National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda is the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, and the first question is from Vikki Howells.

We are committed to supporting jobs and growth in all regions of Wales, and we need to look at maximising the benefits for Valleys communities from major investments, and we’ve made a long-standing commitment to locate Transport for Wales’s HQ in the heart of the Valleys.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The news that the Transport for Wales hub, along with the Cardiff capital region city deal programme offices, will be located within RCT is excellent news for my local authority. Together, both could see the location of hundreds of good-quality jobs into the Valleys, and serve as powerful boosters to economic regeneration. How will the Welsh Government build on this to maximise the benefit of both schemes to the northern Valleys, and to my constituency of Cynon Valley in particular?

Well, can I thank the Member for her question, and pay tribute to the way that she’s championed regeneration and pride in the Valleys? I was delighted to announce that the headquarters of Transport for Wales will be located in Pontypridd. I must also pay tribute to the leadership of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council for offering a compelling vision of the local economy.

I do think that we need to utilise all opportunities offered up by announcements like this in a much more joined-up way, through a new economic contract, bringing together partners across Government, local government, through our skills training providers, to ensure that we squeeze maximum value from Government investments. By looking ahead to the opportunities that are to come, we know that there will be more than £1 billion of spending, on electrification, metro, and other associated rail infrastructure, so we must ensure that we work together, on a regional and on a national basis, to reap more rewards from our investments.

Cabinet Secretary, once in a blue moon an opposition Member is pleased to congratulate the Government on the decision they’ve made, and I do think Transport for Wales being based in Pontypridd is the right decision, because it sends a very clear signal, I think, that the city region concept is an important one, but a city region as a city and a hinterland—and the hinterland is not peripheral; it is very much part of the whole region. Particularly when we look at the employment, the cultural capital, and the educational resources in Cardiff, we want to make those as fully accessible as possible, and, therefore, this will send a signal that the connections between the Valleys and the city, and the bigger urban areas, are a vital part of our vision for the future.

Can I thank the Member for his contribution, his question, and his kind words? I think he is absolutely right—it’s essential that, where we can, we decentralise, in order to drive regeneration and economic growth in those areas that have not benefited from all of the gains of economic growth in recent years. So, whether it be Transport for Wales in Pontypridd, or the Welsh Revenue Authority elsewhere in the Valleys, or the development bank of Wales in north Wales, I think it’s essential that we look at these opportunities, and, again, squeeze maximum value, by working together. In the future, we may be able to see other investments and the move of other responsibilities. Potentially, for example, with the creation of Historic Wales, we could see an investment in mid or north-west Wales, or the west of Wales.

And I do think that the regional approach to economic growth is the right way to go. With the Cardiff capital region, we know that it’s estimated that 25,000 jobs will be created as part of that particular initiative, across the 10 local authority areas. My ask of the Cardiff capital region would be to ensure that there is no lumpiness in terms of economic growth across the region. And, in order to address the current lumpiness, there will have to be targeted spending and a concerted effort to benefit those areas, as I’ve said to Vikki Howells, that did not benefit so well from economic growth after the 2008 crash.

We continue to support businesses in their growth, invest in high-quality infrastructure, and improve economic development conditions.

It’s a sad fact that there’s been very little done to replace the old heavy industries that once provided employment, housing and infrastructure throughout the Valleys. Much is promised by the city region, but there’s little detail, and, in those communities that will be affected, there’s much confusion as to exactly what it will deliver. We also then have the Valleys taskforce, which, coincidentally, sprung up shortly after Labour lost a rock solid seat in the Valleys. I wonder whether that was just a coincidence. Can you tell me whether there is any joint working arrangements between the city region and the Valleys taskforce? Is there a regular channel of dialogue between you and the Minister responsible for the taskforce? We need more jobs in the former coalfields, and we need better quality jobs as well, and failure to deliver on this with the city region or the Valleys taskforce is not an option.

Can I thank the Member for her question? I did see her tweet where she asked a very good question. It’s a question that I think many communities could ask, based in the city region area. That particular question was, ‘What’s for Rhondda in the announcement?’ And I think that’s absolutely right, because I’ve been asking recently who has benefited in the recovery since the financial crash. And it’s quite clear that those who have not yet seen any sign of a recovery are those who live outside of more intensely urbanised areas where we’ve seen the greatest economic growth. They are people who, by and large, are younger, and people who don’t own their own homes. They’re the people who have not benefited from the recovery. So, just as I said to David Melding that I expect redistribution of wealth to come through the redistribution of opportunities to create wealth, I think it’s essential that we do more to attract investment into the Valleys, but also to support and grow those companies that are already there.

In terms of inward investment, we estimate that a third of all foreign direct investment that came to Wales in the previous Assembly came to the Valleys areas. So, there’s no doubt that the Valleys have had a good degree of investment, but the structural problems of that particular regional economy require a more concerted and joined-up effort, and, for that reason, the taskforce was convened. The Member asked an important question about who is on the taskforce, how the taskforce is liaising, working with and interfacing with other initiatives. I can assure the Member that I am a member of the taskforce, and so too are representatives of the Cardiff city region. And I think it’s essential that the work of the taskforce is fully reflected in the developing economic strategy for a more prosperous and secure Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, obviously, the city deal concept is going to be the driver of much economic activity and regeneration, both in the Swansea area and the Cardiff area. With the Cardiff city deal, 10 local authorities make up that agreement, many of them in the Valleys areas. The way we measure success, obviously, is via gross value added and economic activity coming out of the Valleys. Where would you see GVA in the Valleys being in the next five to 10 years? What key gateways have you put down to see the increase in GVA?

I should perhaps refer the Member to a speech I gave last Monday at Coleg y Cymoedd—a transformational institution that has been able to improve the pride in the local area, and also improve the skills of people who live there. In that speech, I outlined my vision for a prosperous and secure strategy that will seek to not only grow wealth and well-being in the aggregate, but also reduce the inequalities in both, across regions and across Wales. And, so, it’s my view that not only should GVA be improved, relative to England, and the Valleys relative to the rest of Wales, but that we should also seek to drive up gross disposable household income, because it’s that measure, it’s that money that people have in their pockets, that gives people a sense of control over their own lives. In turn, it’s that power, it’s that ability to have a degree of control over one’s life, that you’re able to judge well-being against. And, so, I would suggest that GVA has to increase as part of the city region approach, but it must increase at a sub-regional level across all communities, because if we see the wealthy getting wealthier, and productivity in areas that are already high in productivity increasing at the expense of the wealth of those who are least well off, and at the expense of productivity in less urbanised areas, then the project will have failed. I think we have to iron out the lumpiness in terms of productivity and in terms of economic growth, and we must find the ways of ensuring that we share opportunities to create wealth right across regions.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Could the Cabinet Secretary explain the decision not to electrify the Ebbw Vale line?

Moving forward with the franchise of the metro, we will, of course, be looking at the Ebbw Vale line. At present, the responsibilities for rail infrastructure reside with Network Rail, and we have repeatedly expressed our disappointment that, in spite of having 6 per cent of rail lines on the Wales and borders franchise area, we’ve only had 1 per cent of investment in the current control period.

I think it’s worth pointing out that we, as a Welsh Government, have spent more in the current period on rail infrastructure than those who are responsible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, but does he not agree that the South Wales East region fares poorly when it comes to infrastructure improvements under the metro project, compared to other parts of Wales?

As I’ve said to other Members, I think it’s essential, as part of our new approach and our refreshed approach—and I, again, in my speech last week also gave an indication of how I’ll be restructuring my department—that we pay more attention to those communities in those areas that have fared poorly during a period of economic growth. The Member asked about infrastructure and in particular connectivity. I think that’s absolutely essential, and the development of an £11.5 million extension of the railway line form Parkway to the Works site in Ebbw Vale, providing direct rail access to the enterprise zone, and which was completed in May 2015, is a great example of how Welsh Government can use its resources and its levers to better effect to ensure that all parts of Wales gain in economic growth.

I do in fact congratulate the Welsh Government on that extension into Ebbw Vale. It’s certainly very innovative and it’s great to see rail tracks being laid again.

Arriva Trains Wales tell us that they’re unable to offer a service into Newport because there is full capacity for the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line. Surely electrification and the enhanced service that this promises could help facilitate the operation of the line into Newport, which is a desperately needed link.

Of course, electrification of the main line and electrification of the Valleys lines are huge, huge asks that we’ve repeatedly made. In terms of capacity, there’s no doubt that electrification can assist in terms of being able to run more rolling stock more regularly, but, equally, we need to see more rolling stock on the existing railway infrastructure. I’ve spoken with Arriva Trains Wales, and with other operators, regarding the capacity problem that is affecting the rail services of Britain. I hope that ATW will be in a position, within the coming days, to be able to make an announcement concerning the Valleys lines.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Republic of Ireland with my colleague, Steffan Lewis, to meet Irish Government officials, policy makers and politicians to discuss the consequences of the UK leaving the EU for Ireland and for Wales. It’s fair to say that they shared our sense of trepidation. But,as with the economic crisis of 2008, they have at their disposal a tool that we do not—independence—and I don’t just mean an independent state, but also a whole raft of powerful executive bodies, established by the state, independent of, but working closely with, the central Government machine to drive economic strategy: the IDA, Ireland’s inward investment agency; the business development body, Enterprise Ireland; and Board Bia, the Irish food board, just to name some of them.

Now, this model has delivered a handsome return for Ireland, as we know—its GDP per capita has more than trebled since the 1980s, while we have sadly stagnated in relative terms. So, can I plead with the Cabinet Secretary, again, in the context of his current review of the Welsh Government’s economic advisory boards, to consider the case for an arm’s-length independent trade and investment promotion agency for Wales? The Republic has one, and Northern Ireland too; so does Scotland, and England through UKTI. Even the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have one. Can we afford to leave Wales naked in weathering this storm?

There are a number of points to make, I think. First of all, the Irish economy has fared well in part because so much of the Irish population is based in a city, and we know that cities have grown faster in terms of the economy than rural areas. So, it’s difficult to actually compare a country where a huge proportion of the population occupies an urban area that has grown faster by virtue of its urban nature, to Wales, where we are a far more rural country. That said, there are certainly lessons that can be learned from not just Ireland, but from other countries as well, and, as our fourth biggest export market, I think it is essential that we continue to engage with Ireland.

The Member may have seen in my speech last week my proposals to create regional economic units that will be able to drive economic growth and promote economic activities within their respective areas. I think this gives us a great opportunity because we already have the structures emerging on a regional basis, with the city regions and the growth deal region, to ensure that there is not competition, there is not duplication, but instead that there is a consistent approach at a local government level, a business level, and at a Welsh Government level as well.

As the Cabinet Secretary has just said, Ireland is a strategically vital export market for the Welsh economy, worth more than £800 million a year. Now, on the negative side, during our visit, we were told that moves were already afoot to start channelling freight to mainland Europe away from Welsh ports and through Roscoff. Is the Cabinet Secretary aware of this, and what is the Welsh Government planning to do in response? On the positive side, we were told that Irish businesses are looking to invest in the UK and in Wales in order to build up their presence in the UK market after Brexit. Now, this is a specific opportunity for the Welsh economy, with many established Irish companies, such as Dawn Meats in Carmarthenshire, for example, already here. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary whether his officials have already drawn up a list of Irish companies looking to invest or expand their existing operations? And, finally, given the important interrelationships between our two economies, will the Welsh Government consider investing in a permanent representation in Dublin and encourage his Irish counterparts to reopen the consulate general here in Wales, so we can strengthen the economic partnership between our two countries?

I think the partnership between our two countries extends, of course, beyond economic values as well. There are incredibly strong cultural ties between Ireland and Wales, which can deliver great economic benefits as well. I recall speaking with the President of Ireland a few years back about how we could utilise the Year of the Sea for the purpose of, potentially, a cultural crossing to not just promote our respective cultures, but also to drive visitors to and from Ireland and Wales. I think there are huge, huge potential opportunities—which can be had in spite of leaving the EU—to grow and develop our economies, which are often based on mutual interests. I do believe that there are opportunities for further investment in Wales by Irish investors, particularly in higher quality and higher GVA areas of economic activity—for example, in the life sciences sector.

In terms of ports, the development fund that is being made available for Welsh ports will be important, as will direct engagement between Welsh Government, local authorities, and also the ports themselves. I recently took part in a panel discussion with representatives of Welsh ports, and there is no doubt that, whilst there is trepidation concerning Brexit, there are also opportunities. We need to maximise those opportunities and ensure that we all work together to overcome the barriers and the challenges that Brexit will face. In terms of our ability to attract further foreign direct investment, of course Brexit will pose a challenge; we know that. But we’ve recorded, in recent years, record high—or near-record high—levels of foreign direct investment. We would hope to be able to maintain a good interest by foreign investors in the Welsh economy, but it’s also my intention to place a sharper focus on the potential growth of our economy, based on inward investment from England and Scotland, Northern Ireland, and also, of course, the growth in our existing companies, to ensure that they can be de-risked from growth and they can maximise on their potential.

It’s gratifying to hear that the Cabinet Secretary is engaging with Irish politicians. Could I urge him, in further discussions that he’ll have, to learn from some of the tools and tactics that the Irish themselves have adopted? The Irish Government has recently, for example, published a designated trade strategy. Wales doesn’t have, at the moment, a specific trade strategy. It sets out a targeted, regional approach for Asia, for the middle east, and Africa—key sectors where there are particular opportunities identified. It’s a whole-of-Government approach, which also incorporates other bilateral relationships, including education, culture and development aids, et cetera.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary will be aware that the most recent export statistics show that, even though Wales has a healthy trade surplus influence with the EU, we have a £3.7 billion deficit with the rest of the world, and that’s going to be a key market, obviously, post Brexit. We need a strategic approach from the Government, but we also need a sense of urgency. The Irish Government have already, through Bord Bia, created a Brexit barometer to help businesses assess how ready they are for the threats and opportunities that Brexit represents. As well as offering a similar barometer for Welsh business, perhaps the Government might want to sit the test themselves, because, compared to the Irish, I’m afraid we are currently wanting in the level of planning and preparedness for the biggest economic challenge that any of us have ever faced.

I agree that we do have an incredible challenge on our hands, and ahead of us, but I also believe that we have the right people within Government, and in partnership with Government, to see us through what will be a turbulent time. In terms of our operations abroad, I think one of the biggest mistakes that were made in recent times is the loss of many of the Welsh overseas operations. Of course, we’ve now reinstated them, and the results have been impressive. We now have officers in key strategic territories, in key strategic cities, engaging directly with potential investors, but also ensuring that we can promote Welsh goods and services to those markets where we know the greatest growth potential is. So, for example, whether it be in China—in Shanghai, Chongqing and Beijing—or whether it be in the United States, through Atlanta, San Francisco and New York, we are already targeting those territories, those regions and those cities where the growth will come from. But, in terms of a trade and investment strategy, this is part of the work that’s taken place between my office and the office of the First Minister to ensure that Wales is promoted better abroad, that we have a clear brand abroad, and that we are perceived as a place where people can access the highest quality goods and services, and where we have some distinctive values concerning the sustainability and fairness of our economy.

Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Russell George.

Cabinet Secretary, much has been made of the recent Demos report, which highlights the impact, of course, of Brexit on UK regions such as Wales. Now, on looking at the report in its entirety, a number of relevant and pertinent points are highlighted, including the potential for city deals and devolved administrations to look beyond the UK and the EU to attract foreign investment. In Wales there is still a very heavy reliance and strong reliance on exports, of course, to the EU. The latest figures suggest that 67 per cent of our exports go to the European Community, compared to just 44 per cent in 2012. So, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what steps you have taken to ensure that local authorities involved in city deals are using their influence to help Welsh businesses look beyond Europe and prepare for new exporting markets?

I think the Member makes a very important point in that local authorities have a significant role in promoting economic growth within their respective areas. One of my concerns in my time in this job has been the lack of capacity in some parts of Wales to do just that at a local authority level, and that’s why I commend the approach being taken at a regional level, through the city region and growth deal region areas, to bring together those who are successful in driving local growth and those who are experienced in exporting. Now, what we’ve done in south Wales and in north Wales—and we’re looking to do the same in mid Wales—is to bring together, at a local authority level, those who are responsible for economic development, and those who are experienced in exporting, and reach out to all potential exporters within any given region to make sure that they are being given all of the advice and support needed to take advantage of exports in the future.

Cabinet Secretary, there are investment opportunities, of course, outside of Europe, which the Demos report highlights, including China. Now, China currently represents 2 per cent of the Welsh export market, and exports have reduced by 3.5 per cent since 2013. A recent trade mission to China was largely to cement links with Welsh companies, but little has been reported on any substantive success in that regard. The Welsh Government has had five trade missions to China since 2012 and yet exports have not substantially increased since those visits. Will you, Cabinet Secretary, outline what you’ve planned to rebalance Welsh exports in favour of large markets such as China?

The trade mission wasn’t just about securing more export opportunities. It was also about securing investment opportunities as well, and, in that respect, the trip was clearly a success, because, during the course of the mission, I agreed two deals for investment in Wales, creating a good number of jobs. But the Member is right that there are huge export opportunities, particularly, I believe, in the food and drink sector in China. In terms of exports alone, the sector has grown by 95 per cent in the last 10 years, and, in terms of changing tastes and attitudes and customer persuasions, we know that China is a growth territory.

Recently, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs announced a £21 million fund through Project Helix to look globally at where emerging trends and changing trends offer up greater opportunities for the food and drink sector. This is to be commended. I think it will give us a great opportunity to grow the sector internationally and to create more jobs at home. But, insofar as China is concerned, I’m in no doubt that the strong cultural ties that we’ve established over the last decade should now result in more economic wins for Wales, and, in the years to come, that’s where I’m going to be focusing my attention. I think a great deal of work and a huge amount of success has been realised in terms of developing the cultural bonds between Chinese regions and Wales. But now I want to see those bonds translated into more jobs, more investment, and more exports for Welsh companies.

Now that the UK Government has triggered article 50, I would say it’s imperative, of course, that Wales has an economic strategy in place in order to support what is a fragile economic market. So, what is your plan to support SMEs specifically during this time? Can I also ask when you’ll be publishing your response to the UK Government’s industrial strategy?

I’ll be writing to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the coming weeks, outlining my response to the proposals. I’ve already met with Greg Clark in person and I’ve told him what I’ve said publicly, which is that there is little to disagree with in the strategy. There are areas of the strategy where I have a particular interest, especially those areas where we could see additional resource brought to Wales through research and development and innovation funding, and also through potential sector-specific deals. The quid pro quo is that the UK Government will work with Welsh Government in developing more detail of the industrial strategy, and, based on the discussions that I’ve had with the Secretary of State, I’m confident that we will be able to work closely together in this turbulent time, for the benefit not just of the Welsh economy, but of the whole of Britain.

Yes. Our Wales Screen service provides a full crew and locations service and promotes Wales to the global production industry. This results in Welsh life, our locations, and talent being featured on screen in a number of productions each year.

Thank you for that answer. I am pleased that efforts such as the showreel have succeeded in increasing the numbers of companies and projects that do shoot in Wales in recent years, but, compared to other countries, we’re still falling behind. I’d like to ask you what efforts you are making to improve how external production companies and film projects promote the fact that they have filmed in Wales. Can you also outline how you are encouraging companies and projects benefitting from Welsh Government funding to set their films in Wales, rather than, as is too often the case, using Wales as a stand-in for somewhere else? I’ve had a concern from a constituent about trying to encourage a distinct cultural element to any grants that are given out by Welsh Government. Ffilm Cymru seem to be quite explicit on their website that they will be promoting Welsh cultural content in relation to the films, but with regard to tv and Welsh Government funding, people are not so sure as to how you would potentially promote people who are interested in telling a story about our history to the people of Wales if they don’t know that they can do so.

I’m going to apologise in advance for using an expletive in answering the Member’s question. We do, where possible, influence productions so that they are not just filmed in Wales but also set in Wales. An example is ‘The Bastard Executioner’, which producers originally intended to be set in England, but which, after discussions with Welsh Government, was set instead in Wales. I think it would be worth my while to write to Members detailing the criteria that must be met in attracting investment from Welsh Government, because it does include specific requirements.

For example, it requires one or more of the following: exposure of as broad a range of images of Wales as possible; the telling of indigenous stories simultaneously in English and Welsh, which has proven to be hugely successful in productions such as ‘Hinterland’; and the exposure of the image of Wales to a wide international audience. But I’ll write to Members with full details of the criteria.

I think it is impressive that the Welsh creative industries have grown at a pace faster than any other region in the UK outside of London. This shows that there is a huge appetite to film in Wales. But, it also demonstrates the quality, I think, of the crews that we now have in Wales, particularly along the M4 corridor, which is proving to be one of the most magnetic filming hubs anywhere in Europe at present.

Cabinet Secretary, may I congratulate you on your energetic and sterling efforts to ensure that Wales is promoted in television and film productions? I noted with interest the promotional showreel introduced by Hollywood A-lister Michael Sheen, which features clips from some of the latest major productions filmed in Wales and which does promote everything that the country has to offer as a filming location. Twenty-sixteen was a successful year for Wales Screen, which handled 386 production inquiries with more than £41 million spent in Wales by productions, supported by this Welsh Labour Government. Cabinet Secretary, what can the Welsh Government do to encourage further promotion of Wales and Welsh culture in television and film productions?

Can I thank the Member for her question and also for the very keen interest that she’s shown, since her election to this Chamber, in the creative industries? Every single production that’s funded by the Wales Screen fund is required to pass a culture test. It goes beyond the culture test criteria designed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it also has Welsh-specific criteria designed to promote Wales and Welsh talent. I think that’s adding to the value of the Wales offer to film and television producers around the globe. Wales Screen works very successfully to attract productions to film in Wales, showcasing our incredible landscapes, which incidentally are the No. 1 factor for tourists to come to Wales, and also our cityscapes, to international audiences.

The Member may be interested to know that Wales Screen officials also market what can be had and what can be achieved in Wales to an international audience through direct contact with producers in the United States and in other key areas of the world, such as Cannes. We also host inward visits from top industry executives to market the benefits of making television and film in Wales. We also, on a very relentless basis, as shown through the recent promotion of the showreel, raise awareness of Wales as a great place in which to film.

Yes. The road safety framework for Wales sets out the actions we and our partners are taking to achieve our casualty reduction targets. I announced capital and revenue road safety grant funding on 22 March.

I was particularly pleased to see that, as part of that announcement last week, there was funding for road safety measures in my area, and particularly near schools. Hakin and Hubberston, Newtown High School, Presteigne primary and Lampeter are all now going to benefit. So, I thank you for that. But, under the Wales Act 2017, Welsh Ministers will now have more power over roads and transport, and that actually includes national speed limits. So, will you be exploring, Cabinet Secretary, how those powers might be used to further advance road safety, particularly in reduced speed outside schools and in built-up areas?

Yes, I most certainly will. I’m keen to see more 20 mph zones introduced around schools. There is only so much that our financial resources can achieve through educating young people. Other measures must be introduced and I do believe that we should look at reducing the speed of motorists passing places of education. For the next financial year, as the Member has highlighted, we’ll be making available almost £4 million in road safety capital grants to fund 31 road casualty reduction schemes across 16 local authorities, and we’re also delivering schemes that are benefiting 21 schools across Wales. But I do think that we need to continue to roll out our Safe Routes to Trunk Road Schools programme, which is seeing a huge number of schools in areas that are adjacent to trunk roads have 20 mph limits introduced. In terms of the powers that are to come to the Welsh Assembly through the Wales Bill, at this moment we don’t have powers to set a national speed limit. But the Wales Bill will give us the power to vary the national speed limit on local and trunk roads, including special roads, and it will also give the National Assembly the ability to legislate on national speed limits. I am looking this year— the Member may be interested to know—at the speed limit review, which is a review that examines whether speed limits should be reduced in congested areas, especially where there are schools. I’m looking to update that this very year because, as I said, I think it’s imperative that we do reduce the speed at which vehicles are travelling outside and near schools.

Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware that heavy goods vehicles frequently leave the road on the A470 between Talerddig and Dolfach where there is no road barrier or curb in place. You previously informed me that you intend to carry out another speed limit review of trunk roads this summer, which will prioritise a list of sites. However, the speed limit isn’t really the problem here; it’s the layout of the road and the fact that there are no warning signs or barriers. So, can I ask: will you commit the Welsh Government to assessing other preventative measures in addition to the imposition of speed limits on main trunk roads throughout mid Wales?

Yes, I’d gladly do that. And can I suggest that I visit that particular stretch of the A470 with the Member? I recently had representation from the Member’s colleague Darren Millar concerning a similar road in his constituency. I took a site visit there and, as a consequence, we are now looking at altering the signage at the road, which is often confusing. I think it’s absolutely essential that we give a clear indication to motorists of what is a safe speed, and not just the speed limit. Where the speed limit needs to be reduced we will do so on an evidence base, but also in conjunction, often, with the concerns of local communities. But where a road requires additional work to make it safer, I’m more than happy to consider investing in the particular infrastructure.

I’m particularly interested in cycle safety in my region. Can I draw your attention, Minister, to the active travel route map for Aberystwyth, which doesn’t include the Ystwyth trail? Now, the Ystwyth trail is the only traffic-free route from Aberystwyth out to suburbs like Rhydyfelin and Llanfarian. I know it well and it’s a very well-used route. However, it can’t be mapped, apparently, because the crossing across the trunk road in Trefechan isn’t up to standard. The trunk road is in your purview, but the local authority cannot map that and include it as an active travel or safe route because the crossing is deemed a ‘critical fail’, according to the Sustrans audit of the route. What action can you take, together with the local authority in Ceredigion, to try and improve that crossing so that we can include the Ystwyth trail, which has been constructed at some expense—including European money—in order to include it in our active travel so that it becomes more well-known and well-used in Aberystwyth and its environs?

Can I thank the Member for bringing this particular matter to my attention? It shames me to say that I wasn’t actually aware of this particular concern until today, but I will bring together officials of the local authority with trunk road officials to examine how this particular problem can be overcome, because on the basis of what the Member outlines, this challenge is not insurmountable and, first and foremost, we must consider the safety of cyclists, and we’ll do just that.

The strong performance of the ICT sector has created over 9,300 high-value jobs in Wales and we have the fastest growing digital economy outside of London. Our ongoing support to this enabling sector will assist the development of all Welsh businesses through the increased adoption of digital technologies.

Thank you, Minister. I see it as a very important industry and sector, which is continuing to grow, especially in areas such as e-commerce and robotics. Whilst, as you’ve said, there’s been very fast recent growth, Wales’s relative performance in information and communications technology is, according to the Office for National Statistics, one of the worst in any ONS-defined sector. We must also avoid getting into the 1970s mindset that ICT is mainly finance. Will the Cabinet Secretary congratulate Swansea city region on its commitment to the growth of the ICT industry as part of the city region programme?

I certainly will. The successful signing of the £1.3 billion Swansea bay city region city deal will provide an enormous economic boost, with investment spread right across the region, driving growth right across the south-west Wales region. I am sure that the Member knows that it’s been developed as a vision of how the region can position itself to take advantage of next-generation technology, drawing on its existing strengths, and consists of four themes: the internet of economic acceleration; an internet of life science, health and well-being; an internet of energy; and an internet of smart manufacturing. I think it underlines perfectly the enabling digital technologies in all areas of life that are essential to grow our economy.

With that in mind, of course, we have developed digital competency in schools and we’re developing digital frameworks for industry right across Wales. I can assure the Member and everybody else in the Chamber that we totally get that it’s not just about finance—it is, in fact, the underpinning technology for most advanced manufacturing in the world.

I agree that the city deal may well provide this big digital leap forward, but it’s worth remembering as well that Swansea is where Trudy Norris-Grey made her leap forward from—you obviously know, Minister, that she’s the managing director of central and eastern Europe public sector at Microsoft and chair of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. She claims that there are ‘fabulous opportunities’, to use her words, for women to take up careers in IT, but they don’t know about them. So, I’m wondering how Welsh Government can help Welsh businesses themselves—it’s not a question of skills so much as the businesses themselves—to better promote IT careers to women.

Trudy is an excellent role model—indeed, she co-presented with me at the WISE event that we had to get women into STEM here in the Senedd, which was an excellent event. We’ve worked very hard to get recognition of all of the aspects of the report on women in a talented Wales—I never get the title quite right—which, basically, is a cross-Government and cross-sector—business as well—vision of how we can get more women into STEM and, indeed, of how we can highlight careers to young girls in particular by highlighting the careers of really excellent women in STEM technologies right across the sector.

I had the privilege to sit next to a woman who was working in the genetics field at the St David Awards, and she was the winner. Indeed, we’re going to look to sponsor her to do a series of role model events right across Wales, for example, to highlight the role of BME females, and their essential role, actually, across the STEM area. One of the things I’m absolutely passionate about is giving young women the right role models to succeed. So, the Member will be aware that we’ve been promoting the purple plaque campaign, for example, to highlight the role of women across these areas of Wales in order to give those role models. We’ll be including business, through Business in the Community and our Business Class roll-out plans, in that, and I will be chairing the cross-Government board to make sure that we get that on track as well.

In the context of the Swansea bay city deal, and as that deal is now progressing, can I ask you what steps you as a Government are taking to assist those local councils in south-west Wales to deliver the private investment from IT companies that is crucially important to the success of the deal in trying to create quality jobs?

The Government’s been working very closely with the city deal partners in order to get the deal signed and approved, and to make sure that we have, although it’s not an appropriate word, shovel-ready projects—I don’t know—or finger-ready projects to go in this area—I’m not quite sure what the analogy is there. We’ve been working very hard as well with ESTnet, for example, to make sure that we have the underpinning digital technologies in our businesses to make sure that happens. I’m also running the Government data and digital group, which will be assisting local authority partners to make the most of their digital technologies, and we’ll be making some announcements in the near future about how we are rolling out some public sector development in that field in order to assist economic development in local authority areas.

We will make a decision on funding once we have all the submission detail; once the rigorous process of due diligence has been completed to our satisfaction and once the proposal has been considered by the Cabinet.

The Circuit of Wales, of course, is not asking for direct funding, as the £425 million is private investment. What they’re looking for is a guarantee—that’s what the project is awaiting. And, having exerted extreme pressure on the Circuit of Wales to come up with a commitment within two weeks, what confidence can the Cabinet Secretary give to those investors and enthusiastic supporters of the project, that a decision will be made imminently because every day leads to, I think, a weakening of that confidence that this project will go ahead?

