create a home-grown version of the highly successful Start-up Chile accelerator programme. Does the leader of the house agree that this kind of approach, supporting indigenous businesses and connecting them with external capital and knowledge, should be at the heart of the Welsh Government’s new economic strategy? On that basis, would she urge her Cabinet colleagues to meet with the proposers of the idea?

I don’t think there’s a word that I would disagree with, Adam Price, and I think the Cabinet Secretary would be only too delighted to meet with the London-based investors. I think that it’s important that you mentioned indigenous businesses. We are continuing to support indigenous business. We’ve got a record number of active enterprises headquartered in Wales. The latest figures show that Wales has the highest number of new businesses in over a decade. To date, £13 million has been invested in 1,703 start-ups in Wales through the Start Up Loans company. So, this is very encouraging—that there are more who want to invest in Wales.

Question 4 [OAQ(5)0464(FM)] is withdrawn. Question 5, John Griffiths.

Building international relationships is core Welsh Government activity. This week, the First Minister hosted the London-based diplomatic corps and is visiting the United States of America. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government are in Dubai and will be in Brussels this week. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure visited China.

Thank you for that. Cabinet Secretary, the European Union is a great economic, social and political force in the world, and leaving the European Union threatens to greatly diminish the standing of Wales and the UK in the world. So, could you reassure me that as far as Wales is concerned, the Welsh Government must find new ways of working with the European Union and European Union member states in the run-up to Brexit and beyond, and that the UK Government should commit, through its Brexit negotiations, to securing continuing participation in key European Union programmes open to non-member states, such as Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+, and, indeed, to securing continued participation in trans-national economic development programmes, particularly with our close neighbour, the Republic of Ireland?

I thank John Griffiths for that question because we make it very clear in our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, that Wales is leaving the EU but not Europe, and we strongly believe that Wales and the UK should continue to participate in those key EU programmes. You mention Horizon 2020; that’s supporting research and development projects between higher education and private sector partners. Erasmus+: again, those education exchanges can transform the prospects and opportunities of young people. We want to see a far-reaching and far clearer commitment from the UK Government to securing this outcome from the Brexit negotiations and, of course, they form part of the negotiations, which Cabinet Secretaries are engaged with. But you also mention Ireland. That is also crucially important because we have the Ireland-Wales programme, the directly managed programme, which we are responsible for, which also includes a number of very important R&D projects and, indeed, projects and initiatives that can improve and constructively help Wales as well as Ireland.

Leader of the house, it’s clearly vital that we develop stronger economic links across the world in the wake of the vote to leave the European Union and if we could still in some way access schemes such as Horizon 2020 and similar programmes following Brexit in some way then that would be a bonus, so I was pleased to hear you mention that. However, I would say a trade mission—and obviously the First Minister is away on a trade mission at the moment—only works if enough planning has gone into it and the right companies have been invited in good time and the mission is clear about its objectives. That didn’t happen entirely back in 2012 on the previous US mission of that time. Has it happened this time around? Who is on that mission with the First Minister and have they been given adequate preparation time?

Well, I’m disappointed that you speak of trade missions disparagingly and don’t welcome the trade missions. For example—and I will go on to your point about the US trade mission. But, last week, I’m sure you would welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, actually had an important visit to China—obviously he’s responsible for economy and transport—with two new investments announced, including Acerchem International establishing an European HQ and R&D facility in Wales with the creation of 38 high-tech jobs, and two new stores in Wales by Flooring REPUBLIC. Of course, there are clear links with the US in terms of the fact that we have not only those US companies based in Wales who are informing our trade mission, but also demonstrating the impact that we can have with a leader, a Welsh Labour First Minister, going to the States, saying that Wales is clearly open for business.

As chair of the Wales international cross-party group, it’s been good to see a consensus developing across the parties on the need to develop the relationship and to develop the potential of close links between Wales and its diaspora. At the latest meeting of the group, there was agreement on the need for the Welsh Government to develop a clear strategy on how to secure that, and that in addition to the kinds of international relationships it’s undertaking at the moment, and trade visits and so on and so forth. So, does the leader of the house agree with the group on this point, and what steps are being put in place by Government to ensure that those links with the diaspora are effectively developed?

It’s very welcome that we have a cross-party group, and Rhun ap Iorwerth you are chairing that and bringing together that consensus that we need here in this Chamber to support our First Minister, who is in the US. Welsh Government has always promoted Wales around St David’s Day and that is a key focus of these visits, and also indeed not only in terms of visits to the USA, China, Dubai, Brussels—there are also events happening in embassies and high commissions across Europe and elsewhere. I think it is important that we recognise that, for example, the First Minister is—his programme in the US includes business and political meetings. He’ll make a statement, as Cabinet Secretaries always do on their return from these trade missions, and recognising that it is with the diaspora that we engage, so, it is with those companies in Wales that are the US companies, but also that the trade mission and cultural delegation visiting China also provided a profile. So, I’ve already given you some outcomes from the Chinese trade mission. I’m sure we will have outcomes from the US visit by the First Minister in due course.

The Welsh Government played an active role in supporting the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013, which delivered important safeguards for park home residents.

As the Cabinet Secretary knows, there will be a review of the 2013 legislation this year. Will the Welsh Government be contributing to that, and will the Welsh Government intend to do anything about this 10 per cent commission, which is compulsorily extracted from those who want to sell their homes, in exchange for which mobile home park owners do absolutely nothing, because, since the 2013 Act they have no role whatsoever in the sale of these mobile homes? It’s a significant inhibition upon people from selling their homes, especially if, as is usually the case, they tend to be elderly and on low incomes; it’s a significant problem.

I appreciate that Neil Hamilton wasn’t here during the session when we supported, when the Welsh Government supported, the mobile homes legislation presented by Peter Black. It then became the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013, which you refer to. I just need to remind the Member that this legislation consolidates previous legislation relating to park or residential mobile homes and goes much further than comparative legislation in England. For example, we required all sites to be relicensed, and I’m sure that you would welcome that, and for site managers to pass a fit-and-proper-person test. But, subsequent to that, the Welsh Government did commission an independent review of the economics of the park home industry in 2015, and the report has been published, and, clearly, the Cabinet Secretary is looking at that and the options.

Leader of the house, I think it’s very important that we have a system that is transparent and fairly reflects the costs that site owners have, and also the ability for the residents of mobile homes to have a knowledge of what those costs are and to challenge them if necessary. At the moment, it is very opaque and it seems very unfair, and, in terms of where the power is, it’s loaded against the mobile home owners.

Well, David Melding does give a balanced view about the site owners and those, of course, who are purchasing those homes on the park home sites. I am aware that there is a lot of concern that’s been raised; there’s a petition that’s also come forth. I think it is very important to again repeat that we have done more to protect home residents, which is crucial, than other parts of the UK. All park home sites in Wales have had to apply for a new licence, and I’ve said also about the fit-and-proper-person test. And we’ve allowed time for a stricter regulatory regime resulting from the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013, which, again, I’m glad to say was supported by the whole Assembly as it came through. In fact, I remember Peter Black was congratulated by Mark Isherwood when the Bill went through. But we must clearly look at the points that have been raised this afternoon, and that’s what the Cabinet Secretary is doing.

The majority of park home residents in Wales, as has been mentioned, are over the age of 55 and the most recent report suggests that they are, on average, 71 years old. The vast majority of these residents don’t envisage leaving or selling their homes in the foreseeable future. Will you therefore agree with me that increases in pitch fees to cover losses incurred by park owners that would result from the abolition or reduction of sales commissions is not a good long-term solution, and what consideration has your Government given to this?

Well, the report, the independent report, didn’t actually recommend the removal of the commission rate, but the Cabinet Secretary obviously is looking at the recommendations of the report; he’s not bound by them. He’s considering a range of options on whether further action is merited.

Our concessionary bus travel scheme is hugely popular, with some 760,000 older or disabled pass holders resident in Wales, and we’re also continuing to support the existing discounted bus travel arrangements for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds throughout Wales while we design a different scheme over the coming months.

Thank you for that response, and, further to that, naturally, there has been some concern, particularly among young people across Wales, following that uncertainty that you’ve already mentioned surrounding the mytravelpass scheme, so I was pleased to hear the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure last week, saying that the Government were committed to establishing a similar scheme, as you’ve mentioned, to encourage young people to use buses. Now, we need assurances in this area, so when can we expect the consultation on the new scheme to commence?

Well, as you say, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport did issue a written statement on 21 February. He outlined his plans for the future of young persons’ discounted bus travel. We’ve agreed with local authorities and the bus industry that the existing discounted travel arrangements will continue, as I said in answer to your first question. We’ve accepted the Confederation of Passenger Transport’s offer to come forward with proposals for a new marketing campaign, because we know we needed to increase the uptake and use of passes, but we intend to launch a new travel pass from 2018. We’ll be consulting over the summer.

Leader of the house, can I ask what assurances you can give that, in the preparation for the end of the current funding agreement on concessionary fares next year, discussions with the bus industry and with local authorities will begin in plenty of time so that the stability of the scheme is maintained?

I think, in terms of the commitment we’ve made to concessionary bus fares over the years, the fact that we’re estimating that local authorities will reimburse bus operators in 2016-17 between £65 million and £70 million, including £10 million from their own budgets for carrying older and disabled pass holders would be—. We’re continuing, of course, with our scheme for young people and, clearly, this is an important plank of Welsh Labour Government’s programme for government.

We had a petition delivered to the Assembly last year by a pupil at Treorchy comprehensive in the Rhondda. This petition was calling for rail travel to and from school to be restored—free rail travel, I should say—by Arriva Trains, who had decided to end the scheme. With the rail franchise up for renewal next year, I wondered if thought might be given by the Government to giving Arriva a shove towards restoring the free school fares scheme that they previously offered.

I think, while concessionary travel is very important, particularly where bus services are limited, it’s of course—. Concessionary travel passes can be used on certain train lines; the Welsh Government has ensured that. Concessionary rail travel is available on some routes, which you’ll be aware of, particularly in Wrexham, Llandudno, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Swansea and the Heart of Wales line. As you know, Gareth Bennett, we have no powers to introduce mandatory concessionary fare schemes on Wales services, but we do fund the voluntary concessionary scheme with Arriva Trains Wales. But, clearly, this is an area where we will be looking at future prospects.

We will take forward a cross-Government, all-Wales approach focused on helping people into decent jobs, giving children the best start in life, and ensuring that local people are engaged in the design of local services.

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house. On 14 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children made a statement regarding Communities First and his actions in that statement also highlighted the ambition to actually get to those furthest from the labour market and move them forward. But, unfortunately, some of those who are furthest from the labour market skills-wise are also physically furthest from the market because they live in communities that are not well served by public services. What are you doing to actually get jobs closer to them or actually get them to jobs by improving public services and public transport?

The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015 does, of course, set out investment for transport infrastructure services across all parts of Wales. It has to provide comprehensive solutions for local transport needs and connecting communities, but, as the Member, David Rees, says, it’s about improving local public transport, and I think the integrated transport hub in your area will be of major significance and importance. We also, of course, have our very important Better Jobs, Closer to Home initiative, which enables people to access jobs, but you will hear more from the Cabinet Secretary for economy and transport very shortly in terms of the future of bus services.

The Ministry of Justice collects this information and we understand that, until September 2016, no protection orders were issued in Wales. The Welsh Government does not tolerate any form of violence against women, including female genital mutilation, and, together with our partners, we are working hard to tackle this heinous crime.

I thank you for that answer. It is somewhat amazing that there have been no protection orders whatsoever issued and, consequently, no prosecutions for FGM in Wales. It is a crime against the person and it is the brutal abuse of minors, and we need to, in my opinion, call it out for what it is: it is child abuse—nothing more, nothing less. So, what I’m going to ask, Cabinet Secretary, is: according to the charity BAWSO, they currently support 788 families who are affected one way or another by FGM in Wales; will the Government work more closely with them to see if that support can be increased to allow those people to move forward, if it is required, to seek some protection orders and also, to work with the prosecution services, so that we can actually start prosecuting people in this country and send a very clear message that this will not be tolerated? Because it seems at the moment that it is being tolerated.

I thank Joyce Watson for the leadership she has taken in terms of addressing this and, indeed, also, I thank Jenny Rathbone, who chaired a recent event that was attended by many Members here today, and BAWSO was involved in that. It’s crucial that we enable and support our all-Wales honour-based violence leadership group. That’s about data collection and about ensuring that we have FGM safeguarding leads in all our health boards; it’s about ensuring that we develop an effective FGM care pathway for Wales so that we can have referrals into primary healthcare or third sector provision. Public Health Wales is revising and updating NHS Wales’s safeguarding training, and also we have the social services and well-being Act strengthening safeguarding procedures in Wales. All of this, of course, will lead to the point where we feel that mandatory reporting and the ability to take things forward to protection orders will be much more easily facilitated.

I thank the leader of the house.

Point of order emerging from questions. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Lywydd. I’d like to raise a point of order under Standing Order 13.9. Earlier in the Chamber this afternoon, the leader of UKIP in the Assembly made accusations about the conduct of both the Assembly Member for Rhondda and the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr relating to the campaign for the future of the school in Llangennech. Specifically, he accused Jonathan Edwards of engaging, and I quote,

‘in a public campaign of intimidation of one of those activists’.

These are comments that could well be considered libellous, perhaps, outside this Chamber. For the record, the Member of Parliament did not name a single member of the public; his letter to Jeremy Corbyn, which was published on his website, did not include any names of campaigners. Actually, the name of an individual was only published by another party when it was confirmed that they had suspended a member. I believe the misleading and factually incorrect comments should be withdrawn.

I thank the Member for that point of order. It’s quite right, of course, that our Standing Orders insist that we show courtesy on all occasions in this Assembly. May I ask all Members to bear in mind that that courtesy is necessary, particularly for our fellow elected Member here in Wales, including Members of Parliament? I don’t believe there’s any more to say on that point of order, just to remind all Members to be courteous on all occasions and to avoid accusations.

May I ask the leader of the house to move to the next item on our agenda, as I have given her an opportunity to catch her breath? Jane Hutt, therefore, will move to the business statement and announcement. Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Lywydd. I have two changes to report to this week’s business. The statement on the independent evaluation of the emergency ambulance services clinical response model will take place immediately after this business statement and, later this afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will make a statement on the future of local bus services. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, you’ll be aware of the case of the schoolteacher Juhel Miah who was last week stopped from travelling to the United States via Iceland on a school trip. Juhel is a maths teacher in Llangatwg school. He’s Welsh; he was born in Swansea. He’s also a Muslim with a Bangladeshi name. He’s widely respected by colleagues and loved by pupils. What we see now is a climate of suspicion, not only affecting travellers on the US President’s list of countries, but it’s affecting Welsh citizens as well. Mr Miah has been in contact with me following his removal from the flight to the United States, asking me to speak out on his behalf and to find out the reasons behind his removal from that flight. To date, he’s received no explanation. Will you arrange for a statement supporting Mr Miah’s quest for an explanation as to why he was treated in this unacceptable manner during a trip with his pupils?

I thank Leanne Wood for that question, and as she’ll be aware—and I’m aware she has also written to the First Minister—the First Minister has written to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs seeking urgent consideration and observations on this matter, requesting that he pursue the matter directly with the appropriate US authorities. We need an explanation, as you say, Leanne Wood, for what seems to be a contravention of stated US policy and the rights granted to UK passport holders. I think we’re all very, very concerned and, indeed, dismayed by this action, and we all want the answers. So, thank you for raising it.

The leader of the house may know that Neath Port Talbot council has become the first organisation in Wales to sign the voluntary charter of the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign, which protects staff facing terminal illness. Sadly, I know from the personal experience of a close friend who is no longer with us how vital it is for people in that situation to have peace of mind and a sense of security and support from their employers as they face their illness. The charter commits the employer to protect employment terms and death-in-service benefits and to provide active support with a view to maintaining the dignity and the well-being of the employee, consistent with their illness. Will the Government make a statement about what steps it can take to encourage other public sector organisations in Wales also to sign that charter, and whether Welsh Government itself will do so, and whether it will encourage the Assembly Commission to do so?

I certainly welcome the move by Neath Port Talbot council to introduce this terminally ill staff charter for its employees. Obviously, learning from that, we would want to see this being shared and we would encourage other public sector organisations in Wales to follow Neath Port Talbot’s example. But we’re also, as a Welsh Government, currently exploring how we can better support public authorities to provide national and regional leadership by adopting policies of this kind, which do support people who are terminally ill.

Before Christmas recess, I asked the health Secretary to reconsider the Government’s decision to close Wales’s only perinatal in-patient unit in 2013. He declined and told me that enhanced community provision was adequately addressing the needs of mothers with perinatal mental health needs. I have obtained information showing that two LHBs have no data to illustrate what potential demand there is for an in-patient unit. Two LHBs did not have a perinatal community service until last summer, almost three years after the closure of the specialist unit. In at least one LHB, mothers are being offered referrals to in-patient units in England, but mothers are declining such referrals because they don’t want to be separated from their families. The cost of running an in-patient service in Wales was a mere £500,000 a year. Perinatal mental health issues can cost mothers their lives and deny children a parent. Can we have a statement from the health Secretary as soon as possible on what he intends to do in the future to provide mothers in Wales with the services they deserve?

This is something that we know that we need to look at—how this is going to be delivered as a result of that change in service. We need to see how it’s being delivered across Wales. You’ve given some evidence today, but I think the Cabinet Secretary will be able to update and respond, particularly if you have examples at a constituency level that can be brought to our attention.

I thank the Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the independent evaluation of the emergency ambulance services clinical response model. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to update Members on the outcome of the independent evaluation of the clinical response model for emergency ambulance services.

Members will know that the clinical response model pilot commenced on 1 October 2015. There was widespread agreement that the previous model was not supported by clinical evidence and made poor use of the emergency ambulance service. The new clinical response model set out to make the best use of our ambulance service and ensure that it prioritised people with the greatest clinical need.

I received clear clinical evidence from a review conducted by Dr Brendan Lloyd, the medical director of the Welsh ambulance services trust, to undertake this pilot. His advice was explicitly endorsed and supported by every other medical director in Wales.

When making the decision to approve the pilot for the new clinical response model, I directed the chair of the emergency ambulance services committee, which I’ll now refer to as EASC, to commission a robust independent evaluation. I’ve now received that evaluation report. Having considered the report’s findings and advice from EASC, the Welsh ambulance service and my own officials, I have decided to approve the substantive implementation of the new model with immediate effect.

In my written statement yesterday, I set out some of the key findings from the evaluation report. The report was supportive of the introduction of the new model and identifies a range of benefits from its introduction. It found that the new model has helped to deliver a service that is more focused on the quality of care that patients received and it has improved efficiency in the use of ambulance resources. The new model has provided additional time for call handlers to better assess patients and ensure that they get a response from the right type of clinician and vehicle in the first instance. It’s allowed the Welsh ambulance service to explore alternative ways of responding to calls, either over the telephone, known as ‘hear and treat’, or at the scene, which is known as ‘see and treat’. The number of calls ended through hear and treat has significantly increased since the beginning of the pilot. In December 2016 alone, the Welsh ambulance service was able to avoid 1,700 ambulance journeys through hear and treat. This was the highest monthly rate since the beginning of the pilot, and is a 70 per cent increase compared to October 2015. Similarly, there’s been a 9 per cent increase in the number of incidents that ended following a face-to-face intervention from paramedics at scene, without the need for that patient to be taken to hospital. In December 2016, over 3,000 patients were discharged through see and treat. So, those patients remained at home, and ambulance resources were released into the community without an unnecessary journey to hospital.

The Welsh ambulance service enhanced its clinical desk in November last year so that more calls can be resolved without patients going to hospital. It also provides improved clinical support to ambulance staff making on-scene treatment decisions.

Whilst these results are promising, there is, of course, scope to increase hear-and-treat and see-and-treat rates in Wales as we do remain behind other parts of the UK on these measures. I expect the Welsh ambulance service and health board partners to work with the chief ambulance services commissioner to take this matter forward.

One of the report’s recommendations was to keep call categories under constant review to ensure that patient experience and expectation is considered as part of our evidence-based approach. A year of operation now means more robust and real-time information for EASC to carry out this work in collaboration with the Welsh ambulance service to support improvements for patients. I know that accurate and easily accessible data is fundamental to understanding demand, and there is a clear need to improve data across the patient journey. So, the new model introduced a new suite of ambulance quality indicators. These provide a much broader view of the quality of care that is being provided by ambulance clinicians. I’ve been particularly encouraged by high performance levels against the seven clinical indicators being measured. This demonstrates that paramedics are delivering care that will make a real difference to patient outcomes. EASC is now working with the world-renowned Picker Institute Europe to improve measures relating to patient experience. And work is already under way to establish routine linking of data across the patient journey. This will allow us to analyse the impact on patient outcomes of interventions at each step of patient care.

Together, this work will help Welsh ambulance service AST and EASC to understand emergency ambulance services in ever greater detail and place interventions in the wider context of the patient’s journey through the unscheduled care system. This work will also inform the refresh of the AQIs later this year to include additional measures of clinical and operational performance.

The replacement of the existing computer-aided dispatch system later this year will put WAST in a much stronger position to manage all calls more effectively through the better identification and allocation of the most appropriate resource. The new system will be supported by a £4.5 million of Welsh Government investment and is expected to be online later this year.

Our pilot has attracted global interest. The Welsh ambulance service have been invited to provide advice to a number of international ambulance services, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, USA, Chile and England. In fact, the Scottish Ambulance Services NHS trust is currently piloting a very similar model, directly referring to the work undertaken here in Wales. There is a significant opportunity here to build upon the success of the model to date to further evidence this successful innovation and step forward.

