National Assembly for Wales

I call the Members to order.

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

Yes. We work closely with Welsh police forces, Natural Resources Wales and local authorities to prevent and tackle rural crime and to help make people feel safer both at home and in public places.

Thank you, First Minister. Rural crime, of course, costs the rural economy over £2 million each year. In north Wales, we have a very hard-working rural crime team, working with other agencies, but they estimate that 75 per cent of their workload is related to livestock crime. In three years, 2,000 sheep have been killed in 400 separate dog attacks. They tackle vehicle theft, rural business theft, as well as badger baiting and animal abuse. Will you endorse with me here today and support the excellent work carried out by the north Wales rural crime team and pledge your support, and any additional resources that might be available, for their sterling work going forward?

Bearing in mind that policing is not devolved and, therefore, funding largely comes from the Home Office, but I can say that, of course, we support the team. The Cabinet Secretary met with the team on 15 June and received an update on the scale of the issues, the response that they had put in place, and also the work ongoing to change the law at a UK level.

First Minister, in Islwyn, we face, on the historic Twm Barlwm tump, the scourge of fly-tipping, and it costs Wales nearly £2 million each year in clean-up costs, which ultimately have to be paid by the taxpayer. This rural crime is harmful to human health and spoils the enjoyment of our stunning countryside. Since 2007, Welsh Government has funded Fly-tipping Action Wales, an initiative co-ordinated by National Resources Wales and involving over 50 partners working together to tackle fly-tipping through education. What does the Welsh Government believe are the actions needed to achieve our vision of combatting this menace?

Firstly, a change of attitude and culture, so that some people—those who do fly-tip—realise how anti-social it is. Secondly, of course, enforcement and working with Natural Resources Wales and local authorities, and the public, indeed, to make sure that happens. And, thirdly, through enforcement of penalties. For example, we know that we’ve looked at introducing fixed penalty notices for small-scale fly-tipping incidents. That provides local authorities with a more efficient and proportionate response to low-level, high-volume offences, but, of course, for those who are more serious and more serial offenders, then, of course, they can be prosecuted within the law. But this does depend on intelligence coming from the public in order to provide the evidence in the first place.

This week, Dyfed-Powys Police and Aberystwyth University are carrying out a study of rural crime to try to gather evidence, because we believe that rural crime costs more than some of the figures quoted to date. Would you join with me in encouraging farmers to contribute to that study, and in congratulating Dyfed-Powys Police on using sheep DNA for the first time ever to ensure that someone will face prosecution and be found guilty of sheep rustling? This is an exciting development in the area of rural crime.

Yes, of course I will. It’s vital that we can secure more evidence so that people can be prosecuted. Of course, the police and every authority are dependent on the information that they receive from farmers and others living in rural areas so that they can augment that evidence.

There are a number of first-class sport facilities in north Wales, which serve both elite and community sport. Sport Wales, our key delivery agent, are working with partners to ensure there is appropriate provision across Wales.

Thank you for that response. It was interesting to note that your Cabinet Secretary for the economy was very eager to see the development of a convention centre in Cardiff recently, although we have the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff City Stadium and the Motorpoint Arena. We have the Millennium Centre, we have a convention centre in Newport just down the road, and we have the Liberty Stadium in Swansea. There’s a similar development in the pipeline in Swansea, and good luck to them. I wouldn’t begrudge that at all, but there is a question about Government investment in proposals in north Wales, and north-east Wales particularly. The Racecourse, for example, is eager to develop itself as an international sports facility. It’s also eager to hold events—Olly Murs was there over the weekend with many thousands in attendance. But the feeling is that the investment isn’t forthcoming. So, the question, First Minister, to all intents and purposes, is: when will we see your Government being as proactive and eager to encourage that kind of development in somewhere like the Racecourse?

Well, you listed some places there that are not supported by the Government, namely the arena in Cardiff and the arena in Swansea. You raised the question about the Racecourse. We wish to ensure that that is developed, ultimately, but it’s very important that the Racecourse itself puts projects forward so that we can look at how we could provide support. We, of course, can’t establish our own projects without collaborating with those people already in the town and the vicinity. I know that the supporters trust from Wrexham Football Club have submitted a report to Welsh Government officials in order to progress this process, and we are very eager to collaborate with them.

One of the premier sports facilities in north Wales, of course, is Parc Eirias in my own constituency, the home of Rygbi Gogledd Cymru. And I’ve been very pleased, actually, to see the Welsh Government’s investment in that site over the years. But would you agree with me that, if we’re to have great sports facilities, we’ve also got to make sure that we’ve got the transport infrastructure to get people in and out of those facilities? One of the problems we have, of course, in north Wales, is that A55 corridor, and the congestion that occurs in it from time to time. And I wonder what action you’re going to take to make sure that those sporting venues have adequate transport infrastructure around them.

Well, how topical the question is from the Member, because I see that money has been made available for specific projects to the Northern Ireland Executive, and Wales has not been treated in the same way. We’d be more than delighted to take forward more measures on the A55 to reduce congestion if only we were in a position where we had DUP Members who could be bought by the Conservative Government.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, this morning, the Cabinet took the decision to not proceed with the funding package for the Circuit of Wales—and I appreciate that the Minister will be making a statement later on this afternoon. Yesterday, the most senior civil servant in the department gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, where he talked of this project having a very high impact project in the status that it was held in the department, and he also said it did deliver value for money—and these are his words I’m quoting to you—and it was a project that was ready, subject to finance, to be delivered.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary, with his statement this morning, says that, actually, the claims around the project were significantly overstated, and he says, historically there was little evidence, on an international scale, of any track on its own acting as a catalyst for further local employment. Those two statements—from the senior civil servant, and from the Cabinet Secretary—are completely opposed to each other in the views that they are trying to create. Who’s right and who’s wrong when it comes to this project?

No, they’re not, because phase 2 of the project is a technology park. That is something that we will proceed with as a Government. That is the project that will deliver the vast majority of the jobs. Unfortunately, the conditions that we laid down, as far as the circuit itself was concerned, could not be fulfilled by the company concerned. We wanted to make sure they had sufficient time to look to fulfil those conditions, but, unfortunately, that proved not to be the case.

I’m afraid that’s not what the statement that came forward from the Cabinet Secretary this morning indicated. As I said, in his written statement, he says that there is little evidence of a project like this delivering, on the numbers that have been talked about. In fact, it actually talks of only 100 whole-time equivalent jobs being delivered, on the circuit—I take that, and there is a park alongside it. But, actually, the permanent secretary, in that department, said yesterday that it was a project ready to be delivered, he had confidence and, again, reiterating his words, it was a very high impact project. So, obviously, he had confidence in the project.

Your Government, at the eleventh hour, withdrew its support for this project. You’ve offered a fig leaf, by saying that you’re going to reinvigorate the enterprise zone in Ebbw Vale, which has, to date, delivered very little investment to the area. I go back to the point: how can there be two wide-ranging statements, one from the Cabinet Secretary, one from the most senior civil servant, that are so opposed in the views of this project? I think the public deserve a greater understanding of why it has taken five years to get to this point.

I think he answered his own question by saying, ‘subject to finance’, and that is the issue here. We wanted to offer the circuit every opportunity to meet the conditions that we had stipulated. They weren’t able to meet those conditions, and so, as a result of that, the financial situation was not right for us to be able to support this scheme for the circuit. What we can, however, do is to deliver the vast majority of the jobs by delivering the technology park. We’ve spoken to potential investors. We’ve spoken to those in the industry. They are interested. They want to work with us on the technology park. So, yes, there are jobs to the tune of four figures that can be delivered as that technology park is taken forward. It’s not dependent on there actually being, physically, a race track there.

Well, you will not be delivering the vast majority of the jobs, as proposed in the original concept, because there were 6,000 jobs proposed around this project—

In the park.

[Continues.]—and the actual park that you are talking about delivering is a potential of 1,500 jobs with a 10-year delivery programme for that park. So, there is a dislocate. But the point I am driving at here, First Minister, is that you have the permanent secretary in that department at complete loggerheads with the Cabinet Secretary in his interpretation. The evidence is there, from the Public Accounts Committee, of this project—and, again, I repeat, a very high-impact project. So that is finance, that is jobs, that is regeneration. Otherwise, why would he have used such language? Do you have confidence in James Price’s ability to continue within his role or are you backing the Cabinet Secretary? [Interruption.]

It is, frankly, cowardice—cowardice—for any Member in this Chamber to name a civil servant in that way when they cannot respond. It is cowardice. I ask the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to withdraw it. [Interruption.]

I would like to reply to that, because when you accuse someone of cowardice—

No, no, I think it is—

That is out of order to call someone a coward.

[Continues.]—probably inappropriate for you to be naming a civil servant in this place when that civil servant is not able to be here to answer for himself. [Interruption.] So, I’m going to move on now and call the leader of UKIP, Neil Hamilton.

We’re not going to move on very far, Llywydd, I’m afraid, because I’m going to continue the line of questioning by the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Isn’t it now absolutely clear why this decision has been delayed until after the general election? And what the Welsh Government has done today is actually to kill the hopes of the people of Blaenau Gwent and a much wider area. There is nothing that the Government was able to discuss this morning that couldn’t have been discussed weeks ago. There’s nothing new at all in this decision. The limit of the Welsh Government’s obligations would be a maximum of £8 million a year for 33 years—that’s once all the buildings on the site were constructed. It’s not so the whole thing would be telescoped upfront and the money would have to be found tomorrow or within the next three years. Therefore, what this shows is a pathetic lack of vision on the part of the Welsh Government to kill this massive private enterprise scheme, which offered not just hope to one town in Wales, but actually to the whole of south-east Wales.

It’s difficult to be lectured by somebody who was part of the Conservative administration that closed down, actually, the very last mine, for example—the Marine/Six Bells in Blaenau Gwent—and was more than happy to do so. I mean, really, I can’t take what he says in that regard seriously. The reason why the decision couldn’t be taken at the time he mentions is because the due diligence process hadn’t finished. Or is he suggesting that decisions should be taken before all the information is ready? That is reckless, to say the least. He fails to understand what is behind this project. The jobs were in the technology park, not in the circuit. The circuit only provided to the region about 137 full-time jobs. That’s it. The rest of it—the thousands of jobs—were always going to be in the technology park and beyond, and that is exactly what we’re going to invest in as a Government.

He’s also wrong to say that this is simply £8 million over the next 33 years. We know, having explored this with the Office for National Statistics, who would refer this to Eurostat, that there’s a very high risk of this guarantee being regarded as being on the balance sheet. That means we would lose £373 million of capital funding, and £157 million would have to be found this financial year. That is, schools not being built, hospitals not being modernised, houses not being built. Now, surely, he has to accept that that high risk cannot be ignored.

Well, what we’re talking about here is a bean-counters convention. [Interruption.] It is nothing new. We knew in advance of the decision being taken, months and months ago, what the ONS rules and Treasury rules on how to treat long-term spending of this kind were. So, this is something that could have been decided a very long time ago. Why has the Welsh Government allowed this project to limp along for six years when that could have been recognised right from the start? What we need to do here, surely, is to change the accounting convention rather than just destroy the hopes of those who were relying upon regenerating the whole of south-east Wales. Because if it is the case that it is only the rules of the Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Treasury in London that have killed this project, then that is an absolute disgrace.

We can’t change the rules. The rules are set by ONS. They are independent of Government, and they set rules in conjunction with Eurostat. We have to be aware of what that risk might entail.