Can I thank the Member for her question? And, of course, that extreme pressure that was applied did result in the formal proposal coming forward. The developers of the Circuit of Wales were not able to provide the information required to allow the due diligence process to commence until the end of last week. And it’s also regrettable that the information is currently incomplete. However, my officials and the appointed external advisors have commenced the due diligence process on the basis of the information provided, and, of course, subject to the company responding in a timely manner to any further enquiries. We then expect to able to report to Cabinet by mid-May.

Further to this question, we all recognise the eagerness of people, especially in Blaenau Gwent, for the decision on the Circuit of Wales project, particularly when you consider the claims made about the number of jobs it will create in the area. Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that this pressure will not result in decision making being taken until the most vigorous assessment of the viability and economic benefit of this project has been completed? Thank you.

Yes, I can. The number of jobs promised by the project developers will be thoroughly scrutinised by the consultants that are carrying out the due diligence process. The fit-and-proper-person tests began this week. There is a market appraisal being carried out by consultants who are looking at the potential job gains from the project, as well as the viability of the project as a whole in the current marketplace. I think it’s absolutely essential that the people of the Valleys, and, in particular, in Ebbw Vale, have a clear understanding and appreciation of the potential of this project, alongside, and potentially in addition to, other major schemes that are being forward by investors across the Valleys region, including but not exclusively limited to the Caerau Park investment, the Trago Mills investment at Merthyr Tydfil, and also the potential for a major planetarium in Hirwaun. All of these projects have huge potential, individually and collectively.

Seven weeks ago, at that dispatch box, on 8 February, the Cabinet Secretary told the Senedd that the due diligence process would take between four to six weeks. Now, if there’s been a problem with a lack of complete information, why hasn’t the Government done what the private sector would do in these kind of situations, in projects which are far larger than this, which is to get everyone in a room—their auditors, Grant Thornton, the company, their funders et cetera, and the Welsh Government—so that we can actually sort this out? In relation to the date that he’s now given us of mid-May, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the risk that poses to the financial viability of this project, given that that lengthens the requirement for bridge finance?

I need to be absolutely clear: we will not bypass due diligence for any decision. And it’s in the interests of the Circuit of Wales developers to ensure that we move as speedily for the consultants, carrying out due diligence, as they did for me when I set that time frame of two weeks to bring forward a formal proposal.

In terms of bringing them all into the room, this is precisely what we have been asking for, and we have been applying immense pressure. We have been applying immense pressure to the developers to provide the information that is required of them by the consultants. With that information, due diligence can be completed. It is in the interests of the developers to bring forward that information so that the people of Ebbw Vale and the Valleys know whether this is a viable project.

Can I support what Adam Price has just said? It’s not so much due diligence that we’re dealing with here but due dilatoriness, I think, because the Circuit of Wales developers have wanted this meeting around the table for some time, and they’ve not been given it. The limited nature of the guarantee that is being sought here is, I think, an important element in consideration. Because the guarantee itself is for funding on only 50 cent of the funding costs, but will be secured on 100 per cent of the assets, and it will not kick in anyway until those assets have been built, and there’s something physical that can form a security. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary has to go through a process of due diligence, but will he please get on with it?

We already did. That was the whole point of setting the two-week limit on bringing forward the formal proposal. Since that time, the Circuit of Wales developers have known precisely what information is required in the data room and they know precisely how to provide that information. It is for them to bring forward the information to conclude this matter, to give confidence to the people of Ebbw Vale and to prove that this is a viable project for Wales.

Yes. Current legislation permits the testing of autonomous vehicles across the UK. We recognise the potential that autonomous vehicles may have in improving road safety across the country and we’re maintaining a watching brief.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Well, driverless cars may eventually, of course, make an appearance on mid Wales’s roads in increasing numbers. As a result, what assessment has your department made of the use of autonomous cars, especially on minor roads and single-track roads, and especially in the circumstances where one of them requires you to decide who should reverse?

I’ve not reached the point of determining who is responsible for reversing. [Laughter.] But what we have been assessing is the potential of installing designated autonomous vehicle lanes on major trunk roads. I think this would give us an opportunity to capture a greater degree of investment in this particularly important sector of the automotive economy. Such investment is costly; it’s not inconsiderable, but it would give us an opportunity, for example, to test autonomous vehicles in a very safe way, including their ability to reverse when they meet head-on with other autonomous vehicles.

Thank you Cabinet Secretary.

Questions now to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. The first question, Leanne Wood.

Thank you for the question. Cwm Taf university health board, with its partners, continues to develop and deliver its plan to improve access to services to meet the health and well-being needs of people living in the Rhondda, as locally as possible.

On this significant day in politics, I think it’s worth noting that 22 per cent of general practitioners in Cwm Taf university health board are not originally from the UK. The constituency that I live in and represent relies heavily on doctors from overseas. This is not a new phenomenon, I’m sure, and it’s not a unique situation to ours locally. There are now serious concerns about how withdrawal from the EU will affect Wales’s ability to attract doctors from overseas in the future. Cabinet Secretary, what work is your department carrying out to ensure that the impact of EU withdrawal is minimised on our health services here in Wales?

I recognise fully the point that the Member for the Rhondda makes. It’s a concern, as you know, of this Government, too. In the aftermath of the referendum, and since then, we’ve made absolutely clear that members of staff and members of our communities from within the European Union and further afield are welcome here, not just as workers in our health and care services, but as citizens of our communities. Of course, you’re right to point out that there are significant numbers of people from outside of this country, from the Indian sub-continent in particular, but also those who are European Union citizens. Both the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council have done their own surveys, which show that a significant number of healthcare workers and doctors within our UK health system are reconsidering their future in the UK as a direct result of Brexit.

We are, of course, trying to consider and plan for future scenarios. The challenge is: until we have a viable plan before us as to what that means, it’s very difficult for us as a Government to have those conversations with the healthcare workers. We will be absolutely clear about the consistency of the message from this Government that people are welcome to stay and are valued, not just as workers but as part of our communities, but also I’ll continue to meet doctors’ representatives and other healthcare professionals themselves to discuss it. In fact, I’m due to meet the BMA to discuss this very issue next week.

Cabinet Secretary, pharmacists are very well placed to help GPs and improve access, therefore, to GP services, particularly around the management and review of medicines. I do think we could do better in this regard because there’s a lot of evidence that the poor use of medicines, or sometimes inappropriate use as well, is dragging back some of the health outcomes that we could otherwise gain.

Yes, I quite agree with you, which is why we’ve already invested in the Choose Pharmacy platform, the information technology platform that allows people to go for the minor ailments scheme to a range of pharmacies. Cwm Taf was one of the leading areas in Wales in delivering that, including in the Rhondda constituency that we’re discussing today. They’ve made the most progress of any health board in ensuring that the Choose Pharmacy facility is available.

It’s more than that; it is also about looking again at the previous initiatives I’ve announced, making sure that the payment for pharmacies isn’t just by volume, but the commitment we’ve made not to introduce the cuts they’ve had in England is also about delivering quality, not just volume, in the service provided, but also there’s the work that I’ve instigated with the chief pharmaceutical officer to discuss reviewing the medicines release scheme, and, actually, in particular, hospital pharmacies and what they do and what we could potentially get done on a community basis as well—that would help people to leave hospital on a more rapid basis, reinforcing the need for community services, and also mean that hospital pharmacies do what they really do need to do rather than having a longer wait for people to leave hospital. So, I agree entirely with you on the policy direction. The challenge is how fast we can move on an agreed area of practice.

We are already investing more in primary care in Wales. Overall, we spend some 22 per cent of our health budget on primary care services. I’m providing an additional £43 million a year through the national primary care fund and I recently announced that the new GP contract will increase investment by £27 million in the year just ahead of us.

I welcome those increases. To the extent that health systems in the UK have a reputation internationally for delivering good value, considerable emphasis is placed on the role of GPs as gatekeepers to the significantly more expensive parts of the system, particularly in hospitals. Given the pressures on GPs, would it not potentially assist the health Secretary, with the deficits he faces at hospitals and pressures elsewhere in the system, if he could ensure a steeper increase still in the investment going into GPs and their recruitment?

I wouldn’t quite agree with your reference to GPs as being gatekeepers. GPs are much more than gatekeepers to other parts of our healthcare system and service. What we are progressively doing with our partners in both the Royal College of General Practitioners and in the BMA is we’re looking to develop an agreed agenda on having a broader multidisciplinary team, of which GPs are essential leaders for primary care. I’m genuinely encouraged by the work being done in primary care clusters. And it’s fair to say—and I think I’ve said this before—that a range of GPs were relatively cynical about clusters when they were introduced, whether it would be an exercise in bureaucracy rather than service development and improvement, to help them deal with the very real pressures that they face. But there’s been a real buy-in into clusters, and GPs themselves can see how services are being developed and delivered with them in a leadership position to improve the quality of care they’re providing, but also to do something about the workforce pressures that they themselves face.

So, we’ll continue to deliver investment to support our aims and objectives of making sure primary care really is the continuing engine of the NHS here in Wales and we’ll continue to respect doctors and to have a genuine conversation with them and other healthcare professionals. I’ll have more to say in the rest of this year about recruitment and a range of other issues as well.

Cabinet Secretary, obviously earlier in the week it was well documented that four of the health boards are facing significant financial challenges, double what their equivalents over the other side of Offa’s Dyke are facing, and it will be a real struggle for many of these health boards to be able to reconfigure some of their services whilst managing those budgetary pressures. How confident are you that the four health boards—in particular, Hywel Dda has a budget deficit of nearly 10 per cent for this year—will be able to reconfigure services to the primary sector, given the pressures they face, on their budget, just managing what they’ve got?

I don’t accept your characterisation of the deficit as double what’s across our border. Over 90 per cent of trusts in England are in deficit. I just don’t accept that is an accurate and honest presentation of the position. In terms of the reality of managing within their means and managing to reconfigure services and deliver—a reshaped primary care—that actually relies on our relationship with our partners. It relies on our ability to recruit the right mix of staff into working in a different way. The direction of travel we are taking is actually encouraging people to work in Wales, and to stay in Wales as well. It’s a better environment for GPs to work in, as well as other professionals too.

There will never be a time when the NHS is free from financial pressures—and I don’t try to pretend that at all. But I don’t think that the conversations around the headline deficits that we’ve discussed at length over the last two days are any sort of excuse for not getting on with delivering a much greater emphasis on primary care, in shifting services into primary care, and recognising the key importance of this area of the service for the future of our national health service.

Can I raise a point of order, Presiding Officer?

No, you can’t.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. My colleague Steffan Lewis yesterday asked the First Minister to reopen a specialist mother and baby perinatal unit, following the closure of Wales’s last unit in 2013. The First Minister said that, in the past few years, fewer than five new mothers were referred to an in-patient unit in Wales. I’ve no idea what he was talking about—we haven’t got a mother and baby unit in Wales. Where he got the figure five from, I’ve no idea either. But his argument was that we don’t have the demand.

Between January 2015 and January 2017, we have identified 21 women in the Cardiff area alone who would have been admitted to a unit had that still been open. Of those, six were referred to an out-of-area unit, but only two actually went, because the others did not want to be separated from their families. Do you accept that the demand is higher than the First Minister suggested yesterday?

The First Minister was accurately presenting the number of women who had actually been admitted into an in-patient unit in each of the last three years. And there’s an issue of genuine significance and importance here, which I don’t try to underplay at all. What we have to be able to do is understand the evidence available to us of what a genuinely sustainable and the proper quality in the service we’re able to provide. The previous service, the staff weren’t able to maintain their skills to provide the sort of high-quality service people would want.

And the challenge is not whether a single unit in itself would actually resolve all of those problems, if it was physically located within Wales. As you know, I’ve commissioned, through the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, a review of the evidence on what is available in Wales from a need point of view, and our ability to meet that need, whether in Wales or otherwise. That review will report later in the year and, of course, I will expect to share the findings and the advice, and my response, with Members who are here today, and I’m sure will maintain an interest in it. I accept that it is, obviously, important to Members across this Chamber.

Referring to the answer of the First Minister yesterday, Steffan Lewis asked specifically, as I have done today, about mother and baby unit referrals. We have no mother and baby unit in Wales. Community services, they only came in three years after the closures, but, of course, we appreciate that they’re needed. But, in instances of post-partum psychosis, for example, we need in-patient mother and baby facilities. That is what the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines say. The service standards quoted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists don’t even refer to critical mass figures; they merely say that services should be planned on a regional basis, that people should have equity of access wherever they live. They speak of using staff to work in the community when in-patient occupancy levels are low. They certainly don’t advocate closing units.

The royal college tells us that we can expect 140 women a year in Wales to require admission to a mother and baby unit—more than enough to make a unit viable. Now, there must be, in that context, a case for reconsidering your position on whether Wales should have a specialist mother and baby unit. And, indeed, going beyond the situation in the south of Wales, the RCP figures point to the need not just to reopen that centre, but for a new centre in the north too, if it’s demand we’re looking for.

I think we do need to think again, like I said, to take a step back, and think about what we are able to do, and able to do to the right quality and the right state that all of us would expect. I’ve indicated, the figures—I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that there’s been a misdescription of the figures. We’re talking about people referred to an in-patient unit, who have gone to an in-patient mother and baby unit, that we have actually commissioned that care for mothers and their babies. And the challenge over the figures is really about, ‘Is that enough to sustain a unit in Wales?’ as opposed to politicians’ arguments. That’s why I’ve commissioned WHSSC to undertake the review. So, it isn’t about you and me, as party politicians or individual representatives, trying to make a case on the basis of our understanding of figures. I’m actually going to people who run and deliver a service, and will commission that service, to understand if that need is there, and could and should we best meet that need by locating a unit physically within Wales. Because, of course, you’ll know that the distance to, say, a unit in Bristol is a challenge for a number of women in Wales, just as it would be if you lived in St David’s to a unit in Cardiff, if you lived in Ceredigion, or if you lived in Bangor. There’s a challenge here about that physical access to a unit regardless of where that unit is physically based, whether in Wales or outside. And that has to be part of the honest question that we ask ourselves, and that’s why I’ve commissioned the advice as a proper objective basis upon which to make a decision.

But where units are based does matter. It matters in terms of access, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists say. It is quite clear, I think, from our figures and case studies, that the consequences of outsourcing have been to see mothers choosing no in-patient treatment over treatment that means separation from their families. So, patient care has suffered. There are child safety issues coming into play here, and it makes no financial sense either. It has become clear that the service being commissioned in England, whilst treating fewer patients, has ended up being more expensive. Your Government has pursued centralisation and outsourcing without question it seems. And on this one in particular, is it not time that you admitted you got it wrong?

I really don’t think that that is a responsible approach to a really challenging issue for all of us. Everyone in this Chamber will care that we ensure we get the right response for families and babies here in Wales. Just on the reference to outsourcing, just to be absolutely clear, ‘outsourcing’ is often referred to as ‘privatisation’ in that sort of language. We are commissioning care from the NHS in England. We aren’t privatising the service. You haven’t suggested we are, but ‘outsourcing’ is regularly used as a term that other people understand to be privatising the service. That absolutely hasn’t happened.

I don’t recognise where you say that there are child safety issues that arise from this because we don’t have a physical mother and baby unit here anywhere within Wales. And I simply say to you again: in terms of the location, I accept that location matters. That’s why I say that if you live in St David’s in west Wales and the unit is physically in Cardiff, that practically is a long way for you to travel in any event. Simply saying, ‘Locate a unit in Cardiff’ does not resolve all of the physical access issues. And there has to be a more sensible conversation to make sure we get the right response to this. That’s why we’ve commissioned expert advice, so that there’s a properly objective basis for me to be scrutinised upon, but also for the Government to make a decision upon. And I am proud of the fact that we are investing in community services, because, often, what people do want is support within their community and that’s often more appropriate.

I’m looking forward actually to—. I understand that the Children, Young People and Education Committee are looking to have an inquiry into this area, and I look forward to giving evidence to that committee, answering questions before Members and, again, having an evidence-based discussion for all of us about what is the right choice for families and their babies in Wales.

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Angela Burns.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made of the rates of ill health and absences within the Welsh NHS?

We regularly review absence figures. In fact, it’s part of the appraisal process that I have with the chairs of each of the health boards. I look at their absence rates and whether there is improvement or otherwise. We’ve seen some improvement in the last three years generally, in particular in the Welsh ambulance service, and I don’t think that’s unrelated to their improvement in performance. So, it’s a regular cause of concern, but I wouldn’t pretend to have every single part of the detail at my fingertips today.

Let me give you a little bit of help on that one then. The data that the Welsh Conservatives have obtained from health boards show that anxiety, stress, depression and other unspecified psychiatric illnesses affected 7,945 NHS staff members in 2015-16. Those 7,945 staff members racked up a total of 345,957 days of absence, which is equivalent to 948 years of person hours that were lost to the NHS in one year. That’s 948 years’ worth of person hours. Cabinet Secretary, I’d be really interested to know what you are going to be doing to address this issue. And, remember, that was just on mental health issues. That did not take into account absences due to other diseases, musculoskeletal conditions, or any other physical ailment.

This is why it’s a priority for discussion with chairs in their appraisal process between myself, as the relevant Cabinet Secretary, and chairs of health boards. So, there is an understanding that we want to see further improvement. Some of this, in terms of absence management, is understanding the reasons why people are ill and out of work: sometimes that is about work and sometimes those are reasons outside work. But it’s about what appropriate support is required to help some return to the workplace. That’s why we place importance on occupational health services. For example, we’ve actually expanded, alongside the British Medical Association, the occupational health service for GPs as well, to think about how that works for people employed in primary care too. So, this was also raised with me by Unison, when I recently met them in terms of the campaigning work that they’re doing with their members. I understand perfectly why any trade union would want to raise the issue with me in that conversation. So, it is an issue that we understand; it is an issue where we want to see further improvement because, ultimately, it’s better for the individual member of staff, better for the service that they work in and ultimately for the service that we fund and provide.

I couldn’t agree with you more that this is an issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It’s more than just the individual. Yesterday, we had a long discussion about the deficits that we are seeing in the Welsh NHS in some of our trusts. We know that we have a recruitment issue—we can’t get enough doctors, nurses and all the other staff. We also know that, for example, the cost of bank nurses who are on contracts for over a year is extraordinarily high, as is the cost of locum doctors and consultants. We know that health boards are not recruiting secretarial staff when they’re about to leave until after they’ve gone, which of course puts consultants and doctors really far behind because they can’t get the notes out on all the patients that they see, and it’s creating a real logjam. If we could just bring some of those hours back into play through adequate support for those individuals, then that would have an enormous financial and medical benefit for the NHS.

These statistics, in comparison to the English statistics, are pretty damning. You just mentioned ambulance staff, but the latest figures that are available, which are July to September 2016, show a rate of 7.5 per cent of staff off in Wales, compared to only 5.4 per cent of staff off in England. This gap’s been similar over the last five years.

Cabinet Secretary, in England, they’ve been piloting a rapid access to treatment system. I wonder if I can persuade you to start having a good look at this. I have discussed it with some of the health boards. This is not about trying to develop a two-tier NHS, and I want to make that absolutely crystal-clear, but given our lack of financial resource in the NHS, and given the difficulty that we have in replacing staff and recruiting staff to the NHS, it seems to be really imprudent not to try to encourage the NHS staff that we have to come back into work sooner rather than later. It’s good for them. You said it yourself: it’s great to support them. There are some good lessons to be learnt over the border and I’d like to see that you are big enough to be able to accept that there are other home nations that have tackled this in different ways. Let’s see if we can bring some of that best practice over here and get some of our hard-working staff back into the saddle, because we need them and they need to be back in their jobs, earning a good salary, and feeling much better themselves.

I have no difficulty at all in looking at other parts of UK nations to understand where there is better practice for us to adopt or to adapt. In areas of HR management, we always look at where best practice exists so that staff do feel properly supported. I recognise the comments that you made about the financial position of the health service—about the very real challenges that exists, with health inflation always running at a higher rate than other services too.

The reason why our ambulance rates have improved and why I think, in the next figures to come out, we can expect to see improvement in our figures here in Wales is largely because the working environment has improved and because staff do feel better supported now. I won’t pretend that everything is perfect—far from it—but I do expect to see a continuing effort to see the partnership approach, which we value here in Wales, deliver improvement, not just in terms of our industrial relationships, but actually in our abilities to support people to get into work at an earlier stage because I think that the great majority of our staff want to be in work and want to be providing care directly for the communities that they live in and that they serve. So, I don’t think there’s any disagreement about the policy direction; it’s simply about our ability to deliver that improvement.

UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, the overspending by the local health boards can be equated to the large amounts spent on agency nursing. Last year, the Welsh NHS was spending £2.5 million each week on agency staff, which will undoubtedly be cut back next year. However, we simply don’t have the permanent staff available to make up the shortfall, so it will be patient care that suffers. Cabinet Secretary, how will your Government ensure that local health boards are sufficiently funded to provide safe staffing levels in the coming financial year?

We fully expect every NHS service to have safe staffing levels. I recognise what you say about agency costs, in that it isn’t just nursing agency costs; there are agency and locum costs across our system that are part of the very real financial challenge that we face in delivering and sustaining models of care. There’s an honest conversation to be had about whether we are sustaining models of care that are right and appropriate, or whether we’re actually spending money in a way that isn’t very efficient or appropriate. So, that’s a conversation that each of us will need to engage in, but, of course, in the field of nursing, we’re extending nursing levels with the implementation of the nursing levels Act. So, I expect to see more nurses recruited to Wales on a permanent basis.

But, following the first question that’s been asked, you’ll recognise that there is a challenge to that with the reality of how European Union based staff feel about coming into the UK. There are figures that are publically available on the number of nurses that have either left the UK, or are no longer considering coming here. In particular, in England, the source of recruitment from the European Union, as I say, has dried up significantly, and that is a real challenge for us in sustaining our services, and what that does mean in terms of having to pay an even higher cost to get staff into our health service to provide the care that all of us would expect to be delivered.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Assembly passed the nurse staffing levels Act last year with the promise that this new legislation would deliver safeguards for patient safety and put an end to situations where nurses find they have insufficient time to properly care for patients. Your Government is currently consulting on the statutory guidance that leaves out any mention of the recommended nurse-to-patient ratios and any mention of the supernumerary status of ward sisters. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that this consultation sends out the wrong message about safe staffing levels, and will you commit to revising the guidance to include everything that was promised when the Act was debated?

It’s exactly what it is—it’s a consultation. I expect to have responses, I expect to have advice from our professional nursing officers here, including, of course, the chief nursing officer, on what is appropriate in terms of delivering patient care and meeting the objective of the Act that this place has passed, and in delivering high-quality nursing care as we look to further develop the nurse staffing Act in other areas of practice across our NHS here in Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Safe staffing levels should apply to all settings. As we move to a health service that aims to deliver more and more services in the community, we must ensure that community nursing teams do not have an excessive patient workload. The number of district nurses working in Wales has fallen by over 40 per cent in recent years, but, according to the Royal College of Nursing, their workload has increased tenfold. What plans does your Government have to introduce safe staffing levels for community nurses and what actions are you taking to increase the number of district nurses and reduce their workload?

Well, of course, we will be guided by evidence and the professional advice of the chief nursing officer’s office. That’s actually something that the RCN supports. They’re very pleased that we haven’t taken the approach across our border in effectively removing a chief nursing officer from within the Government to give professional advice to the relevant Minister. I’ve been absolutely clear with the RCN and other stakeholders that I’ll be guided by the evidence and advice on the implementation of the nurse staffing levels Act, and taking an evidence-led approach to further expanding that reach across the service. So, we’re looking at different options about where would be the next appropriate place within the service to introduce and to reinforce the Act.

But, in terms of our ability to recruit more nurses in district nursing and beyond, of course, recently I announced a £95 million additional investment in nursing and other professions for the NHS here in Wales, which should lead to another 3,000 training places across professions and that will include 30 per cent more nurses after an extra 10 per cent last year, a 22 per cent increase the year before that and more than a 4 per cent increase in midwives in this year, as well. So, we are investing in our future and I’m proud to have taken that decision to safeguard the future of our service here in Wales.

Yes. I expect all patients to be seen in a timely manner based on clinical need. I expect the health board to continue to work closely with the planned care programme to develop a sustainable service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I understand that much of the routine orthopaedic surgery in the north Wales region is outsourced to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in Oswestry. May I just read from a letter I have received from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, which, as I’m sure you’re aware, is under special measures? He says that not investing in elective orthopaedic services for decades has created a situation where the health board is trapped and now cannot even protect these elective orthopaedic services. He goes on to say that this poor investment planning, lack of vision and short-term arrangements that have gone on for probably over two decades is now encroaching on the quality of life of many chronic joint pain sufferers, who are waiting scandalous times for their treatments.

Do you know, Cabinet Secretary, how much money is going over the border for orthopaedic treatment? Do you agree that this money is better invested in north Wales? In reply to Mark Reckless, you said that you respect doctors and want to have a genuine conversation with them. In light of that, would you agree to meet with me and several orthopaedic surgeons in north Wales to help you to better understand what the actual problems are, but also to look at positive outcomes and how we can address these problems?

Of course, I recognise the challenge of orthopaedics as a speciality in north Wales in particular. It makes up the greater number of those people waiting too long, and waiting beyond our waiting time standard, in the north Wales area. I also recognise that we commission care on a regular basis from providers within England. In fact, the spinal surgery speciality is commissioned from Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt, and we’re currently commissioning additional places and additional procedures over the border as well, and that’s because we do have a problem and some people waiting too long. We can either say that we’re prepared to invest some money in the here and now to try and make sure that we bring those numbers down, or we say that we’ll only spend that money within the system. It’s a balancing act, of course, and what I’ve been really clear about is that we need to maintain and improve the level of performance in the here and now, because it isn’t in a place that I or any other Member would say is acceptable. That also means, though, that the health board have to, with the clinical community, come up with a plan for the future.

I actually met the orthopaedic team in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd on my last trip to north Wales, just a few weeks ago, and they too recognise there’s a need for improvement. There’s a need to have a view across north Wales, rather than three or four centres competing with each other about what a new service might look like, so that it’s not just about the operative end where people go in for procedures, but also about the care in the community—so, primary care, the musculoskeletal service. We’ve got to look at the whole picture. I’m expecting that there will be a plan that will come to the health board within a matter of weeks, as opposed to several months, setting out proposals on what the future could look like. So, I’ve met surgeons in the past, and I’m sure I’ll meet members of the orthopaedic team in the future, but I’m looking forward to receiving that plan to then understand what the timescales are for success, and what they believe success could and should look like for people in north Wales.

Can I just ask you, Minister, given that this health board is in special measures—? We are almost two years into those special measures and one of the reasons it was put into special measures was because of the performance against referral-to-treatment waiting times, including on orthopaedic waiting times. Over the period it’s been in special measures, run, effectively, by the Welsh Government for those services, those waiting times have gone up. Do you accept some responsibility for the poor performance at the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, and will you apologise to those constituents in my constituency who are waiting 112 weeks for routine appointments at Glan Clwyd for their orthopaedic surgery?

I’m ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the health service as the Cabinet Secretary for health. That means all the things that don’t go well, where people wait too long, as well as those things where people want to praise the service too. I don’t shy away from my responsibility in any regard whatsoever. In the discussion that I had recently with surgeons in Glan Clwyd, they were clear that they wanted to get over that those long waiters have not been waiting for routine appointments; they’re actually at the more complex end. But the challenge is, and they accept that—

One hundred and twelve weeks is the routine waiting time.

[Continues.]—regardless as to whether it’s routine or complex—and these are complex patients that we’re talking about—they’re still waiting too long. And, actually, it’s the job of the health service to come up with a plan to resolve that, and that’s what the surgeons say they’re committed to doing, and that’s why, in response to Nathan Gill’s questions, I was able to indicate I’m expecting that plan to be delivered and discussed with the board over a matter of some weeks, and I look forward having a proper briefing on what that plan contains and the measures of success to be delivered within that. As you’ll know from our previous conversation in the last questions, Darren Millar, there’s been an 83 per cent increase in demand over the last four years against a one third increase in the number of operations carried out. We clearly need to do something to better manage the demand and the ability to meet that demand within north Wales.

We’ve continued to protect social care with significant funding. An additional £55 million has been made available for social care in 2017-18, and this includes the £20 million for social care announced earlier this week. We have also provided £60 million for the integrated care fund.

Thank you, Minister. I am happy to acknowledge the additional moneys that you’ve committed to social care. Even so, by my calculation, I don’t think the full Barnett consequential of the Chancellor’s £2 billion for social care has found its way into your budget, but I’ll leave that for another day. Because, despite those considerable additional funds made available for social care in Wales, local authorities in my region have cut next year’s social care budget by £2.2 million, raised it by just 0.3 per cent, or have predicted an underspend on last year by nearly £0.5 million. If you’ve found extra money for social care because social care needed that money, how are you making sure that local authorities are spending it on social care? I’m sure you can give me a far more informed answer than the default answer that I got from the First Minister yesterday. I think we all have far more confidence in you than in Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you.

Well, the majority of funding, as you’ll know, provided by the Welsh Government to local authorities is unhypothecated through the revenue support grant, so that does give local authorities the freedom to spend this funding according to their own priorities and their own needs that they’ve found. But, it’s important to recognise that specific grants do have a role to play in ensuring that new priorities are resourced and given sufficient importance in delivery terms. So, I’d refer you particularly to the additional £10 million funding that we’re providing to local authorities to meet the challenges of the national living wage. This will be allocated to local authorities using the standard spending assessment formula, but half of that grant will be made available upon commitment of local authorities to the terms, grants and conditions, and then the second payment will be contingent on our confidence that the grant is delivering its objectives. So, meeting the pressures that the national living wage put on the sector is extremely important in terms of giving us a workforce that is sustainable and that is well paid, well remunerated and respected and that eventually will lead to a career that people want to come into, where they see career progression. Obviously, the work that Social Care Wales will be taking forward from Monday as of next week will be important in that, as will the registration of domiciliary care workers from 2020.

We have a wide range of policies designed to help support people with long-term, fluctuating health conditions to maximise their quality of life for as long as possible.