I recognise that it takes time for new ways of working to become established. The clinical model has proven to be effective in enabling the Welsh ambulance service to prioritise a response to the greatest level of need. However, the model itself is not a panacea. There is a clear acknowledgement from the Welsh ambulance service and from EASC that there are opportunities to improve care for patients in the greatest need, and to ensure patients with less serious need continue to receive a safe and timely response. I have, therefore, written to Professor Siobhan McClelland, directing EASC, to develop a way forward in response to the evaluation report’s recommendations to support the work that is already under way to deliver high-quality ambulance services for the people of Wales.

The new model has proven to be a positive step forward. However, it has only been possible because of the commitment and skill of our staff who deliver the ambulance service, and I am truly grateful to them, both in making the case for change and in then delivering that change. I will of course continue to monitor performance and the implementation of the new model.

Thank you very much for your statement this afternoon, Cabinet Secretary, and there’s much to commend, or to be commended in the report from the Welsh Ambulance Services Trust. And, like you, I would like to particularly commend the paramedics who have made enormous strides forward in delivering and being able to deliver timely care, and I think that they are making a real different to patient outcomes, and I have absolutely no quarrels with the assertions you make along those lines.

I do have three key areas of questioning I would like to go through with you. The first is about increasing resources to the ambulance service. There’s been an awful lot of discussion by the staff within the report, in the report itself, and in the discussions that you facilitated, most kindly, with the Welsh ambulance service only a couple of weeks ago about not having enough clinicians, either in a hub or within their particular specialities in a hospital, that will enable patients who have been brought by paramedics to the right door of the hospital to be processed more quickly and thoroughly, and that there’s been some real concerns by the staff that they feel that there’s a blockage there—. And I’d like to have your view on what you think we can do to improve, or you will be doing to improve, and adding to the resources in the ambulance service, so that having had these amazing paramedics get them to that door, they’re through that door and in the right place, at the right time, and being treated well. Staff have also raised concerns that they need more training, and I wonder how much of the recent funding package for medical staff training will you be allocating to this particular staff group in order to enhance and give added depth to the ambulance service.

The second area I’d like to ask you about is the amber calls and waiting times. The report has highlighted that there’s concern that the amber category group is way too large, and is not sufficiently discriminatory. The staff themselves talk about this as a real issue, because, of course, there are only a few calls now that are being put into the red category. And I’d just like to read one quick excerpt from a member of staff, who says:

‘Amber response targets not being met due to demand and resourcing’.

And

‘I feel as there are so many calls in this category, the triage queue doesn't work well. For example, an unconscious stroke patient categorised below a person who is drunk and not alert.’

And I’d be really interested in hearing your take on the very valid staff concerns that they’re raising about amber calls and waiting times.

The previous model called for almost 50 per cent of calls to be categorised as life threatening, and we all recognise that that was counter-productive, given the true proportion of life-threatening calls is nearer to 10 per cent. So why is it, Cabinet Secretary, that only 5 per cent of life-threatening calls are being held against targets in Wales, and will you intend to review that, as you move forward?

There’s also real concern that the data on patient outcomes are very poor, and I wonder what can be done to improve this. When we had our meeting with the WAST officials, and we talked about why stroke patients, for example, are not in red category—which is something we, the Welsh Conservatives, absolutely believe in—the officials were talking about the fact that they were getting them to the door in time, and what we needed to do was talk to the health boards, to be reassured that, going further, those stroke patients, at the door, would be moved through to the appropriate place for their correct treatment, whether they needed a CT scan, or some kind of thrombolytic treatment. And yet, when I FOI’d all the health boards, none of them—none of them—were able to come back with the information that says that stroke patients are being moved through appropriately.

So, we still have an issue where we have an illness that requires a certain amount of treatment within a certain amount of time, and, although the health board, because of the way you’ve now run this system—although the ambulance service no longer has to get to that patient, and get them to the front door within a very short period of time, the worry we have is that too much of the amount of time is being used up by the ambulance service before they go and get to that patient, or getting the patient to the door, because there is absolutely no guarantee yet that the patient, once they get to the door of the hospital, is getting to the appropriate treatment within that hospital. In the old days, if you had to get them there by eight minutes, or 10 minutes, or whatever it was, you knew then you had a couple of hours to play with if there were problems within the hospital in terms of resources. We’ve now flipped that over on its head. And this is not me saying it, it’s actually the report highlighting it, and it’s the staff concerns about what is happening to these stroke patients.

And, as I say, I would reiterate this, Cabinet Secretary: when I did an FOI on every single health board, none of them were able to tell me, with any degree of data, that they had stroke patients entering their door, and getting to the treatment, still within the golden hours that those patients need. And I find that very concerning, and I’d really like to have a good, clear answer as to why people with strokes and hearts are not in the red category. There are a number of other questions, but I appreciate that I’m probably taking too much time.

Thank you for the series of questions and comments. I’ll start with some of your points about clinicians in other parts of the health service and the point about delays in treatment, or otherwise. There is, of course, a challenge about seeing the ambulance service as part of the whole system, and not just that whole patient—[Inaudible.]—partly about the ambulance service. And that’s why we do have a real focus on hospital delays, regularly publishing information about delays in individual sites and in health boards. It’s why it’s part of the accountability that takes place with health boards about their whole population responsibility.

There’s also something about making sure—and the report also highlights this as well—there are alternative places for people to go for their treatment, because, sometimes, somebody will need treatment, but it won’t be in a hospital. So, it’s about referring them on to a different setting, that’s in the community, or in another part of the whole healthcare system. That absolutely is part of what we are looking at, as a whole system. And that also is informed by one of the recommendations in the review.

On your point about staff training, both the internal training, within the service, so that the staff are appropriately equipped and skilled, but also on the future workforce, and my recent announcement of the £95 million we’re investing in the NHS workforce of the future—the numbers of paramedics we’re training for the future, we think they’re in line with what we need, but we do think that there is a need for a different skill mix, in how people will be deployed. So, that actually is part of what we’re doing. There are a range of different models, looking forward. For example, on my recent series of visits to see paramedics at their stations, I’ve met with a number of people undertaking some of those pilots. In the Vale of Glamorgan, I met with a paramedic who was undertaking a community pilot. I also met with advance practitioners undertaking a similar pilot in Aberdare, with the Member for the Cynon Valley. So, they’re looking at different models to evaluate and understand where the place is then to make the biggest and best impact on improving patient outcomes. So, that work is already being undertaken and that will help to enforce the sort of workforce we need for the future.

On your broader point about patient outcomes—and then I’ll come back to your point about the amber category—we’re, of course, interested in the whole patient journey, so looking at outcomes isn’t just about what the ambulance service do. That’s why linking data through different parts of the health service is really important. So, the investment that we’ve made in digipens, for example, means that it’s much easier to transfer those data on. We will have an opportunity, because of the way we organise this, to look at someone’s journey through the whole system and to understand how interventions, both in the ambulance service and on the five steps we’ve set out for them, but also the rest of our healthcare system, which interventions are having an impact on that ultimate patient outcome? The Picker Institute work is telling us about patient experience, because often the complaints that are made about the health service are about the experience people have in that healthcare, as opposed to the ultimate clinical outcome. So, that linking of data is hugely important.

Now, on your point about stroke and the amber category, I go back to the fact that the review that we’ve had that actually recommended the pilot that we’ve just had an evaluation undertaken on has been based on clinical evidence about the right thing to do. I don’t recognize your assertion that there are 10 per cent of life-threatening calls made to the ambulance service rather than the 5 per cent that are categorised by the red category. We acted on the very best available clinical evidence and advice in undertaking the new pilot, and are moving forward with the new model. The review that’s been undertaken following the evaluation is to look at whether we have got appropriate boundaries drawn between red and amber and amber and green for the different categorisation that exists. So, I will continue to be guided by the clinical evidence and advice from that review about whether each condition is in the right category. I recognise that Welsh Conservatives say they want particular conditions moved, but, frankly, if it’s just the view of Welsh Conservative politicians that they want conditions moved around, that won’t persuade me. What would persuade me that there is a change needed is if there is real clinical evidence and advice that this is the right way to use precious ambulance resources to improve outcomes for patients, and that work is being carried out following the direction I’ve given to the chair of the emergency ambulance services committee.

I look forward, on stroke performance, and in dealing with your other point Angela Burns—in the near future, I’ll be making a statement in this Chamber on stroke performance across the whole pathway, on the way in which we objectively and overtly measure stroke performance within the system. I think, actually, that we’ve got a good story to tell in Wales about improving performance in stroke, and I look forward to making further progress in the future.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the update and, of course, thank the paramedics and those working behind the scenes in the ambulance service for all their hard work? Of course, I look forward to seeing ongoing monitoring of this programme. Certainly, the outcomes are the most important thing here, and therefore it’s difficult to disagree with a programme that prioritises the most urgent cases. But what we need to guard against, of course, is that we don’t put all our focus on those most urgent cases and that that doesn’t lead us to miss problems in other parts of the performance of the ambulance service. For example, the median waiting time for amber calls has deteriorate. Are you comfortable with that as a Government? Following on from what was raised by the Member for Carmarthen west, we hear that the categorisation is under review, but how likely is it that we will see the need for a new subcategory—a dark amber, perhaps—to deal with certain cases such as stroke that don’t need an immediate response like the 5 per cent, but where there would be a benefit, perhaps, of setting a specific target? And if that is a consideration, what assessment has been made of the impact of that, then, on the response to the red calls?

I spent an interesting few hours, and a very valuable few hours, in the north Wales ambulance response centre, having a look for myself at the problems being faced there, and a few things were encapsulated in my own thoughts, and I have two questions emerging from my own experience there. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is less demand for ambulances in relation to calls from other health professionals where there is in fact no emergency?

Secondly, we know that these delays in hospitals are a huge problem. It has become clearer to me, having seen it for myself and the impact that has on the operation of the ambulance service. The problem, of course, is these vehicles lined up outside hospitals, vehicles that could be responding to emergency calls. Now, as I understand it, in Stoke hospital, which is used as a trauma centre for the north, there is a service where a paramedic or a paramedic team actually takes patients immediately before they are transferred to the trauma team, and what that means, of course, is that the vehicle and the team of paramedics manning that vehicle are ready to go immediately. So, what work has been done or is being done to introduce similar systems in hospitals across Wales in order to speed up that transfer process and ensure that the vehicles and the teams are back on the road as soon as possible?

I thank the Member for the series of questions that he’s asked. I accept that Members will, of course, be interested not just in the red category, where we’re meeting and sustaining our performance targets, and where there is a time measure, but also in the amber category as well, because we recognise that those people require a response, and it is a blue light response to all those people in the amber category. The great majority of people in the amber category receive a response and have an experience that is not problematic at all. The challenge is that some people do wait longer than we would wish them to wait, so that’s partly understanding both the experience and what that means for their outcomes as well. That will be covered in the review measures that are being taken forward, so I would not wish any Member to leave here with the impression that, somehow, people in the amber core category are being forgotten. They’re very much part of the evaluation and the recommendations that are directed at the Welsh ambulance service and the Emergency Ambulance Services Committee to take forward. Of course, I look forward to coming back with the recommendations they make for further improvement.

As I say, if there is a requirement based on the best available clinical evidence and advice that outcomes can be improved by being moved or dealt with in a different way, then of course I’ll have to properly consider that and respond to it. But it must be that there is a positive step forward that can be taken, and there is real evidence that outcomes can be improved if we take a different approach. This is the point about having a time target where it’s appropriate.

I’m actually really pleased that this place has moved on quite a long way since where we were with the initial announcement. At that point, people in a range of parties were sceptical about whether it was the right thing to do to remove a time-based target—whether, actually, we would risk patient outcomes. Actually, the evaluation report gives us some comfort that not only are we meeting the red category, but there is no evidence at all that patient safety has been compromised. That’s an important point for all of us to take on board, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the point about further improvement in the future.

I recognise the point you make about health professionals, of course, and how they’re managed. It is part of the support that is supposed to be provided, not just within this part of the way in which care is delivered, but also support for those health professionals where there is a need and how and where they get it, and also the level of confidence that I think is being generated, within primary care in particular, that if a response is needed, it will happen in a timely way. So, this is about building confidence within a whole system, and actually each health profession taking its share of responsibility for the consequence of their own choices that impact on another part of the healthcare system and, of course, on the journey through care that each individual patient takes.

That goes into the point abut hospital delays, because decisions made within an emergency department about whether to take people out of an ambulance and to put them into a department have an impact on that individual, but they also have an impact in the community as well. If we can’t see an appropriate number of ambulances released properly and rapidly, then actually there’s a risk that isn’t being managed appropriately within the community as well. This is why we’re reiterating again to emergency departments, going through the national unscheduled care programme that we have—to make sure that we get more hospitals to do what Cwm Taf health board does successfully, in making sure that people are accepted from ambulances and brought into an emergency department quickly. Actually, if we saw that practice rolled out in a much more consistent and demanding way across our system, we would be in a better position. That means the risk is then managed in the emergency department. You will recall there being pictures of full departments throughout winter, but actually that’s almost certainly a better place for that person to be. They’ll be seen and triaged by medical staff within the emergency department, so those people will be under observation. But, equally, that then means the ambulance is released to go back out into the community. So, we’re very clear as a Government what we expect, the health service understands, and it’s been reiterated by the chief executive of the NHS, and, again, this is a regular point for myself in accountability meetings and conversations with chairs of health boards, to make sure they’re moving much closer to where Cwm Taf health board already are.

Can I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement? Can I also say that I very much welcome this report, which identifies, I think, the real benefits that have accrued from the new emergency services model?

I have only one question to ask, which I will come to when I’ve made a few comments that I do actually feel need to be recorded, because it wasn’t so long ago that I was a Unison official, having to defend the ambulance service in the face of torrents of criticism, particularly from the Tories and from Plaid Cymru, who sought to shamelessly use the ambulance service—[Interruption.]

The Member is not talking rubbish. If you want to contribute to the statement, then do so in an orderly manner. Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Lywydd. They sought to shamelessly use the ambulance service as a political football and, as you indicated, Cabinet Secretary, continued to criticise when the clinical model pilot was actually proposed by Welsh Government. Working closely with those ambulance professionals, who were daily having to bat away largely unfounded criticisms, I could see that this was denting their confidence and making their attempts to run an effective emergency service even more difficult. The thanks to these staff, which always followed those criticisms, I have to tell you, clearly just did not wash—they did not wash.

During that time, front-line ambulance staff were telling me what was needed. What they said they needed was to get away from the random A8 target, which meant that every ambulance, regardless of the nature of the call, had to reach its destination within eight minutes. This was against all clinical evidence, which showed that only the most serious of cardiac cases actually benefited from this target. The target itself was actually acting against getting speedy responses to those most in need. This position was never accepted by the opposition here in the Assembly, despite apparent recognition now from the Conservative spokesperson today that the previous model was actually counterproductive.

The McClelland review, which was commissioned in light of the constant criticisms of the ambulance service, took evidence from a number of stakeholders, with Unison, representing the front-line ambulance staff, being one of them. Unison’s evidence was based solely on the experience of those professional, highly skilled, well-qualified, clinical, front-line staff, who stated that a change to the clinically led suite of evidence based performance indicators was needed rather than continued reliance on the eight-minute response times, which actually were totally meaningless in terms of measuring outcomes.

It would be fair to say, Cabinet Secretary, that the views of these front-line staff, as submitted by Unison, were in the minority of the evidence that was submitted to the review. However, I am pleased that the Welsh Government attached sufficient importance to the views of the front-line professionals and clinical experts, rather than its political opponents—

You do need to come to a question now. I’m being very, very lenient. Please come to questions.

[Continues.]—and had the courage to take the decision to move towards a clinically led response model.

My question to you, Cabinet Secretary—[Laughter.]—is do you agree with me that what this report highlights is the importance of ensuring that we listen to the voice of front-line staff when formulating policy, and it’s a great example of the benefits of the partnership approach between Welsh Government and the public sector trade unions?

I thank the Member for her comments and questions. I remember, when I was appointed to this department as the then Deputy Minister, it was a remarkably difficult time. Members will recall the regular occurrence of monthly figures that were debated in this Chamber. It was a very uncomfortable place to be. There was harsh criticism of the service and demands for action and improvements. Actually, to move away from saying, ‘Are we actually chasing the right target? Is this the right thing to do?’ was actually not an easy thing to do.

And you’re right to remind people that front-line staff were consistent in saying that the old target did not make sense for the service and the way that the vehicles were used to hit the target, or indeed for the patients. And actually, we now have a much more sensible way of doing this, and that’s part of the success that we’re celebrating in actually moving forward. And, actually, it’s for other parts of the UK to actually have the courage that we’ve had in Wales and to have a unified voice from front-line staff about the need for change, but also from the clinical leaders to say there is not just a problem with the old target, but a better way to do our business.

In the review of the eight-minute target and the way that vehicles were used to meet the target rather than to meet clinical need, I’m really pleased to say that, yes, we’ll continue to listen to the front-line staff and their views about what we’re doing. In fact, over the last two weeks, I think I’ve met nearly 100 paramedics in their workplaces in four different locations around Wales, and I can tell you, paramedics are still direct and robust in their views about us as a group of politicians, me as an individual, and their managers too, and it’s been a very useful exercise in hearing directly from them what they think has happened, not just in terms of the improvements made within the new model, but also what there is still to do, as well. It’s really important to focus on the need for further improvement, too. I look forward to continuing to have a constructive conversation with your successor in the role as Unison head of health, and colleagues in the other public service trade unions, to make sure that we do have a genuinely constructive way of working, where there is demand, where there is a challenge, but also where there’s an opportunity for a constructive and grown-up conversation on our shared ethos and values for the public health service, and the need for continued improvement.

First of all, can I say that it’s not often I get very angry in this Chamber with the representations made by members of all parties, but I was angered by what Dawn Bowden said? This party has never, never criticised the paramedics and the service they provide. We have been critical of the times that weren’t met under the previous iteration of this policy, and justifiably so. As you say, Cabinet Secretary, it was a difficult time, and you had to take some steps. And while I would agree with you to a certain extent that outcomes are the most important things, the one thing has come to pass that we feared, and you did not address this Dawn: that people are being missed by this new system who weren’t missed before, and, as a result of that, are not having what you would call a good experience, quality of care, or the best journey through the system. And for that, I’m going to quote a constituent of mine—an 80-year-old man—who fell at home, and despite repeated 999 calls, no-one responded to him for more than eight hours. He had a broken femur. He risked dehydration, shock and pneumonia. He was an amber call. There was no blue light in those eight hours. That man, by the time he got to hospital, was very nearly what we would now call a red call. He very nearly died.

So, there’s no point you coming to us and saying, Minister, that the amber category is not causing problems. What I would like you to do is present to us, or give me an answer today, about how many of those amber call responses have resulted in presentation at A&E in a condition that you would then call a red category. In helping you answer that question, one of the reasons, I think, why we still have a difficulty in meeting any kind of target—although there isn’t a specific target with amber, is there—is that we still have difficulties with ambulances lining up at A&E. And perhaps you can tell me how, if there is clinical evidence that it is a good idea, that this Thursday in Morriston Hospital, it took a constituent of mine eight and a half hours to get through A&E, and during that period of time, which was overnight, so not in the busy period in the day, there were six ambulances queuing up at A&E to discharge their patients. I welcome the fact that paramedics are feeling better about this. They did have difficult targets to meet before, but I’m wondering how many of them are going to be speaking to you shortly to say that those amber categories that they turned up for were in fact red. Thank you.

I thank the Member for the points that she made, but she asked a question that she knows is absolutely impossible to answer: how many amber categories could, or would, be red in the condition that they were in when they arrived at the hospital? I’ve recognised, and the evaluation recognises, and the direction I’ve given, both to the Emergency Ambulance Services Committee and to the Welsh ambulance service in responding to those recommendations is to actually look again at the categorisation of calls, but also to look at the time that it takes for some of those calls to be answered. And there is ongoing improvement where that is taking place, and, with the greatest of respect, to have individual examples and to then try and say, ‘This tells you about the whole system’, is a well-worn road, but, actually, it doesn’t really tell us a great deal about the whole-system improvement—it tells us about individual examples. There’s another issue to try and brush aside and say, ‘That doesn’t matter.’ Of course it matters to the individuals who are concerned. But, actually, across our whole system there has been real and unambiguous improvement in the performance of the Welsh ambulance service, and some of that is directly attributable to the fact that we have a model that now makes sense in the way that those precious ambulance service resources are used.

In terms of the point about the criticism of the service, you just can’t get away from the reality that the way in which the ambulance service was described on a regular basis did have an impact upon staff. If you spoke directly to the staff, they would tell you that even though people said, ‘I don’t directly criticise individual paramedics for the job they do’, they certainly felt that criticism in the performance of the job that they were doing, and that’s an unavoidable reality of how people felt at the time. [Interruption.] There’s no point trying to say that that wasn’t the position. It’s still a point that is made to me when I go to visit front-line staff within the Welsh ambulance service.

I just don’t accept the point that the new model means that people are being missed. Actually, the new model ensures that people with the greatest level of need receive a response where there’s clear evidence that a fast response will make a difference to their outcomes. I will keep on saying: I will be guided by the evidence, the very best available clinical evidence and advice on what is the right thing to do with the ambulance service, with the categorisation of calls and with the response to those calls. It doesn’t matter how often Darren Millar chunters away about what he wants to see happen, my determination is to make a decision that is right for the ambulance service and the people of Wales, and I don’t really mind or care whether Darren Millar agrees with that—that’s my responsibility and that’s what I will do.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We’ll move on to item 4 on our agenda, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development education review and recommendations. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On becoming education Secretary, I was clear that we needed to raise standards, reduce the attainment gap and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and confidence. I remain committed to these goals and we are making progress. That is reinforced by the time I have taken in recent months to better appreciate what is happening across the country by listening to the profession, meeting our school leaders and speaking to pupils and parents.