He calls it a bean-counters convention. The risk is far greater than that. If we end up with £373 million on our books, that means it’s capital money we cannot spend. Surely he will understand—he’s been in Government, so surely he understands this—he will know that that is a risk that any Government must take seriously. He asks the question as to why this wasn’t identified before. This was part of the conditions. The conditions stipulated 50:50. The conditions haven’t been met. That’s why it’s a problem.

All the money that is going to be provided upfront to build the Circuit of Wales is private sector money. All that the Welsh Government’s being asked to do is to guarantee payments that will be made to the senior bondholders for less than half the capital employed, in a period that only starts when the whole site has been developed. So, there are physical assets then, against which the contingent liability of the Government would be secured. What we have now is a proposal from the Government to spend £100 million over 10 years—shed loads of money—on a series of empty sheds.

We have already assessed the demand and spoken to businesses. We know there is a demand for premises in the Heads of the Valleys, and we know that there are businesses who cannot move there because the premises aren’t there. So, it’s hugely important to make sure that we provide those premises as part of the technology park that is part of the circuit itself. The only thing, in many ways, that’s missing is the actual racetrack. The jobs—the vast majority of the jobs—are still there.

He is not being honest with himself when he says that this is only about a guarantee. He knows full well that if £373 million are re-profiled so they appear on our books, we lose the money. It’s the same as a cut. It means we would have to find £157 million in this financial year. The problem we have is that we have pursued this with ONS and with Eurostat—with ONS—and their answer is, ‘We cannot give you a definitive ruling until we’ve seen the final contracts.’ It’s too late by then. That’s the problem. So the real risk here is that we end up not moving ahead with projects in-year that people have already been promised because of, yes, an accountancy device, but one nevertheless that the ONS have identified, and one that carries a high risk.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch. I think you do have some further questions to answer about this, but I understand there’s an urgent question coming later, so I’d like to ask you about another aspect of the economy, and that is in relation to education and skills. Many concerns have been expressed to me by teachers about their workload, and, linked to that, growing sickness rates. Many people are considering leaving the profession now. Initial teacher training levels have been described as bordering on crisis. Do you agree?

No, I don’t. I think there are great opportunities for us when pay and conditions are devolved to put in place a holistic package for teachers to make sure that the responsibilities they have are reflected in terms of the pay that they receive. It has always been a strange anomaly that we have responsibility for education, but not for pay and conditions. That is at the heart of delivering a good deal for teachers, and that’s what we intend to do.

Well, perhaps if you’d had unity on the question of devolving pay and conditions within your own party before now, we might have got somewhere with that. But I’m concerned about your refusal to face reality. I’m not really surprised, but I am concerned. First Minister, the words I used, ‘crisis’, were not my own words. They were the words used by the National Union of Teachers. Back in April, Plaid Cymru warned that teacher recruitment was heading for a perfect storm. We are now in the middle of that storm. The secondary school intake for trainee teachers has dropped a third below the target. That target is based on need—the number of teachers we need in our system. There’s now a gap of around 280 secondary school teachers, and intake for primary school teachers has also now dropped below the target. We know from the Education Workforce Council that one third of teachers intend to leave the profession within the next three years. First Minister, in March, changes to teacher training were announced. How long is it going to take for those changes to stop this downward trend?

I don’t think it would be possible to put in place the right package until pay and conditions are devolved. Why? Well, people want to know what their terms of employment are, what their conditions of employment are, what they’ll be paid, and what activities they’ll be paid for. That all impacts, clearly, on a decision to go into a profession and that impacts, ultimately, on numbers. Now, next year, we’ll have the opportunity and the responsibility of controlling teachers’ pay and conditions. We want to work with the teaching unions to make sure we put forward a package that makes teaching more attractive than perhaps it has been for some people in the past, but getting control of pay and conditions is absolutely crucial for that.

So, you’re kicking it off again into the future then. The situation, First Minister, is worse than you are prepared to admit. The overall number of trainee teachers has dropped every single year since 2011, and the correspondence and conversations that I’ve had with teachers show that there is a deep problem here. From your answer, I’m not convinced at all that you’ve got plans to treat this situation with any sense of urgency. What I want to see is our teaching profession supported. Why don’t you talk to teachers and their trade unions and ask them what can be done in the immediate term to help with their workload and their mental well-being? You’re putting things in place now, which may well pay off in the future, but that decline in numbers has been evident for several years now. It’s not a new problem. The crisis is here, and the crisis is now. You’ve previously admitted that you took your eye off the ball in education, and at that point in time you indicated that your Government would up its game. Since you’ve made that admission in education, what exactly have you been doing?

We can see GCSE results are the best ever, A-level results going up, new schools being built all across Wales, the attainment gap closing, and the pupil deprivation grant making a huge difference. It’s a slightly bizarre comment from the leader of Plaid Cymru, suggesting we don’t talk to teaching unions. I mean, the response from the Cabinet Secretary was, I think, audible to most in the Chamber—in order, but audible. That’s what she does. The link between ourselves and the teaching unions is strong, but we all recognise that, in order to put in place the right package for teachers, we need to get that one last piece of the jigsaw, which is pay and conditions. We’ve got it and then it will be our responsibility, that’s true.

We’ve provided nearly £8 million extra a year to improve dementia services in Wales. In line with our ‘Taking Wales Forward’ commitment, we’ve also been working closely with stakeholders to develop a dementia strategic action plan, which will be published in the autumn.

Thank you, First Minister. I welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to supporting people living with dementia and their families. You’re right to say that, at the core of any strategy and action plan, it must be the people who are the experts—the people who are actually living with dementia, their carers, and their families—who are at the core of that.

Priority has to be given to make sure that people living with dementia live as well and for as long as possible. For that to happen, we need to have the resources to support, educate, and empower. On that, I’m pleased that two towns in my constituency, Mold and Flint, now have the status of dementia-friendly towns. More and more things like memory cafes are cropping up across the county. Flintshire County Council are working, amongst other things, on accrediting more businesses with working towards having dementia-friendly status, with pledges of action. On that note, last week, I myself and all my staff completed dementia friends training. Even as someone who has got a close relative living with dementia, it certainly opened my eyes to things as part of that training.

So, can I ask, First Minister, will the Welsh Government commit to working towards making sure that more businesses and organisations across the country do have that dementia-friendly status? Will you join with me in encouraging those Assembly Members who haven’t taken up the offer from the Alzheimer’s Society to do dementia friends training to do that, so that we can actually get to a point when we can say all Assembly Members and their offices in Wales are dementia friends?

Yes. I was at an event myself, a week last Friday, where the Alzheimer’s Society were present, and we talked about the issues surrounding becoming a dementia friend and the training that’s required to do that and, of course, as a Government we support that. Dementia cafes, we know, provide people with dementia, their families, and carers with the opportunity to meet in a friendly and relaxed environment where they can share experiences and, of course, offer peer support—hugely important as well. Expanding the availability of that support is an example of what we’re looking to achieve through the forthcoming dementia strategic action plan.

First Minister, it is shocking to note that, for half of those living with dementia in Wales, an initial delayed diagnosis is a serious issue, affecting themselves and of course their loved ones. Alzheimer’s Society Cymru have called for far more ambitious targets and interventions in this area. The society have also called for earlier diagnosis rate targets to increase annually as part of your Government’s forthcoming revised dementia strategy. Will you ensure that that overall aim and goal to allow for earlier diagnosis and intervention becomes a reality?

Hugely important. We know that in Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, for example, about 49 per cent of individuals with dementia have a diagnosis. Difficult initially, and sometimes people themselves, if they have no-one who can recognise it for them, don’t recognise it. It’s important that that diagnosis is available. I know that BCU, for example, have begun work on developing a new local strategy for people with dementia, addressing the wide range of services that are required. That work, of course, involves working with dementia groups.

Dementia is incredibly hard on the family members who put their own lives on hold to care for a loved one with dementia. Carers become very tired and stressed. It’s a very traumatic thing to have to do to look after somebody with dementia because, effectively, you’re seeing them slip away piece by piece. How are you ensuring that adequate and consistent provision is being put in place by local authorities and health boards to support the needs of such carers in terms of respite care, advice and counselling?

Well, in addition to what I’ve just said to the Assembly, the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 places a statutory requirement on all local health boards and local authorities to provide those with a diagnosis of dementia who need specialist mental health care, with a care and treatment plan designed around their needs and those of their carers.

She moves quickly, seamlessly on.

Cwestiwn 4, Simon Thomas.

While the regulation of gambling is not devolved, we are exploring what more we can do to tackle problematic gambling and the impact it has.

Thank you, First Minister. Although you say that gambling itself isn’t devolved, the impacts certainly are devolved—in health, mental health and the economy—and run into tens of millions of pounds in terms of their impact in Wales annually. There is some devolution happening around the fixed-odds machines, and there will be more demand for the Welsh Government to respond to this challenge. What are you likely to do over the next year or two to ensure that independent research—research that isn’t reliant on the gambling industry itself—is available to you as a Government to ensure that you measure the impact of gambling appropriately and accurately on our communities?

Well, good work is being undertaken by bodies across Wales, but we, of course, see gambling as a problem, and a problem that is related to mental health, because sometimes, of course, people cannot stop because of that. The chief medical officer is leading on work in this area, and of course we look forward to seeing his recommendations later on this year. And, of course, those recommendations will be something that we can build on in order to deal with these problems.

I too would like to see further devolution in respect of responsibility for gambling here to Wales, but we do have some powers already, including powers through the planning system whereby we could take action to prevent the proliferation of licenced betting shops in small communities. We know that there’s a proliferation, particularly in deprived communities, of gambling outlets, and that can be a particular problem. I wonder what action the Welsh Government will consider taking through the planning process to address this issue.

In terms of the planning process, he’s right to identify that there has been a growth, it seems to me, in betting shops over the years. That’s only part of the problem. Online gambling is a major, major issue as well, and if people are gambling online, they’re particularly hard to reach. If I could write to him on the issue of the planning process and how that deals with gambling, well, I will do that, to provide him with a detailed answer.

The Welsh Government published an integrated framework of care and support for people who are deaf or living with hearing loss last month. This sets out our plan to improve the provision of health and social care services and support to ensure high-quality care across Wales.

Thank you very much for that response, First Minister. Further to that, perhaps you will know that the ‘Hear to Meet’ project, presented by Action on Hearing Loss, has come to an end. This means that there will be a decline in support for individuals with hearing loss across Wales. As a result of that, is your Government willing to collaborate with organisations such as the Wales Council for Deaf People and others to close the gap that has appeared because of the loss of this important project?

Well, a conference was held last Friday in Swansea, which was the national audiology conference. The chief scientific adviser was present to give a presentation at that conference, and, of course, emphasised the framework for action, and it’s clear that there is a great deal of support for this work. So, it’s important that the framework itself moves forward and that we ensure that it does have an impact on people’s lives.

I know the First Minister is aware that deaf children and children with poor communication skills are more likely to be the target of abuse than other children. In January, in a short debate, I highlighted the abuse suffered by children at a special school for deaf children in Llandrindod Wells in the 1950s, where, sadly, it was the children with poor speech skills who were being targeted, and that issue is being pursued. But what mechanisms are in place to make educational professionals aware that these children with hearing loss are often targeted and what measures are in place to ensure they’re adequately protected from such abuse in the future?