Thank you. Given evidence that the suicide rate amongst people with the neurological condition myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, is more than six times higher than that of the general population, what actions is the Welsh Government taking to move forward with the recommendations set out in the ME/CFS and fibromyalgia task and finish group’s August 2014 report to address the lack of appropriate healthcare services for people with ME?

I don’t have the specific detail to answer the detail of that question. I’ll happily write to the Member, and copy in other Members, to give him detail on the specific questions that he raises.

I’ve recently been doing some work to support the campaign to raise awareness of ME or chronic fatigue syndrome ahead of ME Awareness Week in May and to support the work of ME Support in Glamorgan, which is run by a constituent of mine. What the campaigners tell me is that they’d like not only better awareness among GPs about the condition, but faster diagnosis. They also say that they’d like specialist facilities here in Wales, as some are having to travel far afield to help their recovery. What can the Cabinet Secretary do to help promote faster diagnosis, and are there any plans to create a specialist centre in Wales?

I’m not aware that we have plans to create a specialist centre in Wales. We do, though, have a chronic fatigue syndrome and an ME implementation group that are considering how we improve the service here in Wales. And, again, when I respond on the initial point, I’m happy to provide a more general update for Members on the points you raised as well, about faster diagnosis and plans for the future service.

We’re pleased that the overall figures show access is improving, but recognise there is still more to be done, including scaling up new ways of accessing services, and we’re working with the General Practitioners Committee Wales and health boards on new initiatives to improve access to integrated, GP-led multi-professional services.

Thank you for that answer, but I wonder if you are intending to—or are working with the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales? Because, of course, you recently published a report that was entitled ‘GP Services in Wales: The Perspective of Older People’, and it highlighted that far too many of the older population find making an appointment challenging, find the GP service inflexible and unresponsive to their individual needs and circumstances, don’t recognise the difficulties they have in accessing or being IT literate, or using information technology communication methods. So, I just wonder what you and your Government are doing to ensure that older people do not feel that the one place that they should really be able to access with ease is actually being slowly walled off from them.

I recognise the challenge, and, of course, it’s not just older people who occasionally have difficulties accessing primary care. The great majority of people don’t, but, if you’re in an area where it is a challenge, it doesn’t really help you that you get told that, somewhere else in Wales, access is much easier. On the specifics of the older person’s commissioner’s report, I’ve already written to health boards highlighting the recommendations and indicating that I expect them to respond to them. Because, in the new ways of working that are being developed, there is always a need for professionals running and delivering the service to discuss those with their patients, so they understand what they can expect and about how to make best use of any change in the system. Because I do recognise this is an area where improvement is needed, and that’s part of our conversations with the BMA through GPC Wales.

Surely, Cabinet Secretary, one of the other ways of improving access to GPs is to reduce unnecessary burdens, and I’ve seen first hand the tremendous work of community pharmacists in my own constituency dealing with, for example, minor ailments. So, I wonder what hope he holds out that the Choose Pharmacy platform, where patients can, with some knowledge, actually access community pharmacies to deal with those things that will take some of the load away from GPs—so that GPs are freed up then to deal with very much the type of patients that Angela Burns has just been referring to.

I’m generally optimistic about the ability of community pharmacy to play a larger role, as well as the pharmacists that clusters are employing themselves to help with access in their own individual areas. You’ll be aware that we invested £750,000 in introducing and delivering the community pharmacy IT platform across Wales. The roll-out is progressing, and I’m happy to say we remain absolutely on track for over half of pharmacies in Wales, by the end of March next year, to be able to deliver the Choose Pharmacy platform. That will mean the ability to go to a local pharmacy to undertake the minor ailments scheme is significantly improved. It should also mean demand is much more appropriately managed, so that people who really do need to see a GP have a better prospect of seeing them, but also the GP should then have more time to see those patients as well.

On the back of that question, of course, naturally, we still have to have GPs to deal with those problems that only a doctor can deal with. And this week we’ve heard that the Coelbren surgery in my region is going to close because the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board has failed to find general practitioners to work there, even though they’ve been trying for some months to do that. In light of that, what are you, as a Government, going to do to find a solution to this problem?

It’s a regular cause of comment and discussion with the profession and with partners around it. Of course, I was recently at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s inquiry, giving evidence about doctor recruitment. I’m looking forward to providing figures on filling our training places for GPs in the next few weeks, and I do think that the ‘Train. Work. Live’ campaign has had a really positive impact. We’ll also know more about that—not just about the social media profile it’s had, but actually with actually filling those places as well. But there will always be a challenge in actually remodelling primary care and understanding, where those centres currently are now, should they still be the places where we recruit and deliver the service to in the future, So, it is part of that wider conversation on reshaping and reforming primary care.

I’ll say it again: the conversations we have with the British Medical Association, with the Royal College of General Practitioners, but other professionals as well, are really important in doing that. This isn’t a process of imposition. It’s a process of conversation, partnership and learning on what already works. That’s why the visit that I had to the Neath Pacesetter with both Jeremy Miles and David Rees was particularly important to see how some GPs are already living up to and changing the way they deliver care, with a wider range of care being available. Actually, for GPs themselves, they think it’s a better way for them to work and a better way for their patients to access the service.

Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitment to embed healthy living in all of our programmes and to publish a ‘healthy and active’ strategy. This will build on our current legislation, programmes, and work across Government that aim to support people to make healthier choices.

Thank you for that. I believe the most important action that can be taken to improve the health of the people of Wales is to promote a healthy lifestyle. One of the successes of Communities First in Swansea was its programmes of smoking cessation, improving diet, and increasing physical activity. What is the Government doing to try and reduce smoking rates, reduce inactivity, and combat obesity in order to improve the health of the people of Wales?

I thank you for that question. Over many years we have seen some good success in terms of reducing smoking levels in Wales. Actually, fewer people now smoke in Wales than have done since records began, but I think it’s fair to say that we still have some way to go. In order to move towards getting to our target of 16 per cent by 2020, we’ve established a new tobacco control strategic board to produce a new tobacco control delivery plan for 2017 to 2020 to oversee that action. I think it’s particularly important that we support young people not to start smoking in the first place, and we have the JustB programme, run by Public Health Wales, and that trains young people to talk to other young people about the benefits of staying smoke-free, and also the Commit to Quit programme, which is run by Action on Smoking and Health Wales, which helps young people to stop smoking.

With regard to tackling obesity, you’ll be pleased to know that, in our deliberations at Stage 2 of the public health Bill, I’ve agreed to bring forward amendment at Stage 3 that will commit the Welsh Government to introducing a strategy in order to tackle obesity. We also, of course, have that commitment for the ‘healthy and active’ strategy, which does put health and well-being as one of our priorities, where it rightly belongs, with numerous proposals then in order to take that forward as a cross-Government objective.

We also have some settings-based approaches through schools and workplaces, and also our legislative approaches, such as the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, and campaign work such as the Public Health Wales ‘10 Steps to a Healthy Weight’ programme, as well as many local interventions for preventing or managing obesity, some of which you referred to in your own area.

In South Wales Central, the University Hospital of Wales is the only site. Across NHS Wales there are three hospital sites that have external contracts in place until 2018 and that charge for parking. Parking at all other sites is free of charge to patients, staff, and visitors.

Yes, thanks for the answer. There has been a lot of contention about the charges, particularly at the university hospital, known as Heath hospital colloquially. Recently, there was an instance of a nurse who was charged despite leaving a sign on her dashboard saying that she was a cardiac emergency nurse on call. So, the wardens may have been over-zealous in their approach. I understand that the deal is running out next year. Could the Minister give any assurances that, once the deal does expire, parking charges will end at Heath hospital?

Yes, we’ve been absolutely upfront that those charges will end at the end of the contract. Look, I think there are two different issues, though, with respect, that I think may be slightly being confused, Presiding Officer. One is charges for car parking spaces, and the other is parking on site. There has been an issue at the Heath about parking on site. It’s helpful for all Members to remember that part of the reason why a different approach was taken to parking in other places outside of car parking zones and car parks themselves was because there were challenges about the site itself and, in fact, there was a death, probably as a result of parking in an inappropriate place on the site. So, we need to consider the two different things separately: one is how parking is managed on the Heath, outside of car parks, and the other is our clear commitment to free parking on all hospital sites by March 2018.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the statement by the First Minister on the response to article 50. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Llywydd. Members will know that the Prime Minister of the UK has this afternoon written to the President of the European Council formally declaring the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union, as required under article 50 of the treaty governing the EU. So, today marks the end of easy rhetoric and the beginning of serious negotiation.

Gallaf ddweud, Llywydd, fy mod wedi trafod y llythyr erthygl 50 yn gyffredinol â’r Prif Weinidog pan gyfarfuom yn Abertawe yr wythnos diwethaf. Dylwn ei gwneud yn glir, fodd bynnag, na welais y llythyr cyn heddiw ac ni chawsom ein gwahodd i gyfrannu at y broses o’i ddrafftio. Mae hyn yn annerbyniol ac yn benllanw i broses hynod rwystredig pan gafodd y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eu trin â diffyg parch yn gyson. Mae hyn i gyd hyd yn oed yn fwy anffodus o ystyried mai nod datganedig Llywodraeth y DU ei hun oedd datblygu fframwaith negodi ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Maent wedi colli’r cyfle i roi mynegiant clir i’r nod hwnnw.

Lywydd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn credu yn y DU lawn cymaint ag y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn credu ynddi, hyd yn oed os yw ein gweledigaeth yn wahanol iawn i’w gweledigaeth hwy. Os yw’r Prif Weinidog yn credu go iawn yn yr undeb ac yn credu mewn adlewyrchu dymuniad y DU gyfan, yna mae angen iddi fabwysiadu ymagwedd wahanol iawn. Nid wyf yn gweld sut y gall y Prif Weinidog honni ei bod yn negodi ar ran y DU gyfan pan fo’n anwybyddu hawliau’r Llywodraeth hon i siarad ar ran pobl Cymru.

Fodd bynnag, Llywydd, rwyf bob amser wedi dweud yn glir fod yn rhaid parchu canlyniad y refferendwm ac anfon llythyr erthygl 50 yw’r canlyniad rhesymegol i’r canlyniad hwnnw. Galwais gyfarfod o’r Cabinet yn gynharach y prynhawn yma ac ar ôl misoedd o ddyfalu, gallwn symud ymlaen yn awr at y trafodaethau. Lywydd, ym mis Ionawr, amlinellodd Llywodraeth Cymru, gan weithio gyda Phlaid Cymru, ymagwedd gredadwy, gynhwysfawr ac awdurdodol tuag at adael yr UE yn ein Papur Gwyn ‘Diogelu Dyfodol Cymru’. Diffiniwyd blaenoriaethau Cymru yn glir gennym ar gyfer trafodaethau’r UE a gwnaethom hynny mewn ffordd sy’n gweithio ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Galwem am barhau mynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl. Galwem am fwy o reolaeth ar fudo drwy wneud cyswllt clir â gwaith, gan warchod rhag camfanteisio ar weithwyr, am gynnydd yn y grant bloc i gymryd lle swm cyllid blynyddol yr UE o £680 miliwn, heb unrhyw ragamodau ynglŷn â sut y caiff hwnnw ei ddefnyddio. Galwem am barch llawn i’r setliad datganoli wrth ddiwygio cyfansoddiad y DU i’w wneud yn addas i’r diben ar ôl gadael yr UE—pwnc y bûm yn ei drafod heddiw gyda chyd-Aelodau’r Blaid Lafur o bob rhan o’r DU. Galwem am gadw’r mesurau diogelu cymdeithasol, cyflogaeth ac amgylcheddol a ddatblygwyd drwy ein haelodaeth o’r UE, ac am roi trefniadau trosiannol ar waith i sicrhau nad oes ymyl clogwyn i fusnesau wrth i ni bontio o’r UE tuag at berthynas newydd ag Ewrop.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno â’r Prif Weinidog fod Undeb Ewropeaidd gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Brydain, a bod Teyrnas Unedig gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Ewrop. Mae arnom angen ein gilydd, yn rhan o’r UE ai peidio, ac rwy’n croesawu pwyslais y Prif Weinidog ar berthynas ‘newydd, ddofn ac arbennig’ gyda’r UE. Rwyf bob amser wedi dweud nad yw gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn golygu gadael Ewrop. Dylai’r ymagwedd tuag at drafodaethau adlewyrchu’r ysbryd hwn o ddiddordeb cyffredin.

Mewn llythyr atom heddiw, mae Llywodraeth y DU yn dweud ei bod wedi ystyried ein chwe blaenoriaeth wrth lunio ei safbwynt negodi, ac er gwaethaf y diffygion enfawr ym mhroses negodi fewnol y DU, credaf y gallwn weld tystiolaeth o hyn. Ceir tir cyffredin ar y farchnad sengl—rydym yn galw am ‘fynediad llawn a dilyffethair’ tra’u bod hwy’n dweud y

‘fasnach fwyaf rhydd a mwyaf diffrithiant bosibl’.

Mae’r DU yn awyddus i gyflawni hyn drwy gytundeb masnach rydd dwyochrog pwrpasol â 27 gwlad yr UE. Nid ydym yn credu mai dyna’r unig ffordd, na’r ffordd orau o reidrwydd hyd yn oed, ond rydym yn cydnabod y gallai’r dull hwn weithio mewn egwyddor. Mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn cydnabod bod rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn cynrychioli safbwynt diofyn y DU yn absenoldeb cytundeb. Ailadroddaf yr hyn a ddywedais sawl gwaith: byddai canlyniad o’r fath yn drychineb i Gymru ac yn fy marn i, i’r DU yn ei chyfanrwydd.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno hefyd â’r ffocws ar berthynas arbennig y DU ag Iwerddon. Mae llawer o sylw’n cael ei roi i gadw ffin feddal ar y tir rhwng gogledd a de Iwerddon, ac rydym yn cefnogi’r flaenoriaeth honno. Ond mae fy ffocws i ar ffin forol Cymru ag Iwerddon, yn enwedig porthladdoedd Caergybi, Abergwaun, a Doc Penfro. Mae’r ardal deithio gyffredin gyda’n cymydog agosaf o ddiddordeb allweddol i Gymru, fel y mae i Iwerddon, ac roedd y Taoiseach a minnau’n cytuno ar hyn pan ddaeth i fy ngweld ychydig wythnosau yn ôl.

Lywydd, mae angen dwy gyfres o drafodaethau wrth gwrs, fel y mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn ei ddweud. Y gyntaf yw proses ymadael erthygl 50 sy’n seiliedig ar gytuniad. Yr ail yw perthynas y DU â’r UE yn y dyfodol. Yn ein barn ni, o ystyried maint y gwaith hwn, a hyd yn oed gan dybio cymaint o ewyllys da â phosibl ar y ddwy ochr, mae’n annhebygol iawn y bydd hi’n bosibl cwblhau’r ddau gytundeb o fewn dwy flynedd. Am y rheswm hwnnw, rydym wedi dadlau’n gyson am gyfnod trosiannol i bontio ein perthynas newidiol ag Ewrop. Unwaith eto, rwy’n credu bod Llywodraeth y DU, yn raddol, wedi cyrraedd yr un safbwynt gan ei bod yn sôn fwyfwy—ac yn benodol felly, mewn gwirionedd, yn llythyr y Prif Weinidog—am gyfnod gweithredu i reoli’r broses o adael yr UE.

Lywydd, fel gydag unrhyw gyd-drafod, bydd angen rhywfaint o barodrwydd ar y ddwy ochr i gyfaddawdu a chytuno ar gyfnewidiadau. Rydym yn realistig ac yn deall pam na all y Prif Weinidog ddamcaniaethu’n gyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd ynglŷn â pha gyfnewidiadau y bydd y Llywodraeth yn barod i’w gwneud wrth i’r trafodaethau ddatblygu. Ond o’m rhan ni, rydym yn glir fod yn rhaid i fynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl fod yn brif flaenoriaeth i’r DU. Bydd unrhyw beth llai na hyn yn ddrwg i Gymru.

Lywydd, gadewch i mi fod yn glir. Rydym yn barod i weithio gyda Llywodraeth y DU i ddadlau’r achos dros berthynas newydd, ddofn ac arbennig gyda’r UE, wedi’i hangori mewn cytundeb masnach rydd cynhwysfawr ac eang gyda 27 gwlad yr UE, sy’n darparu mynediad llawn a dilyffethair, neu fynediad rhydd a diffrithiant os yw hynny’n well gennych, at y farchnad sengl. Mae hynny’n hanfodol i’n busnesau, i’n heconomi, i ffyniant Cymru yn y dyfodol ac yn wir, i’r DU gyfan. Byddwn yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i hyrwyddo’r achos hwn, yma yn y DU, ym Mrwsel a chyda’n partneriaid Ewropeaidd. Rwy’n ailadrodd eto: ni ellir dweud yn ddigon aml y byddai rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn drychineb i Gymru.

Lywydd, fel y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid a Llywodraeth Leol a minnau wedi dweud yn ddigon clir, mae proses y Cyd-bwyllgor Gweinidogion a’n hebryngodd at y pwynt hwn wedi bod yn destun siom a rhwystredigaeth ddifrifol i ni, ac rydym yn parhau i bwyso ar Lywodraeth y DU i’n cynnwys yn uniongyrchol ac yn llawn yn y trafodaethau eu hunain wedi i’r fformat gael ei gytuno gyda’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae llawer o gwestiynau pwysig sy’n parhau i fod heb eu hateb yma yn y DU, wrth gwrs, yn enwedig ar gyllid a’n materion cyfansoddiadol. Addawyd i Gymru na fyddai’n colli ceiniog o gyllid o ganlyniad i Brexit a byddwn yn dal Llywodraeth y DU at ei gair.

O ran y materion cyfansoddiadol, mae’r Prif Weinidog yn dweud y bydd gennym fwy o bwerau datganoledig ar ôl gadael yr UE ac na fydd unrhyw beth sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd yn cael ei fachu’n ôl. Os mai felly y bydd, fe groesawaf y canlyniad hwnnw. Os nad felly y bydd, bydd y Llywodraeth hon yn gwrthwynebu’n egnïol—fel y bydd eraill yn y Siambr, nid oes gennyf unrhyw amheuaeth—unrhyw ymgais i fachu pwerau’n ôl neu i sicrhau bod y pwerau’n aros yn Whitehall yn hytrach na dod yn syth yma o’r UE. Bydd gennyf fwy i’w ddweud am hynny ar ôl i’r Papur Gwyn ar y Bil diddymu mawr gael ei gyhoeddi yfory.

Lywydd, o ran trafodaethau’r UE, os yw Llywodraeth y DU yn barod i weithio’n adeiladol gyda ni, yna rydym yn barod i wneud popeth yn ein gallu i helpu. Mae gennym enw da o fewn yr UE, yn enwedig ymhlith sefydliadau’r UE, am fod yn Ewropeaid da. Mae hynny wedi cael ei ddatblygu dros lawer o flynyddoedd drwy ein safonau uchel wrth weithredu rhaglenni Ewropeaidd, ein gwelededd ym Mrwsel a’n cyfranogiad gweithgar a brwdfrydig mewn ystod eang o rwydweithiau a phartneriaethau Ewropeaidd. Rydym yn barod i ddefnyddio ein henw da fel cyfalaf i helpu i ddadlau achos y DU am berthynas â’r Undeb Ewropeaidd a fydd o fudd i’r ddwy ochr yn y dyfodol.

Mae gan Lywodraeth y DU, a’r Prif Weinidog yn arbennig, gyfrifoldeb trwm yn awr wrth arwain y trafodaethau. Bydd angen iddi hi a’r tîm o’i chwmpas sylweddoli bod negodi’n llwyddiannus yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol ichi wrando a pharchu barn a buddiannau cyfreithlon y rhai y byddwch yn negodi â hwy. Ond gorchwyl cyntaf y Llywodraeth hon yw siarad dros Gymru, a byddwn yn gwneud hynny gydag egni a phenderfyniad. Ni fyddwn yn pwdu ar y cyrion, ond yn hytrach, yn chwarae ein rhan ac yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i sicrhau’r canlyniad gorau i’n cenedl yng Nghymru.

First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. It clearly is an historic day—the Prime Minister triggering article 50 that begins the formal negotiation process after the referendum result in June last year.

I do take exception to your paragraph that talks about the Welsh Government being left out of the loop and not included in the negotiation process. I have to say that the Prime Minister herself has been to Wales five times, and David Davis himself has engaged many times with your good self and others in this Chamber, I might add, as has the Secretary of State for Wales. Whereas I look at the engagement the First Minister has sought to try and undertake with people who were on the majority vote after 23 June—neither he nor his Government have engaged at all with anyone who was on the majority side of the vote on 23 June and sit on this side of the Chamber. And so a bit of consistency, I think, would benefit the First Minister when he is throwing these allegations around. I also do regret bitterly the language that the First Minister used yesterday in First Minister’s questions: that he could see no money coming to agriculture after 2020, or structural funds. What evidence do you base that on, First Minister? Or are we to assume that that is official Labour Party policy and you are merely talking to Labour Party policy?

The letter today that the Prime Minister has sent to the President in Brussels clearly identifies the strands that she believes the negotiations should undertake. And I do hope that the First Minister does welcome the strands that the Prime Minister has identified in her letter, in particular with specific reference to Ireland and the peace process, and the significant discussions that will be require around that, and the importance of having parallel discussions and not isolating the settlement for the breakaway to the continuing relationships that the UK needs to develop with the EU. And I do hope that the First Minister will be able to endorse that sentiment; and indeed I do hope that he will able to endorse all the principles that are contained in the letter that the Prime minister has sent—and also the principles that the Prime Minister laid out in her Lancaster House speech, which clearly laid out 12 key principles that will form the basis of the negotiations over the next two years.

It is important that the UK Government does work with the devolved administrations to make sure that there is continuity in the message and continuity in the negotiations. I fully accept that, First Minister, and I will work tirelessly to make sure that does happen. And I do believe that there should be no—as the Prime Minister has clearly said—power grab or law grab back from any of the devolved administrations to Westminster. And the Prime Minister has clearly stated that, and, ultimately in her letter today, she clearly identifies the substantial passage of responsibilities and powers that she does see being transferred to the devolved administrations.

In your speech today, First Minister, you do identify—and I think it is a very relevant point to identity—the workings of the JMC, because there is a huge piece of work to be done domestically—as I have identified in other contributions that I’ve made within my speeches in this Chamber—about how the UK will function when we do come out of the European Union, and how—and it is my preferred model—the UK frameworks that would be put in place for agriculture, for structural funds and for HE funding will work on an equal basis to make sure that no one part of the UK is disproportionally affected by any changes that might come out. And so I would be grateful if the First Minister could give us a feeling of how he believes the JMC should develop in the coming weeks and months. Because I do think there’s a real danger that we do take our eye off what change we can effect in this Chamber, and the role that the Government here will have, by focusing too much on what’s going on in Brussels, while not focusing on what we need to be doing here in Wales to make sure that whatever negotiation and agreement arise out of that negotiation benefits all parts of the United Kingdom.

The other point I would like to make as well: What I think is really important is the great repeal Bill, the White Paper that will be published tomorrow. I notice that the First Minister does identify in his statement today that he will have much more to say on that, but it is important that, again, that is another area that we could have a huge impact on in making sure that Wales—in the transfer of responsibilities when they do come back from Brussels—that the right responsibilities do come back to this institution so that there is a positive dividend for devolution and a positive dividend for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England in that restribution of powers and responsibilities at the end of the two-year negotiation period.

The other point the First Minister rightly identifies is the focus on transitional arrangements that potentially might have to kick in if the two years do not prove sufficiently long enough to conclude the majority of the negotiations. What type of transitional arrangements does the First Minister and his Government have in mind that might be required? It’s one thing talking about transitional arrangements, it’s another thing understanding what exactly they might mean. And I do think, given that the Prime Minister clearly identifies in her letter today that she’s not looking for having a no-deal approach—as she points out, it is important the deal is concluded, but a deal that is fair to both partners working in these negotiations. Because this is not about putting Europe down and it should not be about putting the UK down. This is about making sure that we retain our strong links with Europe as partners in security, defence and economic opportunities, whilst recognising that sovereignty will return to these islands and those decisions will be taken within these islands, but reflecting, importantly, that the islands that the sovereignty will return to are not the islands that were the same in 1972 when we first went in to the European Union. We do have devolved Government, we do need to recognise that and the Prime Minister has given that commitment. But I do make that point that I opened my remarks on, First Minister: I believe the UK Government is sincere in its commitment to work with you and the other devolved administrations. It is a real shame that, over the last eight or nine months, you have not chosen to work with others in this Chamber.

Well, we look to work with elected Governments, of course, where we can. But in terms of some of the questions that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has raised, the problem—. He is right to say there’s been engagement; I’ve met with the Prime Minister and the engagement with David Davis has been good. I’m more than prepared to accept that. It’s not been good consistently across the UK Government, I have to say. Different approaches have been taken by different Ministers. Unfortunately, of course, as regards the letter, we were not aware of what was in the letter until it was actually announced in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As it happens, I thought the tone was right in terms of the way the letter was presented. It emphasised that we are fellow Europeans; that we should develop a deep and significant relationship with Europe, and I believe that is correct.

In terms of farming, I have to say to him that there are voices in DEFRA saying, ‘No subsidies after 2020’—I’ve heard them. There are people in his own party, like Boris Johnson, who take the view that WTO rules are fine. That is a 40 per cent tariff on what he produces on his farm: milk. Now, from his perspective, and he is one of many farmers, I have to say I don’t think any business can survive a 40 per cent tariff on dairy products while at the same time seeing a reduction in or the disappearance of subsidies. We have no guarantee beyond 2020 that anything will exist in terms of financial support for our farmers. If the UK Government was serious about that, it would say. All it has to say is this: that from 2020 onwards, the same amount of money will be available for our farmers and it will be distributed in the same way. That’s it. That resolves the issue. They have not done that. So, it’s perfectly right to point out to our farmers—and it was said to me over the weekend by farmers themselves that they are deeply concerned that this will see the end of farming subsidies and £260 million taken out of the rural economy.

Some of the issues that he has talked about: well, first of all he talked about the issue of devolution of powers. What is not clear is whether the UK Government have a definitive view on where powers rest when they return from the EU. They have said, on more than one occasion, that this institution will have more powers and there will be no clawback of existing powers, but I don’t believe they include the current EU frameworks as existing powers. That’s the problem for us. Now, if they say tomorrow that they are looking to replicate the current frameworks that exist in agriculture and fisheries—well, there is some merit in that in terms of the sense of it, but under no circumstances would we accept that they have a right to do so without the consent of this Chamber, or the consent, indeed, of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. If there are to be any frameworks of any kind, even if they simply replicate what already exists for the time being, that must be done with the consent of this elected Assembly that represents the people of Wales.

Could I turn to the JMC? The JMC is just no longer fit for purpose. The JMC is a talking shop, and has been since it existed. We cannot afford for this to carry on. If we are to have an internal single market within the UK—and he’s heard me say this several times—it’s important that the JMC becomes a council of Ministers where common frameworks are negotiated and agreed, which everyone signs up to. For example, if there’s going to be a new regime regarding state aid rules within the internal market of the UK, well, there’s sense in that, but they have to be agreed. Otherwise, from our perspective as a Government, we will not feel that we have any duty to observe them. Secondly, of course, where there are rules there has to be a court to enforce those rules. It’s the same in the US; it’s the same within the European single market; and the same thing would have to apply within the UK single market as well.

I did note what he said about talking about the right responsibilities being devolved to this place. Let me make it absolutely clear: my view is that anything that is devolved now will return from the EU straight here when we leave the EU. It will not go via Whitehall. It will not go to Whitehall to decide whether we get it or not. That includes agriculture, it includes fisheries, it includes issues of regional economic development, it includes environmental issues—those are issues that are devolved. Our devolution settlement does not say that these matters are devolved, except issues that are currently dealt with by the EU. And that would be a substantial change to the devolution settlement, and would go against the 2011 referendum. And I do not think that would be democratic, nor would it be right for the people of Wales.

Transitional arrangements are hugely important. I’m glad they’ve been recognised. Bluntly, I don’t think any negotiations will start before the autumn—there are French and German elections. Any deal has to be agreed by next autumn, not next March. Why? Because there is a ratification process within the EU, not just with the Commission, not just with the Parliament, but with 28, I think it is—possibly more than that—28 different Parliaments, all of whom would need to ratify any new treaty, and that takes months. That means that, by March 2019, if we are to avoid a cliff edge, there would have to be a fully ratified treaty in place. That is unlikely, I would suggest—highly unlikely is what I would say.

What is the alternative? Well, the UK could slip into European Economic Area membership in the meantime. Outside of the EU, that is true, yes; it’s correct to say part of the single market, yes; it’s correct to say still within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; and, yes, it’s correct to say with a contribution being made. It satisfies the result of the referendum, and is a way of providing a transitional arrangement until such time as a free trade agreement may or may not be agreed. I think that’s the sensible point.

I do agree with the observation that he made that the UK, when it leaves the EU, will not be the UK of 1972—a unitary state, with one Government—and that’s worth remembering. It’s worth remembering as well the UK was desperate to join the common market in the first place, because its economy was tanking. And those of us who remember the early 1970s, remember that the UK economy was in a real mess, particularly manufacturing, and had been for about 20 or 25 years at that point. But it is right to say that going back to the way things were, pre-1973, is not an option. We are now four nations, four Governments, and a partnership, to my mind, that needs to work towards a common purpose. That is recognised by the UK Government, and I welcome that, but it’s important that’s turned into reality.

Today will mark a profound day in the history of Wales. While Wales voted narrowly to leave the European Union, the UK Government’s intention is to take us out of the European single market as well. This is the largest economic and trading bloc in the world. For Wales, that single market is the destination for some 67 per cent of our exports, a higher level than any other part of the UK. And the UK Government’s intention to reach a free trade agreement will not put us in the same position as Norway, Iceland or Switzerland. I do hope that we will be in a position to debate the UK Government’s statement very soon. It will be essential for this Assembly to scrutinise that statement, of course, but I have some immediate questions now on the Welsh Government’s view.