Our reforms are also guided by international evidence and best practice. To be the best, we must learn from the best, and that is why I invited the OECD, an organisation respected around the world, to provide an independent assessment of where we are on our reform journey. The report, published today, is an extremely useful contribution to our discussions here in Wales. It sets out where Wales has acted on the OECD’s 2014 recommendations and where we have seen successes, and identifies areas of challenge that remain.

As a report card for education, I think I can sum up the feedback as, ‘Good progress made, on the right path, but there is still plenty more improvement to make.’ The OECD’s key finding is that our approach to school improvement has moved

‘from a piecemeal and short-term policy orientation towards one that is guided by a long-term vision and characterised by a process of co-construction with key stakeholders.’

This is welcome and shows the progress that we are making. Where we can point to success, it should be a matter of recognising collective effort and energy, both here with previous Ministers, with the valuable work of former education committees at the Assembly and the scrutiny of Assembly Members, but most importantly of all within and across our schools.

However, as the OECD says, our performance has been mixed and we have seen other small, innovative nations move way ahead of us, but that gives me the conviction that there is no reason why we can’t move forward in our reform journey, using our size as an advantage in ensuring coherence, confidence and a truly national commitment to reform. I am, therefore, pleased that the report highlights the excellent work that is being done, noting the pivotal role that pioneer schools are taking and also the good progress being made with the development of the digital competence framework.

The OECD has signified that it feels that the profession has moved from reform fatigue to a shared long-term vision and a strong feeling of readiness. I share that optimism, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I have seen it at first hand in the schools that I visit, including one in your own constituency. That said, I cannot, we cannot, the system cannot and we will not rest on our laurels. The disappointing PISA scores show us that there is still a long way to go. Everybody in our system must understand that PISA allows us to judge ourselves against the world. And that has never been more important than it is now and for the uncertain years ahead.

We must continue to develop a high-quality teaching profession and that is the strong message coming from the OECD. They have endorsed our approach to reforming initial teacher education and our emphasis on professional learning across all career stages. But they have urged us to speed up the development of our leadership standards and I agree. Historically, we have not placed enough value on this crucial aspect of raising standards in our schools. Since taking office, it has been clear to me that leadership is an area that demands significant and urgent development. Since the OECD visited in November, work is gathering pace on leadership with the establishment of the national academy of educational leadership and I can assure this Chamber, the profession and parents, that leadership development will be a prime driver of our education strategy. Now, more than ever, Wales needs strong leaders that are up for the challenge.

The OECD also encourages us to continue the process of co-constructing policies with key stakeholders and I am persuaded that this approach is the right one. Shared goals and shared ambitions will ultimately take us a long way on our reform journey. A strong message is that we need to clearly communicate our reforms. Urging coherence across our initiatives and policies is a common theme throughout the report. And I agree that we can be smarter and clearer in how we demonstrate how different policies relate to one another and contribute to developing our learners in the way that we want.

Reforming our education system, indeed, reforming any system, can be complex but we must also gain from the simplicities of effective action: improved professional learning, reformed teacher training, new assessments, high leadership expectations and increased school-to-school working. Our job now is to continue our national mission of education reform, driving up standards and helping every learner in Wales, whatever their background, to fulfil their potential. I will continue at greater pace where needed, and I will, of course, consider the OECD’s advice and recommendations in greater detail over the coming months. Llywydd, just this morning, I and Andreas Schleicher spoke to a conference of nearly every secondary headteacher in Wales, and I know that in that conference, and in classrooms across our nation, we have the courage and confidence to deliver for all of our learners and to strengthen our future as an economy and a society. Thank you.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon and, indeed, the advance copy of the OECD’s report yesterday, which I believe was shared with all of the political parties? I think what’s very clear, having read the report, is that not everything was as rosy as the picture that was painted back in December, when the Cabinet Secretary wrote to the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee suggesting that the OECD was somehow vindicating her policy position, because it’s very clear that there is a sense of déjà vu effectively in the report because there are some things being said that are consistent with the things that were being said by a chorus of voices, including the OECD back in 2014, about a lack of clear leadership, about the need to raise the status of the profession, about the need to invest more in the quality of and access to continuing professional development, for example. I think that it is very concerning really that we are hearing these messages again so many years after they had been repeated in other reports.

That said, I think there are some very positive things as well that can be gleaned from the report and you’ve touched on a few of them in your statement. Some of the ones that you didn’t touch on, of course, related to a national funding formula, which was something that the OECD have said might be something that could be potentially taken forward. Both the Cabinet Secretary and I know that there’s significant variability from one local authority to the next in terms of the amount per head that’s spent on schooling and pupils. That is something that cannot be justified in terms of the investment that we need to make in our children and young people, and I would specifically ask the Cabinet Secretary what her initial assessment of that particular recommendation is about the need for a national funding formula.

I think also that I want to put on record a very warm welcome for the suggestion that we need to link evidence to policy. The Cabinet Secretary will know that I’ve expressed some concern about the lack of evidence that there is for the Cabinet Secretary’s aim to get early years class sizes down to 25, given the tens of millions of pounds that could be invested elsewhere in the education system to get a better bang for our buck. And I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, whether you will revisit your position on class sizes as a result of the comment in the OECD’s report that we need to have a clear link between evidence and education policy. Can you also tell us how that particular recommendation might help to shape the Reid review of higher education research that is ongoing? Because there’s no doubt that our higher education institutions can have a part to play in developing policy recommendations linked to the research that they do to put forward to both the National Assembly and the Welsh Government.

I also want to put on record our welcome for the OECD’s proposal to reduce the administrative burden on school leaders, in order to free them up to concentrate on raising standards in the teaching profession and supporting their colleagues. We know that it can be a significant distraction—the administrative duties that many headteachers face—and I think it is a very positive recommendation and suggestion that there needs to be investment in more business managers across the board in the Welsh education system. But I do wonder, Cabinet Secretary, what consideration you have given to how achievable that might be, given the fact that we’ve got a lot of small schools in Wales, and whether you think that the regional education consortia or, indeed, collaborative arrangements between smaller schools, might be a way forward in terms of giving the opportunity to invest in business management, in order that headteachers can focus on their educational leadership.

One of the things that is concerning in the report is that the OECD found that there was a lack of clear communication with the sector and with key stakeholders about how the education journey is going to proceed. The Cabinet Secretary will know from some of the evidence that the Children, Young People and Education Committee has received from people in the profession, and from other stakeholders, that there does appear to have been a bit of wooliness over how the new curriculum is going to be shaped, and whether the cart is being put before the horse in terms of not really understanding what the assessment framework is going to look like in the future. And I wonder what your response might be to the assertion from the OECD that we don’t have a clear narrative about the journey, and how you envisage being able to bring some shared ambitions and goals to the fore.

Are you coming to an end?

I’ve just got a few more—

No, no, not a few more; one more, please, because you’ve had nearly as much time as the Minister has had in bringing the statement to the floor.

I appreciate that, Deputy Presiding—

And it is a statement, and it should be just a few opening comments.

I wish you’d have been here in the previous statement, Deputy Presiding Officer, so we could have had some—

I wasn’t; that’s how I operate.

I appreciate that, and at least you’re consistent with these things, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Well, yes, so hurry up—get on with it.

If I may then, with one further question, and I’ll try and make it as broad a question as I possibly can. Can you tell us in addition then, Cabinet Secretary, how you intend to address the concern that the OECD have highlighted about the lack of focus on more able and talented pupils? One thing that I note that the Welsh Government is taking some considerable action on is needing to support those children with additional leaning needs. That’s something that, of course, this party is very supportive of. But the OECD have highlighted, and it’s alluded to in this report as well, that more able and talented pupils aren’t perhaps being stretched as much as they could to reach their potential, and I wonder if you could give us some information on how you hope that you can benefit those learners in the future. Thank you.

Can I thank Darren for his comments and questions? I’m glad that he used the early opportunity that he had to read the report yesterday to good effect. If I could go through them, when I got up in response to the PISA results in December, I never pretended for one moment that everything in the garden was rosy. I reflected—[Interruption.] And I reflected on the quotes that were given that day in the initial feedback that the OECD provided to us in terms of this report. If I thought that everything was fine then I wouldn’t have asked the OECD to come back. I wanted an honest, independent of Government, assessment of where we are. What the report says is that we are making some progress. And let’s be absolutely clear that it does that, because I think we need to be fair to the profession and acknowledge the efforts that the profession has made. In terms of professional learning and teaching, they say that

‘Wales deserves recognition for making so much progress in developing and implementing’

change in that area. It talks about the fact that we are stand-out, internationally, with regard to the work that we have done on digital technology and the digital competence framework. But the report is also absolutely clear that there is a huge amount of work still to be done, and I don’t shy away from that at all.

With regard to business management, you’re right, the report talks about the bureaucratic burden that we place on our headteachers, and I recognise that. It’s something that I hear consistently from them. The primary focus of a headteacher in schools should be on the teaching and learning that goes on in that establishment. Things that detract from that impact negatively on their ability to do it. Whether that’s the headteacher I met recently who spends a great deal of time struggling just simply to open the school in the morning because the school is in such a bad state of repair, or that headteacher who struggles to engage in other services—whether that be social services or CAMHS—to get the services they need for their children, that’s detracting from teaching and learning, as well as the bureaucracy around running a school. Business managers, I do believe, have a significant role to play and you are right that the benefit that that has can be particularly impactful in small and rural schools, where many of our headteachers would have a large teaching responsibility, in the primary sector, especially. You will be aware that in April of this year local authorities will have access to a small and rural schools grant, and the guidance that will go with those resources will specifically give business managers as an example of what we would expect local authorities to be spending this money on. A business manager supporting a network, a group of small, rural primary schools, can take that burden off that headteacher so that they can concentrate on teaching and learning. But, of course, that shouldn’t be restricted to rural schools. There is a case to be made, and indeed it has been for a number of years, on the value of business managers, or, in old-fashioned terms, the bursar-type role within schools.

With regard to research, one of the things that has been identified in a number of previous reports is the need to engage in high-quality research. That’s why, in reforming their initial teacher education provision, we would expect university programmes to have a high level of engagement with research, and we will be running, later on in March, a workshop led by the OECD that will bring together the profession and world-renowned experts to develop some of the pedagogical approaches that we will need to implement the new curriculum. So, that’s just one example of how we’re trying to bring that international research and knowledge into the system in Wales.

The Member talks about resources, financial resources. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that there is a role for local democracy and locally elected individuals making decisions about the resources that are needed to deliver local services, but I also want as much money as I can get into the front line of services. For instance, that’s why PDG is passported straight to schools. I will give consideration to all aspects of the recommendations here, but, at this stage, I have not seen more evidence that a national funding formula is the right approach. What’s really important is, when the OECD talk about resources, they do so, yes, in monetary terms—because, obviously, that’s very necessary—but they also talk about deploying our human resources in a smarter and a better way.

Are we confident that not only are we spending our £91 million next year on PDG, but we are getting our very best teachers into the toughest schools? Are we getting our very best school leaders into our schools in the communities that need the most help? This isn’t just about financial resources; it’s about the smarter use of deployed resources. And I have to say, Darren, decisions to cut school budgets across the border that you will be aware of are impactful on the ability of us here to spend money, because we get a Barnett share of money that’s spent on education, and if the Government across the border cuts money to schools, which it will do next year to the tune of £3 billion, then that has an impact on our ability to respond. But that should never be an excuse for not taking forward action, and that was my clear message today. It does mean that we need to be smarter in how we deploy our money, and we need to make the right choices.

I would refer you, with regard to the class sizes, to the OECD’s report in 2016, just last year, that said that those students in smaller classes reported consistently that their teachers were able to differentiate their teaching to allow them to respond to those individual needs at a much higher level than those classes that had more students. This morning, in the conference, Andreas Schleicher talked about and highlighted, as a country that we should emulate, that we should want to be like, Ontario—a region, not a country; it’s not a country on its own. A bilingual education system, teaching children in French and in English, some significant challenges with regard to the nature of the children who are in that system—Ontario was held up as an example to me this morning, and Ontario has had a long-standing class reduction policy in that nation, which that Government has implemented.

More able and talented: you’re absolutely right. If PISA tells us anything, it is that our children at the more able and talented end are not performing as well as they could. Our lesser performing children are now up to the OECD average; we have worked very hard and we’ve brought those children up, but we have not stretched the most able and talented. You’ll be aware of our Seren programme, and that is having some effect. I’m interested in learning the lessons to bring that further down the school age group, because, post 16, it’s too late; we need to be able to move that down. I’ll be giving further consideration and making further announcements of how we can focus on the more able and talented, and part of that is around our accountability regime.

In a way, our focus on level 2 plus, which—I understand why that decision was taken and it was probably the right decision to take at the time where we found ourselves, but the unintended consequence of that has been to focus on students getting Ds to Cs, and we’ve seen an improvement in that, but we have not seen a subsequent improvement in students who are getting Cs getting Bs, students who are getting Bs getting As, and A students getting A*s. And that’s a result of the accountability measures that previous administrations put in place. It’s a product of that system; it is now time to reflect on that and have an accountability regime that does not lead to those kinds of unintended consequences. I think that covers just about everything.

Thank you very much. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to return to education and the OECD in the unavoidable absence of my colleague, Llyr Gruffydd, and I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement. Can I say, first of all, that Plaid Cymru, at least since the initial OECD report and ‘Qualified for Life’, has taken a broadly supportive view of this path that has been set out for Welsh education, particularly focusing on leadership and strengthening leadership amongst our educational leaders, and a focus, as well, on evidence and on what works and away from constant new initiatives? In that regard, the report from the OECD confirms that that part of the journey has been undertaken by this Government so far.

I have to say, however, I would be interested to have heard the Cabinet Secretary when she was still on the other side of the Chamber responding to this statement, which was rather thin on the ground in terms of actions that would arise from this report and outcomes, particularly firmer outcomes. I think I have five areas that I’d like to ask her particular questions on as regard to how we might see those outcomes.

To begin with, the resources that the Cabinet Secretary is likely to put behind this process: back in November, she told the education committee in the budget scrutiny that the OECD findings would influence her final decisions about how the £20 million to be allocated for raising standards in 2017-18 would be allocated. Yet, today, the statement does not actually set out how she intends to allocate that £20 million. I think the time since last November—. I would have hoped that, by now, we’d understand better where that £20 million is going to be used and in what way.

She’s already returned and talked about class sizes, so I won’t say too much about that, other than to say that I take from her statement that she still intends to spend £6 million on something that has limited evidence behind it. The 2016 OECD report that she just called in evidence did not refer to nursery classes and the beginners’ classes that her actual policy addresses. But if she’s determined to go ahead with that then I certainly want to understand where the £20 million that she’s already talked about will be spent.

The second area I think we’d like to look at is around the leadership in general, and this is the one where the Welsh education sector has been weakest over many years and has not had the focus from Welsh Government, either, that it now has, and quite rightly so. There are a couple of aspects around this, around how we might strengthen leadership, that I’d like to understand. It’s still not clear to me—and this is not an OECD matter, this is more a Welsh Government matter—where the Government sees leadership really being driven forward. Of course, from the top, by the Cabinet Secretary—but then also is it the consortia or the schools or the pioneer schools that will be doing much of this work? There is still an unanswered question, both in the OECD report and in the statement from the Cabinet Secretary today, about what exactly are consortia doing now in driving leadership forward, and whether they are still relevant to the journey that she has supported in her statement today. So, consistency of leadership, but also in what way the consortia themselves—as the OECD report suggests that they should be also investing and raising their own capacity for leadership, I’d like to understand what specific things the Secretary will be looking for from consortia to ensure that happens.

That relates to, in my view, the national academy for educational leadership, which the Cabinet Secretary mentioned in her statement. What she didn’t say in the statement, and what I’d like to know, is when she expects now the first of the leaders to come out of this academy. She says that she’s going to accelerate the development of it. Can we expect, therefore, in September this year that we will see people actually, if you like, graduating from that—[Interruption.] Yes, it’s not started yet, I know, but we want to see something, and I’d like to see a date from the Secretary, which wasn’t in the statement, about how we might see this bedding on the ground and people coming out of the academy and working hard in that way to be the leaders and be seen to be the leaders as well, which I think is quite important in that regard.

It was a key Plaid Cymru pledge in our manifesto for the Assembly elections that we would introduce specialist business managers, as, indeed, has been confirmed in the OECD report, particularly for rural schools in a cluster format or federated format. Though she did reply to Darren Millar’s point on this, I’d appreciate a little more detail about how she might actually encourage that process. Again, maybe it’s the consortia that could be doing some of this, rather than schools themselves voluntarily coming together. But it’s a key thing that takes that burden away and allows headteachers to really teach and lead in the teaching standards.

The final point I wanted to make was, though I very much welcome the OECD’s initial work on Welsh education in 2014 and welcome this stock-take report, if you like, now—and I put on record that I regard Andreas Schleicher as a friend of Welsh education and somebody who’s helped us all understand a lot more of what we need to do in the field of education in Wales—I do wonder whether it’s possibly the next time, in a year or two, that you look at the progress, that you would commission a completely independent evaluator to look at this. Because we’ve had the OECD suggest the journey we need to take, then the OECD say whether the Welsh Government has been on the journey that the OECD wanted us to take. Though I have a great deal of respect, and I think the OECD is to be valued for its high-quality work and its thorough independence in itself, I think it would be good for everyone, including the teaching profession themselves, if we saw that, the next time the Cabinet Secretary commissioned a stock take of her approach and her success and her Government’s success on this matter, that’s done by a completely independent evaluator.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for his comments and questions, and for stepping into the breach for his colleague, who I’m sure would have wanted to be here in any other—you know, unavoidably not here today? Could I start with the issue of leadership? On coming into office, it was clear to me that one of the stand-out recommendations of the 2014 report that had not been actioned was the issue around leadership. I have tried to address that in moves that we have made with regard to the academy. The shadow board is chaired by Ann Keane, someone I think has universal respect, outside of politics and in the service itself. The board is working very hard and has had a number of meetings already, and my expectation would be that we would be able to see people enrolling on training programmes and support programmes co-ordinated by the academy in September of this year. That’s my expectation, and that’s what the shadow board is working towards.

In the first instance, leadership will focus on, indeed, current school leaders, because I think that is where our priority needs to be at present. But it is my ambition that the academy will look at leadership in all its forms in the education system. So, not just existing heads, but taking a very proactive role in how we can identify talent within the education sector and proactively support the careers of those individuals to bring on a new generation of school leaders. But we also need to improve leadership capacity within our LEAs, which has been problematical, and we do need, indeed, to look at leadership within the consortia and, indeed, within Welsh Government in terms of the department that shapes policy here. So, ultimately, I would like the academy to be working on leadership programmes for all aspects of education, but we will start with the most important at this stage, which is heads, in September 2017.

The Member asks about the role of consortia. What is interesting to read is how actually the consortia have stepped up to the plate in the absence of a national strategy around leadership, and I would commend them for doing that. They have recognised the need to do something, and they have sought themselves—. It says in the report—you can read it within the report—that because of a lack of a national strategy, the consortia themselves have tried to address this. What’s important now is that we do that on a strategic level across the country, so it doesn’t matter where you happen to be, which consortia you happen to be in—that there is a national strategic and planned approach to leadership.

With regard to how we can develop the consortia, you’ll also be aware that the report talks about the possibilities of extending the responsibilities of consortia, especially in the field of ALN, and you will know that this coincides with the recommendations and consultation that is out from my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for local government in this regard. It is something that we ourselves had anticipated without seeing the report, so it’s pleasing to know that there is some synergy of ideas in moving forward. But we do need the consortia to perform better, especially with regard to concerns arising out of the Estyn reports into consortia, especially in the north of Wales—in the GwE consortium, they’re currently out to advert for a new chief executive. I’ve had some very robust meetings with all of the consortia, in our challenge and review meetings, about the need for them themselves to improve their own capacity and learn from one another. There is no reason why they need to reinvent the wheel. They need to look at the strengths of the models that exist, and look to incorporate that work into their own work.

On the £20 million, I haven’t got the list of programmes that will be supported by the £20 million in the forthcoming year, but I have discussed it with Llyr on a number of occasions, and I’m happy to share it with the Member or, indeed, put something in the library if that would be useful to all Members. But our resources are centred around the issues of supporting our reform of initial teacher training, so that we will have a new set of professionals coming forward that will have the skills that they need to succeed, looking at the continuing professional development of existing staff, as well as looking at raising standards in schools.

I do intend to continue to look at the issue of class sizes. It’s one that has particular resonance for parents and for professionals. We recognise the need for high levels of teacher and adult ratios to children. We do that in our foundation phase, and I want to see if we can continue to ensure that teachers have the time that they need to teach and to give the individual attention to children. And there was a time that the Member himself advocated such a policy. It formed part of the coalition document between Plaid and Labour when the Member was a special adviser during that administration. We didn’t see much progress, but I’m willing to give it another go.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has picked up the OECD’s point about leadership, and I agree with her that leadership is an area that demands significant and urgent development. However, the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t mentioned in her statement the other recommendations made by the OECD, which calls for further policy attention in areas including: moving towards a needs-based school funding formula; development of a new assessment and evaluation framework for teachers; and a national approach to identifying and celebrating good practices in schools. I acknowledge that reforms to teacher training, CPD and the curriculum are currently under way, but I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would clarify which of the OECD’s other recommendations will be implemented. I do sincerely hope that the Cabinet Secretary’s proposals and reforms have their desired effect, although, obviously, the proof of that will be in the attainment levels of students educated under the reformed system. Thank you.

Can I thank Michelle for her questions? As I said in my opening statement, I received this report on Friday, it’s been made available to opposition spokespersons yesterday, and to Assembly Members this morning. I will need time to reflect on the recommendations before announcing detailed responses. But, as I’ve said in answers to previous questions, I agree with much of the analysis on leadership—we need to do more, and we need to quicken the pace.