Ultimately, of course, it’s a matter for schools to ensure that bullying does not occur within schools. But the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, if passed, will completely overhaul the system for supporting pupils with additional learning needs, including learners with hearing impairments. It’ll obviously put the learner at the heart of that process and make it simpler for those involved. There will be finance, of course, to support the Bill, and, as part of the narrative around that Bill, I would want to make sure that bullying is dealt with as part of that narrative. Yes, it is important to support those with additional learning needs in the widest way possible, including, of course, protecting them from bullying.

First Minister, it’s important that the Welsh Government does create the right conditions in order to develop an education workforce that is able to provide for a broad range of additional learning needs, including those suffering from hearing loss, and I’m sure you’ll be aware of the demands to add British Sign Language to the national curriculum. So, can you give us an update on the most recent developments to add British Sign Language to the curriculum, and can you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to encourage businesses to learn BSL in order to make local services as accessible as possible to all, including those who are deaf or living with hearing loss?

Well, there are standards as regards accessing the health service, and, of course, we expect those standards to be followed. As regards ways in which we can encourage businesses, for example, to present services that can be used by these groups, we would wish to work with those groups to ensure that that does happen, and, of course, to ensure that BSL is available, where possible. As regards the place of BSL within the curriculum, I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education to write to the Member to give him more details.

Well, social care is a sector of strategic importance. We provided an extra £55 million of recurring funding for social services. The regional partnership boards have completed their population needs assessment and continue to deliver integrated care, funded through the integrated care fund.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. We all appreciate the financial challenge that social care will pose for us in the future. We have a situation in north Ceredigion now where the council has announced the closure of a care home called Bodlondeb. This has come as a bolt from the blue. Nobody knows where the residents will be sent to. There is no social care plan for north Ceredigion, yet there is a consultation going on over the closure of this home. Is it not unfair upon those who are placed in this position that there is this uncertainty and the council has spent, apparently, £2 million on Pricewaterhouse Coopers’s advice on £12 million to £14 million-worth of council cuts? Does this not seem a bizzare priority, when the real needs of real people are going by the board?

I understand there will be a consultation on the closure of Bodlondeb until the—well, it will carry on until 25 September. It is a very difficult time, obviously, for all of those who are concerned. Can I say to the Member that the safety and well-being of residents is my main concern, and the care and social services inspectorate will be working closely with the council to ensure this is carried out throughout the process?

First Minister, the recent Mid and West Wales Health and Social Care Regional Collaborative statement on services for older people makes for concerning reading. The population of the Hywel Dda university health board area already has a higher proportion of older people than the Wales average, and that already higher proportion is predicted to increase dramatically in the coming years. And yet the number of people in the HDU area under the age of 65 years who provide unpaid care is predicted to decrease significantly in the next 10 to 15 years, and it is already proving very difficult to recruit paid carers. It is a job not well paid, with enormous time pressures, very often they’re not paid for the distance of travel that they do, and it is not often regarded well by other people within society. What are you as the Welsh Government going to do to raise and improve the caring status so that we can get more carers, and what do you think your Government could do to encourage and reward those people who do provide unpaid care selflessly, day-in and day-out, for their loved ones?

The Member will know that unfair employment practices—she’s identified them—are bad for individuals. That’s why we’re taking action on zero-hours contracts through guidance, through procurement, and through our consultation on proposed regulations for social care. It’s hugely important, of course, that the caring profession is valued, hugely important that they are rewarded appropriately, and that, of course, is what the regulations intend to do.

We’ve made it clear in ‘Taking Wales Forward’ that our commitment is to support both serving and ex-service personnel and their families, so that they are not disadvantaged by their service.

First Minister, on Saturday I will be attending Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council’s Armed Forces Day event in Aberdare, and I want to applaud RCT for their proactive approach in this issue as councils have such a key role in delivering many of the front-line services personnel and their families rely on. The minutes of the expert group on the needs of the armed forces community in Wales note plans to review the work of armed forces champions. Are you able to give us an update on this important work, how it supports our armed forces and meets their needs?

Yes. I was at Armed Forces Day myself—our Welsh national Armed Forces Day—in Caerphilly on Saturday. Very important to support that event. I now I have to say that the one event that stands out in my mind is a gentleman in uniform coming towards me, shaking my hand, and saying, ‘Well done on the election result’, not realising that Alun Cairns was standing next to me. But, nevertheless, I’ll take that for what it is. But I can say, in terms of the issue itself, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, who chairs, of course, the armed forces expert group, will be meeting with local authority champions following the summer recess to discuss their role and the support they can give to the armed forces community in their areas, building on, of course, what we have already done as a Government.

First Minister, you’ll know that Nantgarw has recently been chosen as the base for the new 24-hour helpline for armed forces veterans. This will be a great help all over Wales, but also for RCT and Cynon Valley in particular. Now, this is part of the 2014 veterans transition review, which also recommended that local authorities conduct an audit of their social housing provision and see how that does serve armed forces personnel and veterans. Do you agree that Welsh local authorities should take part in this review, and get on with that work as soon as possible?

Yes, it’s very important that they’re able to assess the need in their areas particularly. In terms of housing, we have developed an ex-service personnel housing referral pathway to help them and their families make an informed choice of their accommodation needs on transferring back into civilian life. On top of that, to further promote the pathway, we have developed advice cards for ex-service personnel sleeping rough—too many, I’m afraid, but we know that the problem is there—with leaflets and posters. And these publications will include contact details for the new veterans’ gateway service. It’s designed to be a one-stop shop for veterans and family members to access services and support in one place. So, much has been done already, not just to provide information to those who need housing and are looking for housing, but those who are in desperate need and are sleeping rough.

First Minister, will your Government legislate to guarantee housing and healthcare for veterans who have seen active service?

Well, we’ve done much so far: £585,000 per annum is provided to Veterans’ NHS Wales, a unique service, the only one of its kind in the UK. We know that over 2,900 referrals have been received in that time. Service personnel in need of particular specialist healthcare can access the fast-track referral pathway—that’s a joint initiative between the Defence Medical Services and NHS Wales that prioritises access to secondary care, and that ensures that serving members of the armed forces are not disadvantaged by their service and have the same standard of access to healthcare as that received by any other resident in Wales.

A learning disability advisory group is established. It will advise on a reviewed strategic action plan. Learning disability is a priority for regional partnership boards as well, and, of course, in 2016 we extended the integrated care fund to include support for people with a learning disability.

Thank you for the reply, First Minister. A recent report by Estyn said that colleges should do more to prepare young people with learning disabilities for independent living. They found that only a few set realistic goals to help students develop their communication and work skills, and called for colleges to set individual learning plans and to design programmes that challenge pupils more. What action will the Welsh Government take in view of Estyn’s findings to help and support students with learning disabilities to achieve their full potential in life?

He will know that the response to Estyn’s recommendations was published last week. But I can say in 2015-16, for example, we invested over £140,000 on a project to support workforce capacity building in the FE sector, with a particular emphasis on increasing access for young people with complex learning disabilities. We are also investing an additional £250,000 during 2016—or have invested an additional £250,000 for 2016-17—for a project to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the independent living skills learning area on top of, of course, the response that we’ve already given.

The First Minister will know that the Welsh Government’s strategies depend very much on front-line delivery, very often from third sector organisations. So, within the Bridgend and Ogmore area, it’s organisations like Drive, like Cartrefi Cymru, like Mirus, and also Bridgend County Borough Council’s supported living service—all of these play a key role in enabling people with disabilities to live independently at home or close to home. So, what more can the Welsh Government do, not only at a strategic level, but working in partnership with those organisations and with local authorities, to deliver that support for independent living?

Well, the learning disability advisory group was set up in 2012. Its purpose is to inform learning disability policy within the context of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and to provide advice to the Welsh Ministers on learning disability issues. The group is made up of learning disabled people, third sector organisations working in the field, and health and social care representatives. Alongside that, a learning disability strategic action plan is being developed, following the review of learning disability that’s currently being undertaken.

In 2017-18 more than £210 million of relief is being provided to help ratepayers with their non-domestic rates. These reliefs are available to all eligible ratepayers who meet the criteria, including community energy projects.

On Saturday, we launched two hydro energy projects in Arfon, Ynni Padarn Peris and Ynni Ogwen. Ynni Anafon is already in operation. I’m very pleased that we have three schemes that harness one of our most reliable natural resources, namely water, and that the profits generated are spent on projects in the community and bring benefits to local people. Unfortunately, the process of re-evaluating rates has created great concern in this sector and is likely to prevent development in the future. Scotland has introduced a package of rate relief for such schemes, clearly showing their support for this sector. Can you commit that the Welsh Government will also introduce a similar package, which will bring greater assurances to community energy programmes across Wales?

Of course, there is a scheme already in place to ensure that there is relief given to companies on rates. We wish to work with the sector to explore what kind of support can be given, and, of course, we want to ensure that the sector grows. It’s difficult to know what the individual factors affecting the company that the Member has alluded to may be, and what kind of experience they may have had, but if she wishes to write to me with their story, I’d be very happy to respond.

First Minister, we know that many of those who have developed these community hydro projects are very, very worried about these huge increases. Now, as the member for Arfon has alluded to, the Scottish Government has actually said that it will have 100 per cent business rates relief for these projects, and even the Government in England has committed that it will not cost them more than £600 in increases. Can we have those assurances from the Welsh Government that we will put those sorts of rate reliefs into place?

Well, we already have a rate relief system for non-domestic rates that is more generous than is the case, for example, in England. More businesses are covered by that relief scheme than is the case there. I can also say that WEFO has put out a call for organisations to submit proposals to benefit from £14 million of EU funds for small-scale renewable energy initiatives: £10 million is available to west Wales and the Valleys and £4 million to east Wales. Any organisation, whether they are public, private or third sector, can apply. I can say that the deadline for proposals is 30 June, so not a huge amount of time left, but nevertheless that offer has been on the table for some time.

Thank you, First Minister.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.69, I have accepted a request from the First Minister to move a motion for an urgent debate, and I call on Carwyn Jones to move the motion.

Yesterday, Llywydd, we saw an announcement of a financial deal between the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party that has cause widespread concern, not just amongst parties in the Chamber, but amongst the general public in Wales. Of particular concern is the amount—£1 billion—and also that extra money has been provided for health and education, areas that are normally provided for via the Barnett formula. Why, for example, there are health pressures in Northern Ireland and not in Wales, as the UK Government sees it—we will have to get an explanation as to why that is. Nor is it the case that a comparison can be made with city deals. This is £1 billion over two years; city deals in Wales deliver something like £60 million a year, or £120 million over the same period. It is only right, given the effect on the finances of Wales, that Members in this Chamber have the opportunity to express a view, and express their concerns about the deal that was done yesterday, and so I formally move the appropriate motion under the Standing Order in order for that debate to take place.

The proposal is to agree the motion for an urgent debate. Does any Member object? The motion for an urgent debate is, therefore, agreed in accordance with the relevant Standing Order.

As we have now resolved that this debate will take place, I can confirm that it will take place later this afternoon, following the Stage 4 debate on the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill.

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

Llywydd, I’ve three changes to report to this week’s business. Later today the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will make an oral statement on the Circuit of Wales. As a result, I postpone the oral statements on historic environment policy and legislation and the update on the pathfinder 111 NHS service in Wales until next week. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement, found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Thank you, leader of the house, for your statement. Can I call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on the allegations of racism and discrimination against non-white teaching staff in Welsh schools? You’ll be aware that there were concerns that were raised by Race Council Cymru regarding allegations of racism, and that that could be putting applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds off in terms of applying to be enrolled onto teacher training courses. This is clearly something we have to address. We’re not having sufficient numbers of people from non-white backgrounds making applications onto courses at the moment, and that could be a factor in the underachievement of learners from some specific ethnic minority backgrounds. So, I would appreciate it if you could schedule a statement as soon as possible.