First Minister, we need to be very wary of the UK Government’s actual intentions, compared to the warm words that we’ve seen from the Government earlier today. They admit that the UK will lose influence over the European economy. They speak of securing the freest possible trade in goods and services, but they admit that this won’t be a single market membership—it won’t comply with the four freedoms—and, therefore, it could lead to tariffs. I’d like to know the Labour Government’s position on this, please. Do you believe that a free trade agreement can lead to continued single market participation? Do you anticipate tariffs, and if so, which sectors do you think would be most at risk? What does today’s triggering of article 50 mean for Airbus, for Toyota, for manufacturing as a whole?

I want to turn now to the future of this Assembly, and the future of this nation. We should be under no illusions about today’s article 50 notice. It does not fulfil the wishes of the Scottish Government, nor, to my mind, the Welsh Government. It certainly doesn’t satisfy Plaid Cymru. The language from the UK Government is that they have an expectation of a significant increase in devolved powers. Anyone who takes that at face value needs a reality check. The UK Government, by definition, is in power. The balance of powers within the UK is within their remit, and it doesn’t have to be negotiated with EU institutions. The UK Government should be providing us with guarantees, not expectations. First Minister, what will the Welsh Government be doing to secure that increase in powers that we will need to protect and boost our economy as Brexit happens? Is it now time to make the case for a new Wales Bill, a Wales Bill that is actually fit for purpose?

The UK Government statement on article 50 contained no mention of agriculture or the environment. EU funds are only guaranteed up to 2020, meaning we need to secure the replacement arrangements during this Assembly term. First Minister, you stated in response to my questioning yesterday that agricultural subsidies could disappear. The need for certainty is now urgent. Plaid Cymru will not accept any loss of agricultural funding as a result of Brexit. We have been clear that Wales should receive the same funding and that we should have full policy control over how it is allocated. Are you prepared to fight for that funding in the coming period, First Minister?

Turning to the actual negotiations, the UK Government has indicated that the devolved Governments will be consulted. I haven’t been filled with confidence about how the Welsh Government has described the consultation that has happened to date. Today, we hear language about the United Kingdom negotiating with the EU as a single state, but there are now two years ahead of us, which are critical for the future of Wales. You say in your statement that today marks the beginning of serious negotiation. Given that you’re disappointed and frustrated with the JMC process, how will you now work with the UK Government? You’ve stated that you will not sulk from the sidelines, so how are you going to put the Welsh national interest on the agenda? And given that you didn’t see that letter beforehand, nor did you have any opportunity to input into it, can you honestly say that, up until this point, you have been listened to by the Prime Minister? You claim to see evidence of movement, but, First Minister, to us, it doesn’t look like there’s been much movement at all.

A number of questions there that were asked of me by the leader of Plaid Cymru. First of all, one of the ironies of the argument that I’ve heard from the Prime Minister is that the Scottish referendum should not take place because people don’t really know what they’re going to be voting on. Well, that’s exactly what happened last year. People were asked whether we should be members of the EU, but, of course, the detail and minutiae are not known. We don’t know what people’s view is of the single market, or whether we should be in the customs union or not, or their views, particularly, on immigration. We can guess what some people thought about it, of course, we heard it ourselves. But the problem is that now is the time for detail to be filled in, although my hope is that the pragmatists in the UK Government at the moment hold the upper hand over the nationalists, and that sense will prevail. I listened carefully to Phillip Hammond’s interview this morning on Radio 4. It was an interesting interview. He talked about—. He was frank about the challenges for the UK. You heard the Prime Minister say today that membership of the single market is not an option. Well, she and I will know—we’ve had this debate. It may be a semantic debate, but, nevertheless, it is a debate, as to whether participation is the same thing as membership. But for the Prime Minister to use the words ‘to rule out membership, but not rule out participation’, I actually thought was interesting, but we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe Kremlinology or Whitehallology only takes you so far.

With regard to immigration—again, I’ve said this before, and I welcome what the Prime Minister said today about immigration being important, particularly, of course, ensuring that people are able to come to the UK and use their skills. And as I’ve said before, there will be no control over immigration. It never was going to be—it was always a myth, because of the open border with the Republic of Ireland. You cannot control your immigration if you have an open border. It’s an oxymoron just by definition.

In terms of the free trade agreement, the problem I think with the free trade agreement is that, if you look at FTAs across the world, they almost always exclude food, agriculture and fisheries. They are always outside of the agreement, and they are, therefore, subject to tariffs. And my great worry is that we end up with some kind of agreement with the EU that excludes agriculture and fisheries, where tariffs are imposed. There are other dangers in having free trade agreements with, for example, Australia or New Zealand. They are not in Wales’s interest at all. Replacing a market of 500 million with a market of 4.8 million in New Zealand, while, at the same time, allowing New Zealand lamb to flow unhindered into Wales must be great for New Zealand, but very bad for Wales, and we would oppose tooth and nail any free trade agreement with New Zealand or Australia, or any other country that threatens our farming industry.

In terms of the effect on Airbus and Toyota, there are two issues that those organisations are concerned about. First of all, tariffs—increasing their costs, but, secondly, of course, their ability to move workers around. It’s literally the case for Airbus that they need to move people from Broughton to Toulouse within a day. They don’t want to be playing around with visas and trying to deal with the paperwork. That will inevitably mean that Broughton is at a disadvantage in the years to come. So, there must be the ability to shift people around in the course of a day or two so that they can work in another country or within the European Union without the need to go through unnecessary paperwork.

Well, in terms of devolved powers, I can only read what I’ve seen thus far. The proof of the pudding will come in the eating, of course. We’ll have to wait and see what happens in terms of devolved powers in the future.

I think that one of the issues as well that the UK has to be wary of is that the EU was actually, or had become, part of the glue that held the UK together. Without that, then it’s hugely important to restructure the UK in order for it to be robust in the future. The case, for example, of Northern Ireland—the only identity that people shared in Northern Ireland was a European one. Beyond that, they have nothing in common in terms of an identity. We must be careful, then, that Northern Ireland doesn’t find itself staring, or looking backwards, into what happened before. There’s no need for that to happen, but we must be wary of that.

Wales Bill—there has to be another Wales Bill. I mean, the one we’ve got now is something that we can use for April next year, but it’s far from sustainable—we know that. The issues such as policing, jurisdiction and air passenger duty, just to name three issues, are not resolved—they need to be resolved. There is no reason why, in the future, Wales should be treated in a second-class fashion compared to Scotland.

In terms of subsidies, the issues that I’ve already mentioned are important, that is we need to see certainty beyond 2020. We need to see the allocation ring-fenced at a UK level and then, of course, us getting our Welsh allocation. It cannot be Barnettised, otherwise we get an enormous cut through Barnett; it cannot come with strings attached either. By all means, we can negotiate and agree a common framework—fine, but by negotiation and not by imposition. But I am concerned that what might happen to that money is that it will stick to fingers in Whitehall rather than come to Wales at the moment.

The other issue that worries me about farming is this: for years, agricultural subsidies have been outside of the normal budget process. I believe that agricultural subsidies need to be ring-fenced and a ring fence agreed by all four nations, otherwise, every year, in this Chamber, the debate will be as to whether farmers get more money or the health service gets more money. I just don’t think that’s in the interest of agriculture, to be honest. I think it should be taken out of that arena.

In terms of negotiation, as I’ve said before, the JMC is not fit for purpose. If the UK is going to survive, it has to adapt. It can adapt, but that does mean a proper council of Ministers with a proper decision-making process and a dispute-resolution process that is independent, because how else could any of us have faith in it if it carried on with the current situation, where, if there is a dispute between ourselves and the UK Treasury, the dispute is resolved by the UK Treasury? That’s hardly an independent and disinterested system for dealing with disputes. Tomorrow will give us more of an idea of the direction of travel and, of course, over the course of the next week, I’m sure, there’ll be ample opportunity, as there should be, to examine very carefully the issues that arise over the next few days.

Can I regret that the First Minister, yet again, has failed to rise to the level of events? Does he not see that today actually is a great day for the United Kingdom, and a great day for Wales, because what we’re seeing here is the beginning of a process of the restoration of democratic self-Government to Assemblies such as this, where we’ll have Ministers who make decisions and are held to account for them, and if we don’t like what they do, we can vote against them? That’s a privilege also that the people will have on a regular basis in the form of elections. So, is that surely not an unambiguous gain for this country? Of course, I don’t expect the Welsh regionalist party opposite—the European regionalist party, which is the excuse for the Welsh nationalists opposite, to understand that. They would far rather that we were governed from Brussels than from Cardiff. Surely, the Welsh Labour Government should take a more sensible view.

One of the reasons why—if this is the case—the First Minster has not been listened to by the Prime Minister, no doubt, is because he’s still refighting the referendum campaign and he is the voice of doom and gloom. He makes Gordon Brown look positively cheerful in comparison. He sees none of the opportunities and all of the potential problems. Nicola Sturgeon uses the process for political posturing for a referendum that she actually doesn’t want to have because she knows she will lose it. Surely, if we want to play a full part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government about the future after we leave the EU, the time to do that, on a positive basis, is now, and not to constantly harp on about the negatives and the uncertainties that exist, come what may.

It is somewhat rich for the First Minister, as the leader of the Conservatives pointed out, to complain about not being involved in the process when he has resolutely set his face like flint against the involvement of other parties, other than Plaid Cymru, in the process of negotiating a common position that Wales could have vis-à-vis the UK.

As regards full and unfettered access to the single market, insofar as that means free trade, he knows that the Government is already committed to trying to obtain that objective, and it’s in the mutual interest of both parties—the EU and the UK—that it should be secured. We have a massive trade deficit with the EU amounting to £60 billion a year. In cars alone we have a £20 billion a year deficit with Germany, so there is a massive bargaining counter that we have in our hands in the negotiating process, yet all the First Minister can say is that we won’t be able to sell any cars because there might potentially be a 10 per cent tariff on cars. Well, we’ve already seen an 18 per cent devaluation in the pound in the last 12 months anyway, which more than compensates for that compared to where we were last time.

Of course there will be problems for agriculture in the way that he describes, but it will be within our competence here in this place to decide how to deal with those. He will be the leader of an administration that will have complete control over agriculture as a result of our leaving the EU, and I wholly agree with him—I wholly agree with the point that he made—that there should be an immediate repatriation of powers from Brussels to Cardiff where that is appropriate under the devolution settlement we already have, and that there should be no blockage in Whitehall or Westminster in the meantime.

As regards a transition process lasting more than two years, a lot of people will see that as a thinly disguised ploy to try to keep us in the EU for even longer than the process that is set out under the Lisbon treaty. There should be no prospect whatsoever of elongating the negotiating process, because Parkinson’s law might then come into play, whereby the work expands to fill the time available and an infinite amount of time will mean an infinite extension to the time that we remain members of the European Union.

There’s plenty of time now for the Welsh Labour Government to develop lines of policy that they would like to see. For example, in agriculture, what kind of subsidy regime do we want to have in Wales after we leave the EU? That’ll be something that will be completely within his control. I do agree with him that we need to sort out the funding of future policy, and I agree with both Plaid Cymru and the Government that we should have every single penny that has been sourced via Brussels—all British taxpayers’ money in any case. Every single penny of that should come to Wales, whether it’s for agricultural support, structural funds or whatever, and it should then be for the Welsh Labour Government to set its own priorities in the light of that. The Welsh people can take their own view on whether those priorities are right or not at the time of the next Assembly elections.

As regards the constitution, I again wholly agree with him that the devolution settlement must not in any way be undermined. But, what is happening now through the triggering of article 50 is that we’re actually enhancing the devolution settlement—we’re actually enhancing the powers of this Assembly and enhancing the power of Welsh Ministers to govern ourselves in a way—. This is the paradox of the so-called nationalists’ position, of course: they don’t want to have democratic institutions such as the National Assembly for Wales deciding what our environmental policy is going to be, what our agricultural policy is going to be and so many other areas of policy that are currently the preserve of the European Union.

So, I say to the First Minister: do cheer up. This is a great opportunity for us, as well as a challenge. Of course, there are challenges and opportunities in life in general, but surely the opportunity to strike free trade agreements with the 85 per cent of the global economy that is outside the EU—. Given that the United States takes 22 per cent of Welsh exports, for example, is there not a great opportunity there to plug into the process of negotiation on free trade agreements in order to ensure that the UK Government, negotiating on our behalf in a unitary state insofar as we still are one, takes Welsh interests fully into account? They’re unlikely to do that if he carries on with the dire dirge of doom and gloom that we regularly get, day in and day out, in Wales. He was at it yesterday in question time, and today: ‘WTO rules will be a disaster for Wales.’ Well, the average tariff under WTO rules is about 3.5 per cent. Admittedly, they would be higher for certain sectors that are important for Wales, such as automotive and agriculture, which is, generally speaking, as the First Minister said, not the subject of agreement in free trade agreements. But, surely, the opportunity from being positive rather than negative is to play a real part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government and if he carries on as he is, then he will continue to be ignored.

Well, I have to say to the leader of UKIP: he describes the day as the day of the return of democratic self-government; if Scotland votes ‘out’ in a referendum, I wonder if he would say that about Scotland. But, it’s a strange point to make in that regard.

The UK never lost its sovereignty. It always kept its sovereignty. It’s a sovereign state and it still shares its—. It always will share its sovereignty. It’s a member of national organisations that are multistate organisations where sovereignty is shared with those organisations, otherwise you’d never have any treaties, you shouldn’t be a member of the UN, and you shouldn’t be a member of any supranational organisations. It’s cloud-cuckoo-land to suggest that the UK or any other state, for that example, is in any way wholly sovereign in the classical sense of the nineteenth-century.

There is some irony—and I know this annoyed Plaid Cymru Members, but to me it caused me some amusement—but I never thought I’d see the day when UKIP would accuse Plaid Cymru of not being Welsh or nationalist enough. Given that five years ago, UKIP as a party was robustly anti-Welsh and robustly anti-devolution, there is some irony there, isn’t there, in terms of that? Yes, things have changed. There’s no doubt about that.

In terms of refighting the campaign, the campaign has finished; that was last year. This is a question of what we do next. I have to say to the leader of UKIP that I’ve heard nothing from him constructive at all. We have accepted the result. We’ve put forward concrete proposals. We’ve put forward a White Paper. We’ve put forward proposals for the internal governance of the UK. What I get from him is, ‘It’ll all be fine.’ No concrete proposals at all. I look forward to seeing them when, and if, they get round in UKIP—if they can agree with each other, that is—to producing them.

The other thing I have to say to him is that I disagree fundamentally with him that a free trade agreement will cover everything. It just will not do it. He must understand, surely, that the European Council of Ministers represents 27 different countries. The ratification process for any deal will require the ratification of some national parliaments and, indeed, some regional ones, particularly in Belgium. The ratification process, however, does not include BMW and Mercedes-Benz, who do not have a seat on the table of the European Council of Ministers and will not have the opportunity to influence what the entire European Union does in terms of its final trade arrangements.

In terms of tariffs, I can say to him that the average tariff is 5.5 per cent. There are hundreds of them: there are tariffs on hats and umbrellas. But more seriously, there are tariffs on automotive, aircraft components and most heavily on food, most heavily on food, particularly dairy products. I cannot believe that he believes that the answer to the imposition of tariffs and their effect is to crash the currency. Keep the pound low, make it really expensive for us to import goods, send inflation through the roof, but that’s fine because that will offset tariffs. That is not a sound or sustainable economic policy.

In terms of the WTO, again, he seems to think that crashing out with WTO rules is a good thing. The UK is just 60 million people. The European Union is far, far bigger as a market. We will be hurt hugely by the imposition of tariffs. Our manufacturers will find that their goods are more expensive. Apart from the financial barrier, there is a psychological barrier. If you were an investor from another large economy, why would you invest in a country where there was a tariff barrier in place between one of your factories and the other? That is clearly not going to happen. The automotive industry tells us that, the aircraft industry tells us that. I wonder who he’s speaking to when he takes the views of people on board.

I do look forward to the £350 million a week that will now spent on the NHS across the UK. That has been completely forgotten about, and conveniently. He reminds me of somebody who is part of a group of people who threw a brick through the window and now are criticising the people who are trying to put the window back together again by saying that the window was never broken in the first place or that we’re putting it back together in the wrong way, or even some of his party are arguing that they never put the brick through the window in the first place. The reality is that there are some of us who are trying to move on, some of us who are trying to ensure that the UK has a future outside of the EU, that Wales is not damaged as a result of leaving the EU, but his party has come forward with no proposals at all—no proposals at all. Even yesterday—this is a good one—there was a leaflet saying that UK fishermen would have access to a 200 mile fishing zone. In case he hasn’t noticed, the UK is within 200 miles of other countries all around the UK. There is no 200 mile fishing zone. That only exists if you have a 200 mile gap between you and another country, and that doesn’t exist as far as the UK is concerned. I have to say, the nonsense still continues with UKIP, but I offer him the chance to come forward in the next few weeks with something sensible and concrete that we can debate and examine.

Could I ask one very straightforward question based on the contributions already from opposition spokesmen? Has the Prime Minister given any guarantee at all on funding for agriculture and rural development up until 2020, and that that funding would be passed for Wales? And my second question is: in response to the comments last week by one of the prime ‘leave’ campaigners—now somewhat in exile himself, Michael Gove—that this was now an opportunity to diminish or strip out entirely the European habitats and wildlife directives—and bearing in mind the implications of that for Wales, let alone the ecological coherence of networks around the UK and EU—what are his thoughts on the idea that this is now an opportunity to engage in a race to the bottom of environmental standards?

I can say to the Member that guarantees are in place until 2020 but not beyond. That’s the problem. Beyond that, there are no guarantees of a single penny and that’s why we need certainty with regard to that. Michael Gove, I’m afraid, represents a section of the Conservative Party who are minimal government enthusiasts. They will sit quite happily on the right wing of the Republican party, I suspect, in the US. They see things like environmental protection as a burden on business. I can say that, for example, the habitats directive will be a matter entirely for this institution to decide what it wishes to do with in terms of environmental regulation in the future. But I can certainly guarantee that despite the views of Michael Gove, what we will not be doing is going back to the days of high pollution levels in our rivers and making Wales a less green and attractive place than it is now.

We are out of time on this statement. I have many speakers left uncalled. I will call a few further contributions as long as they promise to be short and concise. David Melding, set the tone.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Last week, First Minister, the president of the Committee of the Regions, Markku Markkula, said that the Committee of the Regions would provide the EU’s chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, with a picture of the evolving situation at regional level. Mr Markkula also said in a debate in the Committee of the Regions last week, and I quote,

we must work to protect well-established ties between regional and local authorities in the EU and the UK’.

It seems to me this is turning in a positive direction and it’s important that we use our membership of the Committee of the Regions to ensure that those who are negotiating on behalf of the EU get a full picture of the situation here. I wonder, as well as the representatives, whether the Welsh Government will perhaps meet with Mr Markkula and his colleagues.

Well, I’m more than happy, assuming a meeting is possible, but it’s absolutely right to say that, in keeping with what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that we are not leaving Europe. It’s hugely important that we retain and strengthen our ties with organisations across Europe—that is in Wales’s interests and it’s in the interests of all people across Europe to co-operate in such a way.

I thank the First Minister for his statement and I must say, even though I’m unsurprised, I still find it remarkable that in this so-called family of nations, the democratically elected First Minister of this country is excluded from drafting a letter to mark our withdrawal from the European Union.

My questions to the First Minister today are regarding the process itself, but in terms of the process, not to lose sight of the things that we can still lead the initiative on. So, the First Minister has spoken about the reformation of the JMC into a proper council of Ministers with independent arbitration. Does he plan to publish further detail on that and how the UK internal market can be governed in a fair and democratic way post Brexit? But, not just the structures within the UK as well, because he’s rightly pointed to the relationship that we have with Ireland and the common travel area. Does he agree with me that it’s time now for us to look at reforming the British-Irish Council so that it more closely resembles the Nordic council model where, of course, you have a mixture of sovereign states, devolved territories, EU member states, non-EU member states and so on?

And finally, does the First Minister share my anger that as things stand, only two parliaments in these islands will have a meaningful vote on the final treaty with the European Union—the Westminster Parliament and the Irish Parliament, as an EU 27 member state—and that parliamentarians in Wallonia will have a greater say on the future of this country than the parliamentarians of Wales?

Yes, I do, and he will have heard me say many times it’s my belief that any treaty should be ratified by the four Parliaments and not just by one, for any number of reasons, including the fact that any agreement may well affect areas that are wholly devolved, such as agriculture and fisheries. It wouldn’t be right in principle for us to be bound by something that we had no role in negotiating nor agreeing. I think that’s a fundamental principle that is well known in Belgium. It’s not yet known in the UK, but it needs to be known in as a principle in the UK.

In terms of relationships with other countries, Ireland will be an important partner for us in the future. We have a maritime border with the republic and those links will be strengthened in the future, and we will look to work with our friends in the Irish Government for mutual interest.

With the British-Irish Council, it’s in a curious position in the sense that one of the members of the British-Irish Council will be remaining in the EU. There are some issues as to whether Ireland can be part of discussions on the EU, because of its EU membership, in the British Irish Council—that’s complicated. There are three other members that are not members of the EU, but are members of the customs union and may well find themselves hauled out of the customs union without being asked—the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. They never had a vote on it, but they will be told by the UK Government, ‘You’re leaving, like it or not’. They have no means of renegotiating entry into the customs union, because they have no control or power over foreign affairs. So, their position is even worse in the sense that they will be taken out of a trading arrangement without their people ever being asked their opinion on it. So, there are a number of complications that will need to be dealt with via the JMC process and the BIC.

In terms of the detail, yes, we’re more than happy to publish details, but he will know the principles that I’ve already explained, which are: a council of Ministers, four Governments agreeing frameworks on the way forward, and also, of course, an independent adjudication process, so that we can all have faith that there is a trade court or other body that is policing the agreed rules of the single market fairly. That’s the way it works in the European Union, that’s the way it works in the United States, that’s the way it should work in the UK.

And, finally, Eluned Morgan.

Does the First Minister agree with me that today is a profoundly sad day for the nation and also for our children and our children’s children? And, of course, those who will pay the highest price for article 50 will be those who can least afford it.

[Inaudible.]

I wonder if the First Minister could tell me his interpretation—[Interruption.]

I think the Member would like to apologise for the remark, which I also heard. Very quickly.

Llywydd, I was listening to the Member, and—[Interruption.]

No. Just apologise. However it was meant, just apologise for how it was heard.

Well, what was unparliamentary about the remark?

Are you refusing to apologise?

Well, what is there to apologise for?

You are very well aware, Neil Hamilton, of the remark you just made towards Eluned Morgan. Just very politely apologise for—

Well, in deference to you, Llywydd, I will apologise for whatever remark I am supposed to have made.

Thank you for that. Eluned Morgan.

I wouldn’t mind a deference to me, actually. It’s all right deferring to the Presiding Officer, but I’d like an apology as well.

I’ll accept the apology on your behalf. Carry on with your comments.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I’d like to ask the First Minister about his interpretation of the letter that was sent. One of the points made was that the Prime Minister said that she would fulfil her responsibilities as a member state. Does that mean that the UK Government will cough up in terms of commitments entered into with other member states, and can we, therefore, expect to pay a large bill?

I just wondered whether the First Minister would also agree with me—. The Prime Minister has said previously that she wants to represent the views of every single individual in the United Kingdom. I’d just like to make it clear that she will not be representing my views, and I wonder if she’ll be representing yours.

Well, it’s always unwise for a politician to suggest that they can represent the views of every single individual, ranging from the far left to the crazy right in that regard. But I think what she would’ve wanted to say is that she would look to represent people as widely as possible; it’s not for me to talk on her behalf.

Nothing was said about what financial commitments there might be and how they might be resolved. They will form part of the negotiation, and that is a matter for the UK and the EU to resolve. But, of course, from our perspective, it seems that, if there are any financial obligations, if they’re not going to be discharged then that’s not a particularly good start to any negotiations in the future. But these are matters that will need to be resolved.

The greatest concern I have at this moment in time is that the UK will have a team that is inexperienced up against an EU team that’s highly experienced. The UK has no experience of negotiating these kinds of deals, and so I actually think it’s in the UK’s interests for this process to take more time in order for that team to get the experience that it needs. Trying to get a deal done within a year with an inexperienced team I think is bad, and those who know—and I’ve spoken to those who have been involved in trade negotiations—will say that to get a fully functioning free trade agreement takes between six and seven years. It’s not a year process. And that’s where two parties have already agreed to talk to each other rather than the one saying, ‘We’re going to talk to you’, and the other not being a willing partner in those negotiations, although a partner that is now engaging in those negotiations.

So, my great problem with all this is that I think there are realists, but there are those who still take the view that all of this is easy, that the world will fall at Britain’s feet, and everything will be fine in the end. It won’t be; this is going to take a lot of hard work. The view of the people must be respected, I understand that, but, in order for people not to be hurt economically, in order for Wales not to suffer job losses, it’s hugely important that we put in place a structure that is in Wales’s interest, the UK’s interest, and the EU’s interest. I take the Prime Minister at her word this afternoon when she said she wanted a deep relationship with Europe. I take her at her word when she described herself and others as fellow Europeans. We must reach out the hand of friendship even as we leave, and that is in the interests of both parties.

I thank the First Minister.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.69, I have accepted a request from Simon Thomas to move a motion for an urgent debate. I call, therefore, on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for accepting the request. I’m grateful to the First Minister for the statement that he brought before the Assembly today, but, of course, there is more to a parliament than just listening to the view of Government and asking questions of Government. A parliament is supposed to be a national, democratic forum where we discuss urgent issues and issues of interest to our constituents, and there is nothing more pertinent to our constituents than today’s decision to issue this letter on behalf of the UK to the European Union giving notice of intent to formally leave the union. As we have just heard from the First Minister, the Welsh Government hasn’t been party to drafting the letter, or had any influence on the content of the letter. It’s even more important under those circumstances that we as a parliament can speak with one voice and discuss now the content of this letter and similar decisions taken by the Government in Westminster, and how we can influence those decisions. There is no political decision that will have greater impact on Wales, and there hasn’t been since the second world war. And, certainly, there are huge impacts on the Welsh economy, culture and the people of Wales.

Pe baem yn cynnal dadl frys yn awr, byddai’n ein galluogi i archwilio a thrafod yn fanylach rai o’r cwestiynau sydd eisoes wedi cael eu gofyn i’r Prif Weinidog, ond gan wneud hynny mewn ffordd ddemocrataidd, seneddol, fel y gall pob Aelod roi eu barn. Byddwn yn arbennig o awyddus i archwilio pam nad yw’r llythyr a anfonwyd gan y Prif Weinidog ar ran gwladwriaeth y DU yn cyfeirio at yr amgylchedd, neu amaethyddiaeth, neu newid yn yr hinsawdd, neu’n wir, at ymchwil ymhlith ein sefydliadau addysg uwch—sydd oll yn elfennau allweddol o economi Cymru a dyfodol Cymru. Byddai gennyf ddiddordeb mewn gwybod sut y gallwn gael gwell bargen i ddinasyddion yr UE sy’n byw yng Nghymru yn awr, a diogelu eu hawliau a sicrhau y gallant aros yn rhan o’n cymuned. Hwy yw’r pleidleiswyr a bleidleisiodd i lawer ohonom fod yma, ac mae eu lleisiau yn haeddu bod yma heddiw hefyd.

Byddai’n ein galluogi i archwilio’r berthynas rhwng Cymru a’r farchnad sengl yn well ar gyfer y dyfodol. Yn amlwg, mae Plaid Cymru eisiau aros yn aelod o’r farchnad sengl a’r undeb tollau, ond mae angen inni ddeall, os nad yw hynny’n digwydd, beth fyddai’r trefniadau trosiannol a sut y gallwn sicrhau bod rhannau hanfodol o’n heconomi, fel ffermio a gweithgynhyrchu, yn cael eu diogelu yn y ffordd honno. Byddem am gofnodi ein bod eisiau cadw pob ceiniog o arian Ewropeaidd yma yng Nghymru, fel yr addawyd gan yr ymgyrchwyr dros ‘adael’ flwyddyn yn ôl, ac rydym yn awyddus i gofnodi hynny fel senedd. Byddem yn awyddus i gofnodi hefyd nad ydym yn derbyn unrhyw ymgais i gipio pwerau yn ôl o ddwylo Cymru. Mae’n rhyfedd iawn, o ran y ffordd y cafodd y llythyr ei fframio heddiw, a’r datganiad a wnaeth Theresa May yn Nhŷ’r Cyffredin heddiw, ei bod hi’n gallu dweud y gallai rhagor o bwerau ddod i’r sefydliad hwn, ond ni ddywedodd y byddai’r holl bwerau yn y meysydd datganoledig a gedwir ar hyn o bryd ar lefel Ewropeaidd yn dod i’r sefydliad hwn. Bydd cipio tir yn Stryd Downing cyn i ni gael y pwerau ychwanegol hynny.

Yn olaf, gallwn gofnodi ein cred fod rhaid cael cymeradwyaeth seneddol i’r fargen derfynol a bod rhaid i lais Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru ffurfio rhan o’r gymeradwyaeth honno yn ogystal.

I call on the First Minister to reply—Carwyn Jones.

Can I say this afternoon that we won’t be supporting the request for a debate this afternoon, not because we have any problem with a debate, but our belief is that the debate should take place next week? There are good reasons for this. First of all, we will have the White Paper—or Members will have the White Paper—tomorrow. That will provide more information, although some of the questions raised by Simon Thomas I can’t answer today; only the Prime Minister can answer. The White Paper may give us more information tomorrow. We’ll have initial information about the likely shape of the EU negotiating mandate and also the publication of the European Parliament’s draft resolution on the article 50 negotiations. On that basis, then, there is the opportunity for Members to debate article 50, which is important, but also the White Paper and the other issues that I’ve referred to, in a debate, with plenty of time, clearly, to form a view in that debate next week.

So, a full debate next week is what we would propose as a Government. We can take all those important developments into account, and that is something that I know he and I have discussed in days gone by—that a debate is something that should be looked at, particularly—. Well, we agree to a debate, because we want to see a debate take place, pending, of course, the publication of the White Paper tomorrow. So, we don’t believe that today is the day for that debate, but more information will be available to Members over the next few days and, of course, there will need to be a debate where Members can express their full views next week.

The proposal is to agree the motion for an urgent debate. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to a vote on the motion. I call for a vote, therefore, on the motion for an urgent debate. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, no abstentions, 34 against. And, therefore, the motion is not agreed, and, as the motion is not agreed, there will be no urgent debate.