Michelle has raised a point that nobody else has touched on, and it’s something that the OECD has talked to me a lot about, and that is about good practice, and celebrating good practice. The OECD—again, Andreas Schleicher said it this morning: Wales is particularly bad at celebrating when things go right. Maybe it’s a national characteristic of ours. We are particularly good about saying when things go wrong, but we are very, very bad about holding up success and celebrating that success. I suppose many of us grew up, like I did, with my dad saying, ‘Self-praise is no recommendation, Kirsty’. So I think maybe it’s a national characteristic, but we’re hoping to change that.

This year, we will hold, for the first time ever, Wales-specific teaching excellence awards, to celebrate those who have done extraordinarily well. Estyn, for the first time this year, will hold an event for all of those schools that are judged to be excellent in the last annual review of inspection regimes. And we are developing new ways in which we can spread that good practice. One of the things that I have instigated in my meetings with Estyn is that I want to see a report each time on what are the elements that have led to those ‘excellent’ inspections, and how are we spreading that good practice—something that hasn’t been done before.

There is much to be celebrated, but there is much more work to do. But we should recognise when things go well—we should recognise that.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the future of local bus services. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

On 18 October last year, I came to this Chamber and made a statement about the future of local bus services in Wales. The statement was made in the wake of some significant and high-profile business failures within the Welsh bus sector that had a significant impact on local bus services provided in Wales and in England. In response to these failures, I announced a five-point plan to support the bus sector in the short term. This included support from Business Wales and from Finance Wales, the appointment of additional transport co-ordinators in north and south Wales, together with a programme of meetings with representatives of the bus industry—both in the private and in the public sector—to discuss some of the threats and opportunities facing the bus sector in Wales. We are making progress on delivering this action plan.

I expect the transport co-ordinators to be appointed very soon. I am also continuing to meet with representatives from local authorities, their bus companies, and the Confederation of Passenger Transport. As part of the five-point plan, I also promised to host a Welsh bus summit—the first to be held in Wales. I am pleased to be able to report that the summit was held last month in Wrexham. I very much commend the open, honest and positive attitude that was collectively adopted by the delegates attending the summit. I believe that we made real progress in framing the threats and opportunities that are facing the bus industry across Wales and in developing a programme of activity that will support the industry over the short to medium term.

Through a programme of workshops taking place over the next 12 months, we will be working with the bus industry, local government colleagues and other partners to consider how best we can improve the passenger experience at bus stops by providing improved facilities and consistent passenger information, develop funding solutions that offer greater stability to the bus industry in Wales, and deliver an integrated transport system that provides improved accessibility and ticketing solutions fit for the twenty-first century.

Delivering a more effective network of local bus services, together with the development of seamless, integrated and multimodal ticketing arrangements as part of the south-east and north-east Wales metros, will be fundamental to our objective of building a connected and sustainable society. As I said at the summit, the public investment in our public transport system is substantial. Taken together with public funding provided to maintain free bus travel for older people and disabled people, contracted bus services for learner travel, community travel and funding provided to support rail services in Wales, the public sector investment in our public transport network is in the region of £0.5 billion annually. I’m simply not convinced that we are getting the value for money that the people of Wales have the right to expect. While we take forward the short to medium term measures set out in my five-point plan, we also need to start a national dialogue about the longer-term framework for the delivery of local bus services across Wales. Next week, I will be publishing a public consultation on a set of suggested measures that, in the longer term, could reform the way in which bus services are planned and delivered across Wales. One of the clear messages emerging from the bus summit is that the current framework imposes too many constraints on bus operators to work together to benefit passengers. The current framework also imposes too many constraints on the Welsh Government and our local authority’s ability to plan and to fund improvements to local bus services and ensure that they’re able to full integrate with other local public services.

We need to ensure that local authorities are provided the tools to plan and organise services in their areas and that local authorities exercise these functions with transparency and with accountability for people living in their areas. We need to ensure that the best characteristics of the private sector are maintained to ensure that the social responsibility that we all share to deliver effective and efficient services to the public is safeguarded. This means striking the right balance between our duty not to inhibit the benefits that effective and fair competition can bring to the delivery of local bus services against meeting the needs of passengers and securing value for money for the public purse.

In my view, that does not mean aggressive competition on the street and at the bus stop that harms the interests of passengers, but effective competition that drives up quality standards and provides a fair return for bus operators. I’ve recognised and acknowledged the significant investment that has taken place in our local bus services by bus companies operating in Wales. There has been significant investment on routes operated to communities in the south Wales Valleys. These new bus services will encourage people out of their cars by offering levels of service and quality that, until a few years ago, many people in Wales would not have expected. People not familiar with those local bus services in those areas need to take a look at what’s on offer now.

But this level of quality, punctuality and reliability is not universally available. Significant challenges remain. So, as part of the national dialogue on the way forward, the consultation will set out some suggested proposals that I believe could make a significant improvement to bus services in Wales. Let me be clear: this consultation forms a basis of the continuing national discussion and dialogue that I want with bus operators, local authorities and passengers about the way we can deliver local bus services in the longer term. Let me also be clear on the aim of this work and the goals I’m seeking to achieve. Firstly, I want to increase the number of people of all ages using buses for their daily commute to work, for education, access to health services and for leisure activities. Secondly, I want to improve the availability of good-quality and accessible local bus services for passengers right across Wales. Thirdly, I want to establish a national and local bus network that is fully integrated with other travel modes and services provided across Wales. Fourthly, I want to see a more sustainable bus network for the longer term. And lastly, I want to deliver a fair deal for passengers, staff, bus operators and the public sector—a financially viable and sustainable bus network that provides value for money and safeguards the best characteristics of the commercial bus sector.

I want to ensure that our bus services, as part of an integrated public transport system, make a significant contribution to safeguarding the well-being of future generations. We all recognise that our public transport system is key to tackling poor air quality zones, supporting a sustainable and thriving economy and contributing to our ambitions for improving low-emission mobility as part of our efforts to achieve decarbonisation. I want to see the rolling back of the more damaging effects of the changes made to our local bus services more than thirty years ago—a change that served only to undermine, threaten and destabilise local bus services.

So, on that basis, I am encouraging bus operators, local authorities, passengers and the people of Wales to join this national discussion about how we make sure that the people of Wales can keep moving well into the future.

I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon. I should also say that I’ve had a lot of positive feedback about the bus summit as well, which was held last month. I am grateful as well that the Cabinet Secretary extended the invitation to Assembly Members to also attend that event.

I’m sure you’ll agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that the long-term stability and continuity of funding support from the Welsh Government is absolutely crucial to help the industry to plan ahead in providing services and ensure continued investment. You referred to the need to develop funding solutions that offer greater stability to the bus industry. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could outline whether the merits of introducing a multi-year funding agreement will be considered to provide, of course, the certainty for operators to plan and invest in their services, rather than funding on a year-by-year basis.

You also mentioned in your statement, just for clarity, that public sector investment in our public transport network is in the region of £0.5 billion annually. Can I just check, because this is a statement on buses: is that all for buses? Can I just check that as well? Also, could I ask: how are you looking to tackle the ongoing issue of late payments from the Welsh Government to bus operators, which causes problems specifically for smaller and independent operators? I hope you would agree that this isn’t acceptable and must be addressed.

In your statement, you also recognise that there has been, historically, a lack of integration between bus services and other local public services. I’m pleased you’ve mentioned that. I’ve had quite a bit of casework on that very issue in regard to the lack of integration between bus and train timetables, which has been an issue, I think, that does require some improvement. So, I would be grateful for any more information on what the Welsh Government is doing to deliver a more integrated transport system in that regard.

It’s previously been proposed that franchising could be introduced. Now, this suggestion isn’t in your statement, so can you confirm whether this is a consideration as part of the consultation, and will you outline what representations you have received so far from the industry in response to this suggestion?

With regard to improving passenger experience, it is clear that the availability and frequency of regular bus services is a major issue within many areas of Wales. Having irregular bus services in operation clearly discourages local residents from using bus services on a regular basis. So, can I ask what steps you will be taking to provide a more frequent and reliable bus service that residents can trust?

You also said in your statement that you have an aim to increase the number of people using buses for their daily transport needs, but there is still a cultural perception that buses are not a viable mode of transport for all. I’m not sure if you agree with that or not, but that’s my perspective. And this is demonstrated by the fact that you only managed to attract just 10 per cent of eligible young people to apply for the Welsh Government’s mytravelpass scheme. So, I’ll ask what specific measures you will take to incentivise more people to make the change from other forms of transport to buses through measures such as smart ticketing. Can I also ask you to commit to properly advertising the mytravelpass scheme to young people in Wales? You refer to the role of the bus operators in south-east Wales and north-east Wales metro transport systems; will the metro projects aim to incorporate or replace the small coach businesses currently in operation when they are implemented?

Finally, I would be grateful if you could provide an assurance today that the formation of any future Welsh Government plans will be as a result of constructive and positive dialogue with representatives of the industry, operators and with local authorities?

I’d like to thank Russell George for his questions and for his very generous acknowledgement of the success of the bus summit. I was very pleased to be able to invite along members of this Chamber, and I recognise the very great interest that Assembly Members have in the provision of local bus services. Indeed, I believe there are approximately nine speakers in this afternoon’s statement, which should hasten me to answer the Member’s questions very quickly.

In terms of funding, just to clarify, the £0.5 billion is for the whole of the rail and bus services as well as community transport. Furthermore, I believe that multi-year funding would and could be an attractive proposition if it were possible for us to have multi-year funding to be able to then pass on the benefits of more sustainable funding provision.

Late payments are not due to the Welsh Government. The bus services support grant is channelled through local authorities, but it’s certainly something that I would encourage local authorities to facilitate swiftly, without delay and efficiently.

Integration is a key issue that has been raised on a regular basis in my discussions with the industry and with passengers. It’s something that we will be able to address more fully with powers that are available to us through the Wales Act. In order to deliver the fully integrated system with integrated ticketing and multimodal ticketing, we may require new legislation, but this Government has already stated that it is willing to introduce legislation as and where necessary in this regard.

The Member also raised a question about franchising. Perhaps if I could just outline some of the contents of the consultation paper that will be launched next week: the proposals within the paper are not set in stone, that’s clear, but they are the basis for discussion, and they will cover considerations such as the introduction of franchising as well as the ability for local authorities to operate municipal companies and the setting of statutory quality standards, and requirements on planning and co-ordination of services to have a better, more integrated, higher quality service with a better fares regime that all passengers can easily understand and can take advantage of.

I do believe, as the Member rightly identified, there is an issue with perceptions of bus travel. With regard to the mytravelpass scheme, the uptake was disappointing. We had hoped for more young people to utilise this particular offer, but the Confederation of Passenger Transport have now accepted my request to come forward with a new marketing strategy. Having spoken with representative groups that are able to take advantage of mytravelpass, it was clear that the marketing of the scheme when it was in the trial period was not particularly effective in reaching those young people who strive to own a car. Now, one of the important points that came from the evaluation of the scheme—the perception was that young people did not believe that a further reduction in the fares would lead to an increase in the number of young people taking up the pass. I need to test this assertion further, because it is still my belief that, as a result of the concessionary fare scheme for older people and disabled people, we’ve seen a relatively good number of people using local bus services. However, we’ve also seen a reduction in that figure, in part due to fraudulent activities that have been uncovered and have led to prosecutions. But I want to see more people use bus services on a more regular basis. With the new scheme for youth concessionary fares, we are open to the idea of looking at a broader, better deal for young people, which could include a reduced-fare regime.

The incentives that the Member raised for encouraging bus operators to deliver multimodal ticketing—again, this could come as a result of the legislation that we could bring forward as a result of the Wales Act. It is certainly something that we would be keen to look to achieve in the present Assembly term.

In terms of the metro, the Member asked a very important question about how the development of metros in the north east of Wales and south east of Wales could involve not just large bus companies but also smaller ones. One of the major challenges that has faced the industry in recent years has been the lack of available expertise within some well-established but small, family-run businesses. For that reason, we deployed Business Wales to be able to give advice to those companies, with a view of strengthening them for the development of a better, integrated public transport system. So, it’s our vision that those smaller companies will play a critical role alongside the larger companies, not just in the metro areas but also in between, in mid and west Wales as well.

I’m intrigued to know how you know how many speakers I have down for this afternoon’s statement, Cabinet Secretary, but we’ll pursue that elsewhere. [Laughter.] Dai Lloyd.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’d better make the most of my opportunity then. Could I welcome the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the future of bus services, and also welcome his vision that there is a future for bus services, along the lines that he suggests? Because, of course, naturally, local bus services are the foundation of our public transport system, given the deprivation of large areas of Wales from any rail services at all. The majority of our population is entirely reliant on local bus services that allow them to go out when they can’t drive. Often the only way they have to reach hospital or a health centre or the shops is the local bus.

So, that local service is vital, because every day about 63,000 people depend entirely on bus services to travel to work, and some 350,000 journeys are made every day in order to reach hospital appointments, see friends, shop, or to do some kind of leisure activity. So, I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary is persevering with his work to improve the provision of services across Wales. And, of course, I’m also very supportive of the five aims at the end of the statement, and look forward to the outcome of the consultation.

Of course, many years ago now, the buses were a public service. Of course, it sapped a lot of money at the time but at least it was a service, although not perfect, that people could rely on. A bus would turn up in the same place, around the time you were expecting it to turn up. As I said, that service wasn’t perfect, although it was a public service, and, of course, in the 1980s, a decision was made to privatise—or the word is to deregulate—with the idea of improving the service and saving money. Well, I would be happy to discuss with anyone—we haven’t seen an improvement in the service, if you look across the board, and we certainly haven’t saved any money either. As the Cabinet Secretary mentions in his statement, these services cost millions of pounds in public money every year. Therefore, deregulation hasn’t achieved the vision that was seen back in the 1980s by a long chalk. What we have, in terms of buses, is a divided service that often fails on a local level, in terms of bus companies going bust, as we’ve seen recently, and people just can’t rely on the bus turning up at the time it’s supposed to turn up. That’s one of the biggest complaints I receive. People wonder why people don’t use the local bus, well, the thing is you can’t rely on them. I try to catch the bus when I can, but if it’s vital that you turn up to an appointment at a specific time, you can’t depend on the bus, and people tend to make any other arrangement to ensure that they do get to such a place by the time they’re supposed to turn up, because you can’t rely on the bus.

And, of course, as I’ve already mentioned, the split service of the buses that we have at the moment is sapping more public funds than ever before. The vision back in the 1980s of saving money and improving services hasn’t been realised either. So, I do strongly support the Cabinet Secretary’s vision in the objective that he has stated in his comprehensive statement this afternoon. The questions—the majority of them—that I wanted to ask, have already been asked, but it does leave one. Just a final point: has the Cabinet Secretary considered the best way of spending the £15 million of additional capital funding that was set aside for the local transport fund following the autumn statement? Would it be possible to use some, if not all of that fund, to help local bus services? Thank you .

I’d like to thank Dai Lloyd for his contribution and, again, I’d like to thank him for his support for our endeavour to develop a better, more integrated, more responsive bus network across Wales. I think a common theme emerging across the Chamber is the belief that deregulation in the mid 1980s was nothing but a disaster for local bus services. And whilst Welsh Government was not the cause—and has not been the cause—of the problem that the bus service network has experienced, we can certainly be the cure, and that is precisely what we aim to be, through potential new legislative interventions, and also through shorter and medium-term projects that I’ve already outlined.

I think the Member is absolutely right to link the fight against deprivation and poverty with the availability of reliable and punctual bus services. We know that one of the major barriers to employment is the availability of a regular bus or rail service, or the availability of active travel networks to be able to access work. But also, the lack of a regular, punctual, reliable bus service inhibits an individual’s ability to access services and also leisure opportunities. So, the importance of the bus service network across Wales cannot be overstated. It’s a fact that, at present, more than 100 million journeys are undertaken on buses, compared to fewer than 30 million journeys that are undertaken on the rail network. It is a huge area of public service delivery that requires attention and will receive that attention through legislation and other means, in order to tear down those barriers to employment and connectivity, and also to drive a more punctual and reliable service.

I’m just reflecting on what Russell George said; I think one of the problems with the perception of the bus network has been one that concerns punctuality and whether you actually will get to work, or will get to the doctor’s surgery, or hospital, or to a family event on time. This must be addressed, not just through investment in the bus vehicles themselves—making sure that they don’t break down—but also through interventions such as dedicated bus lanes and better planning within the urban environment.

One of the five points within the five-point plan that was announced in the autumn was a renewed effort at a local authority level, with our assistance, to identify vulnerable bus services that are operating and to take early action, either to remedy the situation to support the bus operator or to find an alternative operator, if it’s viewed that the current operator’s service is in terminal decline. That came as a consequence of the GHA Coaches collapse. Many lessons have been learnt, not just in the north-east, where that service had been provided, but right across Wales.

The capital funding that is being made available to the local transport fund, I think, could be used in a variety of ways—it’s certainly something that we would consider using to strengthen the bus network, but also it should, I believe, be used to identify where there are infrastructure pinch points that prevent a bus service from operating in a punctual manner.

Above all, again reflecting on the contribution by Dai Lloyd, I think it’s imperative that the efforts of this Government ensure that the interests of passengers and a punctual reliable service are placed well ahead of profits. In the last 30 years since deregulation, I think it’s fair to say that the profit motive that has driven the bus network and operators across Wales has failed the passenger interest—that must be addressed and will be addressed. If I may say so, Llywydd, the reason that I know that there is a good number of speakers is because I have been informed by them, kindly, that they have a very keen interest in this area.

You don’t get away with it that easily. David Rowlands.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, we all welcome your statement this afternoon, but would you not agree that the whole strategy of delivering bus services needs a new and, perhaps, radical approach? Surely, the sight of 50-plus passenger buses often running empty and very often in tandem does not seem economically or environmentally acceptable. We are seeing the rise in community buses, which provide an excellent service where available, and which appear to be far more cost-effective as they often use smaller buses with more targeted objectives. Would the Cabinet Secretary consider that he would be expanding these types of operations? Is it time to look at the possibility of using smaller buses on many more routes within Wales, even combined with on-call taxi operations? These taxi operations would be far more acceptable and available to people with disabilities, et cetera. These vehicles could actually be using cleaner engine options, even providing the possibility of electric buses on more local runs. This would, of course, confine the 50-plus buses and their gas-guzzling operations to just long-haul services. Do you not agree that these are options that you should, in fact, be looking at?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions. I would agree that we need something of a revolution rather than an evolution in the way that bus services are provided in Wales, now that we have the powers available to us to make the significant changes that are required in order to ensure that bus operators meet the expectations of passengers. For that reason, the consultation that will be launched next week will provide opportunities for the industry, for Members, for the public and for passengers to be able to provide ideas and opinions on how we can radically reshape the bus services that people value so deeply.

I do believe that community transport is an essential component of the mix that we have across Wales. Indeed, this is demonstrated by the significant increase in the number of passenger journeys that have been taken through community transport, in contrast to the steady decline in the number of journeys that have been taken on commercial bus routes. I believe firmly that there should be an expansion of community transport, and for that reason we make available resources to community transport initiatives through the bus services support grant. In addition to this, expert advice is available through the Business Wales network.

It’s essential that appropriate vehicles are used for all routes and the Member is correct in that, on occasions, sometimes on regular occasions, improper vehicles, vehicles that are too large, are used on routes. This is one of the challenges that we have sought to address through the construction of a quality partnership regime based on a voluntary agreement between local authorities and bus operators. However, given the requirement for bus operators and for local authorities to invest in respect of infrastructure that they are responsible for, we’ve not seen as many quality partnerships agreed as we would wish. For that reason, the two co-ordinators in the metro areas in the north-east and the south-east will be tasked primarily, in the first instance, to establish quality partnerships to ensure that the infrastructure that is available for passengers, in terms of proper, functioning information, in terms of decent quality, clean, safe bus stops is rolled out more regularly, and so that bus operators themselves provide more appropriate-sized vehicles.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement and I also had very good feedback from people who attended the bus summit. I really welcome his support for buses because I think buses are absolutely key. Certainly in my constituency of Cardiff North there is a very positive perception of buses. I think I really see them as absolutely crucial to the running of transport in Wales. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that it’s very important when there are new developments, such as the big housing developments that are going to take place in Cardiff, that bus services are built into those new developments right from the beginning, so that the bus services are an integral part of the community?

I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary say earlier on about the new powers that will come to us under the Wales Bill and the further opportunities that will be offered there. Does he think that it will really then be possible for bus companies to work collaboratively with the local council to ensure that we don’t have duplication of routes and that we will be able to tackle some of the problems that deregulation has produced? I was very pleased to hear him say that he plans to have early identification of vulnerable routes, because obviously some of those vulnerable routes are life savers for some people in our community.

I also wanted to ask him what plans he has to promote greener, more environmentally friendly bus services—I’m thinking of bio-methane bus services and fully electric zero-carbon bus routes—and whether he’s made any consideration of those and whether he’s had any opportunity to read the report, ‘Any Journey is Greener by Bus’ by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, and some of the suggestions in that to attract people back to buses where their numbers have sunk—in particular, some of the points that he’s already made in his statement today about real-time information, integrated ticketing, cleaner vehicles and also free Wi-Fi are some of the possibilities. But, of course, above all what’s important is the convenience for passengers. So, I wondered if he’d had an opportunity to look at those other issues in terms of developing the bus service.