I thank Darren Millar for raising that very important point. Those allegations must be and are being taken very seriously. I know the Cabinet Secretary for Education will want to address that. Of course, this is the sort of issue as well that I know that, in her meetings with the education unions—that these issues are also discussed.

I want to raise the issue of Cardiff Aviation, based in the Vale of Glamorgan. It’s another company that has received millions of pounds from the Welsh Government, promising to bring thousands of jobs to south Wales. It now seems that only a third of those jobs were created, and I had to bring to light that Cardiff Aviation have failed to pay any rent for a number of years. It now emerges that your Government has written off the £1.5 million, which you’ll never get back. It’s also emerged that employees have gone unpaid for months, and your Government is now distancing itself from the company. When the poorest people in Wales are unable to pay their rent because of the bedroom tax, Labour councils throw those people out on the street. Why have you let millionaire owners of Cardiff Aviation get away with paying nothing in rent and writing the debt off, and why are you distancing yourselves from this company when you should be demanding that the hard workers at Cardiff Aviation get the wages that they have worked for?

The company Cardiff Aviation is currently meeting all of their financial commitments to the Welsh Government. The management of Cardiff Aviation Ltd’s workforce is a matter for the company. Welsh Government has had no involvement in the company’s recently announced workforce reshaping. The agreement between the Welsh Government and Cardiff Aviation is commercially sensitive and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on its content.

Last week we had the awful news that Tesco will be making 1,100 employees redundant from its customer service centre on Maes-y-Coed Road in my constituency of Cardiff North. I had a meeting with senior managers last Thursday and on Friday I visited the site with my colleague Jenny Rathbone and with Anna McMorrin, the newly elected Labour MP for Cardiff North. We met the employees who were absolutely devastated by this news, because there has been a presence for 27 years for these types of services that are provided by Tesco, and I know that we all agree that this is a huge blow to all the individuals and the area involved. I was able to raise this issue in economy questions to Ken Skates last week, but in view of the fact this is such a huge number of jobs, and in view of the impact it will have on the area, would it be possible to have either a statement on this issue, so that we can raise it, or a debate on this particular issue?

I thank Julie Morgan for raising this today. Indeed, you were able to raise it just after the news had broken last week when the Cabinet Secretary was undertaking his oral questions. Also, Jenny Rathbone and, of course, Anna McMorrin—we saw her raising this in the House of Commons very clearly and forcefully. It’s devastating news for the workforce and their families, as you identified, Julie. The First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for economy have already spoken to Matt Davies, the chief executive of Tesco, to express our concerns at this decision, and reiterated our commitments to do everything we can to support the workers during this very difficult period, clearly working in close collaboration with Tesco and the major support agencies locally, including Careers Wales, Jobcentre Plus, colleges and Cardiff council, to deliver a comprehensive package of support for the workers affected by this decision. But also, importantly, USDAW, the union, is working very closely with colleagues to provide the support they need, and is closely engaged in the ongoing consultation. I think this clearly has to be a matter on which the Cabinet Secretary and the Government will be updating Members accordingly, taking on board the importance, of course, of this being raised this afternoon in the business statement.

Just to endorse the comments that the Member for Cardiff North raised—and many politicians from across the political divide have met with Tesco. What alarmed me last week was, obviously, the Cabinet Secretary confirming that the Government had had no notice of these redundancies, or potential redundancies, because that’s the term we have to use because it’s subject to consultation. In particular, there hasn’t been a statement forthcoming from the Government to date, given that there was a conference call between the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, as the Cabinet Secretary indicated in questions, an hour after he informed the Chamber of events on Wednesday afternoon. I do think it is vitally important that we do get a comprehensive statement from the Government to understand the interaction between large companies when they do come around to these decisions. Tesco, let’s not forget, is the largest private employer in Wales, with 19,000 employees across the length and breadth of Wales. For the Government to completely be blindsided by these proposals really does pose questions about the level of communication.

But secondly, I would implore you as leader of the house that, when these announcements are made, a more timely response is made available to Members around the actions. And I support the actions that the Government have taken to date, but it would have been helpful if we could have had a more timely statement at the back end of last week that could have informed us of the outcomes of the conference call the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary had undertaken and any assurances that you might have had from the company at such a senior level as to future investment in Wales and, importantly, what potential there might be for reversing this decision. So, I would ask you, leader of the house, to reflect on the flow of information from the Government to Members when such a critical announcement is made. Let’s not forget, this was the biggest single job loss for the last 10 years that’s been announced in Wales, if it is carried out after the consultation period.

Well, of course, Andrew R.T. Davies does recognise the discourtesy—the lack of information, the lack of warning for this devastating news—to the Welsh Government last Wednesday afternoon, and the fact that the Cabinet Secretary was able to say that he was going to then speak, with the First Minister, with the chief executive of Tesco—and, course, meetings that all AMs and MPs, across parties, had engaged with with Tesco. I think it is very important to recognise that Tesco have reiterated that this decision wasn’t a reflection of performance or of doing business in Cardiff. The site has been very successful and, indeed, the fact that the customer service industry is particularly strong in Wales—Cardiff is proving itself a successful and growing location for operations across a broad range of sub-sectors. But this, in terms of the impact it has on the employees—the devastating impact—. You know the Welsh Contact Centre Forum is working very closely to see how it can, with Tesco and the affected employees, help secure alternative employment. But we are in a consultation phase, and the Cabinet Secretary will update accordingly to the Assembly.

Leader of the house, I’m sure that you’d agree that maintaining high standards in our democracy and our electoral system is paramount. I was, therefore, shocked to see the Channel 4 revelations at the end of last week that suggested that a call centre in Neath may have broken data and electoral law when undertaking duties on behalf of the Conservative Party in the recent general election. I’m surprised Andrew R.T. didn’t have time to bring this up just now. These allegations include paid canvassing on behalf of election candidates, banned under election law; political cold calling to prohibited numbers; and misleading calls claiming to be from an independent market research company that does not exist. Now, I’ve already written to South Wales Police’s chief constable on this matter, but I would be grateful if the Welsh Government were to bring forward a statement in terms of what it is doing and intends doing, in conjunction with the UK Government Information Commissioner and others, to uphold and improve standards in our electoral system. Diolch yn fawr.

Well, I’m very grateful that Dai Lloyd has brought this to our attention, not just ‘Channel 4 News’ revealing it to us—but, in fact, that’s how we got the information, isn’t it, Dai, in terms of this behaviour and the impact of it, which actually didn’t do them any good in the end, did it, in terms of the electoral outcome in the general election. But, clearly, this is a matter that we would want to look at very carefully as a Welsh Government.

Bryn Compost Ltd in Gelligaer in my constituency recycles all of Caerphilly county borough’s food waste. The people of Gelligaer have been plagued by odours from the failed in-vessel composting facility that exists there, and have decided over the longer term not to recycle their food waste as a protest, and it’s something I’ve supported them in. An anaerobic digester placed there has gone some way to resolving some of the issues. Afonydd Cymru have called for the better regulation of anaerobic digesters, and I now have one in my constituency. In order to try and resolve some of the issues, Caerphilly County Borough Council set up a liaison committee, which consisted of councillors, residents, environmental health officers, Natural Resources Wales and the operator, to, first of all, oversee the failed IVC facility, but now to oversee the AD facility.

It’s clear that perhaps more needs to be done to scrutinise the industry, but perhaps the Welsh Government could encourage or even compel local authorities with anaerobic digesters in their wards to follow Caerphilly’s example as an example of best practice. Indeed, I would hope that Caerphilly would retain their liaison committee to oversee this anaerobic digestion facility. Would the Welsh Government therefore consider making a statement on the regulation and monitoring of anaerobic digesters?

Well, I thank Hefin David for that question. The regulation and monitoring of anaerobic digesters on farms is the responsibility, as you say, of Natural Resources Wales. Under the environmental permitting regime, farms can register an exemption, provided they meet set criteria and limits, for example the volume of materials that they can treat. But following recent incidents, not just the one that you referred to, Hefin, we’ve asked NRW to review the regulations and we’ll be working very closely with them on this. And the evidence today will, I’m sure, be taken into account.

Leader of the house, three years ago this month I brought forward a short debate to this Chamber calling on the Welsh Government to look at better ways of supporting people suffering from motor neurone disease, an extremely cruel condition that afflicts its sufferers massively. This month is MND awareness month, and the Motor Neurone Association are promoting the My Eyes Say campaign. Three years on from that short debate, I wonder if you could tell us how the Welsh Government has brought forward policies to improve the lives of people suffering from motor neurone disease. It’s one of those rare disease conditions that has often, in the past, perhaps sometimes understandably, fallen off the agenda when considered alongside other conditions, such as heart disease and cancer. But for those people suffering from it, it is life-changing, and I would look to see how the Welsh Government are improving conditions for people suffering from that.

Can I secondly ask: some years back, I asked the previous economy Minister—well BETS, as it was then: business, enterprise and technology—for a review into the trunk road programme in Wales. She did, at that point, undertake to have a review of the trunk road system. I wonder if we could get an update on where we are with that, and what the findings of that review were. There are certain accident hotspots across Wales, relating to our trunk road network, which still need addressing. The junction of the A40 and the A449 in my constituency is one such spot where there has been another recent accident—a junction there causing immense concern. There was an undertaking of the previous Minister, as they were called then, that hotspots like this would be looked at as part of that trunk road strategy review, and I wonder if you could update us on that.

Thank you to Nick Ramsay for raising awareness again of motor neurone disease. The fact that it is awareness month does mean that it will be drawn to our attention, I’m sure, as Assembly Members, and we will all know of constituents and family members who have been devastatingly affected by this disease. And, of course, this is something where, again, it’s an opportunity to update on progress, which I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will be willing to do.

On your second point, in terms of the trunk road programme, I have to say that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, obviously through his officials, is regularly reviewing the impact of a number of incidents, particularly in relation to the trunk road network across Wales, and recently issued a written statement regarding the north Wales trunk road network. But, again, we will look to where that review, which you indicated was announced a few years ago, is in terms of current arrangements.

I want to raise the issue of the sustainability of health services in rural areas with you, if I may. There is a surgery in my region, in Corwen, which serves 4,000 people, in the area that borders Gwynedd, Conwy and Denbighshire. It’s a very rural area, where they’ve been receiving a rural grant from the local health board to ensure that the service is sustainable there. They’ve also been doing additional work such as blood tests, and one of the partners is a specialist in cardiac issues. But the health board is now withdrawing that grant, and saying that they, as a surgery, need to diversify. That puts them in an impossible situation, to all intents and purposes. Bear in mind that this happens as well in the context of losing community hospitals, which have been providing some of these important services in rural areas, from Llangollen in the east to Blaenau Ffestiniog in the west.

So, may I ask you to ensure that the health Secretary brings a statement to this Senedd as to what support the Welsh Government is providing to ensure that health services, such as those in Corwen, can continue to be sustainable in rural areas? Is the Government content that the health board is withdrawing this specific grant, and undermining the sustainability of rural surgeries in north Wales, such as the one in Corwen? What exactly is the long-term vision of the Welsh Government, in terms of securing the sustainability of health services in our rural areas?