I have accepted the urgent question under Standing Order 12.66, and I call on Russell George to ask the urgent question.

Thank you. Lawrence Conway has agreed to remain as interim chair for the remainder of the year, and I will shortly announce an interim vice-chair to be appointed from within the existing board membership. This will provide stability and continuity to the leadership of Sport Wales.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for your written statement earlier this afternoon. Today’s statement, in many ways, just extends the state of paralysis at Sport Wales, and we’re not really any clearer or the wiser on what actually happened at Sport Wales. But this is an organisation that receives over £22 million of public funding annually, and I think it does deserve transparency from the Welsh Government this afternoon. You have previously stated that you had an expectation that the normal governance processes would enable the Sport Wales board to manage any personality clashes, and this doesn’t seem to be the case from your statement today.

So, can I ask how long do you think it will take to get the organisation into a fit state to oversee sports across Wales and what oversight will you have, going forward, of Sport Wales’s activities? How will you look to change the current governance processes, which will give you confidence that there will not be another breakdown in Sport Wales’s leadership? Can I also ask: do you believe that it was solely a personality clash or do you intend to investigate the dysfunctionality and serious structural issues that were identified by the previous chair? If so, will you set out a timetable for when this review will report and when its recommendations will be implemented?

Finally, Sport Wales has a huge role to play in the promotion of physical activity and developing elite sport, but this saga, again, raises questions over its future, so, as such, have you given any consideration to abolishing Sport Wales altogether and splitting it up into different organisations—perhaps one focusing on sport and public health and a separate elite sport organisation? Do you think that Sport Wales is fit for purpose in light of these recent events?

I thank you very much for those questions and for the opportunity to address them in the Chamber. I think it’s helpful if I start by reminding Members as to how we got to this point today. A number of issues were raised in the lead-up to the vote of no confidence that was taken in the chair of Sport Wales in November, and during the course of the assurance review undertaken by my officials. It was necessary to investigate all of these in accordance with proper process to be fair to the individuals involved. Our investigation was thorough, and has provided me with significant assurance that Sport Wales is fundamentally a well-run organisation. The interim chair of Sport Wales, Lawrence Conway, has also written to me to confirm that this is his position, giving his views on the strong internal governance of the organisation, and this has also been corroborated by various audit reports. So, I take heart from that information in terms of the governance arrangements that are currently in place.

You referred to the structural situation with Sport Wales, and I can confirm that the panel, to which I’ve referred previously, has agreed to complete the review of Sport Wales, which the previous Chair, Dr Paul Thomas, was undertaking. And I know that they’ve been continuing that work at pace and hope to provide me with a report during the month of April. That report will look at various things. It might include the structure of Sport Wales, but it will certainly include to what extent Sport Wales can maximise its impact in terms of meeting Welsh Government aspirations for the physical health of Wales, but also for our elite athletes as well.

Thank you for the short written statement today. We all, of course, share the aspiration of the Minister of ensuring that Sport Wales does operate in the most effective way possible, but there are serious questions to ask, I think, in terms of how the Government managed to allow this body to reach the level of ineffectiveness. And what the statement today and the latest steps do is prove again the depth of that ineffectiveness. The recent period has been one of great concern, not just for staff and everyone who’s involved with Sport Wales, but also in terms of the development of sport in Wales. Without leadership, there’s no strategy; without strategy, there’s no development. And we have to sort that situation out urgently.

I have a number of questions for you, if I may. What review has been done of the original appointment and the original appointment process with the chair who is now leaving? And could you also publish the findings of the assurance review that was announced in November? We hear that personalities were at the core of many of these problems. Could you give us an explanation of some of the issues that led to the failure of the relationships of those at the leadership level on the board, and how did the Government fail to realise such significant failures? And to close: will there be additional support now for Sport Wales as they try to get back on the right path?

I thank you for those questions. I think that it is fair to say that Welsh Government has taken appropriate action at every step along the way since we were first notified of concerns within the board of Sport Wales, very shortly before the vote of no confidence in the chair that was undertaken back in November. So, I am confident that at every step we have taken appropriate action, and that we’ve sought to be fair by everybody concerned. Sport Wales has, since I took the first action back in November, actually been functioning very well. People who receive sporting opportunities and support from Sport Wales on a daily basis shouldn’t have noticed any difference in the kind of support and opportunities that were available to them. And I pay tribute, as I have done previously, to the sterling work of the Sport Wales staff over this period, which I know has been particularly difficult for them as individuals, but also for an organisation as well, and I completely understand that.

With regard to the assurance review itself, the assurance review looked into various aspects of the concerns that were raised, and it’s not my intention to make it public, because it is an internal document prepared for me as Minister, and it has been part of a process that has gone on for a few months, and one in which individuals who participated in that—and there were 42 interviews that took place—had a legitimate expectation of confidentiality. I think it’s important to have the future stability of the organisation at the front of our minds at all times. In terms of additional support, Lawrence Conway has been working with the board since I made my last announcement, and I’m very pleased with the way in which the board has coalesced around Lawrence as the interim chair—it’s very focused on the future. I met with the Sport Wales board myself very recently and had the opportunity to put on record my thanks to them again for the way in which they’ve dealt with what has been a difficult situation over recent months, and also for the passion that they all have for sport in Wales and Sport Wales as an organisation.

The Sport Wales situation is now in danger of becoming a long-running bad-news story. The story proceeds in a series of unfortunate instalments, with the latest episode today rather conveniently occurring on the same day as the article 50 announcement. [Interruption.] Well, maybe they are, maybe they’re not. As the story has proceeded, various questions have arisen. Paul Thomas, the chairman: was he the most able applicant for the role or was he, as has been alleged in some circles, simply a Labour Party placeman? [Interruption.] Well, heaven forbid the thought. Was Mr Thomas dismissed because he tried to change the culture of the board because, as he declares, he was a whistleblower or something akin, or was he simply somebody who did not fit in, or someone who didn’t have a clear idea about how to manage the organisation? Now, I don’t know the answers to these questions, but the saga has gone on so long that I think something like the full story should now be told or, at least, as far as it can be told. I’m disappointed that you won’t be making the findings of the review public, although I appreciate that there may be confidential matters that have to be accounted for. But given the significant public money that has been invested in Sport Wales, we must ensure that the Government does learn lessons from this unfortunate sequence of events. So, my final question is: what lessons, Minister, do you think the Welsh Government has learned from this?

I thank you for those questions. I have to say that I don’t time my announcements for the convenience of Gareth Bennett or any other Assembly Member; and I have to say that I didn’t want the process to take any longer than it had to, and I didn’t want it to drag on for the benefit of all the people concerned as well.

You suggested that this is a bad-news story, but actually, I think that we need to reflect on the fact that there are so many good-news stories up and down the length and breadth of Wales, thanks to the good work that Sport Wales does, transforming people’s lives through the power of sport. This has been a difficult time, but we shouldn’t take our eyes off that as well.

I don’t intend to answer questions about the merits of any individuals, but I would say that both the chair and the vice-chair have always had the interests of Sport Wales at heart, and have both exhibited considerable energy and dedication over the period of time. I do consider, though, the need to secure fresh leadership. My overarching objective, every step of the way, is the effectiveness of Sport Wales.

I just have one specific question about the current governance of Sport Wales. This is not meant as a criticism of the individual concerned, who has been a work colleague of mine in the past, and I respect him very much, but I am concerned that we have a public body now that has an interim chair, but this interim chair is actually going on—in your written statement—for at least the rest of this year. Now, that is not in line with best practice in terms of appointing the chairs, the Nolan principles and appointments and standards in public life. I suggest that it’s not right that a public body that’s disbursing £20 million of public money a year has a chair who hasn’t gone and hasn’t been appointed through that process. So, what assurances can you give me and the Chamber and outside bodies that you will appoint a chair for Sport Wales through the regular process as soon as possible?

I can confirm that I will certainly use the regular process for appointing a chair for Sport Wales. I think it is important now, though, that the organisation does have some period of stability. I should also say that I plan to use my power under the governance code on public appointments to appoint an interim chair without competition while a recruitment campaign is undertaken to fill that role. It’s a requirement to consult the Commissioner for Public Appointments before that appointment is announced; so, the name of the individual there will be announced as soon as the consultation process has concluded.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item on the agenda is the 90-second statements. Jenny Rathbone.

On 24 April 2013, over 1,100 garment workers were killed at Rana Plaza, the worst industrial accident in the history of Bangladesh. The nine-storey building had been evacuated because large cracks had appeared in the building structure, but no action was taken. Over 3,000 mainly young women were herded back to work, or they would face the sack. Half an hour later they were dead or seriously injured.

The Rana Plaza disaster in Dhaka highlighted the conditions under which most of the clothes that we buy in our country are being made—appalling pay and conditions and little regard for basic health and safety. High-street names including Primark, Gap, Walmart and many others are all involved. Four years on, they’ve done little to get factory safety improved. Indeed, if Bangladesh enforces the building regs, these multinationals will likely move their operations to another country where the rules are not enforced. It is therefore up to us to make the global multinationals insist on decent standards, wherever in the world our clothes are produced. Nothing will change unless we the consumers insist upon it.

Fashion Revolution Week starts on 24 April, when we’re in recess. Fashion Revolution is a global movement, demanding a safer, sustainable, transparent fashion industry. Question where your clothes are coming from, and under what conditions they’ve been made. Wear your jacket or your jumper inside out, so we can see the label. Fashion Revolution demands greater awareness of the cost of cheap clothing, and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 also demands it.

Thank you. Mark Isherwood.

This week is World Autism Awareness Week, raising awareness so that as many people as possible learn about autism. There are a number of targets in the Welsh Government’s autism spectrum condition strategic action delivery plan 2016-20, which should have been completed by April 2017. Care pathways should have been developed by health boards for neurodevelopmental conditions under the Together for Children and Young People programme by November 2016. We need to know whether they’ve been developed and how they can be accessed.

The March 2017 26-week waiting time target for referral to first assessment—we need to know whether it’s been met for both children and adults. The target date for the integrated service was also March 2016, and in response to a witness statement to Janet Finch-Saunders on 21 February, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health said that the first four regions will offer the service from June this year. It would therefore be useful to know if that’s still the case, and when, in north Wales, Betsi Cadwaladr health board will offer the service.

Above all, all children and adults, regardless of academic or social ability, have skills and strengths, but too many suffer from people’s attitudes towards autism and professionals’ poor understanding of autism. This must change.

Thank you. Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Last week, the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project, or DEEP as some of you may already know it, did something with a supermarket in Swansea that I thought you would like to know about, to see if anything similar is happening in your constituencies and regions. On Wednesday, Tesco laid down the gauntlet to other businesses and opened its doors for the first time to its self-styled Slow Shopping Day in its Swansea Marina store. It was just the first. Every Wednesday from now on, between 1 o’clock and 3 o’clock, Tesco is committed to have dementia-trained staff on hand throughout the store that recognise the signs of dementia, and to help shoppers. More chairs are available, and a dementia-friendly till will be open to assist shoppers and provide help with tasks like sorting small change. All very discreet and dignified, but providing service without discrimination.

I recently hosted a Dementia Friends training session with Alzheimer’s Society Wales in Killay in Swansea, and even though we all learned from it, you could really see the light bulbs go on above the heads of the businesspeople there. DEEP has already advised Welsh Government on its dementia strategy and I hope that their partnership with this particular supermarket will be seen as an invitation to all businesses in Wales to seize the initiative and to really help Wales become a dementia-friendly country. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report on the inquiry into statutory advocacy provision, and I call on Lynne Neagle to move the motion. Lynne.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Between 2003 and 2014, there have been no fewer than seven reports expressing concerns about the state of advocacy services in Wales. The Children and Young People Committee of the third Assembly published three reports and made a range of recommendations and repeated calls about the provision of advocacy services for looked-after children and other vulnerable groups of children. Between 2012 and 2014, the then children’s commissioner also published three reports with recommendations on statutory advocacy provision. I think it is also sobering to remind ourselves where this advocacy journey we are on actually began, as it almost coincides with the birth of this institution and the publication of the Waterhouse report, ‘Lost in Care’, back in February 2000.

That report, 17 years ago, found that victims of decades of widespread sexual and physical abuse of children in north Wales care homes had not been believed or listened to. It recommended that all looked-after children should have access to an independent advocate. It is, therefore, high time Welsh Government and local authorities in Wales put this issue to bed once and for all.

I think it is important today to remind ourselves why independent advocacy services matter. Simply put, advocacy gives a voice to our most vulnerable children and helps keep them safe. The National Youth Advocacy Service Cymru told our committee that independent advocacy is fundamentally a provision to safeguard and protect the most vulnerable children and young people in Wales. This was a message emphasised by the children’s commissioner who told us clearly that advocacy services are not an optional extra—they are absolutely necessary safeguards for our most vulnerable children. She also reminded our committee that, from Waterhouse and other inquiries to the events that have occurred more recently in Rotherham, children’s voices have not been listened to and have been overshadowed when they have been at their most vulnerable.

There are around 25,000 children who would be eligible for support in Wales. In 2016, 2,936 were on the child protection register, 5,554 were looked-after children, excluding those on the child protection register, and 15,884 were classed as children in need. The committee recognises that progress has been made. I welcome that the existing statutory duty to provide advocacy to looked-after children and other relevant groups was restated in the recent Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. But much more needs to be done to make sure that this is translated into a reality in the lives of our most vulnerable children.

Much of the committee’s inquiry is focused on the need to implement a consistent national approach to advocacy in line with recommendations set out in the reports published by the children’s commissioner—work that began four years ago. Although we recognise that there’s been progress in recent months in this area, the committee now wants to see urgent progress made in delivering this national approach. The committee made eight clear recommendations, which, if implemented appropriately, would go some considerable way to alleviating the problems identified by the multiple reports over the years.

I am pleased to see that the Cabinet Secretary has listened to the committee and responded positively to most of the recommendations we have made. The commitment by Welsh Government to deliver a national approach for statutory advocacy provision is one that is very much welcomed by the committee and across the sector. I cannot stress enough, though, that this needs to be a meaningful and successful transition to a national approach and not one that falls short of expectations. Clear arrangements need to be in place to ensure this approach is implemented, co-ordinated and monitored on an ongoing basis.

Achieving the national approach by June 2017 will be an important milestone, but fully delivering the approach beyond this date will be the measure of success. I know that key stakeholders have valid concerns about the sustainability of the model, especially once the implementation manager finishes post in June and in the absence of a stakeholder advisory group.

I am pleased that Welsh Government has at least accepted in principle the recommendation to provide a detailed update on the move towards a national approach in June. But I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to fully sign up to this and to come back to the committee later in the year to discuss the progress we hope will have been made.

This committee does not intend this report to sit on a shelf. And we plan to monitor progress on the national approach vigorously. It was disappointing to note Welsh Government rejected our recommendation calling for annual monitoring of local authority spending on advocacy services and funding based on population needs. We feel it is imperative that these essential services are funded on the basis of need. That funding, in two years, will go into the rate support grant to be monitored by regional partnership boards, and there are very real concerns, especially in the climate of such pressure on social services, as to how this funding will be monitored and reflect the growing needs of the looked-after, child protection and children in need population.

Before I conclude these opening remarks, I want to thank everyone who gave evidence to our inquiry. I want to place on record special thanks to the All Wales Children and Young People’s Advocacy Providers Group, which is made up of organisations who I know have campaigned tirelessly on this issue for years. Our thanks also to the children’s commissioner and her team for their persistence and commitment on this issue, without which I do not believe we would have made the progress we have to date.

In closing, I want to emphasise to Members that this is an issue that will not go away. Successive Governments and local authorities have so far failed to adopt a model that has met the needs of our most vulnerable young people. We want to see a clear commitment from Welsh Government to end this cycle of reports being published without a great deal of progress being made. This needs to be something we get right. The safety of our most vulnerable children depends on it.

I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report of the inquiry into statutory advocacy provision. May I begin by saying that Welsh Conservatives fully support the findings and recommendations contained in this report? This Assembly has a proud record of supporting the rights of children. I believe our report marks another milestone on the road of taking the rights of children and young people seriously. This measure emphasises our resolve to take the rights of children and young people seriously.

Our report intends to strengthen and enhance the advocacy rights of children and young people in Wales. This is in line with the statutory duty of local authorities to provide advocacy services. In the past, children’s commissioners, together with this committee’s predecessor, made a series of recommendations designed to strengthen statutory advocacy services in Wales. In response, the Welsh Government began work in 2013 to deliver a national approach to statutory advocacy services. Proposals for this national approach were due to be brought forward by the end of 2015. During the evidence sessions for this inquiry, some stakeholders expressed concerns about the lack of progress being made in delivering this national approach. No confirmation had been received that local authorities would implement this national approach in spite of work being done since 2013. Many stakeholders found this delay, some 16 years since the publications of the Waterhouse report, as unacceptable and frustrating. It is pleasing to note, therefore, that our committee’s proceedings appear to provide some impetus as progress in delivering the national approach was made during our deliberations. The committee made eight recommendations, of which six have been accepted by the Welsh Government, with another accepted in principle. So, could I ask the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that the national approach is on track to be in place by June this year and that all local authorities are fully committed to its adaptation and implementation?

It is essential that local authorities are monitored to ensure the national approach is fully implemented within timescales. Could the Cabinet Secretary provide more details on what monitoring arrangements will be in place to ensure local authorities comply with the requirements placed on them? How will progress on delivery be reported to local authorities, stakeholders and to the National Assembly? One point that did emerge during our proceedings was that there was a huge variation in the amount of money that local authorities were spending on their statutory advocacy duty. Could the Cabinet Secretary advise how he intends to tackle this variation and whether any new funding will be made available to meet the obligations of providing advocacy services?

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, specific groups of children have particular needs when it comes to statutory advocacy—these include children with mental health issues and with additional learning needs, and the children of asylum seekers. Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the specific needs of children such as these will be addressed in the national approach?

Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome this report, which keeps Wales at the forefront of promoting and protecting the rights of children in Wales. Thank you.

Local authorities have a statutory duty, of course, to provide advocacy services to specific groups of children, and as we heard from the committee Chair, it’s not an optional extra. But, unfortunately, the voices of those children haven’t been heard as they should have been when they have been most vulnerable. We also heard a reference to a series of reports, and an even lengthier series of recommendations that have been made over the years by various reports and children’s commissioners and so on since the Waterhouse report back in the year 2000.

Despite that, of course, although there have been developments over the past few months, we are still waiting for the national approach to be agreed and to be implemented. That is exceptionally disappointing—we should all admit that. In the meantime, of course, as the children’s commissioner has reminded us in the committee, children have been reporting to her office over a number of years that not all of them know what advocacy is, that they don’t know how to access advocacy, and that they are not reminded at the right times that they have a right to an advocate.

Then, of course, during our inquiry, we heard, as a committee, about the recent progress that’s been made in terms of agreeing the national approach that would be fully implemented by June of this year. In his evidence, the Cabinet Secretary told us that it was the ethical thing to do and financially right, and we would agree with that 100 per cent. Both of those points—the moral case of ensuring that children and young people are aware of their rights to advocacy, and the benefit in terms of their well-being, as well as the financial savings in the long term—remind me just how important it will be to ensure the strongest possible duties in terms of advocacy in the Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Bill, and I’m sure we will have that debate as that Bill goes through the various stages in this Parliament.

Now, there are questions about funding, I think, that remain, because evidence to the committee from local authorities, I have to say, wasn’t particularly emphatic. Clearly, the Government is playing its part by contributing half of the anticipated cost of the national approach, but there was an admission that, ultimately, resources will have an impact on what advocacy services will be available and which services will be commissioned. Local authorities said that the current financial climate means that we have to be realistic about the expectations placed on local authorities, without additional funds being provided. Of course, there is a huge divergence in the level of funding across local authorities in Wales when it comes to expenditure on that statutory responsibility. So, the journey for some local authorities to get to where they should be, and where many of us would like to see them getting to, is going to be extremely challenging, I’m sure.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has said that there will be no ring-fencing for the funding, and I understand the rationale behind that. But, of course, we have done some work in the committee looking at the education improvement grant, and the implications of not being able to identify with any certainty that the funding is reaching its intended point—also in terms of our inquiry into youth services, and notional sums being allocated in the RSG. But, of course, if you look at what actually reaches those services ultimately, it’s nowhere near, in many examples, to what it should be. So, if there is no ring-fencing—and I know that the Cabinet Secretary will be more than aware of this—we will need strong performance frameworks in place to ensure that what we want to see is delivered.

Fe bwysodd Plaid Cymru, wrth gwrs, am gryfhau eiriolaeth annibynnol yn y Ddeddf gwasanaethau cymdeithasol ar gyfer pob oedran. O ganlyniad i hynny, o leiaf yn awr nid yw awdurdodau lleol yn mynd i allu codi tâl am y gwasanaethau hyn. Nid oes gennyf syniad pam y credai unrhyw un yn y Llywodraeth y byddai’n dderbyniol yn y lle cyntaf i ganiatáu codi tâl am eiriolaeth.

Ond mae’n amlwg fod angen gwneud llawer mwy eto, ac mae’r argymhellion hyn gan y pwyllgor yn eithaf cymedrol yn fy marn i, ond maent yn gamau ymarferol iawn sydd angen eu cymryd. Felly, rwy’n siomedig fod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi dewis gwrthod argymhelliad 4, sydd ond yn gofyn i Lywodraeth Cymru fonitro gwariant gan awdurdodau lleol ar wasanaethau eiriolaeth a’i fod yn cael ei ariannu’n unol â dadansoddiad o’r asesiad o anghenion y boblogaeth. Beth sy’n bod ar fonitro lefelau gwario? Pan fyddwn yn sôn am eiriolaeth i blant yr hyn y siaradwn amdano mewn gwirionedd, wrth gwrs, yw darparu cymorth ar gyfer y bobl fwyaf agored i niwed mewn cymdeithas. Mae’n bosibl fod llawer o’r plant, wrth gwrs, yn derbyn gofal ac efallai eu bod eisoes wedi profi esgeulustod ac mae gennym ddyletswydd, fel rhieni corfforaethol, nad ydym yn ei chyflawni fel y dylem ar hyn o bryd. Felly, mae angen i’r Llywodraeth fod yn gryf yma. Mae angen i awdurdodau lleol gamu ymlaen a chyflawni, a bydd y pwyllgor, wrth gwrs, fel y mae’r Cadeirydd wedi ailadrodd, yn parhau i graffu ar y maes hyd nes y darperir y gwasanaeth y mae ein plant mwyaf agored i niwed yn ei haeddu, a’i angen yn wir.

Thank you very much. Finally, Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to speak in this debate about the committee’s report. Previous speakers have stressed how important it is that we have a fully developed advocacy scheme that covers the whole of Wales and that covers every local authority because it is the most vulnerable children who need it. We are letting them down if we don’t actually deliver this. I suppose, really, the main message from the committee is to get on with it. We heard a lot about the preparations that have been made, the discussions that had been had and commitments that had been given, but now I think it’s just got to be delivered because we owe it to the children of Wales. I know that during the course of the committee the Minister Carl Sargeant did give his personal commitment to seeing this through.

I was reminded of the vulnerability of children when I had a short debate very recently on the alleged abuse in the 1950s in the Llandrindod Wells schools for the deaf because research by my constituent, Cedric Moon, revealed that young deaf boys had been abused by a housemaster. But this abuse was never brought to the attention of the schools’ authorities until one of the boys, who had some speech, was abused and he then let the authorities know. The other boys had been unable to communicate what was happening to them and, of course, there were no advocates. To me that is an absolute prime example of where you needed an advocate to speak up for those vulnerable young boys. They couldn’t speak and there was no-one to speak for them. I’m pleased, as a result of the publicity for that debate, that there is now an inquiry going on into what happened, but it does illustrate how urgently we need advocacy.

I think there are particular groups of children who do specifically need advocacy. During the course of our report, the children’s commissioner highlighted those, and other people have referred to them today. But I do think there are very big issues with children who are in care, children who have mental health problems and, I think particularly as well, children with communication problems. The National Deaf Children’s Society gave evidence to the committee. They suggested the Welsh Government should issue minimum standards for advocacy services that take into account the distinct needs of deaf children and young people: the very children who cannot take part in debate and discussion. There were recommendations that they made about a basic level of deaf awareness and an understanding of the barriers deaf children and young people encounter. They did consult with deaf children on what was needed. They sent a list of the sorts of things that young people said they wanted:

My dream advocate is going to be nice, not interfering how I present my work, helpful, one of my best friend’

and ‘trust’, ‘young’, ‘to make you confident’, and ‘I want to be involved’. Many of the young people also said that they would like to be able to communicate with an advocacy service that could be done through text, e-mail or other social media, and also talked of the need for an interpreter for those who use sign language.

Obviously, a lot of progress has been made and I hope we’re nearly there. I think the committee report is giving an impetus for, we hope, the very last stage. But, obviously, there are still some concerns. The All Wales Children and Young People’s Advocacy Providers Group, who’ve given evidence to the committee and who have worked closely with us, have stressed the importance of external monitoring. They feel that a stakeholder advisory group should be re-established, so that work can be done with people who are actually working in the field. What I feel very strongly about is that as this is rolled out there should be engagement with young people as part of the implementation plan, because we are committed to children’s rights in this Assembly and I think it’s absolutely essential that young people are drawn into the debate and drawn into the discussion about how this is actually implemented. So, I hope this report will give the final stimulus to make this happen.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the report and thank the committee for the inquiry. It has undoubtedly helped move the approach forward. During the inquiry, the committee heard from providers and the Children’s Commissioner for Wales on the importance of advocacy and I echo their sentiments.

Our young children and young people, particularly those who are most vulnerable, must feel able to express themselves and be heard. I’ve heard and listened carefully to the comments made by Members today.

The approach will improve the provision of advocacy services and meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remain dedicated to securing a securing a sustainable approach to advocacy and the Welsh Government’s commitment to this has never faltered. We’ve always sought to drive progress in the face of delay. Let’s remember that the focus is about ensuring children across Wales get a consistent service. The Welsh Government has fully backed this from the outset.

Advocacy is not a new provision for local authorities—it has been a statutory duty—but I do recognise the active offer is a new requirement. That is why I’m committed to providing additional funding to meet the full cost of the active offer. The Welsh Government recognises the need to support this approach and funded a secondment dedicated to developing a robust business case, but since the plan was agreed, we’ve continued with this funding by funding an implementation manager, which was referenced during these discussions, to co-ordinate progress and ensure the national service timetable is delivered.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if I can turn to the report now. The report contained eight recommendations for Welsh Government. We accept six in full, accept another in principle and reject one for reasons that I will set out later.

I can confirm, since the inquiry, the implementation plan has progressed well. In December, I received written confirmation from the WLGA that national support had been gained by all 22 leaders. The Welsh Government will also take forward its commitment in the plan. At the end of the month, we will commence a 12-week consultation on the national independent advocacy standards and outcomes framework, and we will update the code of practice on advocacy to take account of the national approach. A technical group will be established this spring to advise on the changes to the code, which I intend to lay before the Assembly in the winter.

I listened carefully to the contribution by Julie Morgan with regard to a stakeholder advisory panel. While I won’t reference them today, I will give that further consideration in my broader aspects of deliberation. The Welsh Government has also recognised that when the approach is implemented we need to consider the wider provision of advocacy services, including Meic, and how they align. We must ensure that all advocacy services are accessible and avoid confusion for children and young people about what is available for them.

Turning to the two recommendations that the Welsh Government could not accept in full. Recommendation 8 that an independent review of progress took place at the end of the first year of implementation: I accepted this in principle because reporting on progress is crucial to the future development, however I can’t accept it in full as the implementation plan has to be developed by the Association of Directors of Social Services in Wales. It’s they who will report to the Welsh Government through the senior leadership group and, at that point, I will update the committee. So, it’s just a process issue that was preventing us from fully supporting that recommendation.

I rejected recommendation 4, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I have agreed to provide up to £550,000 to the regions through a regional grant, which will include terms and conditions to enable the Welsh Government to monitor expenditure for the early stage of implementation. The funding will then be placed into the revenue support grant and monitoring will be through the annual report of the regional partnership boards. I often hear discussions in this Chamber about the amount of grants that we send out and how some should be pushed into the RSG and some shouldn’t, and there’s debate around all of that. I want to be confident that, before we release this into the RSG, we do have a good service. And I will consider that whole aspect of this in terms of the comments made around a stakeholder advisory group. I genuinely want to have, like you, a good service for our young people. I hope that, in both cases, Members will recognise that this question of the precise means of achieving our shared goal of implementation and monitoring, and our commitment to those, is quite clear.

I thank the committee for highlighting the challenges of implementing the national approach. The evidence presented to the committee and its report will provide a solid basis for ensuring the implementation of the national approach going forward. This inquiry has positively reinforced the shared commitment of this Welsh Government and all its partners in providing statutory advocacy for children and young people. This is an evolving approach, which will be successful with everybody’s commitment. We must allow time for it to embed and be implemented properly so that the service offered to children meets the standards we expect for those children who need it.

I’m confident that, through the national approach, there will be consistency of access to advocacy that will improve the experiences of children and young people in care, and promote positive outcomes for them. Finally, we are in regular dialogue with local government about the approach, and I will maintain personal oversight of the progress. But I am assured that the national approach will be in place by 27 June, which I know Mohammad Asghar was asking about in his contribution.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it’s been an interesting discussion, but at the back of all of these deliberations, it’s about children and young people and we must have our eye on making sure that we create the right environment and the right services for them, for which I’m very grateful for the report from the committee.

Thank you very much. I now call on the Chair of the committee, Lynne Neagle, to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the members of the committee who’ve spoken this afternoon, and the Minister and all the members of the committee who contributed to the inquiry?

Mohammad Asghar, in his contribution, referred to the good record of this Assembly in promoting the rights of the child, which, of course, I’m sure we would all agree to, but I do think that we do need to do a bit of soul searching—all of us—as to how, in an institution that is supposedly committed to the rights of the child, we are now so many years on from having actually cracked this issue. So, I think that is an issue for all of us to reflect on, including the Welsh Government.

Llyr Gruffydd made an important contribution on the importance of advocacy. I particularly welcome the references he made to the importance of the active offer. Clearly, it is absolutely essential that we don’t just have advocacy services there that children aren’t aware of. These are vulnerable children and these services need to be promoted to them so that they can access them. That is a feature of this new national model that is going to be very, very important.