Could I thank Julie Morgan for her contribution? Julie Morgan is a great advocate for bus usage, not just in Cardiff North, but right across Wales, and I know she cares passionately about the sustainability of key local bus services. The planning of bus services and the bus network right across local authority areas is crucial in determining where to build not just commercial properties, so that people can access work via bus, but also domestic dwellings. For that reason we have placed an expectation on local authorities to better design bus routes that actually meet the needs of passengers accessing places of work. Their powers, their resources, are constrained at present, given ongoing austerity and given, until recently, the lack of powers that will become available in due course. But it’s also essential that, as we develop the metro in the south-east of Wales, we incorporate into the plans for integrated transport appropriate park-and-ride and also cycle-and-ride schemes, and parking areas and cycling areas, so that people are able to switch from one mode of transport to another with the least hassle and at least cost. It’s our intention to ensure that bus companies do indeed work more collaboratively together—if needed, through legislation—not just in terms of identifying routes and ensuring that there is compatibility of timetables, but also to ensure that there are multi-journey, multi-modal, ticketing arrangements in place. One of the claims that has been made by bus operators consistently has been the difficulty with introducing multi-ticketing because of the challenge of apportioning the correct level of fares to each of the operators. We do not believe that this is an insurmountable challenge, and this is something that we believe should be an expectation once the Government has developed the new legislative requirements and the interventions needed to ensure that ticketing arrangements are more suited to the expectations of passengers.

The better bus fund is something that I remain open to consider. The green bus fund and the subsequent scheme that’s being operated by the UK Government—the low emissions fund—were extended to Wales at our request and following successful negotiations, but, disappointingly, no Welsh bids have been successful to date. I’m keen to see successful bids from Welsh operators, because we know from operators such as Stagecoach in the south-east and Cardiff Bus that, with investment in modern buses, you don’t just drive down emissions, you can also improve punctuality and quality for passengers. And so I’m open to the idea of a complementary better bus fund, but one that takes into account fully the advice of the bus policy advisory group, who have said that it should not be restricted to just low emissions vehicles, but that it could also be open to operators looking to improve other aspects of the passenger experience such as, as the Member rightly highlighted, the availability of Wi-Fi. It’s my belief that Wi-Fi now should be available as standard on all buses. It should not be an exception, it should not be a luxury, it should be an expectation that all passengers should have whenever they board a bus.

Can I echo some of Julie Morgan’s comments? I was glad that, towards the end of the statement, you do turn to some of the sustainability issues and refer to the well-being of future generations, the need to tackle poor air quality, and to see public transport as part of the efforts to achieve decarbonisation. I do hope we’ll see this fully in the fully worked-out plans that you’re going to bring forward, because I would say that, if it’s just what we can judge on in this statement, we seem to have references rather than commitments to how the future generations Act is going to really transform some of our urban and rural spaces and make them more amenable to be accessed in a way that doesn’t mean we’re constantly choked or threatened by motor transport and an over-reliance on it. I do see very ambitious and effective public transport buses often leading the way, but obviously rail and light rail too being essential to the economic and social renewal that we want in the years ahead.

Can I thank David Melding for his contribution? And I also recognise the importance of bus services to the sustainability of an integrated public transport system, and also to improving the environment in which we live. In terms of the future generations, the FG Bill—well, the FG Act—the commitments will emerge through the consultation. But I think, above all, we need to set an aspiration to significantly increase the number of people that use buses on a regular basis. By driving up the number of people that use buses, we will drive down usage of private vehicles and consequently drive down the amount that private vehicles emit into the atmosphere. We remain committed to delivery of the aspirations of the well-being of future generations Act and it’s my firm belief that public transport can play an important, significant role in lowering emissions right across Wales.

Can I add my voice to those who’ve congratulated the Cabinet Secretary on the bus summit, which, if I may say, demonstrated a great deal of foresight? And he’s gone beyond foresight to a predictive capacity today in his answers to Russell George. But I recently held a forum in Neath, before Christmas, to discuss the local economy, and one of the priorities that was discussed by the participants was the need for a better-integrated public transport system, so I welcome a number of the comments he’s made in this statement today.

Julie Morgan asked a number of the questions I was proposing to ask, but there are two outstanding questions that I’ll put to the Cabinet Secretary. Firstly is the question of bus priority technology, in terms of traffic lights and so on. What assessment has he made of what capacity there is for expanding that, which I think is pretty central to the passenger experience? The second point is this: in terms of integration and so on, does he foresee, perhaps in the longer term, an enhanced role for a body like Transport for Wales, which, as well as looking at the rail franchises, could also perhaps consider some of the strategic issues that face the bus service and, in particular, in the context of seeking an integrated transport system as is his objective?

Can I thank Jeremy Miles for his contribution and for his question? It is true that Transport for Wales could well manage a fully integrated transport system. It may well be that he’s been reading my mind, because that is exactly what I’ve been considering over the course of the past few months. Thanks also to Jeremy Miles for hosting what I believe was a very successful forum in Neath. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to attend on that particular occasion, but the feedback that I have had from the forum aligned with the responses that were made as a consequence of the bus summit questionnaire, which was that we need to work more closely together than we have done. The fact is that that was the first bus summit to have been held, but we need to work more closely than we have done in order to understand what the collective challenges are, what the mutual challenges are, that we can overcome together. There will be, I am in no doubt, some difficult areas of discussion for some parties as we move through into next week with some of the proposals that we wish to bring forward in terms of, as I’ve said, radically reforming the way that bus services operate. But, at the end of the day, we need to put passengers first. We will do so through working with those organisations that represent passengers and also with the industry and local government. But it will be the passenger’s interest that takes priority at every stage of our deliberations.

In terms of traffic lights, this is a very interesting piece of work that I believe could be taken forward on a pilot basis, in particular, in one of the city regions, in particular as we look to embrace smart cities as a new way of living more effectively and efficiently and within our means, both in terms of natural resources and finance. I do think that the utilisation of smart traffic lights and dedicated bus lanes could be of incredible value.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today? I believe that this is the most comprehensive statement that I’ve ever heard on bus services in any parliament in the UK: let’s start there. I am so pleased that we are putting the bus at the heart of our public transport system, where it should be. May I also thank him for the invitation to participate in the summit in Wrexham? I very much hope that his approach to leadership as a Minister in this area will continue to engender enthusiasm out there in our communities.

Now I have the privilege, of course, of using buses almost on a daily basis in rural and urban areas. I have two brief questions for him. Does the Minister believe that there is a new role for schemes such as the Snowdonia green key initiative, which innovated, but not entirely successfully, in the past in the Snowdonia national park and surrounding areas, in order to reduce the pressure of visitors using cars in designated landscapes of the national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty and so on? Also, does he believe that there is a role from here on in for us to ensure that we never build bus stations and train stations separately anymore, particularly in some cities—I won’t name Swansea particularly, but there are a number of towns and cities in Wales where opportunities have been missed in the past to integrate? I think, if the Minister would lead on that, I’d be very grateful. The next time I am on the bus, I will be sure to praise the Minister to my fellow passengers.

May I thank Dafydd Elis-Thomas for his warmest of contributions? I’d like to say to the Member, and to all Members in this Chamber, that, as we progress with our proposals and with our work, I’ll make myself and my officials available for briefings to any Members who wish to know more about how we are changing the bus network across Wales and bus services right across the country. When I’m not running in Snowdonia, I can assure the Member that I do take the bus rather than use my car to access the highest point and then walk, and, in all seriousness, I would encourage all visitors to Snowdonia and to all national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to be respectful of the natural environment and to respect the fact that these are incredibly busy places for visitors and tourists, and therefore we should all play our responsible part in accessing protected landscapes in a responsible and respectful way, and that means by bus.

The services that the Member identified, I think, were innovative, have been innovative ways of addressing congestion within the national park. I would like to see any innovative model that the industry is able to devise, or that communities are able to devise, brought forward as a potential solution to congestion on our roads and in our park areas.

In terms of train and bus stations needing to be fully integrated, the Member is absolutely right that we are still having to deal with the failure in lack of foresight across the country in many parts of Wales in terms of now having to rebuild hubs, integrated hubs. For example, not far from where I live, not far from my own constituency in Wrexham, as a result of rail and bus stations being such a significant distance apart, we’re now having to look at investing in a new, combined hub. The lack of foresight was regrettable, deeply regrettable, but we remain committed to ensuring that, in the future, we do have fully integrated hubs, particularly in those areas such as the metros, but also in rural areas where we don’t just see many people using public transport to access work and services, but also many visitors using rail to access Wales’s wonderful countryside.

The failure of some bus services in north-east Wales has been well documented and referenced here today and it’s on the back of that, and, obviously, the many, multiple conversations that I’ve had with constituents regarding buses, that I welcome the bus summit held in Wrexham and the positive steps, going forward, that have begun to be outlined here today.

For many of my constituents and communities, bus services are a critical transport lifeline, and largely the only possible and viable alternative to travelling by car, particularly when there’s only one train station that is actually in the constituency. So, the bus services in our area not only need to be better connected with one another, but also timetabled to be fully integrated with the trains and train station. This is going to be key to being able to advance any metro-style transport system for the region, and buses are going to be the biggest part of that.

Cabinet Secretary, therefore can you offer further commitment and clarification on how we can practically ensure better connected and integrated services in north-east Wales, services that are sustainable, offer value for money, and also take out the hassle of having to have multiple tickets, to make this actually become a reality for my constituents and communities?

I’d like to thank Hannah Blythyn for her contribution and for her questions and say that, as a consequence of the failure of a number of bus operators in north Wales, we devised the five-point plan and, since that time, we have been able to, I believe, better identify where there have been vulnerable routes and take more immediate action. As a consequence of that, we’ve been able to sustain a bus network in that region and across Wales without further major failures. However, the work must continue—the work of advisers in Business Wales in ensuring that particularly the smaller, family firms that are so crucial in rural areas are able to operate in a way that is resilient and that is effective for passengers and for users.

Buses will be integral to the metros in the north-east and the south-east, because, in many parts, even in urban areas, but especially in rural areas, buses are not a luxury, they are a necessity. They are, in many instances, a lifeline in order to access important, vital public services. So, we believe that not only will a fully integrated bus network with the rail network and with active travel in the metro areas be important, but so too in rural areas. I do believe that we have a unique opportunity, as the Member identified, through the proposals that we are able to bring forward, through the new franchise for the Wales and borders routes, to be able to deliver a fully integrated public transport system where passengers will be able to purchase not just multiple tickets, but multimodal tickets, where timetables for rail and for bus services are fully integrated and where we have those crucial hubs, as Dafydd Elis-Thomas has outlined, in as many of our communities as possible.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on innovative finance: the mutual investment model. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement. Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, thank you very much. The Welsh Government has a long track record of funding infrastructure investment in Wales through our capital budget. Targeted investment in infrastructure is amongst the most important interventions a Government can make to support sustainable growth and job creation. In addition to increasing economic output and promoting higher levels of employment, investment in infrastructure also improves the efficiency of public services. Since devolution, we have invested in a new generation of hospitals, schools, housing and public infrastructure, and we will continue to do so.

In October, in the draft budget, I was able to lay out four-year capital spending plans. We have ambitious plans to build a metro system for south Wales, to create 20,000 more affordable homes, to upgrade our road network and to complete our programme of modernising our school estate. We will do this at a time when our capital budget has been cut as a result of the UK Government’s ongoing programme of austerity. By the end of this decade, we will have 21 per cent less funding available for infrastructure, in real terms, than we had in 2009. This means that we need other sources of funding to support our capital programme.

Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, Lywydd, y nododd Llywodraeth flaenorol Cymru ei hymrwymiad i archwilio ffyrdd arloesol o gyllido seilwaith cyhoeddus. Ers hynny, mae offerynnau ariannol arloesol eisoes wedi’u defnyddio i gynyddu buddsoddiad mewn trafnidiaeth, tai ac addysg o £0.5 biliwn. Un o'r rhesymau ein bod ni wedi gallu ariannu'r buddsoddiad ychwanegol hwn yw oherwydd nad yw Cymru wedi cael ei hamlygu i gynlluniau Menter Cyllid Preifat ar raddfa fawr. Mae ein hamlygiad i gost cynlluniau o'r fath yn llai nag 1 y cant o'n cyllideb refeniw—swm cymharol fach o'i gymharu â rhannau eraill o'r Deyrnas Unedig.

Lywydd, cyn canolbwyntio ar y model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol, hoffwn roi’r model hwnnw yng nghyd-destun camau arloesol eraill, a fydd yn galluogi gwerth £1.5 biliwn o fuddsoddiad ychwanegol i gael ei wneud yn seilwaith cymdeithasol ac economaidd Cymru yn ystod y chwe blynedd nesaf. I ddechrau, bydd y Llywodraeth yn gwneud defnydd llawn o'n pwerau benthyca cyfalaf newydd. Ar ôl pennu ein gallu i fenthyca fel £500 miliwn yn wreiddiol o dan Ddeddf Cymru 2014, bydd yn codi i £1 biliwn o dan delerau'r fframwaith cyllidol, y cytunwyd arno gyda Llywodraeth y DU ym mis Rhagfyr. Byddwn hefyd yn darparu cynlluniau cyllid arloesol pellach mewn partneriaeth â rhannau eraill o'r sector cyhoeddus yng Nghymru. Yn y gyllideb derfynol, roeddwn yn gallu dyrannu gwerth £3.6 miliwn o refeniw i ymestyn y grant cyllid tai llwyddiannus. Bydd y dyraniad newydd, rheolaidd hwn yn codi i £9 miliwn yn 2019, gan arwain at werth oddeutu £250 miliwn o fuddsoddiad ychwanegol mewn tai cymdeithasol a fforddiadwy, gan gynhyrchu o leiaf 1,500 o gartrefi tuag at darged uchelgeisiol y Llywodraeth hon o adeiladu 20,000 o gartrefi fforddiadwy yn ystod tymor y Cynulliad hwn. Yn ogystal â darparu refeniw i gynorthwyo landlordiaid cofrestredig yn y modd hwn, rydym hefyd yn dod â nhw at ei gilydd i wella eu grym benthyca. Gallaf gadarnhau heddiw fod cais am fenthyciad wedi cael ei wneud ar ran landlordiaid cymdeithasol cofrestredig i Fanc Buddsoddi Ewrop. Mae hyn yn dilyn cyfarfodydd a gynhaliwyd gydag is-lywydd y banc, yma yng Nghaerdydd ddechrau mis Chwefror, i drafod y cais hwn. Rydym yn disgwyl penderfyniad terfynol gan y banc ym mis Mehefin eleni.

Ar yr un pryd, rydym hefyd yn cwblhau trefniadau ar gyfer y rhaglen rheoli risg arfordirol. Bydd cyllid refeniw rheolaidd gwerth mwy na £7 miliwn y flwyddyn yn arwain, erbyn 2020, at werth tua £150 miliwn o fuddsoddiad ychwanegol mewn mesurau atal llifogydd, gan amddiffyn busnesau a chartrefi yng Nghymru. Bydd y rhaglen newydd yn ategu'r £33 miliwn ychwanegol o gyfalaf confensiynol a ddyrannwyd ar gyfer gweithgareddau amddiffyn rhag llifogydd yn y gyllideb derfynol a gyhoeddwyd ym mis Rhagfyr.

Nawr, Lywydd, er bod yr holl ymdrech hon yn gwneud gwahaniaeth gwirioneddol ym mhob rhan o Gymru, ceir set o ddibenion cyhoeddus hanfodol sydd angen ymateb ychwanegol o hyd. Mae datganiad heddiw felly yn nodi sut y caiff tri phrosiect cyfalaf mawr eu cyflwyno trwy fath newydd o bartneriaeth cyhoeddus-preifat, y model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol, wedi’i lunio yma yng Nghymru. A gaf i hefyd gydnabod y cyfle i drafod y syniadau hyn yn y pwyllgor cyswllt ar gyllid rhwng y Llywodraeth a Phlaid Cymru, ac ychwanegu at y gronfa o syniadau sydd ar gael i ni yng Nghymru yn y modd hwnnw?

Bydd y tri chynllun—cwblhau’r gwaith o ddeuoli’r A465 o Ddowlais Top i Hirwaun, canolfan ganser newydd Felindre, a darparu cyfran sylweddol o fuddsoddiad yng ngham nesaf rhaglen ysgolion yr unfed ganrif ar hugain—gyda'i gilydd, yn gyfystyr â gwerth tua £1 biliwn o fuddsoddiad newydd. Cynlluniwyd y model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol yn ofalus i hybu budd y cyhoedd ac i amddiffyn y bunt gyhoeddus. Rydym ni wedi gweithio'n agos gydag ystadegwyr yn Eurostat a'r Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol, a chydag arbenigwyr ym Manc Buddsoddi Ewrop, ers dros flwyddyn i sicrhau’r model hwn ac i wneud yn siŵr ei fod yn cyflawni buddion i Gymru. O dan ei delerau, bydd partneriaid sector preifat yn wynebu risgiau yn gysylltiedig ag adeiladu, cyllido a chynnal seilwaith cyhoeddus, ond yn wahanol i gytundebau Menter Cyllid Preifat hanesyddol, mae ein model ni yn caniatáu i'r sector cyhoeddus rannu unrhyw elw, yn eithrio’r ddarpariaeth o wasanaethau fel gwasanaethau glanhau ac arlwyo o’r contract, yn eithrio gwaith cynnal a chadw gwerth isel ac yn sicrhau’r tryloywder sydd ei angen arnom ynghylch costau a pherfformiad.

Mae'r model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol yn cynnwys darpariaethau hirdymor gorfodol pwysig i sicrhau buddiannau cymunedol, er mwyn creu prentisiaethau a lleoedd hyfforddi ar gyfer gweithwyr yng Nghymru ac ar gyfer datblygu cynaliadwy, lle mae'r partner sector preifat yn cynorthwyo’r ddarpariaeth o Ddeddf llesiant cenedlaethau’r dyfodol. Mae'n ymgorffori ein hymrwymiad i god cyflogaeth moesegol ac yn ein galluogi i sicrhau cymaint o fanteision â phosibl o’n harferion caffael cynaliadwy. Mae'r model hefyd yn galluogi'r llywodraeth i ddylanwadu ar y partner preifat dethol er mwyn sicrhau bod budd y cyhoedd yn cael ei warchod. Pan fyddwn yn buddsoddi mewn cynlluniau, bydd y dylanwad hwn yn cael ei arfer gan gyfarwyddwr budd y cyhoedd, ac mae hyn yn ddatblygiad pwysig ar yr hyn a sicrhawyd mewn modelau partneriaeth cyhoeddus-preifat eraill mewn rhannau eraill o'r Deyrnas Unedig. Mae hyn yn sicrhau tryloywder cadarn o ran cael gafael ar wybodaeth ar lefel bwrdd, ochr yn ochr ag amrywiaeth o faterion a gedwir yn ôl i ddiogelu arian cyhoeddus a budd y cyhoedd.

Y mis nesaf, ar 23 Mawrth, ynghyd â chydweithwyr yn y Cabinet, byddwn yn cynnal digwyddiad i lansio’r model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol i ddarpar bartneriaid, y cam pwysig nesaf ymlaen yn natblygiad y rhaglen newydd ac angenrheidiol hon o fuddsoddiad cyfalaf. Lywydd, mae mabwysiadu’r model buddsoddi cydfuddiannol a’n hofferynnau ariannol arloesol eraill yn dangos sut y mae'r llywodraeth hon yn parhau i weithredu'n bendant ac fel catalydd ar gyfer newid o dan amgylchiadau anodd. Bydd y mesurau hyn yn arwain at fuddsoddiad ychwanegol o tua £1.5 biliwn mewn seilwaith cyhoeddus, sy'n cynrychioli cydbwysedd priodol rhwng uchelgais a fforddiadwyedd, na fyddai wedi cael ei wneud fel arall. Cymeradwyaf y model i'r Cynulliad.

I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon. I think we are all agreed that the economic realities that we find ourselves in mean that we do need to look at more innovative ways to fund public investment in Wales, and particularly the capital spending that the Cabinet Secretary has spoken of extensively in his statement today.

Can I particularly welcome the commitment to make use of the new capital borrowing powers that are going to be made available to the Assembly and the Welsh Government, and specifically the new limit of £1 billion that was agreed with the UK Government in December as part of the very welcome fiscal framework? That’s good news for the Welsh Government, good news for the Assembly and I think I agree with the Cabinet Secretary—it’s good news for Wales as a whole.

Can I also welcome the news that the Cabinet Secretary announced of the loan application to the European Investment Bank? Not before time, I would say to the Welsh Government. I’ve long called, and in fact made calls to the Cabinet Secretary’s predecessor, for more to be made of the European investment bank—too long a missed opportunity. It’s a particularly useful tool for infrastructure. I would be interested to know—although, of course, there are issues now with us leaving the European Union—whether there are any other proposals to try and access that funding. Other countries in the European Union have long since made use of the European Investment Bank, as the Cabinet Secretary will know, for road projects, rail projects—far more so than the UK has in the past. So I’d be interested to know whether there are any further intentions in the time that we have to make further approaches to the European Investment Bank.

Turning to the substantive part of the statement and the mutual investment model, and the extra funding for the projects outlined, we know that the Scottish Government has tried to develop a similar mutual model and I understand and recognise the Cabinet Secretary’s issues with previous PFI projects, which, as you say, we didn’t have to the same extent in Wales as elsewhere. The Scottish Government has tried to develop their own mutual model, but with little success. What lessons have been learned from the Scottish experience, what were the failings of that model, and how are you planning to safeguard the Welsh model against some of those failings? I appreciate that the model was specific to Scotland and you’ll be developing your own model—I know from my welcome discussion with you about this previously. But there must surely be some lessons that you would hope to learn.

Can you elaborate on the role of the public interest director that you mentioned in your statement? How will that person be selected? What sort of length of time will they be expected to play their role in the new mutual model? I’m trying to weight up the relative powers of the public and private aspects of this. Can you confirm that the public interest director will not have a power of veto? I think that was one of the stumbling blocks with the Scottish model that I think you’re keen to avoid.