Well, it’s important, in response to that question, to recognise that the health board is working in partnership with the GP practice in Corwen to agree ongoing funding support, in line with the Welsh Government’s GP sustainable assessment framework. And that should help the practice continue to provide a service for the residents of Corwen, and the surrounding area. In fact, they’re finalising payment for additional cardiology services, provided by the practice. The health board’s committed to make a significant investment into the development of Corwen health centre, and is currently tendering for contractors, to finalise plans for the development. So, obviously, that’s hopefully an update for you in terms of progress in recognising the issues in that area. But, of course, we continue to invest record levels of funding in primary care.

Just picking up on the concerns that have been raised about Tesco, I was very concerned to read that Tesco wrote a letter to staff, saying that their primary concern was to remain customer focused, while failing to mention that that customer focus was dependent on the loyal contribution of their staff, which seems to me an absolute own goal, as far as public relations is concerned. So, I’m particularly concerned to learn what the Government can do to ensure that the 1,200 people who are potentially going to lose their jobs within six months—what tailored services they’re going to be able to call upon to ensure that they have clear the options available to them in terms of their next career move?

Secondly, I just wanted to pick up the subject of excessive gambling that was briefly mentioned in First Minister’s questions. I was involved in a panel at a seminar last Wednesday, organised by the Living Room, called Beat the Odds, which is the only organisation, as far as I’m aware, that actually offers treatment services for people who are addicted to gambling. And given the amount of harm that gambling does in our community, I wondered if we could have a debate so we can discuss a lot further what we as an Assembly could do to beat this particular problem, because I detect there’s quite considerable cross-party support for doing something about this, before it becomes an even bigger problem.

Thank you, Jenny Rathbone. I think it is important that Tesco realises the public are very concerned—their customers are very concerned, about the way that their workforce has been treated in Cardiff. And, of course, so many people working, and families and communities, are affected by their devastating announcement last week. It just indicates their lack of understanding and recognition of the loyalty and the commitment that has very clearly come over from the staff at Tesco House. I think I have mentioned ways in which, of course, we are working with the support agencies locally—Careers Wales, Jobcentre Plus, colleges and Cardiff council—and working with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers as well, and also with the Welsh contact centre forum, because, of course, skilled staff coming into the jobs market over the next year is important to secure alternative employment, and also significant interest from companies across the region to absorb the talent and skills in the financial and professional services sector, and employment opportunities created at other regulated customer service centres. It is important, though, that that message goes back to Tesco about that level of political and public concern about the support we can give.

On your second point, of course it’s the impact of excessive gambling where our responsibility is particularly. I mean, obviously, prevention is crucial, and I think this is an area where I’m sure we can see an appropriate way in which a debate or statement could be made.

I’d like to ask for a Welsh Government statement on how the Welsh Government is working with the university sector in Wales to help increase the gross value added. The university sector will play a pivotal role in developing a highly skilled, highly educated and highly productive economy. Developments should include science parks developed by the universities such as Cambridge and Aarhus in Denmark, as well as growing student numbers and supporting innovation.

Can I also add my voice to Jenny Rathbone’s in asking for a debate relating to gambling and the problems of it? When you have those gambling machines that can take £100 in 20 seconds, that can create very, very serious problems for a large number of people. I know of the work my local MP, Carolyn Harris, is doing in Westminster in trying to get action taken, but I think that we end up picking up the pieces in social services. I mean, when you can lose £300 in a minute, not many people in Wales can afford to do that, so please can we have a debate, as Jenny Rathbone asked for?

Well, I would, again, just in response to that second question, say that this is—. I very clearly recognise the work that Carolyn Harris is doing and the impact that she’s made as your MP, but also I think we are convinced, and it is timely that we do look at an appropriate time and arrangement for a debate on the impact of gambling.

Of course, on your first substantive point: universities are, of course, crucial to the economic well-being of Wales. We’re keen to ensure we take every opportunity to influence and encourage collaboration, which is crucial, between our universities and businesses, at home and overseas. And I think it’s a strong university research base that, actually, does underpin our thriving economy, and that was referenced last week, indeed, on a debate on the impact of Brexit.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is the statement by the First Minister on the legislative programme, and I call on the First Minister to make a statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased, today, to announce the second year of the Welsh Government’s legislative programme. Before I announce the Bills we’ll be bringing forward in the next 12 months, I want to reflect on the progress made during the first year. Since I made my first statement in June last year, this National Assembly has passed landmark tax legislation, which will enable Wales to raise its own revenue from April 2018—the first time in almost 800 years.

The Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017 received Royal Assent last month, becoming the first Act of the fifth Assembly. If the National Assembly agrees to pass the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill later this afternoon, we will take a further step on our devolution journey and ensure landfill disposals tax—the second of the two devolved taxes—is in place by April 2018. Llywydd, these two pieces of tax legislation establish a new relationship between the people of Wales, the Welsh Government and the delivery of our public services. From next year, money raised from Welsh taxes will be used to deliver devolved public services in Wales.

Last month, the Assembly also passed the Public Health (Wales) Bill. The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent next week and, once enacted, it will deliver wide-ranging public health improvements, including new restrictions on smoking in certain outdoor public places where children are present, a new licensing regime for special procedures, a ban on intimate piercings for under-18s, and improvements to provision of public toilets and pharmacy services. I announced three other Bills last year, and these continue to progress through the Assembly scrutiny stages.

Llywydd, the Assembly agreed the general principles of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill earlier this month and Stage 2 will take place after the summer recess. We expect to reach the final stages of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill and complete the first stage of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill before the summer recess. Each of these Bills has been and will be improved by the scrutiny of Members. Scrutiny is a crucial part of the legislative process. It may not always be comfortable for Government—and it shouldn’t be so—but scrutiny delivers better legislation.

Llywydd, the Government will continue to build on the progress we’ve made during the first year, and our legislative programme continues to be shaped by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the proposals we will introduce in the coming year reflect our aim to improve Wales now and in the long term.

Dros y 12 mis nesaf, byddwn yn cyflwyno deddfwriaeth yng Nghymru i fynd i’r afael â defnyddio alcohol yn niweidiol drwy godi isafswm pris ar gyfer alcohol, darparu gofal plant am ddim i’r rheini mewn gwaith sydd â phlant rhwng tair a phedair oed, amddiffyn tenantiaid rhag ffioedd annheg, a diwygio llywodraeth leol.

Llywydd, this Government is determined to achieve a healthier and more equal Wales, and it is our long-held aim to use public health measures to target and tackle the harmful and hazardous consumption of alcohol. Evidence has demonstrated the link between drinking at harmful levels and the availability of cheap alcohol. Legislation is an essential component of our wider strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm. We will therefore introduce legislation to enable us to specify a minimum unit price for alcohol in Wales. We have engaged widely about a minimum unit price for alcohol and consulted on a draft Bill at the end of the fourth Assembly. The majority of people who responded to this consultation were in favour of legislating. Members will be aware that the Scottish Parliament passed an Act in 2012 to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol, and, of course, of the Scottish Court of Session’s decision that the legislation is compatible with EU law, following a legal challenge by the Scotch Whisky Association and others. Now, the appeal by that association is due to be heard by the Supreme Court this summer. We look forward to the conclusion of those proceedings and are monitoring developments closely.

Llywydd, this Government will take legislative action to tackle the fees charged to tenants in the private rented sector. A good-quality, affordable home is key to well-being. There is increasing evidence that suggests the current fees, mainly charged by agents, are a barrier to people accessing private rented housing, and, once accessed, that fees can discourage people from moving home. Tenants can face significant upfront costs, which include a month’s rent, a substantial security deposit and agency fees for securing a tenancy. The fee can be made up of multiple charges but is often a fixed charge or based on a percentage of the property’s rental costs. Too often, tenants do not know what these costs cover. So, we will introduce a Bill to prevent unfair fees from being charged to tenants and their prospective tenants. This will provide those in the private rented sector with clarity about the costs involved and ensure the system is fair, equitable and sustainable.

Llywydd, we will also bring forward legislation to reform the regulatory controls for registered social landlords in Wales. In September 2016, the Office for National Statistics reclassified RSLs into the public sector. As a consequence, any private sector borrowing by RSLs will become a charge against the Welsh Government’s capital budget. The reclassification decision follows a precedent set in England, but it’s also one that faces both the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments. If not addressed, the consequences of this change by ONS are potentially significant. It may severely restrict the development of new affordable housing by RSLs and may also restrict our own ability to fund other capital infrastructure projects. We will therefore reform the relevant regulatory controls the Welsh Government and local authorities have on RSLs, and we believe this will enable the ONS to reconsider the classification of RSLs in Wales and return them to the private sector.

Llywydd, childcare is an important issue for all parents. One of our key commitments as a Government is to provide 30 hours a week of free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds. When fully rolled out, our childcare offer will help to break down the barriers many people face in getting a job. We’re making good progress, and our first childcare pilots will begin in September. To support this and enable the childcare offer to be rolled out in full by 2020, we will introduce legislation to support a national system for applications and eligibility checks. We’re working to develop a system whereby parents can submit their application and information online, which can then be checked against existing data sets to confirm their eligibility. This system will need to be underpinned by legislation. One of the options is to work with HMRC to integrate applications into the existing childcare service.

Llywydd, local authorities are responsible for providing vital services from social care and education to waste collection and management. Our local authorities also provide strategic leadership to their communities. They must be resilient and sustainable if they are to deliver high-quality public services. We have been discussing local government reform for many years in Wales. It’s important we move forward on the basis of consensus. That’s why we’ve engaged extensively with local government colleagues over recent years, culminating in the publication of the White Paper ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’ earlier this year.

Llywydd, we will now bring forward legislation to reform local government in Wales. The Bill will seek to establish a new relationship between the Welsh Government and local government in Wales. It will provide local authorities with a general power of competence and a new performance framework, and will create greater transparency in decision making. But that’s not enough. It is clear that we need to continue to deliver high-quality services and that local authorities must also work differently. The Bill, then, will provide the basis for greater collaboration through mandatory and systematic regional working arrangements. As a whole, our reform proposals will deliver a new legislative framework within which we will create resilient, renewed, and sustainable local government in Wales.

Llywydd, this Government is committed to seeking cross-party support for legislation to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement. We stand firm in our commitment to pursuing a change in the law, and we are continuing to work through the legal complexities to develop a Bill to make this a reality. It’s important we work with stakeholders to ensure that our legislation delivers the outcomes we want and avoids any unintended consequences. We will therefore be consulting on our proposals to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement over the course of the next 12 months and intend to introduce a Bill in the third year of this Assembly term.

Llywydd, last week the UK Government set out its legislative intentions in the Queen’s Speech. That statement included the repeal Bill and other significant Brexit-related Bills. I have previously set out this Government’s position that the devolution settlement must be respected and that the Assembly must be responsible for legislating in devolved areas. I’ve also been clear that where provisions are not agreed between Governments and they do not respect the devolution settlement, we will consider other options, such as a continuity Bill, to protect our devolved interests.

Leaving the European Union will have a significant impact on the business of this Welsh Government and the National Assembly. So, to accommodate the primary and secondary legislation needed for Brexit, the UK Government has announced a two-year legislative programme. It would be naive to assume that it will not also have an impact on our own legislative programme. But it has not yet been possible to determine what that impact will be and when it will emerge. As the picture develops and the impacts become clearer, I will of course keep Members informed.