Llyr also referred to the likely inclusion of advocacy in the ALN Bill; clearly, that is something that the committee is also looking at. I’m sure we would all want to see robust advocacy available, but we also must be mindful of the challenges that there’ve been in delivering this, as we look to take this forward into other areas. I would personally very much like to see advocacy made available to children in other settings, including ALN, but also in the important area of mental health. Llyr also raised concerns about the funding issues and, in particular, the rejection of recommendation 4, which I’ll return to when I come to the Minister’s response.

Can I thank Julie Morgan for her contribution this afternoon? I wholeheartedly agree with her that we do just now have to get on with this and make some progress. She made a very important contribution on the particular needs of deaf children and I would like to thank her for her ongoing work in that area, because if children are vulnerable anyway, they are even more vulnerable if they cannot even communicate in the most basic ways. The report does make reference to deaf children and I hope that that is something that the Welsh Government will look very carefully at, going forward. Can I thank Julie also for her reference to the need for a stakeholder advisory group, which I think is absolutely essential, going forward?

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his response today? I do recognise his personal commitment to getting this issue right, which I hope we will now be able to translate into actually cracking this issue. I’m very pleased that the consultation will start now at the end of March on the advocacy standards. I think that is very welcome and I also very much welcome the indication you gave to Julie Morgan just now that you are very willing to look at the formation of a stakeholder advisory panel. The Minister also referred to the importance of Meic, which is also included in our report, and I think we need to be very mindful that having those kinds of universal services available to all children and young people is a very important gateway into the advocacy for the children who may be most in need and in danger. We welcome, again, the fact that the Government has accepted most of our recommendations. The Minister made particular reference this afternoon to those that have not been accepted in full, or rejected. If I can just say, in relation to recommendation 8, accepting it in principle is a step forward, and I note your comments about the need for local government to take this forward. But I think what we would want to avoid at all costs is a situation where there is a continued batting back and fore between local government and the Welsh Government. At the end of the day, the buck stops here in terms of delivery of this, and I think that’s what the committee were trying to reflect in our recommendation.

Just finally, on recommendation 4, the extra funding is very welcome that the Minster has referred to, but Llyr and other Members have referred to the fact that there are real concerns that, when local government is so strapped for cash, that money could end up going elsewhere when it’s in the RSG. So, I do hope that the Government will be able to look again at the issue of independent monitoring so we can be absolutely certain that that money is going where it is intended to.

So, just in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I thank everyone again for the opportunity to speak on this important subject this afternoon? I really hope that this will be the last time that we will have to stand here discussing the need for a proper national advocacy offer for children and young people. That would mark real progress, and I hope now that we can go forward and get on with that, and actually deliver that service that we all want to see for our children and young people. Thank you very much.

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

We now move on to item 6 on our agenda, which is a debate on the Petitions Committee’s report on a petition on ovarian cancer. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Mike Hedges, to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to open this debate on the Petitions Committee report on a petition received calling for a national screening programme for ovarian cancer. This petition was organised by Margaret Hutcheson, and was supported by 104 people. Ms Hutcheson, a retired palliative care nurse, was inspired to start the petition after several of her friends had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Her primary concern was to improve timely diagnosis and treatment of this terrible disease. Her main ambitions for the petition were for a national screening programme for ovarian cancer, and increased awareness of ovarian cancer and its symptoms amongst health professionals and the general public. As a committee, we held oral evidence sessions with the petitioner, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, and we also wrote to cancer charities to seek their views. We as a committee are grateful to the Welsh Government, Cancer Research UK, Ovarian Cancer Action, and Target Ovarian Cancer, who all provided their views on the subject of the petition.

Ovarian cancer is responsible for around 240 deaths each year in Wales—or, in terms we understand, six per constituency—and is one of the major causes of mortality in women in the UK. One in 50 women will have ovarian cancer at some point in their lives and, tragically, less than half of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer are alive five years after diagnosis. Evidence we received also indicated that survival rates in the UK are lower than the European average. Margaret Hutcheson, the petitioner, was accompanied by her friend Jenny Chapman to answer the committee’s questions, and I would like to place on record the committee’s sincere thanks to both of them for coming along and giving us their views.

All the views we heard support the importance of early identification of the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Doesn’t that sound common for all cancers? Early diagnosis improves the chances of successfully defeating the disease, and I think that that is something that we perhaps need to say more and more often. We heard that there’s a close correlation between early diagnosis and the outlook for women receiving that diagnosis. Whilst this is not unique to ovarian cancer, the committee did hear that ovarian cancer can be particularly difficult to diagnose. This is because the common symptoms are easily mistaken for either other conditions, or there are no symptoms at all. For these reasons, by the time most women with ovarian cancer develop symptoms and their cancer is detected, it has spread outside the ovaries and is far more difficult to treat successfully.

Figures we received from Cancer Research UK showed that the five-year ovarian cancer survival rate in England and Wales is 46 per cent, or, put the other way, 54 per cent die within five years. However, amongst women diagnosed at the earliest stage, this increases to 90 per cent. So, over a third more women who are diagnosed at the early stage survive than would if they waited until the later stage. We believe this represents a convincing case for taking further action to increase the number of women with ovarian cancer receiving an early diagnosis.

This petition primarily called for the introduction of a screening programme to detect early-stage ovarian cancer. The petitioner argued strongly this could help save the lives of women who develop cancer. The petitioner made the case that this should involve women receiving an annual blood test aimed at detecting early-stage ovarian cancer. In her evidence to committee, Margaret Hutcheson suggested the programme should specifically target all women aged over 50. Ovarian cancer screening is not currently available on the NHS in Wales, nor in any other part of the UK.

The committee heard that studies to find a general population screening test for ovarian cancer are currently ongoing. The largest of these is the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening, which has been running since 2001. Findings were published in December 2015. They indicated there could be benefits from conducting screening using blood tests, but these were inconclusive overall. As a result, the study has been extended for another three years.

In her evidence, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health outlined the process through which Welsh Government takes its advice from a UK national screening committee, which advises all UK Governments. We learned that the screening committee

has recently reviewed its recommendation about ovarian cancer screening and their existing recommendation remains for no population screening at this stage.’

We also heard concerns about the accuracy of the most common blood test for ovarian cancer, the CA125 test. Women with ovarian cancer tend to have high levels of the CA125 protein in their blood—more than women who do not have ovarian cancer. But CA125 can also be raised for a number of non-cancerous reasons. This means there is a significant risk of false positives. We heard it is possible that only 1 per cent of women referred to secondary care following a CA125 blood test would actually have ovarian cancer, and I think that one of the things we did feel was that we don’t want people to be frightened of something when the chances of them having it are that low. Therefore, the research currently indicates that the test is not currently accurate enough to be used as part of a screening programme.

Having given careful consideration to the range of evidence the committee received, on balance, we accept that the current evidence does not support the introduction of a population screening programme. However, given the study is still under way and will report further findings in the coming years, we recommend that Welsh Government should keep the situation under close review and give detailed consideration to any evidence in relation to a new national screening programme. Given that early diagnosis is so important in cases of ovarian cancer, an effective screening programme could play a vital role in improving survival rates, and I am pleased that the Minister accepted this recommendation.

As stated earlier, though we are not able to support a national screening programme, we felt as a committee that other measures taken to improve early identification of ovarian cancer—. I will now turn to those.

The need to increase public awareness of ovarian cancer was the central theme of the evidence we received. The petitioner expressed concern that public awareness of the condition is extremely low and described ovarian cancer as a ‘silent killer’. We heard that a leaflet on ovarian cancer, including common symptoms of the disease, is available through GP surgeries, and the Velindre NHS Trust ran a month-long awareness campaign in March 2016. As part of this, information packs for GPs were produced by the charity Target Ovarian Cancer. We welcome these actions and the efforts taken to increase public awareness of ovarian cancer and the common symptoms.

Nevertheless, we feel that more could and should be done to ensure greater numbers of women are aware of the disease. Building awareness is the key, because, once they become aware of it and become aware of the symptoms, then there’s a greater chance of them going to see their GP and getting a referral. We have recommended the Welsh Government should do more to improve public awareness of ovarian cancer, including the common symptoms and when people should seek medical advice. We would like to see this build upon previous work and run over a prolonged period.

I recognise there is merit in raising the public profile of a large number of conditions and diseases. However, the evidence we received convinced us there should be a focus on ovarian cancer specifically because of the vital importance of detecting the disease at the earliest possible stage. This was strongly supported by the petitioner and by the charities we contacted. For example, Ovarian Cancer Action told us that:

Funding would be better spent at this time on a national symptoms public awareness campaign.’

I must say I am very disappointed the Minister has declined this recommendation. I hope that in the ministerial reply she will be able to explain how a commitment to raising awareness of the symptoms of cancer generally within the cancer delivery plan will have the desired effect of raising awareness of ovarian cancer.

Our final recommendation concerns professional awareness of ovarian cancer. It is imperative that all women can receive timely tests and diagnosis when ovarian cancer is a possibility. Women who present with ovarian cancer symptoms must be able to access the appropriate diagnostic tests quickly so that optimal treatment is available to them. The evidence received was clear about the importance of awareness of ovarian cancer amongst health professionals. In particular, it is crucial that GPs—who, for most people, is the first person they see when they have symptoms that make them unwell—are consistently able to recognise the symptoms of ovarian cancer and appropriately refer people for diagnostic tests. What we don’t want is GPs not knowing about it, sending them back and telling them to come back in three months’ time if they haven’t got any better, because that will mean the time they have to wait to be dealt with will increase and their chances of survival will decrease.

We were pleased to hear that recent work has been carried out in relation to GP awareness in Wales, and the Minister spoke of her intention to continue to improve the understanding of symptoms and early diagnosis of ovarian cancer by clinicians. The committee noted that this is already a priority area in GP contracts and that GPs were required to review every case of ovarian cancer detected in 2015 in order to help learn lessons in relation to diagnosis and referral.

We recommended that the Government continues this work and supports primary care cancer leads to use the learning from this review to inform plans in each health board aimed at improving early diagnosis. I’m very glad that the Deputy Minister accepted that recommendation.

In conclusion, Llywydd, I’d like to reiterate that the committee fully supports the motivation behind the petition. Whilst the evidence does not currently support the call for national screening of all women, we believe there’s strong evidence of the importance of seeking to develop greater awareness of ovarian cancer amongst the public and health professionals. I hope our report and the debate this afternoon will help contribute in some small way towards this.

Finally, I would like to place on record the committee’s thanks to Margaret Hutcheson for using the petitions process to bring this matter to the Assembly’s attention, and for her hard work and enthusiasm throughout the process. I would also like to thank the members of the committee and the staff who helped in our consideration of the petition and the production of our report. If only one woman gets diagnosed early enough to save her life, it will be worth while.

I’m delighted to speak in this debate. I wasn’t a member of the committee at the time, but I have read the report and the Government response, and I have spoken to a number of organisations who’ve brought forward concerns on this matter. I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to this report. I’d like to thank the Chair and his clerking team, and I’d particularly like to thank the petitioner, Margaret Hutcheson, because she used her democratic right to bring before us all a very important matter—very important because the horrifying statistic is that a woman dies every two hours from ovarian cancer in the UK. As Margaret herself said, two of her close friends—both chemotherapy nurses—did not spot the signs of ovarian cancer. So, it just goes to show that it is a very difficult cancer to spot. Many people do describe it as a silent killer, but it does have some very clear symptoms: persistent bloating, persistent stomach pain, difficulty eating, feeling full more quickly, and needing to wee more frequently. So, rather than think of ovarian cancer as a silent killer, I would suggest that it’s a mistress of disguise. Forty-one per cent of women had to visit their GP more than three times before being referred for diagnostic tests, because the symptoms are very hard to identify. They can be very similar to irritable bowel syndrome, or seen as a consequence of menopause. Herein lies one of the sad consequences: if ovarian cancer is caught at stage 1, survival rates are in the order of 90 per cent. I know that the Chair’s made this point, but I do think that’s a really important point to re-emphasise—90 per cent if caught in stage 1. But, by the time a woman reaches stage 3, her survival rate plummets to only 19 per cent. In other words, 81 per cent of all women at stage 3 will die. And that’s one hell of a death sentence.

This is more than a sobering statistic, but it’s a world of sorrow for those individuals and for their families, and I think it is very important that we take a look at this. So, my challenge to the Welsh Government—and to you, Minister—is this: in rejecting recommendation 3, how confident are you that the symptoms of ovarian cancer, this mistress of disguise, will become more well-known by both women and the medical community, particularly GPs, because they are our front line? What exactly, may I ask, does your response mean when you say—I’m just going to read from your response, Minister—about the cancer delivery plan:

It includes a commitment to raise awareness of the symptoms of cancer. The cancer implementation group will determine the content of this activity based on tumour prevalence and outcomes’?

Now, I read that as ‘tumour prevalence’ meaning how many people might have it. Well, I guess not huge numbers, but enough for a woman to die every two hours. But what is very clear about ovarian cancer is once you’ve got it, unless it’s caught quickly, you’re not in for a good ride. So, we know that prevalence.

We also know that Wales has the worst survival rate in all of the home nations. The five-year survival rate, Minister, for ovarian cancer in Wales is only 38 per cent. So, as the Chair said, 62 per cent of all women in Wales with ovarian cancer will die within five years. So, I believe it’s imperative that you ensure that the symptoms of ovarian cancer are made very well known to women and the medical community.

Minister, would you agree with me that a commitment by you and the Welsh Government to follow the NICE guidelines and ensure that anyone with a 10 per cent risk of carrying one of the BRCA genes is tested? Would that not be a good place to start? Whilst I do understand the pressures on finances, and how very difficult it is for us to make all cancers known to all people, the problem with this particular one is that your chances, once it goes beyond a certain stage, become very slim indeed. There is just a 10 per cent survival rate after five years if you’ve got to stage 3. So, it would be of great importance if you could look at ensuring that ovarian cancer is taken very seriously in terms of its messaging to people. Very simple, women and GPs: there are four or five very strong key symptoms, and if a woman keeps presenting, more than once or twice with that, you must get them tested, and you must enable them to be moved forward, up through the diagnostic path. But you need to tell women that it’s not just having heartburn or having a funny tummy and not feeling well, and you need to make sure that GPs really understand what those symptoms of ovarian cancer are. The way to do that is through public health messaging. Thank you.

Could I thank Margaret Hutcheson for submitting this very important petition? I read the report with great interest and some shock as well, because the petition itself noted the astonishing effect that ovarian cancer has had. We’ve heard some of the figures already: in 2014, 365 women diagnosed and 238 women died of this disease. The percentage of those who failed to survive is incredibly high as well, so I think that we all agree that we need to tackle this situation, change the situation and more people need to be able to survive this very cruel disease. We have lower survival rates than other places, which shows that we should be learning from others as well.

The petition does call for a national screening programme to be introduced, and the committee’s report does note that this may not be the most effective way of improving diagnosis and finding it early at present. So, until we have a more accurate test, I do think that we should focus on other ways of having an early diagnosis, while at the same time look proactively for the latest evidence on the effectiveness of screening.

The first critical thing to do is to increase awareness of symptoms, and increase awareness of symptoms among women themselves, but also among GPs. The rates of general awareness are still very low, and that’s what recommendation 3 by the committee was. Strangely, it was refused by the Government; I don’t really understand the reasons why, if the Government is intending to do this anyway as part of their cancer plan, then why reject this recommendation?

I think there is an interesting point to be made here about the conflict between, on the one hand, the messages that we are giving here about ensuring that people do go to their GPs early enough when the symptoms emerge, so that serious illnesses are captured early and that treatments can be effective, and then, on the other hand, the messages that you should only go to the GP if things are serious, and that you should instead perhaps be looking to using a pharmacy or practice nurse, or rather see how things go.

And it is a balance between GPs having to deal with those who are okay but who are concerned, while making sure that those who are not healthy but who are not concerned are encouraged to try and go and see a GP at an earlier stage, and have a better opportunity to survive.

The second thing that we should do is bring waiting times for diagnostic tests down when someone is brave enough to go to their GP. Once again, the model that we see in Denmark of diagnostic centres or multidisciplinary centres is worth looking at as something that could contribute to increasing capacity in order to allow this to happen.

So, just to close, I’ll repeat the approval of Plaid Cymru of the messages in the report. It is a shame that not all of us in the Chamber can agree with the three recommendations, but as I said at the outset, I’m pleased that this has been submitted by Margaret Hutcheson as an issue for the Petitions Committee to discuss.

It’s timely that we’re having this debate today, as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month for this year draws to a close. Indeed, as others have said, raising awareness is absolutely key when it comes to tackling the UK’s deadliest gynaecological cancer. I want to also thank the petitioner, Margaret Hutcheson. Whilst the recommendations might not fully fulfil what she was asking for initially, I think the fact that her action has got it on the agenda of the Assembly today cannot be underestimated. What a significant step forward that is in raising awareness and enabling us to step up and talk about the symptoms of ovarian cancer.

In my 90-second debate on this issue, just a couple of weeks ago, I touched on how most of us here will know somebody who’s had this cancer, or have a friend or family member, and that is the case for me. So, tackling ovarian cancer, to me, is not just a priority for me as a politician but it’s a priority driven by personal experience. The best way today that we can work together to beat ovarian cancer is to be aware of the facts, to be aware of the symptoms and to be aware of your own family history.

In fact, one in four women believe that having a smear test means that they’re covered for all gynaecological cancers. Whilst we know smear tests are important and they shouldn’t be feared and they definitely shouldn’t be forfeited, it’s important to recognise that they do not detect ovarian cancer.

Currently, it remains that the best way to detect ovarian cancer is for women and health practitioners alike, as others have said, to know and to act upon the main symptoms of this cancer. On the latter, it’s crucial for GPs and other healthcare professionals to have an enhanced understanding of the symptoms of ovarian cancer in order to increase the chances of early detection.

As my colleague Angela Burns said, the symptoms are often misdiagnosed at the first point of contact as things like IBS or things associated with the menopause. In my mum’s case, it was initially thought that she had gallstones. Some of the symptoms that previously presented themselves literally became chronic virtually overnight. It presented in March and, whilst it wasn’t an easy diagnosis, she did have surgery in June. The key to that is awareness of symptoms and for women going to the doctor to be able to articulate, ‘Actually, I’m concerned it could be this’, and to be able to feel confident to get the doctor to make that assessment to get that early diagnosis.

It would be remiss of me not to say today that I’m forever eternally grateful, and my family is, to the wonderful NHS and the amazing team of specialists in north Wales, including the oncologist who said to my mum, ‘Although the cancer is aggressive, we’re just going to get on with this’. This was in 2009 and, prior to that, she had breast cancer in 2005.

I should probably point out at this point that my mum is part of that, shall we say, select group of avid viewers of Senedd.tv—hopefully she’s watching today. But, she probably won’t be commenting on the content of my contribution, she’ll probably be telling her iPad that I’m talking too quickly or watching to see if I’ve pinched one of her items of jewellery again.

Sounds like a great mum.

Thank you. So, early detection of ovarian cancer is lifesaving and knowing the symptoms does make a difference, but this difficulty in diagnosis has left ovarian cancer to be called the silent killer. I think we need to rebuff that, because it isn’t silent—as we’ve said, there are symptoms, and it’s crucial that in this debate we speak up and that going forward we use that as a tool to tackle this cruel cancer.

I know that others have said the symptoms, but I am going to relay them, because the more we say it and the more we share it, the more the message gets out there. So, the four main symptoms to watch out for are: persistent stomach pain, persistent bloating, finding it difficult to eat or feeling full quickly and needing to urinate more often.

Also—I touched on this at the outset—linked to this raising awareness, it’s important for people to be aware of their own family history. Around 20 per cent of ovarian cancer cases are caused by genetic mutations, including the BRCA gene mutation. If a woman is found to carry a faulty BRCA gene, her risk of developing ovarian cancer increases from one in 54 to one in two, and it also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. I know that Ovarian Cancer Action is campaigning for BRCA to be used as a cancer prevention strategy, stating that to be aware of their BRCA status gives people the power to take action to prevent cancer.

However, I’m all too aware that taking steps to be tested for BRCA is not a decision that anybody would take lightly, and it’s often one that will be fraught with fear and anxiety about the important, although potentially life changing, decisions that would be made as a consequence of having that test. To me, that links back to the value—the need—of increasing awareness and making people aware that they may have the BRCA gene, but making sure that support is there for people in an accessible and adequate way.

There’s clear consensus, to wrap up, from the leading cancer charities, including Ovarian Cancer Action and Cancer Research UK, that the introduction of a national screening programme for ovarian cancer is not recommended, based on the current available evidence. Ninety per cent of women are not aware of these four main symptoms of ovarian cancer, but whilst women diagnosed at stage 1 have a 90 per cent survival rate, awareness is the best ammunition we currently have in early diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.

The recommendations of the Petitions Committee, in terms of proposing that the Welsh Government continues to work with GPs and other health professionals to assure appropriate tests and early diagnosis, and, likewise, to do more to improve awareness of ovarian cancer over a prolonged period of time, really are our best line of defence in increasing early detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer. So, let’s make sure that today’s debate fires the starting gun to do just that.

I’d like to thank the Petitions Committee for their report and the work they undertook to consider this petition. Ovarian cancer strikes around 20 women each day in the UK and sadly accounts for around 248 deaths in Wales each year. We all know that in the case of cancer, early diagnosis equates to better chances of survival. If diagnosed in the early stages of ovarian cancer, 90 per cent survive for five years or more. However, if diagnosed in the later stage, only three in 100 survive beyond five years. It is, therefore, imperative that we do all we can to diagnose ovarian cancer sooner.

Unfortunately, there is not yet a reliable screening test for ovarian cancer. The UK collaborative trial on ovarian cancer undertook a 14-year study looking at the benefits of the CA125 blood test and ultrasound probes to detect the early signs of ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, the results did not find any conclusive evidence that this type of screening would reduce ovarian cancer deaths. In fact, the trial found that there were a large number of false positives. They found that for every three women who had surgery to check for ovarian cancer based on their blood test, two of them turned out not to have cancer. Scaling that up over the whole population adds up to a lot of unnecessary surgery.

This surgery isn’t a trivial procedure—like any surgery it carries significant risks. Around three out of every 100 women who had surgery also had major complications as a result—this included infections or damage to other organs. We therefore need to find a better way of screening—a more reliable method—before we roll out screening to the whole population.

The Petitions Committee recommend that the Welsh Government keeps the screening programme for ovarian cancer under review and I wholeheartedly support this recommendation. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted it. I would like us to go further. We should be actively pushing for further research into ways to screen for ovarian cancer. Aside from screening, it is important that all health professionals recognise the early signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, as this is the key to providing early diagnosis and treatment. Over 40 per cent of women with ovarian cancer have had to visit their GP on numerous occasions to be referred for further tests. I, therefore, welcome the committee’s second recommendation and the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance of it.

However, I was deeply disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary has rejected the committee’s third recommendation, which calls on the Welsh Government to improve public awareness of ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is often called the silent killer as only one in four women can name the symptoms, such as persistent bloating, persistent stomach pain, difficulty eating and needing to urinate more frequently. A quarter of women also believe, incorrectly, that a smear test will detect ovarian cancer. If women do not recognise the signs and symptoms of this killer disease, how can they possibly hope to seek treatment? I, therefore, ask the Cabinet Secretary to please reconsider. Public awareness of this disease can genuinely save lives, so until we get better screening for ovarian cancer, it is our best hope to save women from dying from this terrible disease. Diolch yn fawr.

I’m not a member of the committee but I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I’d like to congratulate the committee on its report, and particularly congratulate Margaret Hutcheson and her friends for highlighting ovarian cancer, and, as Hannah Blythyn said, for managing to get it debated here on the floor of the Chamber. So, I think that’s a great step forward in itself.

I’m sure many of you attended the Cancer Patient Voices event earlier this year, back in January. It was the second event of its kind. The first event, the first of its kind in Wales, was organised by Annie Mulholland. Some of you may remember, or may even have known Annie, who was a great campaigner and who appeared frequently in the media and on television drawing attention to issues related to ovarian cancer. She set up the Cancer Patient Voices event to bring together people suffering from all different kinds of cancer. Annie herself was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011 and, sadly, died in May 2016. But I’d like to pay tribute to the attention and the highlighting that she did at that time. I know she was a member of the cancer cross-party group, which I chair, and she had a mission to highlight and bring to everyone’s attention issues related to cancer.

I congratulate Margaret Hutcheson on bringing this petition and I acknowledge the very strong voices there are on this issue. Many constituents have come to see me asking for screening, asking for the Welsh Government to bring in screening and, at the Voices event earlier this year, there was a persistent call from women and men for a screening programme. I know that the petitioners will be disappointed by the recommendations, because I know that Margaret Hutcheson, herself a retired palliative care nurse, wants yearly screening for ovarian cancer using the CA125 blood test. But my understanding, and the evidence outlined in the Petitions Committee report, shows the danger of false positive results with this test and concludes that however much we may want it to work, there is no evidence to support the introduction of a population screening programme using the CA125 blood test, or an alternative method, at this moment in time. I think we have to accept this decision, which is based on evidence, and so I think the Petitions Committee are right in their recommendations. But I do think it’s absolutely essential that we keep the possibility of screening under review, because science is changing all the time and there are huge advances all the time. So, let’s keep this under review so that we know that if there ever is the opportunity for tackling this disease, we will be in a position to do it.

I agree with Angela Burns and Hannah Blythyn that this should not be called the silent killer, because that implies there is nothing you can do about it. From all the debate that we’ve heard today, there is much that you can do about it. You can recognise the symptoms, GPs can be helped in training with awareness of these issues and the very fact that it has come here today and is being debated, I think, is very, very important.

There was an awareness-raising campaign undertaken by Velindre Cancer Centre in early 2016 and I do welcome that. I welcome the fact that they worked together with Target Ovarian Cancer to distribute GP information packs and to try to make GPs more aware of the symptoms and recognise—because, as I think everyone said today, early diagnosis is the absolute key.

I do think that we need more of these information campaigns and campaigns also to highlight the symptoms to women themselves, which, again, people here have mentioned today. I don’t think we can be too high profile about this issue. It shouldn’t be a one-off awareness-raising campaign, because we know that early diagnosis can cure. So, I’d like to really conclude by saying well done to all those women who’ve made such efforts to highlight this campaign and thank the Petitions Committee for its response.

Thank you very much. I now call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I’d like to begin by joining the other speakers in thanking the petitioners who raised this important issue, and also put on record my thanks to the Petitions Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the matter and its report and recommendations, and also all the speakers in the debate for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.

Ovarian cancer can affect women at any age but it’s more common amongst women who’ve been through the menopause and, as we’ve heard in the debate, the symptoms of ovarian cancer can be similar to those of other conditions and therefore it can be difficult to diagnose. This is an important issue for women in Wales and I hope the committee’s consideration of this issue and our debate today will help raise the profile of ovarian cancer.

Population screening is the process of identifying healthy people who may be at an increased risk of a disease or condition, or identifying the presence of an as-yet-undiagnosed disease or condition in a person. We then can respond through the provision of information, further tests or treatment. Screening, therefore, has the potential to identify conditions at an early and more easily treatable stage. Screening can save lives, improve your quality of life and reduce the need for costly interventions and treatments at a more advanced stage.

However, it’s important to understand what screening can and cannot do. Screening can save lives by identifying risks early, but it can also cause harm by identifying some factors that will never develop into a serious condition. Screening also doesn’t guarantee protection. Some people may receive a low-risk result from screening but this may not prevent them from developing the condition at a later date.

Population screening should only be offered where there is robust, high-quality evidence that it will do more good than harm and be cost-effective within the overall NHS budget. Where such evidence exists, the Welsh Government invests in screening programmes.

I’d like to reassure you that all of our population-based, pre-symptomatic screening programmes, which range from antenatal screening of pregnant women to screening older men for aneurisms, are developed and delivered using the best available evidence and are subject to regular review.

The UK National Screening Committee provide independent, expert advice on population-based screening to all UK Ministers. The committee brings academic rigour and authority to what is an extremely complex area and is a world leader in its field. The screening programmes in the UK are amongst the most respected in the world. The UK National Screening Committee has recently considered the evidence from a large UK trial into ovarian cancer screening. The evidence to date is not conclusive and the expert committee has not currently recommended screening for ovarian cancer.

The UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening and leading cancer charities agree that the evidence does not yet show screening can reduce deaths from ovarian cancer. As we’ve heard during the debate, the study did find that, for every ovarian cancer detected by screening, a number of women had unnecessary surgery, and around 3 per cent of women who had unnecessary surgery had a major complication. These and other harms, such as raised anxiety levels, will need to be carefully considered should further evidence support screening.

The UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening is ongoing and I understand that further evidence will be available in 2019. The UK National Screening Committee will review its recommendation when this evidence becomes available. The Welsh Government will keep the potential for a national population screening programme for ovarian cancer under review and we continue to be advised by the UK expert advisory committee on this matter.

We recognise that we need to do more to identify cancers sooner. Our NHS must respond appropriately to women presenting with symptoms that require investigation. The NHS in Wales is implementing the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suspected cancer referral guidelines, which have lowered the threshold of suspicion and are specifically aimed at encouraging more referrals. Our current GP contract requires that each surgery reviews cases of ovarian cancer to identify opportunities to improve the care given to women. And there is now a GP lead in every health board to help primary care better identify, refer and support people affected by cancer.

We’ll continue to work with the NHS across Wales to improve the early detection of ovarian cancer and improve swift access to the latest evidence-based treatment. It’s important that people are able to recognise symptoms and feel confident in contacting their GP. This is not just a challenge for ovarian cancer, but for a number of cancers with non-specific symptoms. An awareness campaign for ovarian cancer has recently been undertaken. The campaign was launched in March 2016 and included the distribution of leaflets and posters to all GP surgeries in Wales. This activity, together with the valued work of cancer charities and campaigners, has helped raise awareness of ovarian cancer across Wales. Our cancer delivery plan, which was launched in November 2016, includes a commitment to raise awareness of the symptoms of cancer. It is imperative that we’re informed by the experts as to which cancers to target and how. Quite simply, as a layperson, I don’t want to pre-empt that, and that is the reasoning behind our approach to recommendation 3. The cancer implementation group will lead on the development of future awareness-raising activity. They will consider site-specific awareness campaigns, but will also be considering the benefits of a more generic awareness-raising campaign. Proposals for a rolling awareness campaign through to 2020 are due later this year.