In terms of the share that has been agreed from the mutual models in question, can you clarify that this share is instead of a cap on profits and it’s not as well as a cap on profits or a limited cap on profits, but that that part of it has been jettisoned and that this will now be a model that the Welsh Government will receive an ongoing share of, proportionate to the profits as a whole? I think that’s a good idea in principle, so I’ll look forward to hearing you clarify some of those aspects, Cabinet Secretary.

Finally, I understand that the profit cap was a large part of the reason that the Scottish model was declared invalid, leading to the Scottish Government ultimately covering, if not all the costs, then certainly a large cost of the schemes they embarked on. Clearly, if the Welsh Government ended up in this position, then a lot of the good work that has been done would itself fall and we would end up with the Welsh Government having to shoulder a large chunk of the cost, defeating the whole object of us going down this path.

You have in the past said, Cabinet Secretary, that the Welsh Government does not have access to the river of gold—which I think is how you described it—of funding that often winds its way to the border counties, in the north of England, and the Scottish Government and they have access to. They were able to fill the gaps that appeared when their scheme defaulted. I don’t think that you would be in a position to do that. As I say, this would run counter to the reasons for you bringing forward this mutual model in the first place. So, can you explain a little bit about the safeguards in place there and are you 100 per cent confident that the Welsh mutual model will succeed and that there is no risk that the taxpayer will end up footing a very large bill?

I thank Nick Ramsay for those questions. To start with his first point, I’ve set out in front of the Finance Committee, I think a number of times, my view that there is a hierarchy of how you deploy capital. My first ambition will always be to use whatever conventional capital comes our way. When we’ve deployed all the conventional capital, then we would look to use our borrowing powers, but we know that even when we’ve done all of that, there still will be important public purposes that we need to fund in Wales. Under the models my predecessor Jane Hutt developed, we’ve supported capital spending by housing associations and local authorities with revenue from the Welsh Government. A mutual model takes that the next step forward.

Nick Ramsay is absolutely right to point to the anxieties that hang over our participation in the European Investment Bank as a result of Brexit. I raised this directly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the last meeting of the JMC on European negotiations, where I pressed on him the Welsh Government’s view that we should look to remain a subscribing partner of the EIB even after Brexit. There certainly are a range of projects, beyond the ones highlighted in the statement, but certainly including Velindre, where we would hope to interest the European Investment Bank in continuing to provide for projects here in Wales.

The two specific issues that Nick Ramsay raised—the issue of the public interest director and the cap on profits—were, as I understand it, exactly the two central reasons why, in a series of accounting decisions between July 2015 and October of last year, the Office for National Statistics ruled that their model fell foul of the European system of accounts and therefore had to be classified through the public sector books rather than through the private sector.

As far as a cap on profits is concerned, the ONS concluded that having a cap on profits altered the balance of risk and reward in a manner incompatible with a private sector classification, and having a public interest director who is able to exercise a power of veto over any decision of the project company amounted to a degree of state control incompatible with private sector classification.

It’s because of our awareness of that—and I should say that we have had excellent co-operation from the Scottish Government and from the Scottish Futures Trust in helping us to understand the arguments that they had had to mount and helping us to avoid some of the difficulties that they have experienced. It’s as a result of that that we went to the European Investment Bank over the summer to get expert advice on our proposed model. We recalibrated it in the light of some of that advice, and we put it directly to ONS over the autumn so that we could get a classification decision in principle from them.

We had to make two sorts of compromises in order to come within the classification model. Our public interest director will not have a power of veto, but if we take an equity stake in the company, the project company, of between 15 and 20 per cent, then that public interest director will inherit a series of powers that they will be able to exercise on behalf of the public on that board. Now, I expect that we will want to appoint a public interest director at the very least for the Velindre scheme during the period of this Assembly, and I will want to give some thought to the best way in which that can be done. No doubt, this will be discussed, I’m sure, in the Finance Committee on future occasions.

Our model means that the public in Wales will have a share in profits, although we cannot cap profits. By taking a 20 per cent equity stake, for example, in the Velindre scheme, over the 25 years that the scheme is due to run, any profits that accrue we will get a 20 per cent share in them, year on year, returning to the public purse as a return on our investment. I think that securing those two things means that our mutual model can be recommended to the Assembly.

Because we went to the ONS in advance, we know that in principle our scheme meets their classification criteria. They will, nevertheless, want to look at every scheme in its own detail to make sure that they can apply those classification rules, and it will be for the Welsh Government to go on working to make sure that we don’t find ourselves in some of the difficulties that occurred north of the border.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement, for the reasons he himself has referred to, namely, of course, the severe reduction in the amounts of capital funding available for investment because of the decline in the funds that we receive from London, and also, of course, the opportunity that capital expenditure on infrastructure represents for building the Wales we want, but also in boosting the economy at a very difficult time.

It was good to have the opportunity to discuss in general terms, without going into the details that you’ve just heard, with the Cabinet Secretary, and also to go with him to attend a presentation with the vice-president of the European Investment Bank in Velindre—one of the exciting projects that will hopefully be instigated as a result of this.

May I ask him, in terms of the detail, what the difference is between the solution that the Welsh Government has devised to this question of recategorisation through the ONS compared to the solution that the Scottish Government has introduced, namely the hub, which provides 60 per cent of a share for the private sector and then a 40 per cent share between the Scottish Futures Trust, a charity and the public sector? Is there a maximum that he would anticipate for the profit share that the public sector could own in Wales, in light of the fact that Eurostat has set out in some detail what impact various percentages would have in terms of this issue of recategorisation?

Er y croesewir y datganiad hwn yn gyffredinol, dylid croesawu unrhyw symudiad tuag at ehangu ein gallu i fuddsoddi mewn seilwaith ac unrhyw symudiad tuag at arloesi, o ran ein dull o ymdrin â’r cwestiwn hwn. Ond ni fydd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn synnu o wybod y byddwn yn ei annog i fynd ymhellach o lawer na hyn oherwydd iddo gyfeirio at y ffaith, wrth gwrs, yn yr Alban, fod cyfran bresennol y gyllideb a ddyrennir i gyllido refeniw ar gyfer dyledion hirdymor, tua 4.5 y cant o'u cyllideb. Cyfeiriodd at y sefyllfa bresennol, sef 1 y cant yn achos Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae gennym ni lawer mwy o botensial ac mae gennym ni botensial i wneud llawer mwy na’r hyn a gyhoeddwyd heddiw a gallwn wneud hynny trwy fod yn fwy arloesol eto.

Cyfeiriodd at Fanc Buddsoddi Ewrop. Beth am sefydlu un cyfatebol ar gyfer Cymru, a allai ddefnyddio—? Cyfeiriodd at y gwahaniaeth rhwng, wrth gwrs, cyfalaf a dalwyd i mewn a thanysgrifiad, sydd, wrth gwrs, yn caniatáu i'r cyfalaf a dalwyd i mewn, pan fydd wedi cronni, gael ei ddefnyddio i drosoleddu. Dyma mae Banc Buddsoddi Ewrop yn ei wneud—dyna beth mae pob banc buddsoddi yn ei wneud. Beth am ddefnyddio'r dull hwnnw i greu mwy fyth o allu i fuddsoddi? Ac, yn yr un modd, beth am ystyried—? Mae gennym ni’r grym i sefydlu bondiau i Gymru. Mae’r grym hwnnw gan Lywodraeth Cymru ac, yn wir, mae gan Lywodraeth yr Alban hefyd, ac mae awdurdodau lleol, wrth gwrs, yn edrych o ddifrif ar y dull hwn. Felly, a allwn ni fod yn fwy arloesol, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, er mwyn gwneud y mwyaf o’r gallu a chael trafodaethau gyda rhai o gronfeydd pensiwn Cymru, er enghraifft, a allai fod yn gwneud mwy i fuddsoddi’n llwyddiannus yn ein cymuned?

Yn olaf, ar y cwestiwn o ddyfodol Banc Buddsoddi Ewrop, sydd dan amheuaeth—wel, os oes corff olynol i fod yn y DU, banc buddsoddi’r Deyrnas Unedig, beth am ddatblygu’r enw da am fod yn rhagorol o ran cyllid seilwaith trwy ddatblygu'r ystod o ddulliau yr wyf newydd gyfeirio atynt, fel y gallwn gyflwyno'r achos y dylai banc buddsoddi’r DU gael ei leoli yma yng Nghymru?

Well, I thank Adam Price for what he said at the outset of his contribution. It was a pleasure for me to go with him to Velindre with the vice-president of the EIB, Jonathan Taylor, and to hear an update about what they’re planning in Velindre.

Mae ansawdd ein syniadau ar gyfer buddsoddi yn bwysig iawn wrth ddenu sylw a diddordeb buddsoddwyr fel Banc Buddsoddi Ewrop, ac roedd yn dda iawn bod yno yn Felindre i glywed y diweddaraf ganddyn nhw.

Mae gennym ni rai atebion gwahanol yng Nghymru i’r atebion a ddatblygwyd ganddynt yn yr Alban, ond rydym ni wedi gallu dysgu oddi wrth ein gilydd. Roedd y ffaith bod y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol wedi dosbarthu gwerth £1 biliwn o fuddsoddiad cyfalaf o'r Alban yn ôl ar y llyfrau cyhoeddus yn wers eithaf anodd i’r Alban ond mae’r Scottish Futures Trust wedi bod yn gweithio ar syniadau yn hynny o beth. Ein syniadau ni, o ran cyfran ecwiti a chyfarwyddwr budd y cyhoedd, gan roi cyfran o’r elw i ni ond mesurau diogelu er budd y cyhoedd, yw'r ffordd yr ydym ni’n credu y bydd y system yn gweithio orau yng Nghymru. Ac mae gan yr Alban rai syniadau eraill y maen nhw’n eu hystyried bellach i geisio cael dosbarthiad yn ôl ar y sector preifat mewn cynlluniau yn y dyfodol.

Ar hyn o bryd, rwy'n gweithio’n dybiannol ar sail y syniad y byddem yn cymryd cyfran ecwiti rhwng 15 a 20 y cant mewn unrhyw gwmni prosiect. Mae'n rhaid i chi gael o leiaf 15 y cant er mwyn caniatáu i'ch cyfarwyddwr budd y cyhoedd allu arfer y 19 mesur diogelwch y gall y cyfarwyddwr hwnnw eu harfer ar ran y cyhoedd. Rwy'n credu y byddai cyfran ecwiti o hyd at 20 y cant, a fyddai’n golygu yn achos Felindre, er enghraifft, ar sail ffigurau cyfredol, buddsoddiad cyfalaf uniongyrchol o £5 miliwn gan Lywodraeth Cymru, a byddai'n ddigonol i sicrhau'r mesurau diogelu yr ydym ni eu heisiau ac i roi llif o gyfran yr elw i ni yn y dyfodol.

Edrychaf ymlaen at drafod gydag Adam Price rai o'r syniadau ehangach hyn ynghylch sut y gallwn ddefnyddio arian cronfa bensiwn Cymru i fuddsoddi yn nyfodol y teuluoedd y bydd y bobl hynny sydd wedi rhoi arian mewn cronfeydd pensiwn yn dymuno eu sicrhau yma yng Nghymru. Pan drafodais ddyfodol Banc Buddsoddi Ewrop gyda Changhellor y Trysorlys, i fod yn deg, dywedodd ei fod yn cydnabod yr achos dros geisio dod o hyd i ffordd o barhau i fod yn gyfranogwr yn y banc, ond dywedodd os nad oedd hynny’n bosibl, yna byddai'n rhaid i ni ddyfeisio llwyfan o’r fath ein hunain yma yn y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae'r ffaith bod gennym ni berthynas mor dda gyda Banc Buddsoddi Ewrop yng Nghymru, rwy’n meddwl, yn ein rhoi mewn sefyllfa gref i allu dadlau o'r profiad hwnnw ac, yn wir, i weld a fydd unrhyw bosibilrwydd i gorff y DU gyfan o'r fath, os oes angen un, ddod yma i Gymru.

Starting with the European Investment Bank, Nick Ramsay said the time we have to make further approaches to the EIB, and I think Adam Price was also perhaps presaging his remarks potentially on our not being part of the EIB. In my party I don’t think we’ve any objection in principle to the EIB. I think there’s a negotiation about how it would work with us outside the European Union, and the European Union member states will clearly have majority ownership of it, but at the moment, if you look at its investment criteria and the way it works, there is at least the theoretical possibility of an agreement in the future, whether by shareholders’ agreement or otherwise, in which case I don’t believe UK participation is being ruled out. And I would just encourage the Minister to perhaps expand on the extent to which Wales benefits from current lending. Nick Ramsay, I think, mentioned perhaps an element of foot-dragging—I don’t know if that’s an over-emphasis on what he said in terms of applications before—and have we seen an upward trajectory in terms of loans being dispersed to Wales. And does the Cabinet Secretary think that a sensible approach is to look at this pragmatically, depending on what can be agreed, given the costs of setting up a new institutional bit? It would be wonderful if that were in Wales.

There are, I think, some sensible things to welcome very much in this statement. Could the Cabinet Secretary explain just a little more about the joint registered social landlords, I think he referred to, and improving their borrowing powers? Clearly, if you’ve a larger group of organisations, you’re going to be able to set off the risk within them, and that will give comfort to lenders who may lend more or at a lower interest rate. But how are the registered social landlords going to, between them, organise things if, in a worst case scenario, one of them were to default on one of these loans?

Could I also ask the Minister about the Velindre Cancer Centre? His party at a UK level, and certainly his leader, has argued quite strongly against privatisation of the NHS and there has been a certain scepticism from many on the left about majority private ownership in this context. Could he just explain why he’s so comfortable with having 80 to 85 per cent private ownership of this organisation, and what processes he has to make sure that it operates in the interests of the patients? I’d also just slightly caution him on the ONS—going and having an agreement with them about what might go on the balance sheet of the public sector and what might not. The UK Government tried this at a far, far larger scale for Network Rail, and then found that that later came unstuck. Is that not also a risk for us? And if that were the case, what impact would that have on the £1 billion borrowing limit that he described?

Could I also just, again, caution slightly in terms of some of the numbers and how he presents this? We’re talking about £1.5 billion potentially of extra investment, but when he talks about the actual public sector contribution of £3.6 million going up to £9 million for the housing finance grant, these sums seem to be leveraged up by quite a large multiple, and I just wonder about the potential risk involved with that. He refers with enthusiasm to the Welsh Government’s other innovative financial instruments. There was quite a lot of that around in the banks before the financial crisis, and I just wonder if there is a risk that we are entering into instruments either that we don’t fully understand, or are leading to a degree of leverage that creates an element of risk for the public purse that we might not perhaps want. He said that there was only 1 per cent PFI, traditionally, in Wales, but my major criticism of PFI is that it was trying to lever everything off the balance sheet and everything was done to that aim. The way he describes the negotiations with the ONS and what he’s doing here, I just wonder, slightly, whether there’s an over-emphasis on getting things off the public balance sheet.

I thank the Member for those questions. We will have to take a pragmatic approach to the EIB in the end. It’s as Nick Ramsay said—we are facing the economic realities of the impact of austerity on our capital budget. The president of the EIB has said that although the technical issues are difficult they are not insurmountable, if the UK were to remain a subscribing partner, but it will need the agreement of all 27 other members of the European Union to that. So, we may have to look in a pragmatic way to our own arrangements.

It is certainly true that our investments from the EIB have been on an upward trajectory over a number of years and it’s not just public investment, for example, the second campus at Swansea, which drew heavily on the EIB, but Welsh Water is a major beneficiary of EIB investment in infrastructure here in Wales, and the Welsh Government has schemes as you’ve heard as well.

In terms of social landlords, the scheme is led by my colleague Carl Sargeant. In the first tranche of housing finance grant, 19 Welsh RSLs took part in it. We were able to provide the revenue funding to support £125 million-worth of capital investment to deliver around 1,000 affordable homes. We hope that, by bringing RSLs together, they will be able to finance a scheme of around £250 million, and that will be a very significant addition.

The Member is right to say that there is no blank cheque here from the ONS. They have given us a go ahead on the model that we have presented to them—it took a 300-page document for them to come to the conclusion that our scheme will be classified in the right way, but we will have to manage the risk in every single scheme that we put forward to make sure it stays that way.

I feel like we’ve had some very different advice across the Chamber here. From a UKIP perspective, an anxiety that we are risking overleveraging on the basis of revenue, while Adam Price suggested that we should go further and find more revenue for capital investment purposes. As the finance Minister, I have to try and strike a balance between those two positions. Revenue is very precious in the current circumstances. Adam will know, when we spent time together earlier in the autumn, looking at our budget, finding small amounts of revenue for very important purposes was a hard job. So, I don’t give away revenue lightly to support capital borrowing. But sometimes, the capital needs are urgent and necessary and have that wider economic benefit, and therefore I’m prepared to do that. I think we’ve taken a prudent course in doing so. I’m confident we don’t run the risk that Mark Reckless suggested. I’m not keen to run some of the risks that I think Adam Price would seek to tempt us to.

I also welcome the statement. I think perhaps the first thing we should do is thank Rhodri Morgan who, as First Minister, resisted the temptation to sign what have turned out to be very costly PFI schemes in England and Scotland. I think that we owe him thanks for that because there’s about £400 million, perhaps, of money being spent on services this year, in Wales, which wouldn’t have been available if we’d gone along with the ‘Let’s go PFI, it isn’t going to cost very much. Honest!’

I welcome the commitment to use the new capital borrowing facility. I assume the borrowing will be from the Public Works Loan Board. Following on from what Adam Price raised, as we know, Transport for London raise substantial sums of money by issuing bonds. Adam Price talked about using pension funds—they’re actually selling Government bonds to Welsh local authority pension funds. Is that something that’s been considered? If it hasn’t, is it something that could be considered? Because, you’re re-circling public sector money, but you’re using it in a way that benefits both parts.

Today, I visited Pentre’r Graig Primary School in Morriston, which, whilst not a new-build, has been almost completely remodelled internally. The twenty-first century schools scheme is transforming education buildings and education in my constituency, so I’m really pleased that this is going to continue. It’s making a huge difference and I think if there’s one thing that Welsh Labour Governments of this period of the twenty-first century will be remembered for in 50 years’ time, it will be transforming education with the twenty-first century schools scheme.

Whilst I welcome the mutual investment model—and as some of you are strong supporters of co-operatives, I always like the word ‘mutual’ in there somewhere—how will the public interest be protected by the public interest director? Basically, how much above the base rate does the Cabinet Secretary expect to pay at the cost of borrowing, when it’s all worked out? All borrowing has to be repaid, and this is where I come somewhere between Mark Reckless and Adam Price on this. How much, annually, does the Cabinet Secretary think it is prudent to have to pay back? Forgetting how much you have to borrow, because the amount borrowed will vary, depending on what the interest rates are. Borrowing now is a really good idea, because interest rates are phenomenally low. Nine years ago, I’d have said that they wouldn’t stay at that low level; they have, but at some stage, they are bound to go up, back to what would’ve been the historical norm, so anything being borrowed now and locked in now would be hugely advantageous.

The other question is: will there be a facility for the future restructuring of payments? I’m not sure, perhaps, if the Cabinet Secretary can tell us now whether these costs will be fixed, or whether they will be variable. If they are variable, will they be able to be restructured?

Well, I’m very grateful to Mike Hedges for reminding us of some of the history of this. I very well remember that first half of the last decade when the Welsh Government here came under enormous pressure, including from some Labour politicians in London, to follow the PFI line and to borrow money in that way. It was resisted—stoutly resisted—by successive Governments in that decade, and we’re very grateful now that we did, because we would have found a large proportion of our revenue being syphoned off into paying back those debts. There are NHS trusts in England where 25 per cent of their revenue goes on servicing PFI debts before a single pound goes on providing services to patients. We avoided that here in Wales, and it’s partly because we did avoid it that we are now in a position to do something in this field without disastrous revenue hits.

I’m very willing to look at some of the points that have been raised in the statement about bonds and pension funds and so on, so, I’m very happy to return to that. The Member is absolutely right about borrowing rates being at a historic low. I’m not going to be tempted into providing specific rates to him, because we will be in confidential discussions, inevitably, with potential lenders, and the event on 23 March, which I hope a number of Assembly Members might be able to attend, will be the start of that negotiating process.

Can I deal with the issue of future restructuring? To begin with, Dirprwy Lywydd, it is very unlikely that there will be restructuring of the sort we saw in original PFI deals, because they were structured at a time when interest rates were high and then interest rates fell, and you were able to restructure to get a set of windfall profits as a result of that. Because interest rates are at a historic low, that doesn’t seem very likely in the future, but we do have, built into this agreement, that if there were to be any restructuring of that sort, and if there were to be windfall profits, the public sector would take a third of them automatically, and then we would get our equity share of the remaining two thirds, as well. So, if we took an equity stake of 20 per cent, you will get 20 per cent of the two-thirds profits as well. So, we have very deliberately designed this model in a way that defends us against some of the less acceptable practices that were there in those original PFI models.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, for that.

We’ll move on to item 7, which is the debate on the general principles of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the motion.

I’m pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Public Health (Wales) Bill. I’m grateful to Dai Lloyd, Huw Irranca-Davies and Simon Thomas and their respective committees for the scrutiny of the Bill so far. I’d also like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of stakeholders, who have engaged with the process by providing written and oral evidence.

When I introduced the Bill last November, I spoke about the proven role of legislation in improving and protecting the health of the population of Wales. I also emphasised that legislation forms one important part of a broader public health agenda aimed at preventing avoidable harm and moving closer to our aspirations for a healthy and active Wales. This Bill makes an important contribution to that agenda by taking action in specific areas for the benefit both of particular groups and communities as a whole. I’ve been encouraged during the scrutiny process to see the strong general support from stakeholders and committees for what the Bill seeks to achieve.