Llywydd, the Bills we intend to introduce during the second year of this legislative programme will support our efforts to build a Wales that is healthy and active, prosperous and secure, ambitious and learning, and united and connected.

Llywydd, bydd y Biliau rydym ni’n bwriadu eu cyflwyno yn ystod ail flwyddyn y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol yn helpu ein hymdrechion i adeiladu Cymru iach ac egnïol, ffyniannus a diogel, uchelgeisiol ac sy’n dysgu, unedig a chysylltiedig.

I look forward to seeing the Bills come forward and to the scrutiny of committees and Members, and I commend this legislative programme to the National Assembly.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement, and, indeed, the Business Committee and the Llywydd for changing slightly the format of the way this business is going to be transacted this afternoon into statements/debates that hopefully will offer a greater opportunity to scrutinise the proposals the Government have put forward, and hopefully get a full response from the First Minister to the comments that come forward from across the Chamber? So, I thank you, First Minister, for your statement.

I note that there are five Bills that you have outlined today that will form the basis of your legislative programme for the next 12 months. First and foremost, I’d like to welcome the Welsh Government’s proposals to bring forward legislation to combat the plague of letting agents’ fees, a move that has been done under some pressure following the positive action undertaken by Governments in England and Scotland. We support the banning of letting agents’ fees, something towards which Wales is now playing catch up with the rest of Britain, and I am pleased to see the Welsh Government has finally taken action to protect tenants from the additional costs. That said, after being in power for nearly two decades, sadly, this statement does have a feel of groundhog day. Previous programmes have constantly failed to improve the life outcomes for people here in Wales, and warm words and polite lip service sadly offer very little to tackle some of the biggest challenges across Wales.

We, of course, recognise the mandate that the Government has here in the Chamber and, above all, the way it has to bring forward its legislation, but sadly that legislation has left a lot to be desired. The Welsh Conservatives do not believe that the Welsh Government’s legislative programme is ambitious enough for the people of Wales. Apart from the public health Bill, as a hangover from the fourth Assembly, and the additional learning needs Bill, the first Bills do not blaze a trail.

In fact, we’ve had the troubling circumstances involving the additional learning needs Bill, which have exemplified your Government’s slapdash approach to legislation. Ministerial bungling over its cost, the likes of which we’ve seen only too often, has significantly slowed down its passage through the Assembly, to the detriment of children all over Wales. Given the First Minister’s pledge in 2016 that the legislative programme would be published yearly to develop on our practices to ensure they befit the parliamentary responsibilities of this place, what does he make of the fact that the ALN Bill’s financial resolution was postponed—the first time in our legislative history that this has happened—and that the Finance Committee was provided with information of the errors only the day before it took evidence from the Minister?

In 2015, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee specifically recommended a financial memorandum be provided alongside each Bill. Given that the ALN Bill’s regulatory impact assessment contained serious financial errors—£13.1 million to be exact—what measures is your Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government taking to ensure that every Minister’s RIA is financially sound? We are talking about taxpayers’ money at stake here, and it is paramount that the very strongest measures are implemented to protect such cash.

We have, of course, had the introduction to abolishing the right to buy, and the backhanded thank you to the trade unions. I’m sure it’ll come as no surprise that those of us on these benches were extremely disappointed to see these two featured as key planks in the first year of your new Government. It is a big regret to us and one we feel will pull the ladder up on people the length and breadth of Wales.

The introduction of the public health Bill has been unfortunately devoid of any focus to address issues such as obesity and air pollution, while it is now clear that your free childcare offer is very unlikely to deliver, owing to poor funding across the sector. This was, of course, a major pledge made by your party at the last election, and I would appreciate an assessment from your good self on the delivery and likely timescale of this key initiative, as many families will be sitting there wondering what on earth and when on earth it is likely to come to fruition. I do note that the First Minister, in his statement, talked of using existing childcare services.

I’ve sat on the children and young people committee’s scrutiny sessions of both Ministers here—the education Minister and the communities Minister, and the communities Minister has direct responsibility for delivering this—and there does seem to be a difference of opinion as to exactly how this policy will be delivered. I accept that legislation is required to a point, and this is where legislation and policy collide. There are deep concerns as to exactly how the Government will be able to bring both elements to bear so that a successful delivery of this proposal can be brought forward.

I also note, with both amusement and worry, the prospect of yet another local government Bill. We can only hope that it is at least a better attempt than the last shambolic effort witnessed in the fourth Assembly. I would hope that the First Minister will actually be able to deliver on what he pledges to do this time.

Again, I would like to know what your aims are for that Bill and if we are likely to start afresh, or are there some elements of the previous proposals likely to feature? And what role, if any, will the recommendations of the Williams commission play in underpinning this latest legislation? Similarly, how will your Government ensure the wishes of local communities are to be heard in this Bill and the decisions taken on this journey?

I also note, from the First Minister’s statement today, minimum pricing, and the comments yesterday in the House of Commons from David Davis about the need to work with legislatures both in Wales and Scotland, and seek permission from both legislatures as the legislation passes through the House of Commons. This has to be a welcome commitment from the Brexit Secretary.

On minimum pricing, it is important to consider the cross-border issues around legislation that might end up in, obviously, different pricing jurisdictions—something we’ve seen in previous legislation when it comes to the simple commodity of fly-tipping, for example, and the ability, obviously, to move waste across border. I do, whilst offering limited support from these benches on minimum pricing, want to see greater evidence of an ability for this to progress and have the ultimate outcome of improving public health here in Wales, because, undoubtedly, there is a link between high alcohol consumption and poor health, but what we need to be making sure is that the legislation is fit for purpose, and does address the issues of poor health and alcohol and the relation between the two, and doesn’t merely seek to create a back door for a black market of alcohol here in Wales and across the border.

On the reasonable chastisement legislation that the First Minister talks about, we, as Conservatives in this Chamber, have always taken this as a matter of conscience and it will be a free vote from Members within the Conservative group as to the various stages that this legislation will progress through when the Government introduces, firstly, its consultations, I think the statement outlines today, and then, obviously, legislation in the third session, which I think the First Minister talks of in his statement this afternoon.

Within this programme, we would have wanted to see a far greater and more ambitious range of proposals delivering Bills that cover many of the aspects of the needs of the people of Wales. Welsh Conservatives would like to have seen more innovative Bills bought forward, such as a localism and citizenship Bill, which would have brought transparency and local power to the heart of decision making; an economic security and enterprise Bill, which would have created the conditions in which the Welsh private sector could prosper, leading to new skills, jobs and providing economic security to hard-working families the length and breadth of Wales; a health and social care Bill, which would have properly integrated the health system by requiring health and social care providers to work collaboratively; an older people’s rights Bill, which would have enshrined the rights of older people within Wales in Welsh laws; and an NHS governance and finance Bill, which would have delivered greater accountability for patients. And, most probably, the most significant piece of legislation that will have a direct impact on outcomes for communities has come from these benches, with my colleague Paul Davies and his proposals for an autism Bill through the backbench legislation process. As this progresses through its various stages, we hope that this will continue to enjoy cross-party support, and, in time, attract the backing of your Government.

After nearly two decades of over-promising and under-delivering, it is a deep regret that the Welsh Government’s legislative programme lacks the ambition and innovative thinking needed to bring the necessary changes. For our country to succeed and to unlock its true potential as a great place to live and work, and to create a truly inclusive society that empowers all, no matter where you come from and what your background, we truly do need a Government that can break the cycle of groundhog day here in Wales.

I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw this legislative programme: minimum alcohol pricing; banning letting agents’ fees; mandatory regional working for local councils and the new childcare offer. They’re all Plaid Cymru policies—four out of the five Bills. But my charge here is not plagiarism; my charge is complacency. These are areas where the Government could have taken action, in some cases, years ago. Removing the defence of reasonable punishment, proposed by Plaid Cymru in February 2014: rejected by Labour. Stopping landlords and agents from charging unfair fees, proposed by Plaid Cymru in November 2015: rejected by Labour. Mandatory regional working by local councils, proposed by Plaid Cymru in June 2015: rejected by the First Minister who claimed it would create another tier of government. Fast forward two years, and we have that regional policy being implemented by Labour almost to the letter. It’s a story that can be found throughout the Welsh Government’s business. We saw it on the new treatment fund, when you claimed in the past that that couldn’t be done; we also saw it on zero-hours contracts— seven times you voted down Plaid Cymru on zero-hours contracts. We’ve seen it on the bedroom tax, where your lack of action means that Wales is the only devolved country where people still have to pay the bedroom tax. People in Wales deserve an agile Government that takes decisive action to solve the problems and injustices facing our country. Instead, they have a Government that takes years to act, and in those years where action hasn’t been taken, people miss out.

One of the most crucial areas that would help parents and working families is the childcare offer. Can the First Minister give me a credible answer today? Why will it take almost an entire Assembly term to get a decent childcare system up and running? You are promising action by 2020. 2020. How does that help parents with children now? Those parents face another three years of having to pay overstretched rates and to fit childcare around their jobs under a system that isn’t fit for purpose. As ever, the problem is a lack of ambition from the Government as a whole. It’s underwhelming and it’s playing catch-up, when Wales deserves a Government that is ahead of the curve.

So, Plaid Cymru will study all of these Bills in detail. We will propose amendments and we will seek to improve what is on the table. And when that happens, it might be an idea for the Labour Government to actually vote for us when they think that we have a good idea, instead of telling us time and time again that what we propose can’t be done.

But aside from those domestic issues, there is another serious legislative challenge hanging over this Assembly, this future Welsh parliament. The UK Government’s great repeal Bill threatens to allow a Westminster power grab. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that powers and frameworks currently exercised at the EU level should return directly to Wales and to the other devolved administrations. But we know from paragraph 4.2 of the great repeal Bill White Paper that the devolved administrations will merely be consulted on those frameworks. In fact, my colleague Simon Thomas predicted this in Plaid Cymru’s response to last year’s legislative statement. He said then, that leaving the European Union would impact environment legislation and agricultural legislation. He also raised the issue of the future of EU farm payments, which are covered by legislation. The common agricultural policy is covered by four basic regulations and the Welsh Ministers are authorised to give effect to the CAP regulations.

Plaid Cymru’s answer to this legislative challenge is a continuity Bill, first proposed by Steffan Lewis AM from Plaid Cymru last November. The Welsh Government has endorsed this principle, but the next step is to make it happen. I note that the First Minister is holding a continuity Bill back as a tool that could be used if the UK Government infringes upon our devolved powers. But a continuity Bill could, and should, be delivered without delay. It could be done as a proactive measure to give Wales some leverage. This Assembly has already endorsed the principle. A continuity Bill in response to the UK Government could well be too little, too late. So, I would urge the First Minister to be more decisive on this; to be quicker and more agile in responding to the complex political situation in the UK; to look again at that decision to hold the continuity Bill back and to now consider bringing one forward at the earliest opportunity.

I hope I can be perhaps a little more positive in my contribution to this debate than the two contributions that we’ve just heard. There is much in the legislative programme that UKIP can support. There are, of course, things that we will oppose. I can certainly agree with what the First Minister said at the end of his statement in relation to a continuity Bill and the Brexit settlement. It clearly would not in any way be supportable if, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has just said, there were to be any kind of power grab from the Westminster Government to reduce the powers that this Assembly already has. I don’t actually believe that that is in prospect at all. It’s another of the demons that the remoaners raise in order to try to continue the referendum campaign from last year, and much good that did them then and will it do them in the future.