I’d like to close by thanking the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the floor of the Senedd today and I’m sure the committee’s scrutiny of this issue and this debate will help further raise awareness of ovarian cancer across Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Mike Hedges, to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, can I thank all the Members who spoke today? And can I say something I rarely say? I agreed with every word that every one of you said. So, I could sit down now and say, ‘I agree with everything you’ve said’, but I think, perhaps, I’d better say a bit more. Can I also thank the Minister for her reply? Most of all—and I think everybody would agree—I’d like to thank Margaret Hutcheson for getting the petition and bringing this before us.

Angela Burns: a woman dies every two hours in the UK. That means two have died since we started this meeting. It’s a difficult cancer to spot, and I loved your description, ‘the mistress of disguise’—I wish I’d thought of it. It can be confused with irritable bowel syndrome or the menopause, and, really, you catch it early and people live; you catch it late and people die.

Rhun ap Iorwerth: we need to change the structure and improve survival rates. I think everybody has said that. We want people to be found early and to survive. We need to increase awareness among women and GPs. To paraphrase you, we do have the problem in health all the time of the worried well as opposed to the unworried ill.

Hannah Blythyn, can I just thank you for showing the courage and raising a family issue? It must’ve been very difficult, but can I thank you for that, because I think, when people bring personal experiences to these debates, it adds a great deal more than those of us who speak in the third person?

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month—very important. I didn’t know that it is the UK’s most deadly gynaecological cancer. I think it’s something that we do need to get out. We need to raise awareness. People need to know that a smear test does not detect it, and it’s crucial that GPs have an enhanced understanding. Caroline Jones, again, talked about early diagnosis and the problem of false positives from screening—that is one of the reasons why we didn’t support screening. We need a reliable screening method, and the sooner we get that the better. Julie Morgan mentioned Annie Mulholland. Many of us knew her mission to highlight cancer and ovarian cancer. The evidence that the CA125 test does not work, that’s why the committee did not recommend it, but we do need early diagnosis. We need people to go to their GPs, we need the GPs to recognise it, not to say, ‘Well, it’s probably irritable bowel syndrome’, or, ‘It’s your menopause, come back in three months’ time.’ But, a couple of these three months are reducing the chances of survival dramatically.

Minister, you’re absolutely right, screening causes harm and worry. If you’re screening people and you get false positives, people worry. I’ve been with a family member who, thankfully, didn’t have anything, to a cancer screening, and I’ll tell you what, I actually could have read the paper upside down and I wouldn’t have noticed I was doing so. It brings a huge amount of worry. That is why the committee did not recommend bringing in screening at this time. It is a silent killer; those were not my words, those were the words of the petitioner, but it is something we desperately need to get out there. Can I just say, I still am, and I’m sure the rest of the committee will be and maybe other Members are, disappointed that the proposal that we try and get it promoted, we try and get greater understanding among GPs and patients of what it is was not accepted by the Minster? So, can I, as a plea, ask the Minister to think again about it? It really is important that we get out there and let people know.

As I say, two women will have died this afternoon since we met. There are two families who are now in mourning because of it. The chances are they were caught late. If they had been caught early, those families would now be going through ordinary family life. That’s the bit that hits home for me, I don’t know if it does to others, that we are making a decision. If you catch it early, then people will live, and if you catch it late—. I think it was Angela Burns who said you’ve got a one in 10 chance of dying if it’s caught very early, and a one in 10 chances of surviving if it’s caught very late. That’s the difference. There’s a death sentence if we get it wrong. A plea to the Minister to reconsider, again, getting more information out there and getting more people to realise how important it is that if they’ve got any of these symptoms, to get there and for GPs to treat it seriously. Thank you.

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

We move on to item 7, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party’s debate on Welsh-medium schools. I call on Neil Hamilton to move to motion. Neil.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I beg to move the motion standing in my name. I hope this is going to be a constructive debate this afternoon—that’s certainly the spirit in which we put this motion down. As it makes clear in the very first clause, we support the Welsh Government’s objective of having 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, and will support all reasonable measures to achieve that. As our national anthem proclaims, ‘O bydded i’r heniaith barhau’, and

Mae hen iaith y Cymry mor fyw ag erioed’.

That’s one of the essences of being Welsh, I think: to support the native language of our land. I certainly want to see it succeed, but the best way of achieving the Government’s objective is to do so with the grain of public opinion by persuasion and evangelism, if you like. It certainly won’t be achieved in the face of opposition, which is created by what is perceived as a policy of coercion.

The Education Act 1996 says that pupils should be educated in accordance with parents’ wishes, and that the Secretary of State should have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That legislation has, of course, been overtaken since devolution, but the principle behind it, I think, should be pretty non-controversial. I presume that is why there was a consultation process, which was conducted by Carmarthenshire County Council in the case of Llangennech school and the proposals that they have to merge the two existing schools into one Welsh-medium-only school. But if the purpose of a consultation is to seek public opinion, particularly of those most closely affected by the decision, who are, of course, the parents of the children whose lives are going to be most deeply affected by the education that they are to receive, this is one that has not succeeded.

The consultation has been a lengthy one. In January 2016, there was an initial consultation on the proposals and there were 154 responses that were in favour, 102 against. There was one anonymous response in favour, and 32 anonymous results against, but there was a petition with 505 names on it that was counted as one vote. If you take individual voices as an indication of public opinion, which is the obvious thing to do, then I’m afraid that Llangennech voted heavily against the proposal of the county council. There was another consultation, or extension of the consultation, when the statutory notice was published later in the year, and the results then were 1,418 responses altogether, of which 698 were in favour of what the county council proposed and 720 were against. But only 44 per cent of those responses can be positively identified as being from people who live in and around the village—25 per cent came from outside and 31 per cent were respondees who gave no address or postcode, or any other means of identifying where they were from. There was a petition, which, this time, had 757 names on it from Llangennech, but that, similarly, counts as one vote only in this process.

Now, the county council quite rightly says in the document that summarised all these results that,

The decision on whether or not to proceed with the proposal must, by virtue of the law, be made on the grounds of the best interests of learners. It is therefore, the educational merits that must be the determining factor in decision making, rather than the number of responses received in favour or against the proposal.’

And I agree with that, that actual arithmetical numbers shouldn’t necessarily be the sole determinant of the decision that is made, but, ultimately, I do think that we should respect the views of parents unless a compelling case to the contrary can be made, and I don’t think, in this particular instance, that it has. Of course, there is a massive cultural value to having children learning to speak Welsh, as well as English, and I’m in favour of bilingualism. But, unfortunately, one of the developments in recent—

Will the Member give way?

Yes, of course.

I note he’s keen to present himself as a friend of the Welsh language. Will he take this opportunity to condemn comments by Gareth Bennett, who described Welsh language campaigners as ‘loonies’, which was offensive on several levels?

Well, I started my remarks this afternoon, Llywydd, by saying I hoped that this would be a constructive debate, and we shouldn’t seek to make petty political points of that kind, and I will continue in that spirit—[Interruption.] Well, we can have a yah-boo debate if you like, but I don’t think that the public at large are going to be terribly impressed by the attitude of Plaid Cymru on that. I’d like to make a little progress, please.

And so, all I’m suggesting is that, in this particular instance, the views of the parents and those most closely affected by the county council’s decision have been comprehensively ignored by the county council. The strategic plan that Carmarthenshire County Council has produced has been accepted, broadly speaking, by everybody, as far as I’m aware, except in this one instance. I think that it is a mistake to make the best the enemy of the good, from the point of view of those who want to see more Welsh-medium-only schools. Clearly, if there is massive local opposition to this particular proposal, that should cause us to stay our hand. Let’s try persuasion. Let’s move a little more slowly in this one particular instance. It’s 2017; we don’t have to have every single school that was in the strategic plan as a Welsh-medium school by 2017 if it is going to cause massive disruption in the locality. All I’m suggesting is that if we, as we all do, apparently, want to see the Government succeed in its objective, then we must carry the people with us.

It doesn’t help, therefore, to refer to the genuine worries of parents, whether they be justified or not, as contributing to a toxic atmosphere in Llangennech, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has done. [Interruption.] As the First Minister said in questions the other day, that was not a positive and constructive contribution to the debate. It’s not helpful, of course, if a co-ordinator for parents of Welsh-medium education says, ‘If those parents don’t like the Welsh language, can I suggest that the border is over there, and they can cross the border?’ Nor is it helpful for an S4C presenter on Twitter to say,

I hate England in my soul yesterday, today, and forever.

So, if Plaid Cymru want to condemn bigotry, perhaps they’ll condemn Morgan Jones, the person concerned in that tweet. [Interruption.]

Jonathan Edwards, the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East—[Interruption.]

Allow the Member to continue or seek to intervene. Allow the Member to continue.

I can assure you, Llywydd, that I will not be shouted down—

No, no, you can continue.

[Continues.]—by the intolerant members of Plaid Cymru opposite; not that all members of Plaid Cymru are intolerant, but some of them clearly are.

Jonathan Edwards’s contribution to the debate has been to attack the Labour Party, saying that the Labour Party in Llanelli has run a nasty, divisive campaign against the plans of the local Plaid Cymru-led council. The institutional anti-Welsh prejudice of Labour locally is why working-class politicians like him, apparently, find their natural home now in Plaid Cymru. Of course, I won’t delay the Assembly any further with those kinds of remarks, not least the ones that are abusive towards UKIP. But I’d like to commend Nia Griffith, who is the Labour MP for Llanelli, for the approach that she has brought to this debate, because in her response to the county council’s consultation, she has said—I’ve got her contribution here somewhere—that,

Every child in Wales should have the opportunity to access school education through the medium of Welsh, and pupils in Llangennech currently have that opportunity through attending the Welsh stream. It would be counter-productive to the aim of increasing the number of pupils who can use the Welsh language if pupils then chose to attend English-medium schools because of this change.’

So, if the result of the intransigence of the county council’s policy is that you’re driving children out of dual-stream schools into an English-medium-only education, then that actually sets us back. It doesn’t actually take us forward. So, what I’m trying to do in the course of this debate today is to point the way forward that, yes, we will make enormous progress by the policy of the Government being implemented, and where WESPs are able to do that, but if we have a fight in Llangennech today, that’s nothing to the fight you will have when you want to try to introduce Welsh-medium education into areas that are far less Welsh speaking than Carmarthenshire. I want to avoid that consequence. [Interruption.] I want to avoid that consequence, which is why I support the principles that are expressed in the motion.

I see that Lee Waters is here to make his own speech, I hope, but I also approve of what he has said previously in this respect, that we need to take great care in the way that we deal with this. He was talking of the Minister when he said,

He and I share the ambition to ensure that all 16 year-olds are able to speak Welsh by the time they leave school, and continue to use it in everyday life. And we both want to maintain the goodwill that there has been towards the Welsh language.’

It will be a tragedy, and indeed a disaster, for the policy of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 if we adopt the steamroller approach, and I commend our motion to the Assembly.

I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Move.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendments 2, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to move amendments 4 and 5 on the order paper, but I will not be moving amendment 2, as we intend to withdraw that amendment, with your permission, Presiding Officer, because we will be supporting amendment 1 on the order paper.

I have to say I’m a little bit disappointed that this debate is being used to home in on one particular issue in one part of Wales. I think it’s really important that we, as a National Assembly that has supported the Welsh language on a cross-party basis over the duration of many different administrations, stick together in order to advance the cause of Welsh-medium education. We, for our party’s sake, will be supporting that tremendous ambition that has been set out by the Welsh Government to create 1 million Welsh language speakers by 2050. That’s an ambition that we support and we want to help the Government to achieve. We know that Welsh-medium education is going to be absolutely critical if we are going to reach that target and hit it, and that’s why we’ve got to do what we can in every single corner of Wales, no matter whether those corners of Wales are areas where the Welsh language is widely spoken or not. It doesn’t matter whether this is north-east Wales or the borders close to England. At the end of the day, we should be promoting the Welsh language in every corner of our country and doing what we can to maximise the opportunities for young people to go and enjoy their schooling experience through the medium of Welsh. I’ll happily take an intervention.

Can I welcome those words? Would the Member agree that support has to be at all times more than just words? I think what you’re saying also is that words must be matched with action, and that we must accept that there will be opposition in places, and that, where there is opposition, we must work with those people to explain to them, which is why I believe there is a duty on all of us here to channel our energies to persuade people about why it is that we’re taking these steps on introducing and widening access to Welsh-medium education.

I fully concur with those views. We’ve got to promote and we’ve got to persuade because there are some people who need more persuading than we’ve done to date. It’s not just in our schools; it’s our pre-school system as well here in Wales that needs to have the opportunity to grow the number of places and its capacity. It’s our further education sector in particular that isn’t particularly well geared to providing Welsh-medium education opportunities, either. That’s why we’ve been supportive of the Welsh Government’s decision to review the Welsh in education strategic plans, to bring in Aled Roberts, as a trusted colleague of many AMs in this Chamber, in order to do that piece of work. But it’s really important that that piece of work is completed as swiftly as possible and that those WESPs are kicked into shape properly so that we can actually set out a clear path to reaching this ambition of having 1 million Welsh language speakers by 2050. Those weaknesses in the system at the moment, where we don’t have sufficient capacity in our pre-school arrangements, and where we don’t have sufficient numbers of Welsh-medium teachers coming into the profession, must be addressed.

In addition to that, it is a concern, as we’ve mentioned in one of our amendments, that Welsh-medium schools seem to have been affected disproportionately by closures over the past few years. About 41 per cent of all school closures since 1999 have been in Welsh-medium schools, and yet they account for just a quarter of all schools in Wales. So, it’s been pretty disproportionate.

The other thing that we are particularly keen that the Government does as well is look very carefully at the twenty-first century schools programme, to see whether there may be a way to promote extra capacity in terms of investing in our schools to create more Welsh-medium schools and more investment in Welsh-medium schools. The programme, as it sits at the moment, doesn’t appear to be emphasising the need to create more Welsh-medium school places. So, we want you to look at that, if you would, Minister, because we do believe, on this side of the house, that this is a very important part of what this Assembly should be here to do. At the end of the day, when we were established—we’re here to promote Wales. We’re here to promote our culture. We’re here to promote our language, and what better place to do that than through the education system and having a far greater emphasis on creating more places.

We know that demand for Welsh-medium school places outstrips the capacity across Wales. It’s not right that people and parents and learners are not having the choice to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh, and, unless we work together on all sides of this Chamber to achieve this ambition, we’re never quite going to get there. So, we will be supporting the amendment that has been tabled by the Government, and we look forward to working with you, Minister, in order to deliver the ambitious approach that you have set out, and working with you also to make sure that those WESPs are ambitious, that the local authorities recognise their important responsibility to promote the Welsh language and to promote those extra places that we need to have secured and created in our Welsh-medium schools.

I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 3, 6, 7 and 8, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. I follow Darren Millar and endorse what he said, and welcome his contribution to this debate, which has been very positive, if I may say so. We’ve heard this afternoon just how positive the leader of UKIP can be to our debates here. During the course of a 10-minute speech, he didn’t mention a single policy that would lead to an increase in the number of Welsh speakers—not a single policy. He only opposed, and despite his warm words he was only trying to stir things up once again in one particular community in Carmarthenshire.

Let’s state clearly that being bilingual provides many cognitive, educational, economic and social benefits. There is evidence in all parts of the world demonstrating this. It doesn’t matter which two languages you have—the benefits extend across the curriculum when you have bilingual skills. The same is true in Spain, Canada, parts of France, and it’s certainly true here in Wales. So, the educational benefits of bilingualism are clear. The Government is working not only for the Welsh language in promoting this policy, but for higher standards in education.

The only concern I have here is that we haven’t seen from the Welsh Government what we were promised when we discussed the WESPs the first time round, namely a campaign to promote the benefits of bilingual education. There’s been some work from Government, but it wasn’t the type of campaign that we’d hoped to see. I hope, in responding to the debate, that the Minister can give us more details as to how the Government is going to promote bilingual education in terms of educational standards, as well as pure linguistic standards.

Let’s be clear, because this has been said a number of times and there’s an opportunity here to put on record, about the specific steps that were taken in the case of Llangennech school. This all emerges from the approval by Carmarthenshire County Council, which at the time was Labour-led, when they approved the WESP back in 2014. Included in that WESP was a reference and a commitment by the county council, which read as follows:

That the County Council works closely with the staff and Governing Bodies of Carmarthenshire’s dual stream schools in order for them to become Welsh schools’.

Now, there were three such schools at the time in Carmarthenshire, and Llangennech was one of them. So, the county council has agreed to work closely with staff and governing bodies. If they hadn’t followed those steps, I would have some sympathy with the burden of today’s debate. But, these are the steps taken by Carmarthenshire County Council under Labour and then under Plaid Cymru, and those steps were approved through a vote. The cabinet agreed—the democratic body established under legislation—to do this. Llangennech Community Council voted in favour of the proposal in September 2016. On 21 November 2015, the scheme was supported by the education scrutiny committee. So, the cabinet has agreed and the council’s education scrutiny committee has agreed, as has the community council involved.

There was support from the governing body within the school also. Then, in the plenary meeting of the council on 22 December 2016, the cabinet voted in favour of the proposal and then, in January, the full council voted in favour—this was the specific proposal on Llangennech. So, the WESP was approved by the cabinet, it was approved by the governing body, the community council and the staff had approved this—the vast majority of staff. It then went back for approval by the scrutiny committee. It went back to cabinet, and then went back to the full council.

I venture to say that this decision has had more documentation and more democratic decision than the decision to leave the European Union. [Laughter.] That’s the truth of the decision in the case of Llangennech. It was decided—I know that UKIP wasn’t part of the Assembly when the legislation was passed, but this body passed legislation that put the right to make this decision in the hands of the local authority, because we believe that these are local decisions to be taken by the local council according to the specific steps outlined. So, there is no room to question the decision.

We can work with the community locally, of course, far more than, perhaps, has happened on occasion in this case, but we must respect and take hold of the spirit of this decision and ensure that we learn lessons from this—that the Minister learns lessons, that the Government learns lessons and that all councils learn lessons—in order to ensure that no mistakes are made in future, but, more importantly, to ensure that we do treat the Welsh language as something that respects education standards and raises us all above political argument, and ensures that we debate the Welsh language in this place, which needs to be done now and again, in a way that respects the language and in a way that shows that the language belongs to all of us.

I rise in support of the Government amendment and in support of the ambition of the policy of creating a million Welsh speakers. I applaud the ambition, in particular, of the Welsh Government’s policy, and we should be under no illusion about what a radical policy this is. We’ve had a decline in the Welsh language for a century or more, and we are proposing, within the next 30 years, not only to stop that decline but to reverse it—to double the number of Welsh speakers within the context of international trends that make this extremely tricky. So, let us be under no illusions about how difficult this is.

The members of the Assembly’s Culture, Welsh Language and Communities Committee have been carefully looking at the evidence, now, for a number of months, and the challenges before us are stark. One piece of evidence—we don’t have official Government figures on this yet—we did receive suggests that we need to create an additional 9,000 Welsh speakers every year between now and 2050 to meet this commitment—9,000 additional Welsh speakers. This is a significant challenge when you bear in mind that only about 30 per cent—

Leanne Wood, I’d be happy to take an intervention, but I’m afraid I can’t hear you.

I think that it’s going to be made even more difficult when you’ve got opposition at a local level to the tiny steps that are being made towards achieving a million Welsh speakers. So, why have you been so oppositional to it?

Give me a chance to develop my argument and I’ll happily address that, but I simply don’t accept the idea that people who are concerned about the way that this policy is being implemented in Carmarthenshire are opposed to this policy. One of the things I deeply resented in the debate over the last couple of months is that people who are raising genuine concerns about the practical challenges we face are howled down as being anti-Welsh.

I must say to you, Leanne Wood, as somebody I’ve got great respect for, I was deeply disappointed about the way that the cybermob was unleashed upon me on Twitter when you decided to enter this debate, on top of Neil Hamilton entering this debate in a most unfortunate, unhelpful and incendiary way, I must say. I’ve spent, over the last year or so, a great deal of patient effort to try to take the heat out of this debate, and I found Neil Hamilton—.

No you haven’t—you haven’t at all.

Well, I challenge Leanne Wood to give me an example of what I’ve done to intensify this debate.

I did find it really unhelpful of Neil Hamilton to turn up and join a picket line in Llangennech, which I found to be deeply disrespectful to the village, the school, the teachers and the pupils of that village. There’s been—

No, I’d like to make some progress, if I can—there are lots of points I want to cover in a short period of time.

There are some genuine concerns in the village of Llangennech about the way this has been implemented. For Simon Thomas to say that there’s no room to question the decision I think is wrong headed. The process he set out is an incomplete one, because the one thing we’re missing from here is that there was genuine concern among parents, who have put generations of their children through a dual-stream school in the village and are deeply committed to the future of the Welsh language, who felt that the decision was being done to them. Although, yes, it had gone through the formal structures of the council, to the community it had not been openly discussed. I can give you—. You say that the community council discussed it—yes it did, as a political body.

I can give you a personal experience of having gone to the school of Llangennech as a prospective parent some 18 months ago to have a look around and not once—not once—was it mentioned to me by the teachers of that school that there was a plan to turn Llangennech into a Welsh-medium school. So, this was not done in the most open and transparent way and I think we should learn the lesson from that, because I genuinely do want us to achieve this policy and I genuinely do want to remove any rancour and tension from the debate, because I do not think it is helpful.

He will permit a contribution if he’s serious about that.

Can the Member please continue and I’m sure the leader of Plaid Cymru will seek to intervene if she wants to, but she’s not—

I’d be happy to take an intervention from Leanne Wood, because I thought that comment was unworthy of her. If she wants to make an intervention I’ll happily give her one, because I found her contribution so far to be incendiary.

I don’t think you would have made this contribution today if you were serious about what you were saying. You’ve joined forces with the leader of UKIP to oppose this development, which is a policy by your own Government. I think you’ve behaved irresponsibly and, for the comments that you’ve received on social media—when you take positions like that, you have to be prepared to take scrutiny and that’s what’s happened to you here.

I think the mask has slipped, Llywydd, this afternoon. I think you’ve shown your true colours there, Leanne Wood, who’s trying to weaponise this debate for unhelpful reasons. I’ve tried very hard to take the heat out of this debate and I don’t think it’s helpful to demonise parents with legitimate concerns. I had hoped to—[Interruption.]

Allow the Member to continue, please, Plaid Cymru. You’ve had your say. Lee Waters.

And this is typical of the debate that we’ve been having, I’m afraid, that the genuine, sincere concerns of somebody who wants this policy to succeed is being heckled and shouted down by people impugning my motives towards the language, and I resent it and this Assembly needs to do better than that. And if we’re going to take the people of Wales with us, take the people of my constituency with us, we need to do better than this. I’m deeply disappointed by the comments of Plaid Cymru and, I must say, I had thought better of them.

I’d hoped to roam far wider into some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, Llywydd, but in order to try—[Interruption.]

Plaid Cymru, will you be quiet, please, and allow the Member to continue?

This is what I’ve been having to put up with, Llywydd, and I don’t think it’s helpful. I genuinely want to work on a cross-party basis to bring the community with us to achieve this policy and I’m afraid that Leanne Wood, for all her comments to the contrary, has achieved the opposite.

Gareth Bennett.

And that wasn’t the speech I wanted to make.

I thank Lee Waters for what I thought was a very good contribution to today’s debate. I think today’s debate is an important one as I believe it touches on the tension that is sometimes generated when two separate political objectives come into conflict with one another. One of the objectives is the Welsh Government’s aim of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, in which education will play a crucial part, as Darren Millar articulated. The second objective, or perhaps I should say principle, is the principle of parental choice.

Now, in the Welsh Government’s education policy generally, there is a certain amount of commitment to parental choice and it would certainly be a strange Government that openly opposed this principle. But, in Llangennech, we seem to see that principle of parental choice coming up against the drive for more Welsh-medium education. My belief is that much of the community of Llangennech is opposed to this drive for Welsh-medium education in the form that it is proposed, that is, turning the dual-stream primary school into a Welsh-medium one. By trying to push the change through by force, I believe Carmarthenshire County Council may actually be working against the target of 1 million Welsh speakers.

This was recognised by the local Labour MP Nia Griffith, whose contribution to the consultation was outlined earlier today by Neil Hamilton, so I won’t repeat the quote. But what Nia Griffith was expressing was her fear that, if the school were to go over to being Welsh-medium, then many parents might simply switch their pupils to an English-medium school, even if it meant moving home. This would tend to defeat the purpose of Carmarthenshire council’s—[Interruption.] This would tend to defeat the purpose of Carmarthenshire council’s aim of increasing participation in Welsh.

The Welsh Government’s Welsh language policies have, to some extent, been driven by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, which is a highly successful pressure group. One of Cymdeithas’s stated aims is ‘addysg Gymraeg i bawb’, meaning, I believe, ‘Welsh learning for all’. This is fine as long as it does not mean force-feeding Welsh-medium-education to those who don’t want it. That will simply be counterproductive. To conclude, we have to move away from compulsion, which is what we seem to be moving towards in Llangennech, and return to the concept of parental choice.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I was going to pursue—[Interruption.] Thank you very much, Lee.

Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much. I’m pleased to have an intervention before I open my mouth, but I was going to outline the historical context of the Welsh language, while supporting entirely the intention of the Government here to have a million Welsh speakers by halfway through this century.

To go back in history in order to set the context, because some are new to the history of Wales and its language, the writings of Aneurin and Taliesin from the sixth century, that’s the oldest Welsh language available, showing how alive the Welsh language was 1,500 years ago—Welsh, the original language of the islands of Britain. Amazingly, 562,000 people in Wales can still speak Welsh today, with nearly another 600,000 with some grasp of the language. So, 19 per cent of the population therefore speak Welsh, which is quite a significant minority. We take pride in those figures, given what’s happening to other minority languages in small nations cheek to jowl with a large nation. It is even more miraculous in light of our history as a nation.

Because the history of my people is bathed in blood. In 1136, Gwenllian was killed. She was beheaded in front of her son having lost the battle in Kidwelly. She suffered because she was a Welsh woman. In 1282, Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf suffered a similar fate, along with many of his followers. From 1400 onwards, the brave battle of Owain Glyndŵr for independence led to the killing of thousands and they lost their blood for freedom, as our anthem says. In 1536, we saw the Act of Union between Wales and England, with the Welsh language banned from public life until 1993; 1588 gave some hope to the language with the translation of the Bible into Welsh.

Ac eto, yn 1847, gwelwyd brad y Llyfrau Gleision fel y’i gelwid, wrth i’r awdurdodau sarhau a phardduo’r iaith Gymraeg, gan achosi cywilydd a gwaradwydd parhaus am genedlaethau wedyn. Dyna’n rhannol y mae’n rhaid i ni fod yn atebol iddo o hyd y dyddiau hyn. Daeth y Ddeddf addysg ag addysg gynradd i bawb drwy gyfrwng y Saesneg. Câi’r Welsh Not ei chrogi am yddfau plant a siaradai Gymraeg ac os oedd yn dal o gwmpas eich gwddf ar ddiwedd y dydd, fe gaech y gansen. Dyna a ddigwyddodd i fy nhaid yn Llanegryn yn Sir Feirionydd dros ganrif yn ôl. Maint y sarhad y mae pob cenhedlaeth wedi’i deimlo ar hyd y canrifoedd sydd wedi meithrin y penderfyniad llwyr y bydd y Gymraeg yn goroesi ac y caiff ei throsglwyddo o un genhedlaeth i’r llall ac y bydd y mynyddoedd a’r Cymoedd yn atseinio am byth i oslef y Gymraeg.

Oes, mae 19 y cant o’r boblogaeth yn siarad Cymraeg: rhyfeddol. Rwy’n cymeradwyo polisïau sy’n seiliedig ar hawliau fel y’u cymhwysir i anableddau, materion rhywedd, rhywioldeb, ffydd a hil—i gyd wedi eu cynnwys mewn deddfwriaeth heddiw. Mae hawliau o’r fath wedi eu hymgorffori’n gadarn heb ystyried unrhyw ewyllys da tybiedig ar ran mwyafrif y boblogaeth tuag at y lleiafrif, waeth beth yw’r gost, heb ystyried y nifer sy’n defnyddio gwasanaeth penodol, ac ni waeth a yw’n ymwneud â’r sector cyhoeddus neu’r sector preifat. Mae hawl yr unigolyn yn sofran, ond nid oes gennym hynny ar gyfer defnyddwyr y Gymraeg ar hyn o bryd. Mae gan rai planhigion amddiffyniad cyfreithiol, ac nid oes gan enwau lleoedd hanesyddol Cymru unrhyw amddiffyniad o’r fath.

Mae’r hanes a briwiau hanesyddol yn parhau. Gwn fod llawer o genhedloedd eraill wedi dioddef sarhad ofnadwy a hanesion gwaedlyd ac rydym yn euog yn ein rhwystredigaethau, fel siaradwyr Cymraeg, o beidio â dadlau ein hachos yn dda o gwbl ar adegau. Gall pob un ohonom anwybyddu’r hanes hwn ar adegau yn ogystal, a bychanu digwyddiadau’r gorffennol, ond gallwn yn sicr ddioddef gwawd, dirmyg a cham-drin, oherwydd, fel cenedl, rydym wedi goroesi cydymdrech dros ganrifoedd i ddileu ein hiaith a’n diwylliant oddi ar wyneb y ddaear. Ond, ‘Hei’, bydd pobl yn dweud pan fyddaf yn mynd yn fy mlaen fel hyn, ‘Paid â bod mor ddwys, Dai; anghofia’r hanes’. Ond wyddoch chi, hanes y buddugwr sy’n dal i deyrnasu heddiw. Dyna pam, yn ystod y ganrif ddiwethaf, yr adeiladwyd ysgol fomio Penyberth yn Llŷn Gymraeg ei hiaith—am eu bod yn gallu. Fe gliriodd y Weinyddiaeth Amddiffyn y ffermwyr Cymraeg eu hiaith oddi ar Fynydd Epynt yn ystod y rhyfel diwethaf—am eu bod yn gallu. Boddi Tryweryn—am eu bod yn gallu. Ac ie, elfennau yn nadl Llangennech—am eu bod yn gallu. Yr ymgais ddiweddaraf i rwbio ein trwynau ynddo, fel cenedl a orchfygwyd.