Each proposal in the Bill seeks to deliver real benefits for the people of Wales. For example, extending the smoke-free regime to outdoor settings of school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds, as well as the other actions on tobacco, will break important new ground and build on the significant progress we’ve made over many years in protecting children from the harmful effects of smoking. Elsewhere in the Bill, the special procedures licensing system will have a number of direct benefits, from helping prevent avoidable harm to those individuals choosing to have a special procedure, to helping people to become better informed when thinking about a special procedure, and working with the sector so that the standards of best practice become the standards of all.

While the Bill focuses rightly on meeting the needs of specific groups, it also takes important steps to benefit whole communities. The requirement for public bodies to carry out health impact assessments in certain circumstances will benefit communities by helping ensure major decisions taken in Wales are informed by an assessment of their likely impact on both physical and mental health. The changes to the way pharmaceutical services are planned will enable the system to better meet the needs of local communities and better reflect the crucial public health role of community pharmacies. The requirement for local authorities to prepare local toilet strategies will encourage new and creative ways of addressing a complex public health issue.

While the Bill has already benefited from rigorous scrutiny during the fourth Assembly, this National Assembly is also, rightly, taking a very thorough approach to scrutiny during Stage 1, as demonstrated by the detailed analysis provided in the three committee reports. I intend to reply formally to those reports, but I am pleased today to outline my initial reflections on them.

Of the 19 recommendations of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I’m pleased to indicate that I’m likely to be able to respond positively to the majority in a variety of ways. I intend to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 that will directly respond to some of the recommendations. These will include amendments to respond to the committee’s recommendation about offences that local authorities will be able to take into account when considering applications for special procedures licences. This will be a tangible example of how the scrutiny process and the input of stakeholders will have directly and materially strengthened the Bill. I envisage there will also be other areas where I’m able to positively respond to committees’ suggestions in ways other than amendments to the Bill. For example, I will work with partners to produce information that assists the public to locate toilet facilities available for their use locally.

However, there will be a limited number of instances where, although I don’t disagree with the intention lying behind the recommendations, I’ll be unable to respond in exactly the way the committee’s report recommends. For example, I am unable to add laser treatments to the special procedures licensing system at this stage due to a number of issues, including the potential risks of regulatory duplication. However, the Bill allows for this issue to be explored further in due course, allowing for appropriate consultation with Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, local authorities and the public.

Some of the recommendations in the committee’s report raise complex issues, which require thorough consideration. I’m particularly aware of the detailed thought the committee has given to the most appropriate age restriction for intimate piercings, for example. I’ve previously indicated I was revisiting this issue in detail in view of the evidence provided during Stage 1 and that I hoped to be able to outline my position today. Unfortunately, due to the complex considerations involved, the detailed work required, although nearing completion, is still ongoing. However, I am keen to assure Members that I’m giving very active and thorough consideration to this issue, and I will update Members as soon as I am able to do so.

Another complex issue raised by the committee concerns extending smoke-free requirements to additional settings. While I recognise the intention behind the committee’s recommendation on this point, such issues are inherently complex. I would emphasise that the Bill’s provisions that, for the very first time, seek to extend smoke-free requirements to three open spaces, already display the Welsh Government’s strong commitment to the principle of extending smoke-free areas with the aim of preventing children from seeing smoking as a normal and everyday activity. As a further indication of our commitment to this principle, I can confirm today that I’m giving active consideration to a fourth setting, namely early years settings, directly in response to the committee’s deliberations. However, due to the detailed work required, I am unable to commit to bringing forward amendments at Stage 2, but envisage that this work can be completed to enable me to bring forward amendments before the Assembly at Stage 3.

Turning briefly to the recommendations of the other committees, there are also areas where I am minded to make positive responses. These include making good on my previous commitment to bring forward amendments relating to enforcement authorities, which will help allay the concerns underpinning the recommendation of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I’m also able to indicate, in response to the recommendation of the Finance Committee, that I’m willing to consider the potential for identifying additional funding for local authorities to support early implementation of the Bill, recognising the crucial role of the sector in implementing this legislation, and building on the significant ways in which the Bill has already been designed to assist local authorities in meeting the obligations that the Bill will place on them.

Today marks an important milestone in the journey of this Bill. I believe the scrutiny process so far has been of significant assistance, and I look forward to Members’ contribution to that ongoing process during today’s debate.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to contribute to this debate today as Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I’d like to start by thanking my fellow members of the committee. The collegiate way in which we work has enabled robust scrutiny and, I believe, has led us to develop clear conclusions and recommendations for the Minister. I should also take this opportunity to say that we are extremely grateful to everyone who took the time to write to us and present evidence to us at one of our formal meetings, and there were many of those.

Now, naturally, public health is crucially important, and we’re all aware of the appalling statistics in terms of the population’s health—19 per cent of the population in Wales still smoke, 40 per cent drink more alcohol than they should, and over half of the population are overweight and don’t exercise regularly. As we’ve heard, this is the second time a Public Health (Wales) Bill has come before the Assembly. We all know that the motion to approve the previous Bill was not agreed by the fourth Assembly, and therefore it did not become an Act. The Bill before us now contains the original proposals considered by the previous Assembly, without the provisions restricting the use of nicotine inhaling devices—more commonly known as e-cigarettes—in some public places. The health committee has heard disappointment from some that these provisions have been removed. However, the overwhelming view of witnesses was that this Bill will help those working in the field to drive forward the public health agenda in Wales, and it must be allowed to proceed this time.

Turning now to the conclusions and recommendations of the committee, we’ve made a number that will strengthen the legislation, in our view, as we’ve already heard, and I will focus my comments on just a few of those, because of time restrictions. We welcome the proposed restrictions on smoking in school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds. We believe that this will play an important part in protecting people from the harm of second-hand smoke, as well as providing fewer opportunities to see people smoking. It’s not a normal activity. However, we believe that the opportunities to offer this level of protection should be maximised, and so we recommend that the Minister, as a matter of priority, undertake the necessary work to enable the smoking restrictions to be extended to early years childcare and education settings—and we’ve heard that that has been agreed—school gates and the perimeter areas of public playgrounds. I would urge the Minister particularly. That is our recommendation 3.

The next comments relate to the issue of intimate piercing. The Bill, as currently drafted, proposes that the age of consent for an intimate piercing should be 16. We listened to the rationale for setting the age limit at 16, and we know it is the age of consent for sexual activity, and, as a committee, we acknowledge that children and young people have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. However, we then considered this against the weight of evidence from medical and environmental health professionals who have seen at first hand the impact that an intimate piercing can have on a still developing body. We were told that ‘significant damage’ can be caused as a result of such piercings.

We also heard suggestions of a potential link between the intimate piercing of a 16 to 17-year-old and child sexual exploitation. We also learned during the course of our evidence gathering that genital piercing in under 18-year-olds could be considered to be a type of female genital mutilation under the World Health Organization’s definition, and is therefore a criminally reportable event.

On this basis, we do not believe that the correct balance has been struck between young people’s right to have a say and the rights that every young person under 18 in Wales should have to be protected by the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are therefore absolutely convinced as a committee that the age of consent should be set at 18, and we have made a recommendation that section 92 of the Bill be amended to prohibit performing, or making arrangements to perform, an intimate piercing on a person who is under the age of 18. That’s recommendation 14.

We were also surprised and concerned to learn that the offences listed in section 63(3) of the Bill that would prevent a practitioner from being granted a licence to undertake special procedures, which includes intimate piercings, do not include sexual offences. I’ve heard the Minister’s comments today. This is, in our view, a very significant and a relevant concern, given that any one of the procedures named in the Bill are capable of being performed on an intimate part of the body. We as a committee do not accept that this is solely a ‘public health Bill’ rather than a ‘safeguarding’ Bill. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill talks about the need to avoid circumstances where children and young people are placed in a potentially vulnerable situation. We are therefore firmly of the view that the offences listed in section 63(3) should be amended to include ‘sexual offences’. That is recommendation 13.

Finally, we can’t talk about public health without mentioning what is probably the single biggest problem facing public health, namely obesity. The latest Welsh health survey showed that 59 per cent of adults in Wales are classified as overweight or obese, including 21 per cent as obese. Obesity is such a serious threat to population health that it must not be shied away from, no matter how difficult or complex a challenge it is.

We agree with the Minister that no one piece of legislation can address all the determinants of obesity—it will require a multi-faceted approach—but we share the concerns of stakeholders that the Bill lacks any explicit measures to tackle the issue. In fact, it came to our attention as we gathered evidence that there are already steps that the Welsh Government could take, but that the powers in this area aren’t being used to their full advantage. We have therefore urged the Minister to consider our recommendation 2 and examine the potential, through this legislation and under existing powers, to introduce measures to tackle obesity and other priority public health issues, such as extending nutrition standards that are already in existence in our schools to residential care homes and hospitals. But, overall, we welcome the proposals in the Bill and believe that it will have a positive impact on public health. For this reason, we recommend, as a committee, that the Assembly agrees the general principles today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m sure it’s a sign of how important public health is that three committees are to report on this Bill as we discuss it this afternoon.

I think it’s important for me to say initially that the committee welcomed the fact that there had been a general improvement in the presentation of this Bill as compared to the previous Bill in terms of the way the cost and benefit figures were presented in the regulatory impact assessment. The committee has reported in the past how important it is that this information is as clear as possible in order to avoid confusion, and it’s good therefore to welcome the fact that this Bill makes that more explicit than the last Bill presented to the Assembly.

We also welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Welsh Government is working with the Wales Audit Office to improve the financial information provided in RIAs. This is an issue we as a committee will continue to monitor as we scrutinise the financial implications of legislation introduced into this Assembly.

The main area of concern, regarding finance in the Bill, highlighted in our report is the fact that a financial burden is placed on public bodies, particularly local authorities, in implementing the provisions of the Bill. We of course realise that the Bill covers a broad range of issues allowing local authorities to raise funds through fees, particularly through nicotine registrations, special procedures licensing applications, and fixed penalty notices. Of course, local authorities in their turn can re-invest those funds in order to deliver their inspection obligations.

However, we were concerned that the up-front investment required from local government to implement the Bill is a disproportionate burden, given that they won’t benefit for some time. So, I do welcome the fact that the Minister, in opening this debate, has said that the Welsh Government is reviewing this aspect and considering how at least the start-up costs of the Bill could be funded and assist public authorities, particularly local authorities, who will have to implement the Bill, if enacted, before they have any means of seeking revenue through the provisions of the Bill.

It does raise a broader question, Deputy Presiding Officer, as to whether the Welsh Government expects local government to shoulder the burden of new responsibilities, and the Finance Committee is very aware that in the past there has been an agreement between the Welsh Government and the WLGA to fund new responsibilities before they are passed to local government in introducing legislation. That might be an issue for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to return to.

We also note that the financial information provided doesn’t provide details as to whether the amount of revenue collected from fixed penalty notices would be sufficient to cover the costs borne by local authorities to enforce provisions, particularly relating to the nicotine register. The fact that this information isn’t available is a cause for concern for us, because such details could assist local authorities in assessing the financial implications that could be entailed in enacting this Bill. We think it’s important, therefore, that the Welsh Government commits to publishing how much money is raised by each local authority from fixed penalty notice income to cover their enforcement costs—that is, that we do keep a close eye and monitor this, and the costs borne by local authorities in enforcing these policies in their own communities.

Local authorities would also face costs from producing local toilets strategies for their areas. Whilst these costs shouldn’t be significant, we do question whether the production of strategies alone would lead to improved public access to toilets, and therefore whether the investment would represent value for money. We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government should review the effectiveness of the provisions relating to public toilets—something that was given a fair bit of attention in scrutinising this Bill, I know.

Finally, I would like to re-iterate our recommendations relating to the costs of implementing the secondary legislation provisions. Whilst we realise that RIAs will be produced to show the costs and benefits when the various pieces of subordinate legislation are introduced. However, information of this kind isn’t included in the costs and benefits set out for the Bill. We believe that this information is important to enable the Assembly to fully understand the costs and benefits. We recommend, therefore, that the Welsh Government should develop a more consistent approach across Bills to provide costs associated with secondary legislation to enable better scrutiny of the full costs and benefits of all Bills.

Diolch. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I don’t think anybody will criticise this Bill for suffering from a lack of scrutiny as I step forward as the third in a triumvirate of committee Chairs.

I do want to thank my fellow committee members for their assiduous scrutiny of this and their consistent assiduity in scrutinising the various Bills that come in front of us. We reported on this Bill on 10 February, and I’d like to briefly outline our findings just with a few remarks. But, before I do, I think it would be sensible just to reflect back on the work undertaken by our predecessor committee on a similar Bill in the fourth Assembly under our previous Chair, who’s here with us today.

When that predecessor committee reported on the Bill, it made nine recommendations to the then Minister for Health and Social Services, of which seven were accepted. The then Minister subsequently tabled amendments to give effect to those seven recommendations at Stage 2 and these were agreed by the fourth Assembly’s Health and Social Care Committee.

As the Minister has laid out, one of the principal differences between the Bill before us today and the one agreed at Stage 3 in the fourth Assembly is, of course, the removal of the restriction on the use of e-cigarettes in places such as hospitals, schools, shops, food establishments and on school and public transport, and the Minister has also referred to other changes within the Bill.

In our view, on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, it may have been helpful and, indeed, more transparent if the explanatory memorandum had actually compared the two Bills and the differences that have come along simply for ease of understanding, not only for legislators but for members of the public as well. It may be something that we will want to look at in future, as well—it’s simple to achieve; it would have helped members and stakeholders, as well as lay people, understand how thinking had moved on, and facilitated the scrutiny process for the benefit of Welsh citizens.

One of our predecessor committee’s recommendations to the Welsh Government was to require on the face of the legislation that public authorities would be the enforcement authorities. That recommendation was not accepted, and, in our scrutiny, we noted that the new Bill continued with the same approach. However, we are very pleased that, as a result of further work by the Government, the Minister told us it was indeed her intention to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to meet the recommendation of our predecessor committee. We very much welcome the Minister’s decision and consider that this will strengthen the Bill by providing greater clarity.

If I could turn now to the recommendation in our current report that relates to those enforcement authorities, we recommended that the Minister should table an amendment to the Bill to ensure that enforcement authorities are fully aware of their human rights obligations when, for example, entering people’s homes. In particular, we suggested that this might be achieved through the issuing of guidance. We do believe that this would highlight the importance of human rights in discharging particularly the enforcement duties in a more effective way than could be achieved by a simple communications campaign. So, I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps further clarify her intentions on this recommendation.

But, we do welcome the comments of the Minister today and also her active engagement—her positive engagement—with the work of the committee. She has engaged very positively and she’s responded positively to the scrutiny of this committee and that of our predecessor committee, and we thank her for this—this is all good for the quality of the scrutiny within this institution.

I’m delighted to be able to stand here and speak on the Public Health (Wales) Bill. Minister, I’d like to say that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the general principles of the Bill. As we go forward over the next few stages, we will be seeking to bring further amendments to the Bill and we will be seeking to ensure that the financial assessment of the cost of this Bill keeps pace with the amendments as and when they are posted to it.

There are a number of areas that I would like to try to briefly touch upon. I was very pleased to hear your comment that you intend to extend the smoke-free zones to early-years settings. That chimes with our desire and we are very pleased with the overall thrust of the Bill in terms of tobacco and nicotine products. We do have a slight concern, though, that the proposed register will not achieve the desired outcome in terms of stopping the black market trade in cigarettes and tobacco products, because, of course, that is the area we are trying to get to, and if we’re not careful we could have a cumbersome system that targets those who we know about, rather than a slightly faster system that gets to the people we don’t know about and we want to stop

I’d like to turn to the next area, which is the area of special procedures. I am sad that you’re not going to be accepting the committee’s recommendation on laser treatments. That gives us pause for thought—the Welsh Conservatives—because we were in two minds as to whether or not we would like to go down the overarching description of treatments or whether we should accept your view that we should just add them one at a time, as and when the proven harm came. So, I would like to understand your thinking behind the refusal of the committee’s recommendation, because here we are at the very first step when we might ask you to consider adding something on and the Government is saying ‘no’. Therefore, does that mean that if we’re looking at other areas in future—complete body hair removal, for example—or if we’re looking at cupping and other areas that are now beginning to come forward—tongue splitting—as potentially harmful treatments, will that automatically mean a ‘no’? So, I’d like to have a clear understanding of the process that you went through and your rationale behind it, because otherwise we will need to consider how we think we can strengthen the face of this Bill.

Protecting the public from harm is absolutely key to what we’re trying to do and I would like clarification on your official’s evidence that said the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that procedures were undertaken in a safe and hygienic way and that it wasn’t a safeguarding issue, because, again, whilst I’m still on intimate piercings and the area of special procedures, I have to say that this directly contradicts the evidence the committee received. It’s not just about the infections you might get; it’s also about the competency of the decision-making process, the protection of vulnerable people, the prevention of sexual exploitation and the prevention of coercive control. Earlier on today, we had an excellent question being asked by Joyce Watson on female genital mutilation and it was made very clear to us in some of the evidence that we took that some of these procedures are not reversible. Some of these procedures are considered to be substantial or—and I’m going to quote—‘very major reconfigurations of the genital anatomy’. Something you do at 16, if you’ve fallen into company who is exercising coercive control over you, could be something you live to regret when you’re 25, 26, or 27. Also, if we look at Operation Seren, we can see that many of the people who were affected in Operation Seren were young people. Many of them were looked-after children. They were very vulnerable and so I would urge you, Minister, to be really explicit and clear in your analysis of the age of consent for intimate piercings and for all of these procedures. The Welsh Conservatives are seeking 18. The Health and Social Care Committee is seeking 18. I’d really like to see you come towards us on that one.

I would like to very briefly turn to just one further subject, given the time, and that is the subject of obesity. Minister, this is a public health Bill and it is the one subject that is simply not touched upon at all and it is predicted to be one of the major killers of people in Wales over the forthcoming decades. We would urge you to take further evidence and to see how this Bill might be tailored in a way that will enable local health authorities, local councils and the Government to really try to promote an anti-obesity strategy, because with over 59 per cent of people in Wales overweight and the effect it has on other medical conditions, it is, to be frank, a missed opportunity to have a public health Bill that does not touch upon this one crucial subject. Thank you.

First of all, I would want to echo all of the comments made by the Chair of the committee. I do truly believe that there is value to this legislation. We will certainly agree with taking it to the next stage, where hopefully it can be strengthened and amended. But I think it is very important that we, at this point, are highly aware of the limitations of this Bill, in case we raise people’s expectations excessively. There are very important elements within it, without doubt, but there is a great deal that has been omitted, and we will need more robust legislation if we are to ensure that the public can be healthier in Wales, despite how important the steps proposed in this Bill are in terms of piercing and tattooing and, very importantly, on extending the restrictions on smoking in public places, and so on.

As we’ve just heard, tackling obesity is the main public health challenge of our time. We all know the statistics on the financial impact that obesity has and will have on the NHS, and of the human impact that it has on people in our communities. But the question is: what can we and what should we do about it? We in Plaid Cymru certainly believe that there are a number of lessons we can learn from efforts to tackle smoking over the past decades, and that those are just as relevant in the fight against obesity. I did want a Bill here that would seek to address the greatest crisis facing us in terms of public health, and I would appeal to the Government to continue to seek solutions, through this Bill, to take specific steps. But, unfortunately, it’s been a frustrating process in committee to date. We have seen that the limitations on the powers available, perhaps, to the Welsh Government preclude some of the steps that we in Plaid Cymru would certainly want to see taken—the ban on advertising certain foods, taxing certain foods and drinks and so on.

Of course, it’s important to bear in mind that there is much that the Government can do in this area without legislating. We need far better communication with people and with health professionals, too, on the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and so on. The Government needs to think in a more integrated way. It’s not a good thing to limit leisure centre opening hours or to close leisure centres during an obesity crisis. We need to invest, somehow, in resources that allow and encourage healthy lifestyles, just as we invest in our health service. We don’t need legislation on all occasions, but I do think that we will need legislation in the future, and I look forward to the point when we are able to legislate further. This certainly won’t be the last public health Bill, but it’s not just obesity—we could look at issues such as prevention of pollution, for example, as other important areas.

I’d also like to draw attention to the importance of post-legislative scrutiny, and that it should happen to a greater extent than it has been done in the past, if this bill should be passed. We’ve seen time and time again, when a Bill is given Royal Assent, that our attention can actually be drawn away from the real aims, and that we fail to monitor progress made as a result of a Bill.

This brings me to my final point, which is on health impact assessments. We as a party were certainly eager to see these impact assessments contained within the original Bill. That pressure succeeded. This was laid, and we were grateful to the previous Government for putting that on the face of that Bill, although the Bill did ultimately fail. And that is relevant this time, too. We all support and understand the rationale as to why we want organisations to undertake health impact assessments, but I would warn the Minister at this point that it’s in the action that those benefits will truly be felt. Too often, I think, over the past few years, we have seen equality impact assessments or environmental impact assessments being undertaken, but then being ignored. By the way, I support thee adding of the word ‘well-being’—health and well-being impact assessments. That’s what’s important, but we can’t let those assessments become a box-ticking exercise.

So, generally speaking, my message in closing is that we shouldn’t look at passing this legislation as the end of the journey—the aim is to get a healthier population. There are important measures here, certainly, in terms of creating a safer population, but let us go through the process now—make amendments and find ways of strengthening what we have before us now, whilst bearing in mind what we should be aiming for in the future.

The Welsh NHS Confederation has called this Bill a

‘once in a lifetime opportunity to raise the profile of public health’,

reduce health inequalities and reduce demand on the NHS. Several speakers have already mentioned the importance of tackling obesity and its absence from this Bill, but I want to raise a further issue that is linked to obesity but is, I think, an even bigger public health issue in terms of the harm it does, and that is the control of pricing of alcohol.