As for Plaid Cymru being ahead of the curve, from the speech of the leader of the Plaid Cymru I think it’s more round the bend, as they’ve certainly never been able to explain how they would fill the black hole in the public accounts if Wales were to become politically independent of the rest of the United Kingdom. Because, as we know, Government at all levels spends something like £38 billion a year in Wales, but we raise in tax revenue of all kinds something like £23 billion, leaving a gap equivalent to 25 per cent of Wales’s GDP, which is very much larger than even the deficit that exists in Greece. So, everything that Plaid Cymru has to say in terms of their spending proposals has to be seen in the light of that fundamental flaw.

But we will certainly support the Government on the good features of this legislative programme, and I certainly support the proposal for greater collaboration between local authorities through mandatory and systematic regional working arrangements. I believe also that we do have too many local authorities in Wales, and it would be advantageous if we were to make some reduction in the number, although not as great as the Government previously proposed. We will, of course, support the proposals on registered social landlords, although we will not support the abolition of the right to buy, which seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the housing needs of Wales and would actually make it more difficult to fill the gaps that already exist.

And I am concerned, as is my party, over the proposal for minimum pricing for alcohol—not that we don’t think that there is a problem with excessive drinking amongst a part of the population, but that the proposal for minimum pricing will not address the problem. All indirect taxes are by their nature, as they exist in the United Kingdom, regressive and a minimum price for alcohol would be even more so than the average. It’s also likely to be ineffectual, because the people who are least likely to be bothered about an increase in the minimum price of alcohol are those who are addicted to it. So, this will be a tax upon moderate drinkers, like myself and the majority of the population, whilst doing nothing to address the public health needs of a small minority. There is no real drink problem in the United Kingdom compared with other countries. We are in the middle of the table. [Interruption.] Well, Simon Thomas can speak for himself, of course, on this, but what he gets up to in private I’m not aware of. But if you look at the table of nations’ alcohol consumption per head, the United Kingdom is in the middle of it. In fact, the figures show that alcohol consumption per head has significantly reduced in the last 20 years. In 1998, 75 per cent of men were recorded as having a drink once a week. By 2010, that had fallen to 67 per cent. [Interruption.] And I’m facing reality because I’ve got the figures in front of me. Amongst 16 to 24-year olds, those who drink once a week has fallen from 71 per cent to 48 per cent amongst males, and from 62 per cent to 46 per cent amongst women. Alcohol volumes per person consumed in 2004, per annum, were 9.5 litres; by 2011, that had been reduced to 8.3 litres. That’s a 12 per cent fall in the average consumption of alcohol per head. And alcohol-related deaths, of course, have doubled in that time, despite the figures for male drinking being flat or falling throughout the period.

So, a tax on moderate drinkers is not going to be the answer to the problem, particularly because all the evidence shows that alcohol consumption rises along with income, so the more money you’ve got, the more you spend on alcohol, and the more money you’ve got, the less likely you are to be inhibited from drinking by having a minimum price for alcohol. So, the whole concept to begin with is illogical. So, we’re proposing to target drinks that are disproportionately consumed by low-income people, because champagne drinkers are not likely to be too bothered about this proposal—certainly, Nick Ramsay is nodding in agreement with me over there—but beer drinkers at the lower end of the scale will have to pay more for their favourite tipple. There is no credible evidence to show any link between the alcohol problem and alcohol pricing, which I will certainly go into at greater length when this proposal comes forward for specific consideration. But also, this is the thin end of the wedge. We know that once a power to introduce a tax or to impose a minimum price on anything is introduced then there will be greater and greater pressure forever after to push that up.

So, there’s a bogus moral panic on this issue. If we’re really concerned about addressing the problem of binge drinking, which is, by the way, defined normally as drinking three pints a day—that’s a pretty boring binge as far as I’m concerned—but if we really are interested in introducing measures that are likely to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption amongst problem drinkers, what we should be doing is relating taxes to the strength of alcoholic drinks. This is the big problem that we have today: people preloading by buying supermarket drinks that have a higher alcohol content than the average drinker would consume in a pub. But a minimum unit price is too broad a brush measure to effect that, because it will not single out the source of the problem. So, it’s a very, very blunt instrument indeed.

Whilst there are significant parts of the legislative programme that is before us today that we will support, we will give strong opposition to some of the measures where we do not believe these to be in the public interest. But we wish the Government well in the year ahead and we will do our best to make whatever legislation is put before us in this Assembly as workable as possible insofar as it’s desirable to have it at all.

I just want to pick up on a couple of albeit very different aspects outlined in today’s legislative statement. Firstly, on childcare, I welcome the progress that’s been made with the pilots that have been outlined on the childcare offer and its inclusion for legislation is outlined today. As for many, this is a huge issue for many of my constituents and something that’s been raised with me time and time again in conversation, in correspondence, both prior to the election and in the past year since I have been the Assembly Member for Delyn. Whilst I recognise that it is vitally important that this childcare offer is flexible and the delivery meets the differing needs of working parents, I’m also acutely aware that, for many working parents in my constituency, this most ambitious childcare proposal in the UK and potentially life-changing legislation can’t come soon enough. So, first of all, can I press on the Welsh Government to legislate on this as soon as practically possible so that people across my constituency and across the country don’t miss out on this essential support and key election pledge?

Secondly, on the proposals to introduce a minimum price for alcohol law in Wales in order to deal with the challenges around harmful levels of drinking, fuelled by the availability of cheap and strong alcohol, this is welcome and warranted, but I’d also wonder if the Welsh Government could consider taking this opportunity to address the challenges facing traditional pubs in communities across the country. Many pubs in communities have closed in recent years, and, while pubs remain the hub and heart of many communities, many of which now are also becoming a post office or the village shop, communities currently have very little in their armoury to protect their local public houses from closure, meaning that, according to CAMRA, two pubs continue to close every week here in Wales. I recently became a member of CAMRA myself, which I can assure colleagues was a purely altruistic move to support industry and businesses in my constituency of Delyn. But, in all seriousness, I think something along the lines of an assets of community value scheme could be the difference when it comes to protecting our public houses from further closure in the future, and also the removal of permitted development rights for pubs could empower the community, giving people a direct say before a pub is demolished or converted. So, to wrap up, First Minister, can I urge, as part of any future legislative programme, that steps be taken to support the pub industry in Wales in the future, and steps that allow our communities to have a greater say?

Generally speaking, I welcome the legislative statement today—as Leanne Wood has already outlined, most of it emerges from Plaid Cymru ideas originally, therefore of course we welcome that. It’s interesting to note that it’s the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the One Wales Government, where many of these ideas emerged and have been discussed since that point onwards, including the move towards scrapping the defence of reasonable chastisement. I hope very much that we will see that secured in this Assembly at last. Having said that, the statement is very thin and lacking in imagination.

To be fair to the Government, and trying to look at things from the Government’s perspective, it’s possible that this is intentional, because they may think that we will need to legislate, as a matter of urgency, in terms of Brexit and some of the issues emerging from Westminster, and the concept that we as Plaid Cymru have in terms of a continuity Bill in the area of the environment and agriculture. Therefore, in responding after his statement, and in responding to the debate, I would like to hear from the First Minister whether there is space in the legislative programme for these possibilities—not only the continuity Bill but what’s likely to emerge from the around 2,000 pieces at least of legislation relating to Europe that are now going to be discussed over the next two years in Westminster.

In turning to some of the other issues contained within the statement, I would like to know a little more about the intentions in relation to local government. Clearly, we’re interested here in seeking confirmation that we are extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds for local authority elections, and confirmation of that would be positive.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has stated in the past that he wants to provide the option of a single transferrable vote—proportional voting—to local authorities. I think that’s a missed opportunity, and that something as important as STV needs to be extended to all authorities. So, I would like to hear how the Government is going to work with the majority, I believe, that exists in this Senedd in favour of STV in local government to ensure that this particular Bill reflects not only the view of the Labour Party but the view of the majority in this parliament.

I am also concerned that there is so much delay in terms of childcare. I accept that we need to legislate for doing anything in terms of data sharing—you need a statutory foundation for that—but there are things that the Government could do now far more swiftly in the field of childcare in terms of extending those rights to far more parents, particularly young mothers. I would like to hear that we don’t have to wait to legislate on data in order to ensure that an appropriate childcare offer is available to all families in Wales.

There are a number of things missing from this programme, too. There are a few things that are looking forward—this is the legislative programme for a year, and there are a few things that look forward, for example, in relation to scrapping the reasonable chastisement defence, and, possibly, issues around Brexit. May I suggest three things that I would like to see the Government doing, if not next year then certainly over the next two years, whilst starting preparations during this legislative year? First of all, a ban on fracking in Wales. The powers will be with us early next year, when we, as a parliament, will be able to ban fracking. I would like to see the Government propose how we could do that. Secondly, a deposit-return scheme: the possibility of ensuring that bottles, particularly plastic bottles and all sorts of plastics that are difficult to recycle and do end up as waste on our beaches, in our seas, and inside our wildlife—that that should be costed so that that cost can be repaid and so reduce the use of these plastics. That could be achieved with new powers. Finally, as has been discussed a few times today already, tackling the problem of gambling, and, as we get to grips with a few powers—not many, but some powers—in terms of fixed-odds terminals, that we look at the possibilities of tackling that issue.

The final point that I want to make, and it is a question, in a way, to the First Minister: although, of course, we are unhappy that there was no separate jurisdiction for Wales provided in the most recent Wales Act, what are the possibilities now that we could continue to press for that? I assume that the Government hasn’t changed its view on a separate legal jurisdiction, so I would like to know what the next steps are for the Government in terms of achieving that.

I’d like to congratulate the Government on its plans set out here in the legislative programme for the next year. I particularly welcome the progress that we’re going to make on the 30 hours a week of free childcare offer, because I think that’ll be of huge importance to parents, and I do think that this is a very ambitious pledge, and it’s absolutely essential that we work it out in the way that is most beneficial to parents. Because, obviously, it will give the opportunity to parents to work, but it will also be good for the children as well.

So, I welcome the fact that we are having pilots and that we are trying to work out the best way to do it, because certainly I’ve had many constituents coming to me explaining some of the difficulties of linking in the foundation phase with child carers and another childcare system, and I hope that, by approaching it in this way of having pilots, that will be the best way to address it. But I don’t think we should talk down this issue. It is the best offer in the UK and will be absolutely transformational, so I do think this is a very ambitious plan, and I commend it.

I also welcome the steps on the minimum pricing of alcohol and the letting agents’ fees for tenants in the private rented sector. I was surprised that the Conservatives didn’t see this as of major importance, because, really, housing is such a crucial issue, and, if you have to pay upfront such a lot of money to get into private rented accommodation, that is a real, severe situation. That, surely, is exactly what we should be doing as a priority. So, I welcome that as well, and certainly welcome the consensual way we are moving forward on local government.

So, I think that these issues that are proposed are real issues that affect people in Wales on a day-to-day basis and they’re offering practical help for people in the way that they live. I think that is one of the reasons why Welsh Labour continues to have its positive results in its elections, because these issues are issues that are very important to people in Wales.

I’d also like to welcome the Welsh Government’s plans to consult about the law about the physical punishment of children, and I hope that this will lead to all children in Wales receiving equal protection from physical punishment in the same way as adults have this protection. I wondered if, in his final response, the First Minister might be able to give any possible timetable for the consultation over the next year, and what form the consultation would take. We did debate this issue on many occasions during the previous Assembly, but I don’t think we’ve actually had a substantial debate in this Assembly, and I think it’s worth reiterating the fact that, in all, 52 countries have introduced legislation prohibiting all physical punishment of children—that includes in the home—and Sweden was the first, nearly 38 years ago.