Mae pentrefi a threfi fy ieuenctid a arferai atsain i oslef y Gymraeg bellach yn siarad Saesneg. Ond nid ni pia’r Gymraeg hon, yr iaith Gymraeg hon a ddirmygir, nid ni pia hi i’w hildio. Mae’r iaith fyw hynaf yn Ewrop yn drysorfa i genedlaethau’r dyfodol ac yn haeddu parch gan bawb sy’n dewis byw a gweithio yng Nghymru. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m pleased that I can agree with at least the final sentence of Dai’s contribution. [Interruption.] But may I say this? But may I say this in responding on behalf of the Government? When we discuss the Welsh language in this Chamber, we usually hear the kinds of speeches that we heard from Darren Millar and Simon Thomas, and I think they’re the kind of contributions that we want to hear in the future. Those are the kinds of contributions that will unite our nation, unite politicians, unite communities and will unite us as a nation. The kind of shouting and heckling that we see does create division. We don’t want that, and everyone has to take responsibility for that. [Interruption.] May I—?

Let’s allow the Minister to continue. Alun Davies.

[Inaudible.]—Master’s in heckling. [Laughter.]

Alun Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd. Thank you for safeguarding my right to speak—[Interruption.] Thank you for safeguarding my right to speak in our national Parliament. May I say this? I also agree with some speakers this afternoon who have said that I wouldn’t have wanted a motion discussing one school in one community in one part of Wales. I would prefer to have a debate on how we provide education to our children wherever they are. When we do choose to have a depressing debate such as the one we’ve had this afternoon, then we choose to ignore the real challenge of creating Welsh speakers who take pride in the Welsh language, and take pride in the efforts across Wales to safeguard the future of the Welsh language. Our ambition as a Government is to reach a million Welsh speakers by 2050. There is no doubt that this is a challenging ambition, but the message that I want to convey this afternoon is that we have chosen to do that because we want to challenge Wales, we want to challenge ourselves and I want to challenge us as a nation to ensure that the kind of ambition that I hope and I believe is shared across the Chamber, for the most part at least, is one that can inspire people across Wales.

I want to see an interesting debate. I want to see a positive debate about how we can expand Welsh-medium education. I want to see a debate about how we ask parents and children to take pride in the language and to learn the language so that they can use the Welsh language. I don’t think that the kind of debate that we’ve had this afternoon is going to assist that. I don’t think it is going to be of assistance to us. In fact, I think it’s going to be a barrier, it’s going to preclude us from doing that, it’s going to hold us back. When I hear people who say that they believe in the future of the Welsh language, but then shout people down who perhaps don’t share the same enthusiasm as them, what I see is people who don’t practice the kind of tolerance that we need in this country. We must capture people’s imagination, but we also need to reach out to people: reach out to families who don’t currently speak Welsh, reach out to people who perhaps aren’t confident about Welsh-medium education, reach out to people in order to ensure that we can transfer the Welsh language to communities where perhaps it’s been lost, reach out to people who perhaps don’t see the benefits of speaking and using the Welsh language—reach out to people, rather than shouting them down. That’s the disappointment I sometimes feel when I hear the kind of debate that we have seen in Llangennech and in other areas. I want to respond to this afternoon’s debate in the terms set out by Darren and Simon this afternoon, because I do think that we have to look at how we can strengthen the planning that happens within local authorities. I was very pleased that Aled Roberts agreed to my proposal that he should review the WESPs that we have, and Darren is entirely right in his analysis; we need to proceed with that as a matter of haste. There should be no delay on that, and I know that Llyr Gruffydd has made the point on a number of occasions, and I agree with him when he makes those points. We do need to make progress with that. I very much hope that Aled can report back to us at the beginning of the summer, and once that is done, I very much hope that we can then ensure that we’re able to make progress so that we do have workable WESPs.

I was pleased to hear that Darren Millar was withdrawing his amendment and was to support the Government amendment. The Government amendment to this debate aims to be positive, to unite people with that aim of supporting the Welsh language and creating a million Welsh speakers.

We do oppose the fourth amendment in the name of Paul Davies, but we don’t oppose the spirit underpinning that amendment. I agree with many aspects, but we are opposing it this afternoon. However, it is a debate that I think we need to continue to have, and I am happy to continue that discussion with Darren Millar or Paul himself. Our priority over the next five years will be to create a workforce that has the appropriate skills to educate and provide services through the medium of Welsh. This will require planning to support the work of training teachers and teaching assistants, to expand sabbatical programmes for the current workforce and to increase the number of workers in the early years and the care sector. We understand all of that, and we will do that.

We also oppose the fifth amendment in the name of Paul Davies. The school code is clear that any case for a school closure must be strong—and that there will be education provision in the area concerned. Proposers must consider what else can be done rather than closing a school. They should consider the likely impact on a community by holding a community impact assessment.

We will agree with amendment 6 in terms of the benefits of bilingualism. I think I have said a number of times that the Government understands the benefits of bilingualism, and Simon Thomas made a very strong point when it comes to promoting Welsh-medium education. I think in the past that Governments have been a little reticent in doing that. I will be making a statement later this week on how we are going to promote the Welsh language, and I very much hope that some of this will be reflected—maybe not this week, but when we do come to the Welsh language strategy later this year.

But may I turn to the eighth amendment? I do understand that the Welsh in education strategic plan for Carmarthenshire wishes to see Welsh-medium provision expanded, but there is no specific reference to the proposal to close Llangennech school. But may I say this? The school organisation code does note the process for school organisation, and this shouldn’t be confused with rules for introducing the WESPs. Proposals for Llangennech were entirely consistent with that aspiration and with the Welsh-medium strategy of the Welsh Government. The work has already commenced, and we are engaging with partners and stakeholders to gather evidence in order to draw up a White Paper to consult on these issues over the summer.

Llywydd, may I bring my comments to a conclusion with these words? We have had a difficult debate this afternoon, and we haven’t seen enough light during the debate. That has been a disappointment to me. May I say this? I believe that we do need to unite. I do think that there is agreement on where we want to get to in future. I think there is agreement on the plan and the vision, and this isn’t just the Welsh Government’s vision. It’s not just the Welsh Government’s vision—it’s a vision for Wales as a nation and for communities across Wales. It’s not Ministers or politicians here or anywhere else who are going to save the Welsh language; it’s people using and speaking and choosing to speak the Welsh language that will secure a future for the language and for our culture. And if we are to achieve that, then each and every one of us, wherever we sit in this place, has a duty to ensure that we do have a positive debate in order to promote the Welsh language.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I approve of everything that the Minister has said in his speech this afternoon, and the note on which he ended is exactly right; that we have to get people to choose to use the Welsh language. They can’t be forced to use it if they don’t want to. And the kind of attitudes that we’ve seen from across the floor today are not likely to lead to that objective—

I will give way.

Would you see that the very core issue at the heart of this debate is that, if we are to give people the choice over whether to use the Welsh language in their adult lives, we have to give them the ability to speak that language, and that education is the key way to ensure that they have those skills?

Yes, of course I accept that. I support the Government’s policy. All I’m saying is that in the implementation of that policy we should be sensitive to local opinion, in particular the opinion of those who are more intimately affected by educational decisions. What is happening in Llangennech is the opposite. Simon Thomas, in the course of his speech, referred to the school governors being in support of this proposal, but the school governors had a parents evening last year at which 70 people were present, and 68 voted against the proposals and two voted in favour of them. The chairman of the school governors, Tim Davies, who chaired the meeting, was asked as the parents’ advocate whether he would take the result of that meeting to Carmarthenshire County Council and support it, and he said ‘no’. He was asked a second time, and he replied confirming even if the vote was unanimous he would still say ‘no’ as he personally wants the school to change to Welsh medium. That is not representing the interests of the parents that he’s supposed to represent as the chairman.

Now, of course I understand the frustration of Plaid Cymru and those who want to see Welsh as a living language and a preponderant language in Wales—I’m sure we all found Dai Lloyd’s philippic very moving, and I agreed with the broad sentiments that he expressed about the past and the present. We all in this Chamber want to see the Welsh language succeed as the national language of Wales, and impugning people’s motives and hurling abuse at them is not the way to achieve that objective. I’m sorry—I realise it’s not PC to say anything that is remotely complimentary, or even neutral, about UKIP in progressive circles, but I have not sought to introduce any incendiary notes into this debate, still less in Llangennech. The reason I got involved in Llangennech was because the parents got in touch with me and asked me to visit the school with them, and that’s how I got involved in this in the first place. They are constituents of mine, as they’re constituents of his, and constituents of Simon Thomas and others in this Chamber. The attitude of Plaid Cymru, as represented by the leader of Plaid Cymru, that somehow we’re an illegitimate party in this Assembly is part of the problem.The blinkered, provincial prejudice that she displays in this debate is—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

You’ve got form for being divisive. Would you accept that?

Llywydd, I will, in the interests—

Move on.

[Continues.]—of rational debate in this Chamber, ignore that comment.

All I’m saying is that if Plaid Cymru were to see where the best interests of the policy that they claim to support lies, they would try to be emollient and understanding about the fears of the parents. They may be wholly unmerited. I agree absolutely with what Simon Thomas said about the merits of bilingualism. I have in the course of my educational career studied French, German and Russian; nobody needs to convince me of the merits of being able to speak more than one language. My regret is that when I was in school I had to make a choice between Welsh and German, and I opted for German because that was the ethic of the time. It was before we had a Government with as vision such as we have today. It was a different world 50 or 60 years ago, and so I am delighted that the Welsh Government has adopted the policy that it has, and I’ve brought my party along with it. I would have thought that Plaid Cymru would wish to welcome that and not seek to undermine the policy by attacking and abusing us, because what we’re trying to do here is achieve a common objective. The debate today is directed to the one single issue of public opinion and its massive importance in achieving the Welsh Government’s objective.

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

The only vote that remains this afternoon is the vote on the UKIP Wales debate. I call for a vote, therefore, on the motion tabled in the names of David Rowlands and Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 7, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, no abstentions, 17 against. Amendment 1, therefore, is agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 4. I call for a vote on amendment 4 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, as required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment.

Oh—did anybody notice? [Laughter.] I think we’ll move on.

Gwelliant 5. Galwaf am bleidlais ar welliant 5 a gyflwynwyd yn enw Paul Davies. Agorwch y bleidlais. Cau’r bleidlais. O blaid 17, naw yn ymatal, 26 yn erbyn. Felly, mae gwelliant 5 wedi ei wrthod.

I call for a vote on amendment 6 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions, nobody against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.

Amendment 7. I call for a vote on amendment 7 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, against 26. As required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. The amendment is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 8 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, 11 abstentions, 31 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, one against. And, therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

If Members can leave the Chamber quietly. We still have two items of business to complete.

I call on Dawn Bowden to speak to the subject she has chosen. Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this short debate on the important role played by credit unions in helping tackling financial exclusion, a major issue in parts of my constituency and in areas of deprivation across Wales. I’m happy to give a minute of my time to both Jayne Bryant and Mark Isherwood in this debate.

Llywydd, the fundamental difference, of course, between credit unions and any other financial lenders is that they’re there to serve the members and not to maximise profits for shareholders. Credit unions are democratic, member-owned co-operatives focused on providing a genuine social benefit to local communities in which they are based. They vary greatly in size, ranging from the very small to some with over 15,000 members. Among their principal benefits, credit unions provide an affordable source of credit capped at 3 per cent per month—much lower than anything available from other sources. They secure savings: all savings up to £85,000 are protected under the UK financial compensation scheme and many credit unions offer life insurance at no additional cost. They are community focused and under the common bond arrangements they’re intrinsically linked to local communities—the money saved with and lent by the credit union largely staying within the local community.

Credit unions make their decisions on lending money not on largely automated and impersonal procedures but more often than not on the basis of one-to-one interviews with members. Part of any assessment on a loan will be based on the experience of that person’s membership with the credit union. As a result, low-cost loans will be provided to many applicants who might well be excluded from receiving loans from other mainstream providers and who could otherwise be forced to turn to unscrupulous loan sharks or other extortionately high interest lenders who exploit the desperate, leading them into greater levels of debt.

Credit unions are, of course, recognised as having a central role in supporting the Welsh Government’s financial inclusion delivery plan. In these times of imposed austerity, we’ve seen a succession of cuts to welfare benefits, which have added to the number of people in Wales facing financial exclusion. The picture will not get any better as further planned cuts come into force.

For most of us, taking out a loan is about buying a new car or something expensive for the home, or perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime luxury holiday. For those who are financially excluded, often living in our most deprived communities and commonly hit by cuts to welfare benefits, a loan is likely to be about them being able to pay the rent, pay utility bills or even feed the family. For these people, a loan from a credit union could be a lifeline. Looking at the Merthyr Tydfil credit union in my own constituency, statistics for the last six months show that of 990 loans approved, over 400 related to helping people buy goods at Christmas, while nearly 70 related to paying urgent bills, rent arrears, buying clothes or debt consolidation, all of which indicates the crucial role of credit unions in helping those financially excluded in meeting their day-to-day living costs.

In Wales we have around 80,000 people who are members of a credit union. Membership in Wales has grown by 50 per cent in the last five years and the growth in membership, assets and loans to the public has been greater here than anywhere else in the UK. In the year up to September last year, loans to members reached a total of £22.3 million, an increase of 12 per cent from the previous year. Most significant for me is the fact that in 2015-16, credit unions in Wales made over 10,000 loans, worth £9.2 million, to the financially excluded. However, despite this growth in membership of credit unions in Wales, at 2.7 per cent of the population and a target of achieving 5 per cent by 2011, it remains below the level of membership in Scotland, at 7 per cent, and the Republic of Ireland, at a staggering 75 per cent. Although it should be pointed out that the growth that we have seen in Wales has been in no small measure due to the support provided by Welsh Government. As part of the Welsh Government’s support for credit unions, a fund of more than £420,000 has been set up for 2017-18 with the aim of assisting credit unions here to move towards securing their own long-term sustainability, so as not to be reliant on public funding into the future. And that, of course, is one of the real challenges for our credit unions in Wales. Because an analysis of the level of loans by credit unions to members shows that whilst there’s been a significant rise in the total value of credit union loans, this has fallen behind the rate of increase in credit union assets. So, unless credit unions are able to increase the ratio of loans, they will find it more difficult to be sufficiently profitable to build their reserves at a rate that will make them viable in the longer term.

The Merthyr Tydfil credit union that I referenced earlier is fairly typical of a number of others in Wales. It was established in 1998, and by 2008, its membership had reached 1,200, employing six members of staff. In the eight years since, membership has risen to 4,800, with the credit union now employing nine members of staff, with over 50 volunteers. They have seen a sharp increase in membership, but this still remains a small percentage of people who would be covered by the common bond area, and will not include many in the area who could be considered financially excluded. So, whilst membership of credit unions has increased, often it is amongst people like ourselves who are wedded to the philosophy behind credit unions, and membership amongst those who would benefit most has not increased at the same rate.

Llywydd, I was surprised to learn that, despite financial support provided to the credit union by Merthyr Tydfil council, it’s only recently that the credit union has been discussing setting up a payroll deduction scheme with them, and to date it only has a few payroll deduction schemes with local businesses. Not only do successful payroll deduction schemes lead to increases in membership, it’s often those in secure, reasonably paid employment who take out the larger, longer term loans that enable the credit union to be profitable enough to make smaller, often short-term loans to the financially excluded, who, of course, are the people who credit unions are best placed to help.

So, in recognising the importance of credit unions in tackling financial exclusion, what can we do as Assembly Members to ensure that credit unions are successful and sustainable into the future? Well, I see myself as having an important role in talking to public service organisations in my area about providing payroll deduction facilities for their own employees and promoting their local credit unions in their communications. I will also be asking them to use procurement processes to encourage any contractors they use to also provide similar arrangements. Similarly, when I meet with companies in the private sector, I will be encouraging them to look at promoting the local credit union with their employees, and as an Assembly we should be doing more to promote the benefits of credit unions at every opportunity.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as we continue to face the challenges of austerity policies driven by the UK Government, credit unions will continue to play a crucial role in tackling financial exclusion, and we have a duty to do all we can to ensure that they can survive and thrive.

I would like to thank Dawn Bowden for giving me a minute of her time in this debate. Credit unions can play an active role in the financial education of young people. Newport Credit Union, with nearly 1,000 union savers, runs school savers clubs in four primary schools. With the help of teachers, parents and school governors it teaches children the value and importance of saving money. This is absolutely crucial. It was my pleasure to welcome the Cabinet Secretary to one of the savings clubs at Pillgwenlly Primary School recently. I’m sure he’d agree that it was great to hear from the young people about their enthusiasm for saving and what they were saving for. Newport Credit Union intends to go further and set up savings clubs in high schools, where the pupils themselves run the clubs and take some responsibility for the collection points. These are fantastic initiatives that must be encouraged and supported to ensure the next generation understands the importance of savings and the dangers of debt.

As somebody who previously worked in the mutual building society sector, I welcomed the 2012 UK credit unions Act, freeing credit unions to work with housing providers, community groups, employers, social enterprises and charities to bring financial services to new groups of people.

Although credit union membership in Wales has grown 50 per cent in the last five years, now standing at 80,000, the Welsh credit unions are by far the biggest lenders of affordable credit to the financially excluded. Only approximately 2.5 per cent of people in Wales currently use credit unions, compared to 46 per cent in the United States. As Welsh credit unions state, the Welsh Government should continue to help them in their aim of establishing a fully financially independent and sustainable sector by 2021, building capacity, ensuring greater and more effective collaboration and supporting the development of shared credit union services. But Welsh Government should also examine the not-for-profit community banking model developed in Wales by Responsible Finance, working with credit unions where credit unions can’t.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Dawn Bowden for leading this debate today. There is a clear recognition of the benefits credit unions can bring to individuals and communities.

Credit unions are ideally placed, through their relationships with local authorities, local employers, schools and community organisations, to help strengthen the financial resilience of communities through improved access to responsible credit and saving opportunities. I’m clear that money management skills are best learnt at a young age and many credit unions work on this principle and reach out to local schools to help to encourage a saving habit from an early age. Indeed, I visited Pill school in Newport with Jayne Bryant to see their school savers scheme run by Newport Credit Union. I was encouraged by what I saw—a really enjoyable visit, but with huge benefits for that community. I also visited Tredegar only last week, through the opening of a new credit union store in the town centre, which was very much welcome.

Credit unions are key partners in the financial inclusion delivery plan published in December 2016, and this sets out the actions needed to fulfil and achieve a well-functioning and comprehensive financial system in Wales that is accessible to all. The delivery plan sets out how we will work with partner organisations, both in Wales and at a UK level, and to help improve affordable credit and accessible financial services, as well as access to financial information, including debt advice.

Credit unions are directly delivering some of these actions and have a central role to play in the promotion of financial inclusion. I’ve been very clear that the support given to credit unions must continue to address financial exclusion. The funding I’ve made available to credit unions from this April will be used directly to support a number of these actions. These will support those more disadvantaged in our communities across Wales to access the help that they need. I’ve also agreed to a grant fund of £422,000 for 21 credit union projects in 2017-18, following an open application grant process. These include school saver projects and prison saver schemes. Credit unions will be notified of their funding awards shortly and the activities will be funded from 1 April 2017. This will help credit unions continue to support financially excluded members and to deliver our financial inclusion delivery plan, as well as aiding their long-term sustainability of operation.

A number of projects that will be funded may also contribute to increasing credit unions’ sustainability through increased membership, and Dawn raised the issue of businesses and local authorities being engaged in an opportunity to save with ease. I’m very happy to encourage that collaboration. We’ve invited collaborative projects from credit unions, which are prioritised in the assessment process.

We know the importance of credit unions in helping people who struggle to manage their money, also. The Welsh Government funding provided between April 2014 and December 2016 has helped credit unions support more than 29,000 financially excluded members, with just over £23 million provided in loans to help those who need this. This demonstrates the role that credit unions play, and I hope that we can grow that role, because I think they play a vital role in our community.

I want to see well-managed, effective and sustainable credit unions in Wales that are inclusive and accessible to everybody, developing credible and professional financial products and services, like they are in other countries, too—they are seen to be growing particularly in America.

The credit union sector in Wales has been transformed over the last 15 years. Since 2000, credit union membership has risen from around 10,000 to over 75,000, and I know that many Members in this Chamber are also members of credit unions, including myself.

In this time, many Welsh credit unions have strengthened and professionalised their services immeasurably. The ambition now is to build on these firm foundations. It’s a really important part of financial literacy—the opportunity to access safe saving and safe lending. We’ve seen the difficulties found by communities if they turn to loan sharks or other disreputable methods of borrowing money.

I’m very grateful to Dawn for the contribution she’s made today, highlighting the very successful programme of credit unions here in Wales, but much more work needs and can be done to support them. Diolch.

Thank you very much.

We now move to item 10, which is a short debate, and I call on Steffan Lewis to speak on the topic that he has chosen. Steffan.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I’m fairly confident this will be the shortest of short debates, the Minister will be pleased to hear, at the end of a long day.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of chronic traumatic encephalopathy and its possible links with contact sports like football. I first became aware of this issue after hearing an interview with the wife of the late Frank Kopel, a former Dundee United player who was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 59. She’s been campaigning for greater awareness of CTE since Frankie’s death and has spoken very eloquently about her experiences in caring for him in later life.

Brain scans re-examined by Dr Willie Stewart, a neuropathologist, led him to the conclusion that Frankie’s condition was caused by years of repeated head impacts from other footballers and also heading footballs—bearing in mind that Frankie played in an era when footballs weighed around 450 g. The issue of a link between head injuries in sport and brain damage has been debated recently in relation to rugby and there are long-standing pointed debates in American football.

But, it’s only in the very recent past that a link between CTE and football is being fully discussed and considered. Last month, pioneering research was published by scientists from University College London and Cardiff University, focusing on retired footballers in the Swansea area. From 1980 to 2010, 14 retired footballers who had been referred to the old-age psychiatry service in Swansea were monitored until their deaths. All the retired footballers developed progressive cognitive impairment, and neuropathological examination revealed septal abnormalities in the six players where a postmortem brain examination was carried out. Twelve cases died from advanced neurodegenerative disease and four cases had pathologically confirmed CTE.

The study does not directly confirm a link between repetitive head impacts and CTE, but says that further research is needed. An average player heads the ball six to 12 times in a football match and at least 2,000 times in a 20-year career. But, head injuries are more likely caused by head-player contact than head-ball contact. The difficulty in identifying harm arises from the fact that most impacts are sub-concussive, meaning that they do not result in concussion or display overt neurological symptoms.

In my view, it’s far too early to make concrete assertions about footballers and CTE, beyond what we know from the most recent research in which Welsh scientists played a leading role. Indeed, the chief scientist of the Alzheimer’s Society has said the research carried out in Swansea does not provide proof that heading a football causes dementia, but it is clear—and there is agreement across research and among scientists on this—that further research is needed and there needs to be a raising of awareness of the impact of repetitive head injuries on a footballer over the course of their career.

As a football fan myself, I absolutely would not want to rush to conclusions and decide to make it harder for young people to participate fully in the sport. As a lover of the game, I would not want us to rashly rush to a situation where the nature of the game is materially changed. But, the purpose of my raising this short debate today and raising this specific issue is to ask Welsh Government if they would consider doing two things. Firstly, what is clear to me is that there is a need for raising awareness of CTE and head injuries in general in football, and how we deal with head injuries in the sport as they occur. Rugby has taken steps to protect players better when they have head injuries during match time. So, I wonder if the Minister would agree to at least consider convening a summit of football governing bodies and representative bodies in Wales to share information and best practice in the sport, which could involve experts in the field as well as scientific and medical experts, so that we share best practice and at the grass-roots level in particular, football coaches and parents and others involved can be aware to look out for signs of head-to-head contact and to take particular care and attention in determining whether it is safe for a player to continue.

Secondly, I wonder if the Minister would consider—seeing as Wales has been central to the most recent research, as I mentioned, with Cardiff University scientists involved in that research in Swansea—working with those involved to build on Wales’s potential global reputation in the area of CTE and sport research. So, perhaps the Welsh Government could hold an international conference on CTE and sport in Wales, maybe using the exposure of Wales in the UEFA Champions League final this year as a platform to garner interest and to invite FIFA, UEFA and football associations from around the world to come together with the scientific researchers and with the experts that we have in this country in the field. This could be another golden opportunity to strengthen Wales’s reputation as a global centre for excellence in research as well as, of course, learning much more about CTE and football, so that we can prevent the very sad cases that have happened in recent years in terms of long-term head injury and premature dementia. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Thank you and I’d like to thank Steffan Lewis for raising this important topic and for promoting this debate today.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE is a progressive, degenerative disease of the brain found in people with a history of repetitive brain trauma, including recurrent episodes of concussion or repeated blows to the head. The potential for links between the condition and certain sporting activities has been documented for some time. Boston University in the United States reports that CTE has been known to affect some boxers since the 1920s, when it was termed ‘punch-drunk syndrome’.

However, it is now known that the condition is not confined to ex-boxers. More recent studies have explored the potential links with other heavy-contact sports, such as American football and ice hockey. There remains some debate about how widespread the condition is. In many spheres of life, and in sports and public health in particular, there are always risks and benefits to consider alongside each other. Evidence plays a crucial role in helping us to make more informed choices when balancing these risks and benefits.

Many sports carry some element of risk of injury in the short or long term. It’s important that we put proportionate steps in place to create safe sporting environments for all, whilst not limiting opportunities for children and adults to undertake physical activity and engage in sports. We also know of the multiple positive physical and mental health benefits, as well as a number of social benefits, of participating in sport.

Our programme for government makes it clear that we have a commitment to promote and raise awareness of the importance of healthy lifestyle choices, including being more physically active. We naturally want all young people to have a wide range of opportunities to participate in sport, building on Wales’s long history as well as recent successes. We must nevertheless take the issue of safety in sport very seriously. We all have a responsibility, individually and collectively, to ensure that everyone, including young people, children and older people, are able to participate safely. Where necessary, we should take reasonable steps to mitigate injury for professional sportspeople and for people who play sport just for pleasure.

Some of you may remember the news some years ago of the tragic and untimely death of Benjamin Robinson. Benjamin was only 14 years old when he died as a result of sustaining a double concussion during a school rugby match in Northern Ireland. Benjamin sustained his first concussion at the start of the second half, but played on for another 25 minutes and was involved in two further heavy collisions. The coroner ruled that Benjamin’s death was second-impact syndrome following concussion, and could have been avoided had someone been able to recognise the signs of concussion and remove him from the game.

Government was determined to act to avoid similar cases arising in future. In September 2014, the Welsh Government, working closely with the Welsh Rugby Union, issued guidance on concussion for school and community sport up to the age of 19. The guidance sets out the recognition and management of the symptoms of concussion following a head injury sustained during physical activity in children. It also includes guidance for the gradual return to play and schoolwork for children diagnosed with a concussion injury. It is aimed at a wide variety of professionals and bodies, including sporting professionals, teachers, school governing bodies, further education institutions, national sporting bodies and youth sports coaching and support staff. It requires that those involved in sport in schools and the community ensure that the guidance is followed, disseminated properly and embedded into any policies relevant to dealing with head injuries sustained by children and young people up to the age of 19 in any environment where physical activity is taking place. That includes football. It is reassuring to see the example set by international rugby in the recent RBS 6 Nations, where we saw a zero-tolerance approach applied to the players sustaining head injuries, with players removed from the game for a full medical assessment before a return, if it was safe to do so.

I have previously mentioned maintaining the balance between safety and encouraging engagement in physical activity. There have been calls to ban certain aspects of rugby for young people. The Sports Collision Injury Collective wrote an open letter to the UK Government and the devolved administrations in 2016, calling for a ban on contact rugby for school-age children, citing the dangers of long-term injury to young people, such as concussion. In response, the UK chief medical officers commissioned the UK physical activity expert committee to consider the evidence presented by SCIC. Following a review of this evidence, the committee rejected the call to ban tackling and did not feel that rugby participation poses an unacceptable risk of harm. The committee also reported that the benefits of experiencing, learning, training and playing rugby with appropriate supervision, safety and coaching considerably outweigh the risks of injury.

In February this year the media reported emerging evidence to a link between heading a football and dementia. The study was focused on the topic of our debate today—CTE. The headline was prompted by the results of a small study where postmortems were carried out on six ex-professional players with a history of dementia. The study was carried out by researchers from University College London, Cardiff University and the Cefn Coed Hospital in Swansea. It was funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the Drake Foundation. Researchers found four players had a pattern of brain damage consistent with CTE. The suggested reason for injury in the four football players was repeatedly heading a ball. While these results sound concerning, this was a small, descriptive study that has not proved repeated heading of the ball was the cause of brain damage seen in the players. Dr Helen Ling, the key author of the study, said:

it is important to note we only studied a small number of retired footballers with dementia, and that we still do not know how common dementia is among footballers....The most pressing research question is therefore to find out if dementia is more common in footballers than in the normal population.’

The study sets out proposals for the further research that would be required to confirm the potential causal relationship between CTE and exposure to repetitive head impacts from playing football. It’s positive to see the Welsh academic institutions at the forefront of the research in this area, and I hope this continues.

Dr David Reynolds of Alzheimer’s Research UK commented that the benefits of regular exercise in terms of dementia prevention may well outweigh any risk, especially for those who play football on a recreational basis.

On reading these reports, I sought advice from our own chief medical officer. This pointed to a discussion between the UK’s four chief medical officers at which they agreed causation was not sufficiently established to support a ban on heading footballs. As well as prioritising safety in sport, this Government has also been proactive in terms of looking to reduce risks in various forms of dementia. There is clear evidence that a healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of dementia by up to 60 per cent. Following the recommended levels of physical activity alone can reduce the risk of some forms of dementia by 20 to 30 per cent. Our dementia risk-reduction campaign calls on people to act now to reduce their dementia risk through healthy and active lifestyles.

So, to conclude, I do agree that it is important that research into CTE continues, and that we’re able to help reduce the risks now and in the future of CTE in an informed and proportionate way. I’m grateful again for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I’d like to extend the offer of a further meeting with Steffan to discuss the specific suggestions that he had in the debate today. Thank you.

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