Drink is the biggest killer of people aged between 15 and 50, and we also know that 40 per cent of all adults in Wales report consuming alcohol above the recommended daily limit on at least one day in the past week. Those are pretty shocking statistics, and I would have thought we have an obligation to do something to address the fact that alcohol is far too cheap and people are therefore able to consume vast quantities of it, even if they’re on very low incomes.

Alcohol misuse directly leads to over 1,500 deaths in Wales and the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol misuse costs the NHS in Wales nearly £110 million a year. We also know that there are many, many people clogging up the accident and emergency system, despite the deviation we endeavour to implement here in Cardiff to keep people safely contained in the city centre and not have to send them off to hospital. But, unfortunately, all too many of them turn up in hospital and they are clogging up the system and we absolutely have to do something about this.

So, I’m really disappointed that we haven’t yet got anything on alcohol in this Bill, particularly as I think it does meet support across the Chamber. Indeed, when I asked the First Minister about this at the end of January, he did confirm that the Government supports the introduction of minimum unit pricing as part of a package of measures aimed at reducing the impact of alcohol misuse on individuals, communities and our public services. So, I would be very keen to know what consideration the Government has given to including minimal alcohol pricing in this Bill, because at the moment we have the situation where alcohol is being sold effectively cheaper than water.

We know that minimum alcohol pricing saves lives because in parts of Canada, where minimum pricing has been implemented, it has resulted in a noticeable reduction in the amount people drink, with fewer hospital admissions and fewer alcohol-related deaths. So, I think we have an obligation to do something about this. We know that minimum alcohol pricing enables us to tackle the cheap, strong alcohol sold in supermarkets and off-licences: drinks like own-brand vodka or gin, strong white cider and super-strength lager, mostly produced in the UK. The people who benefit most from this are those who are drinking at harmful levels, particularly those on the lowest incomes who can least afford to lose days off work.

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the UK Government to take the action required, because the coalition Government sold the pass on this in 2013, on the basis that there wasn’t enough concrete evidence. Well, I would say there is ample evidence that this works. The alcohol industry—we know they will stop at nothing to resist responsible pricing, as we have seen in Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament passed legislation on this as early as 2012, but it’s all been held up in the courts because the Scotch Whisky Association is challenging it in the UK Supreme Court. We cannot wait another 30 years to tackle alcohol in the way that we had to spend 30 years combating the harm of smoking. So, I would hope that we would be able to include this in the Bill, and that some of the money raised could enable us to keep our leisure centres et cetera open. It would raise useful sums of money to help treat people with alcohol disease and go some way to attempting to combat the huge millions of pounds that are spent by the drinks industry in encouraging people to drink far more than is good for them.

As a member of the health committee, I would like to thank our Chair and other members of the committee for the collegiate way we’ve worked together on this Bill. Also, a thank you to health officials and outside agencies for providing us with their evidence.

UKIP will be supporting the general principles of the Public Health (Wales) Bill. There is much about this Bill that is to be commended. We welcome the steps taken to strengthen restrictions on the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to young people. We welcome the intention to prevent smoking in places where children are present. We welcome moves taken to improve the health and safety surrounding tattooing and piercing, as well as ensuring that people carrying out these procedures are licensed and registered. The age of 16 for intimate piercing, it is felt, needs further consideration. We also greatly welcome the introduction of health impact assessments.

However, in many areas, the Bill doesn’t go far enough. As many others have said, this so-called public health Bill doesn’t address the biggest public health challenge of our time: the obesity epidemic that is facing our nation. Many of those who gave evidence to us on the health committee expressed their disappointment that the Bill did nothing to address obesity, alcohol misuse, poor air quality or loneliness and isolation. I share their disappointment and hope we can address these shortcomings during the passage of the Bill though the health committee.

One of my biggest disappointments with the Bill as it stands relates to public toilet provision. The Welsh Government’s own explanatory memorandum for the Bill recognises the inconsistencies that exist in the provision of public toilets across Wales and the fact that there is no legal duty for local authorities to provide public toilets. While it’s the Minister’s intention to improve toilet provision for everybody, many of those who gave evidence to the health committee felt that the Bill was a huge let down and wouldn’t result in any major improvements. Unfortunately, for many in our society, the lack of accessible public toilets is a prison sentence. People with a range of medical conditions are essentially trapped in their own homes because of the lack public toilets across Wales. The fact that the Bill simply requires councils to prepare a public toilet strategy will do nothing to improve provision or allay the concerns of those affected by the lack of provision. These concerns were shared not only by the patient groups and the older people’s commissioner, but also by the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Public Health and Public Health Wales, which told the health committee that financial pressures on councils will mean that a strategy will not improve provision.

The majority of stakeholders who gave evidence to us in the health committee felt that there should be a statutory duty placed upon local authorities to implement the public toilet strategies. The Minister has said that she feels that, given the financial pressures upon local authorities, it would not be possible to place this statutory duty upon them. I feel that we are letting the people of Wales down by not having enforceable toilet strategies and hope that we can strengthen the enforcement of these strategies by other means. Perhaps the Welsh Government should have the ultimate duty for ensuring that local strategies make adequate provision for public toilets. We need to explore all options and I look forward to working with the Welsh Government to strengthen the Bill as it progresses through the Assembly. Thank you very much.

I’m a member of the committee and I found the scrutiny process productive and collegiate, as other members of the committee have said today. I’d like to concentrate my remarks on two areas: smoking and the provision of public toilets. I welcome the extension of protection from smoking, particularly for children, that is in the Bill. I think those are absolutely crucial steps forward, and other Members have already referred to recommendation 3, which is absolutely key to enable smoking restrictions to be extended to early years childcare educational settings. It’s very pleasing that the Minister has said that that is something that she intends to do.

I’d also like to draw attention to recommendation 5, which recommends

‘that the Minister works with Local Health Boards to ensure smoking cessation support and advice is promoted extensively in healthcare settings’

and, this should be particularly emphasised, in

‘external smoking areas where these are provided.’

I do think that that is the opportunity, when people are in health service settings, to very strongly promote advice and help for smoking cessation. I think that we felt in the discussions in the committee that this is something that could be done to a much greater extent.

There is also the issue, of course, of staff who are in healthcare settings, because we do know a considerable number of healthcare staff do smoke, and so I think every effort should be made to offer opportunities to them.

I think that, in the Bill, it leaves it up to the local health boards to decide, or the local hospitals to decide, whether they do have smoking shelters on their grounds, and it is quite a difficult decision, this, for the hospitals to make. Certainly, in my own constituency, Velindre hospital has no smoking at all in the hospital or in the grounds and doesn’t have a shelter. I understand absolutely why that is the case, because it is a cancer hospital, it sees the terrible danger that smoking causes and it is saying ‘no’ to smoking on its grounds.

But it does cause a problem for people who are living beyond the hospital grounds. For example, a constituent has contacted me saying,

‘On a daily basis, as a result of the smoking ban there is a steady and continuous stream of hospital staff, visitors and patients who congregate outside our house…to smoke.

‘Cigarette butts are consistently discarded in our garden which is distressing. There is also a fire risk….On a number of occasions…patients and visitors have even sat on the wall of my garden and smoked. For my children therefore, smoking is very much a ‘normal’ part of everyday life.’

So, although I do support the decision of Velindre hospital, which has tried very hard to stop patients, visitors and staff from going outside and smoking on people’s grounds, we have to look at the consequences of this. Where hospitals do provide an area for people to smoke in the grounds, I think the committee felt that we should make absolutely every effort to give advice in those shelters about where help can be obtained and that it is a place where people are there as a captive audience. So, I think this is something we’ve got to look at very carefully.

I also want to raise concerns about the provision of public toilets. I’ve recently campaigned on this issue with an 82 year-old constituent after the last public toilet in Whitchurch was closed. I think we’ve already heard how important public toilets are for the public. But I do feel that this is a step forward, and I do think that there are suggestions in this public health Bill that will improve the situation for access to public toilets for the general public. Obviously, if money was no object, we could go a lot further, we could build public toilets and we could make sure that they were well maintained. I think that would be the ideal, but we’re just not in that situation.

So, I think it’s a bit churlish, really, to say that there’s absolute disappointment that this Bill is not doing anything, because I do think it is making some very sensible suggestions. For example, the proposal that public toilets in all public buildings could be accessible for the public—I think that is a very positive step forward, because, in most areas, there is one public building or another. I went, at lunchtime, to the opening of the new Llandaff North hub, which is the old library and the day centre coming together to provide a hub of facilities for the area, and they’ve got toilets in the hub, and I think that we need to have a notice on the door, which I’m sure we will have, to say these toilets are available for the public, regardless of whether you’re going in to use the hub in any other way or not.

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

In some countries, they encourage private enterprises as well to offer facilities, and it can revolutionise the availability of effective and pleasant-to-use public lavatories.

Yes. I think that is another way that this can be progressed, but one of the points—. Just one slight caution on that is that some elderly people in particular have said that they don’t want to go into cafes just to use the toilet, because they feel very conspicuous.

So, I think it is a step forward on the public toilets in this Bill.

I just wanted to speak very briefly, if I can, in this important debate. Can I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government brought back a Bill without any proposals for significant restrictions on e-cigarettes? We know that we’ve had some success in bringing down smoking rates here in Wales in recent years, and that’s gone hand in hand with people choosing to have an e-cigarette rather than smoking tobacco, which is obviously much more beneficial to their health.

Can I also put on record how much I wholeheartedly agree with Jenny Rathbone, who made a powerful case, I thought, for minimum alcohol pricing here in Wales? I can remember, when I first took on the shadow health brief a number of years back, having a conversation with Alcohol Concern Cymru about this. I was very resistant at all to having any sort of minimum alcohol pricing, but when I looked at the statistics, they were very stark indeed in terms of the significant affordability of alcohol compared to the situation back in the 1970s and 1980s from when the price of alcohol, in relative terms, has gone down significantly as a proportion of people’s income. I think that it is time that we stepped up to the plate and brought forward some proposals on minimum alcohol pricing in order to deal with the harms that alcohol is causing society and the significant costs that alcohol is putting on taxpayers in terms of mopping up the cost of treating alcohol-related diseases, and the crime consequences, of course, of alcohol, which Jenny didn’t actually touch on.

In terms of the smoke-free requirements, I welcome some of the extensions that have been brought forward by the Government, but the Minister will know that I have raised with her a proposal from schoolchildren in my own constituency in Ysgol Pen y Bryn in Colwyn Bay, who’ve actually said that one of the things that they really detest is hanging around at bus stops when people are puffing away on cigarettes. I think, particularly between the hours that children are travelling to and from school, there might be something that you could consider perhaps around restricting smoking at bus stops, because it is a place where children congregate on a regular basis. I think that your intentions are absolutely right in terms of the drive to discourage people from smoking in areas where children congregate, but that, I think, is an easy win and it’s difficult to see why you haven’t been able to put it on the face of the Bill at the moment. I wonder, Minister, whether you could say whether that is something that you’re prepared to consider at Stage 2.

Just in terms of public lavatories, obviously, one of the things that we proposed in Stage 3 when the previous Bill was up for debate in the last Assembly, was the need for not just local strategies on public conveniences, but also, of course, for a national strategy to be developed. Because the Government seems to be saying that local authorities should produce their local strategies and, if they fall short, then the electorate can dump them at the next election. That’s absolutely fine for locally important toilets, but the problem is that there are some nationally strategically important toilets that are not important to local electorates. So, for example, we famously quoted, on many an occasion—and Kirsty Williams will be pleased that I’m raising this point—toilets along the A470 trunk road that are, frankly, not well used by locals, but used a lot by people who are passing through on the trunk road, or people who’re vising that locality. Of course, those individuals will not have a vote locally, in Powys, to ditch the local councillors who refuse to acknowledge the importance of those conveniences.

This is something that the Government, to be fair, has recognised as an issue, and that’s why the Government has put funding in to maintaining some of those public toilets. Yet, there is no provision whatsoever for a public convenience strategy on a national basis in order to make sure that those gaps in provision are actually accounted for. And let me tell you, the fact that there are no public conveniences in some parts of Wales does prohibit people, particularly those with medical conditions, from being able to get out of the house and to make long-distance journeys. That, I think, is unacceptable and that’s why I want to see the Bill strengthened. I wonder, Minister, whether you will consider strengthening the Bill through the provision of some sort of national strategy, an overarching strategy that looks at the provision across Wales, that the Welsh Government takes some responsibility for actually implementing.

Thank you very much. Finally, Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to the Minister and the various committees for bringing the Bill forward to the current stage. I was going to talk about obesity, but I feel several other people have spoken on that so I don’t want to labour that point.

I think the public toilets issue is a moot point, not just for people with medical conditions but people in general. I was interested in Julie Morgan’s observations, because there was a pub in her constituency, the New Inn in Birchgrove, which I used to frequent, and occasionally people would go in who weren’t using the pub and they were directed to the toilets. I seem to recall the landlady telling me that they were part of a scheme, which may be similar to the sort of scheme that David Melding was talking about. Unfortunately, the pub then closed for refurbishment and that landlady is no longer there. It would be interesting, nevertheless, to find out what kind of scheme they were running and whether that could be more widely applicable.

The only other point I would like to make is to echo and amplify what Angela said about the issue of piercing and the age of consent that we should have for body piercing. Angela compared it to female genital mutilation, with the possibility of someone of 16 or 17 being involved in a coercive relationship, which was interesting. I hadn’t thought of that before, but I had previously thought that, in some cases, it may be a manifestation of self-harming among the young. I do agree with the desire expressed by several people that perhaps you could look at raising the age limit to 18. I think that is important on that point. Thanks very much.

Thank you very much. I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to reply to the debate—Rebecca.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m very grateful to all Members who’ve contributed in this debate this afternoon, and also for the indication of the support for the general principles of the Bill. Obviously, I’ll be responding formally to each of the three committees and all of their recommendations, but I’ll take this opportunity to address what I think are some of the key issues that have been raised by Members this afternoon.

With regard to the smoking provisions in the Bill, I’m very pleased to see that these have been welcomed by Members. They’ll have all heard my commitments to extending to early years settings. In my evidence to committee, I spoke about the complexity of banning what is essentially a legal activity in a public place. The Bill does allow for other settings to be added in due course, and that would have to happen after due consultation and with the Assembly’s agreement. Any setting that we do add to the Bill or to the Act in due course will have to be good law. So, the public concerned will have to reasonably understand that they are committing an offence, and people enforcing the legislation will have to have a good understanding of it as well. So, that does make areas such as perimeters, for example, bus stops and other areas especially complex. But, as I say, there’ll be opportunities in due course within the Bill to look at extending to other settings. It is worth recognising as well that, when the Bill was initially tabled before the Assembly in the fourth Assembly, there were no places named on the face of the Bill. So, we already have three and we’re looking at introducing a fourth as well. So, I do think that we’ve come a long way with regard to the outdoor settings for smoking.

There was some concern raised in the debate about illegal tobacco, and I do agree that offences relating to illegal tobacco need to be considered alongside others when adding new offences to the restricted premises order regime. I know this has been an issue of concern to the committee. I think the best approach to doing this would be to use the regulation-making powers that are provided by the Bill. As I indicated in the statement of policy intent, which I published alongside the Bill, work will be undertaken with stakeholders to identify the offences that need to be included.

In addition, full consultation will need to take place before the regulations can be made, and they will also be subject to the affirmative process in the Assembly as well. I would just say that I do consider this piece of work to be a priority, but the proper channels will have to be followed for that. This will ensure that we have a strong enforcement regime for people who do continue to sell tobacco and nicotine irresponsibly, and particularly so to young people.

Members will have heard my comments on intimate piercing. I know this is something that Members are particularly concerned about, and I just would reiterate that I am giving very active consideration to this, taking advice and looking again at the evidence that has been received by committee, and beyond the committee as well.

Sexual offences, lasers and body modification were all mentioned by Members as well. The committee recommended that the offences listed in section 63(3) of the Bill be amended to include sexual offences. And in response to the expert witness evidence provided to the committee, I have asked my officials to revisit the relevant offences listed under this section of the Bill. I do therefore intend to bring forward Government amendments on this issue. I am persuaded that enabling local authorities to take account of information such as unspent sexual offences is justified on the grounds of public protection, particularly as some procedures require an element of intimacy, such as genital piercings, and clients are often alone with the practitioner whilst that procedure is being performed.

There were question relating to lasers and intense pulsed light use, which is already regulated by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. So, if they were to be listed alongside the special procedures on the face of the Bill at this stage, there would be a regulatory duplication there.

I do acknowledge that some establishments provide tattoos as well as laser tattoo removal, so I do accept that this results in them having to obtain both local authority registration for services such as tattooing, and also HIW registration for lasers and IPLs. The role and function, though, of HIW is subject to ongoing discussion following responses to the Green Paper, ‘Our Health, Our Health Service’. So, I would therefore like to explore whether or not it would be appropriate in due course to add lasers and IPLs for non-surgical purposes to the list of special procedures, but after appropriate consultation with HIW, local authorities and the public.

Regarding body modification, I know that the committee has been keen that there’s extra work undertaken to understand the scale at which procedures are carried out in Wales, and the risk it poses to public health. During the development of the Bill, we did consult with local authorities and practitioners who provided evidence that suggests that body modifications are actually quite infrequently performed in Wales. But I do agree that more evidence is needed to fully understand the range and the scale.

Will you take an intervention? Thank you very much, Minister. Whilst I accept the veracity of the evidence that you’ve heard from public bodies, there was also talk in the committee evidence that we took that there’s a large underground movement that involves things like body modifications. So, they’re not necessarily going to be picked up by public authorities.

I do accept that, and the previous Minister for Health and Social Services did make a commitment that if the Bill did succeed in becoming law, he intended to consult on the principle of adding additional procedures to the list covered by the Bill shortly after the Bill’s enactment, and I’d be happy to stand by that commitment.

I think it’s important, though, that we don’t regulate procedures that are considered in law to be assaults, and currently there’s a case in Wolverhampton where police are prosecuting a man who was performing body modifications such as ear removal, nipple removal and tongue splitting. And he has been charged with three counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and for the alternative counts of wounding without intent. So, we’re monitoring the progress of that case to understand where that line lies between body modification and assault.

Should sufficient evidence be provided through the consultation process in due course to suggest that body modifications are carried out frequently in Wales and that they are a significant risk to human health, further work would then need to be undertaken to understand the legal and ethical complexities of procedures before we could consider adding them to the list of special procedures, by way of affirmative regulations. But, as I say, I stand by the commitment made by the previous Minister in this regard.

Several Members referred to the fact that the Bill doesn’t have any explicit actions within it to tackle obesity, and when I gave evidence to the committee I was keen to stress that, actually, the Bill is only one part of a wider suite of measures. And I understand the frustrations that the committee has actually had in terms of being able to explore with people giving evidence what kinds of actions could be taken forward on this basis. I do thank the committee for the suggestions that it’s made, and emphasise that we are fully committed to tackling this important public health agenda. It won’t always be through legislation; for example, we already have nutritional standards in schools and hospitals, and there’s ongoing discussion with hospitals in terms of how we can extend healthy food to staff members and visitors to hospitals. We’ve got our healthy workplace work, the national exercise referral scheme, healthy eating programmes, and we are also putting pressure on the UK Government on the issue of the advertising of unhealthy foods, particularly to children as well.

I’m content to accept the principle of the committee’s recommendations that it makes in this regard, insofar as considering issues raised under existing powers and other legislative avenues. The committee will be aware that work is already progressing on the issue of nutritional standards in early years settings and care home settings. I’m also happy to discuss the issue of added sugar in school settings further with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, although, again, perhaps amending regulations would be the way in which we would address that rather than necessarily on the face of this Bill. Any changes there would have to be consulted on appropriately as well.

I know that the health committee has made a number of recommendations with regard to accessing toilets, and I would just like to confirm that local authorities will be expected to think about tourists and events and so on—so not just the local population—and wider equality issues as well when they are preparing their approach locally. So, I’m content to accept the recommendation that we work in partnership to develop a national map and I can tell Members that my officials are currently working with their IT counterparts to consider the necessary infrastructure required to collect the appropriate data from local authorities and incorporate those into existing mapping tools. Those data, then, could also be made available to third parties who’d be able to develop other maps and apps, for example, as well—I know there was keenness to develop apps. In consideration of the views of both the committee and expert witnesses, I’ve also asked officials to explore options for the development of an easily recognisable logo that could be displayed at publicly accessible toilet facilities across Wales as well.

With regard to minimum unit pricing, we do absolutely recognise the seriousness of the challenges that alcohol poses for our society, both for individuals and for communities more widely. It still remains our aspiration to take action on this issue, particularly, of minimum unit pricing. But Jenny Rathbone referred to the fact that efforts in Scotland have been referred to the Supreme Court, so we are watching what happens there very closely and as and when I’m able to say more to the Assembly on this issue, I will do.

And finally, I just want to confirm that I also believe that loneliness and isolation is an important public health issue as well, and we have a commitment in our programme for government to develop a cross-government strategy to address loneliness and isolation. As I say, and as Members have recognised, this public health Bill before us today is an extremely important piece of legislation and it remains one of many ways in which we’re trying to address the public health challenges facing the people of Wales.

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 move on to item 8, which is the motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Public Health (Wales) Bill and I call on Rebecca Evans as Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move that motion. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I formally move the motion and I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank the Finance Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill again. I’ll write formally to the committee to outline my response in detail, but I do intend to respond positively to the majority of those recommendations. And I will lay an amended explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment ahead of Stage 3, as required by Standing Orders.

Thank you very much. There are no Members wishing to speak in this debate, therefore the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close. Thank you.