Among the most recent is the Republic of Ireland, which removed the defence of reasonable chastisement in December 2015, and Canada’s Government declared its intention to prohibit all physical punishment of children also in December 2015, and, in March this year, Zimbabwe has banned corporal punishment of children by parents and teachers. There’s also a private Member’s Bill currently being discussed in the Scottish Parliament, and the outgoing Scottish children’s commissioner, Tam Baillie, said in May this year that the biggest regret of his eight-year term was not repealing the defence of reasonable assault, as it is called in Scotland. He told the Herald Scotland newspaper in April that the UK was one of only five European countries that do not fully protect children from physical punishment. He said that even children who are living in Zimbabwe are better protected than those in Scotland. In May, the UK’s four children’s commissioners addressed a UN committee in Switzerland and called for the law to be changed to protect children and young people here.

So, public opinion is changing. In Northern Ireland, surveys have shown that views about physical punishment are changing, with the majority of people in Northern Ireland now supporting children being legally protected from hitting, smacking and assault. So, in conclusion, I do welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment. I look forward to the consultation period and I do feel that this is a forward, ambitious move by a forward and ambitious Government.

Before I respond to the actual legislative programme, can I just pick up on one point that Simon Thomas made about the issue of plastics and plastics in the marine environment, as well? Whilst it doesn’t figure in here, I suspect this is something we’re going to need to return to, and I might suggest at the end of my short question to the First Minister where that might actually be done as well. But I shouldn’t worry too much about the allegations of déjà vu or groundhog day or whatever. It’s the old nostrum: you tell people what you’re going to do, you do it, and then you tell them afterwards that you’ve done it for them. We produced the manifesto. We’re getting on with the manifesto. We’ll deliver it, and people will thank us for doing it as well, and not least, I have to say, in taking forward proposals that are in this legislative programme on childcare. It is, as Julie Morgan and others have said, the most ambitious childcare package, and anything, particularly the proposals in here that make it easier in terms of registration for people, and clearer on the registration as well, will be welcome, in addition, I have to say, to the measures that have already been announced. We’re not going to have to wait until 2020 for this. It will be phased forward. So, there will be benefits each year as we go forward. I do welcome that.

On the minimum unit pricing on alcohol, yes, this is a difficult issue, yes it’s a contentious issue, but I have to say it’s exactly the sort of progressive policy that this Assembly should be looking at. And it isn’t to do with pricing people out. We can’t be puritanical about this, and I certainly can’t be puritanical about this. I’m not going to put knee breeches on and a black stovepipe hat and say ‘I’m now joining the temperance movement’—although I have to say my old Labour Party branch used to meet in the Rechabite Hall in Gowerton, one of the forerunners of the temperance movement. They weren’t all temperance people themselves, I have to say, amongst those Labour Party people. But this is the right thing to do, because, again, it’s part of that signalling of the responsible use of alcohol. It’s not saying to people ‘Do not drink, do not have a drink, and do not celebrate’. It’s not that, but it is about managing alcohol within lifestyles, because it isn’t only to do to with the individual. It is also, I have to say to Neil and others, about the impacts of this not only on individual health but on the costs to the NHS as well. And I know that he will recognise that. It’s not the fact of one, two or three pints a day; it’s when it adds up on a regular basis, and that adds to mortality issues and so on. I see it in my own constituency.

I welcome very much the legislation on greater collaboration and efficiency in local government. I have to say that that builds on the work that has been done by the Cabinet Secretary sitting to the First Minister’s left there, and it goes with the flow of local government thinking in Wales now, which is to drive more efficiency and to drive more collaboration. But giving it that push, giving it that shove, I think is welcome, and it will be welcomed by those progressive forces within Welsh local government as well.

I welcome the fact that within the statement the First Minister did pay regard to the continuity Bill. I won’t get into who mooted it first and so on and so forth, but I do understand why it’s not being worked up as a Bill in itself. But I welcome the fact that it has been mentioned, because I think all of us in this Chamber would hope that a continuity Bill would not have to be prepared and would not have to be used. But, as a backstop, I have to say—as the big stick being carried behind your back there—I think it needs to be quite clear to the UK Government that if they were to overstep the mark here, and we were to see damage to the devolution settlement because of lack of respect, ignorance, or whatever, then I think we need to have that thought going on within Government and within the civil service.

But the thing that I would like to see brought forward—and it is an early bid, if you like, and it comes back to this issue around the plastics—. Last week, a consultation began by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs. It was called ‘Taking forward Wales’ sustainable management of natural resources’. We have shown such leadership in Wales on the natural environment over the last few years, not only in legislation, but in groundbreaking policy as well. Within that consultation, it deals with issues such as access to the outdoors. Nothing is more political than access to the outdoors. Taking a step in front of each other in the open countryside is the most political act ever, ever since the Kinder Scout trespass. That is an interesting piece of work that I suspect if we bring it forward will need a legislative slot at some point, whatever shape that will take.

There are also things in there to do with water abstraction—a critical issue, as we know—and drainage, and waste in environment policy. But my favourite, most of all, are sanctions under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—the ability to tackle rogue operators who do not treat waste the way they should, who dump it illegally, who do not look after it, and where they are dumping it, and so on and so forth. It’s the ability to step in as Government and to give power to that Act and say ‘We’re going to put padlocks on, we’re going to stop you doing that.’ So, my bid would be, if we do have the opportunity in the near future, along with the legislation on plastics, which might possibly be weaved into that consultation somehow—let’s look for the slot for that within the legislative programme in future.

I completely agree with the previous two speakers on many of these issues. I’d just like to remind Neil Hamilton that whilst we do not aspire to have Polish, Russian or Finnish levels of alcohol consumption, we are one of the highest consumers of alcohol in Europe. And I would invite him to come down to Cardiff city centre on any Saturday night, and he will see the consequences of young people consuming excessive levels of cheap alcohol, which is what the minimum unit pricing is designed to limit. Because there’s huge amount of research that shows that it’s by setting a minimum price that you prevent those who are least able to deal with the consequences of alcohol—. Too many young people in the city centre are consuming so much cheap alcohol that they absolutely have no idea where they are, or the consequences, or the risk to their safety. So, I completely support the Government’s legislation in this regard, and I welcome we’re bringing it forward now.

I was very surprised to hear Leanne Wood have this glass-half-empty attitude towards practically everything in the legislative statement, given that she must have been consulted in advance on what was in it. And, as she ought to know, childcare isn’t about warehousing children; it is about developing quality childcare and early education, and that takes time, to ensure that we’ve got the right people in place in the right facilities, in the interests of children.

Anyway—. Obviously, I am delighted that the Government is going to bring forward legislation to ban letting agency fees, because it’s perfectly clear to me that—. I was very surprised to hear Andrew R.T. Davies suggest that this was something that the English Government was seizing on, because I’ve yet to see whether or not this lame-duck UK Government is going to be capable of bringing forward such legislation. But anyway, I’m delighted that we’re pushing forward regardless on that, because it does cause a huge amount of harm to many of my constituents—it’s the letting agencies who are charging outrageous sums for often just changing three words in a contract.

But I also just wanted to raise one other matter, which is: we’re talking about the transparency of decision making, and I agree that is absolutely crucial. But, in light of the inadequacy of the current hands-off building regulations, exposed by the appalling fire in Grenfell Tower, it isn’t just about allowing contractors to stick firelighters on the side of high-rise buildings, which is supposedly to improve their energy efficiency. We have to, in my view, find legislative time for a wholesale review of the building regulations, to prevent developers dressing up shoddy building work as so-called luxury development. And there are countless examples of that in my constituency, and throughout the centre of Cardiff.

We have to restore the independent regulatory powers of local authorities to insist that their independent building inspectors sign off new construction, to ensure it is safe and compliant, before that work has been plastered over. Because it is impossible to see what has gone on behind, once the plaster has been sealed. We have to call a day on sick buildings being created all in the name of profit, and ensure that the buildings we are creating with our limited resources are fit for the future, and not just for the next few years.

Finally, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to talk specifically to the minimum unit price for alcohol. Some of you may know that I’m a former licensee, and I have witnessed people who have thought, very often, that they were in control of what they drank. After all, they only came in for one, maybe two, pints on a regular basis, after work. But, the next week, they might have three pints, and so it went on. Even if they only had two pints every single day—and that was very often the norm—it became a habit. And that is the problem with alcoholism. It becomes a habit, and it becomes a need, and it becomes a dependency, and it builds and gathers momentum within the individual.

I have seen both men and women absolutely destroyed by dependency on alcohol. They were living very fruitful lives before that dependency grew. It is a real addiction, it does take over the individual, but it also costs their family, and I’ve also seen the result of that. So, needless to say, I will be supporting the minimum unit price for alcohol, because there is no doubt—. I do agree with the previous speaker when they said that individuals go to the supermarket, they are picking up alcohol as cheaply as they can, they are pouring it down their throats—and that’s the only way to describe it—before they even go out onto the street. It is also destroying public houses, and it was within the public house sector that most of the drinking was actually contained, and people were curtailed in what they drank by the norms of society, in most cases. I do think that there are huge, huge problems with supermarkets selling drink. You see offers all of the time. You only have to walk through the door and you can buy 20 or 30 cans of whatever it is for £10 or £20. That is a really dangerous way to be selling a product that can cause so much misery. So, I absolutely support that.

We must also remember, when we’re talking about dependency on alcohol, that it costs business vast amounts of money for the lost working days every single year; that it costs families, very often, their home; and society in the way that was described by Jenny Rathbone just now. But it also costs our NHS money every single weekend of every single year, and it costs the staff very often, who are affected by those individuals who come in with their brutish behaviour towards the staff. So, I most definitely will be, as you can tell, supporting the minimum unit price for alcohol. I actually think it is forward thinking, and I do commend the Government for putting it in their programme.

I call on the First Minister to reply.

Could I thank Members, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the comments that they have made? If I could start with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, I wrote down here in response to his first comments, ‘What does he want?’ He did go on to say what he would be looking for: a localism and citizenship Bill, an economic security Bill and a people’s rights Bill. I have no idea what they mean, but, nevertheless, I’m sure he will make that clear over the course of the next few months.

One of the things, of course, that we have to realise is that Brexit will dominate. Several speakers have made this point. We will have to make room for Brexit-related legislation—a substantial amount of room, as well, I suspect, over the course of the next year or two, and, indeed, beyond that. That is something that will need to be considered in the light of next year’s legislative statement.

He makes the point about the regulatory impact assessment with regard to the ALN Bill. He is right to say that concerns have been raised about the robustness of the RIA. A review of that RIA has taken place, and there will be a revised version in the autumn. The scrutiny, of course, of that has been shown to introduce issues to the Government that the Government needs to address, and that is right, as part of the scrutiny process.

I’m grateful to you for taking the intervention. The Bill is widely supported, and, hopefully, when it reaches the statute book, it will achieve the aims that are set out. But to be so wide of the mark on the financials of the Bill is of huge concern given all the work that has been done, as I referred to—the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on this matter. It is one thing that comes from partner agencies and organisations: that when legislation is passed in this place, resource doesn’t follow the legislation. So, can you enlarge on why there was such a discrepancy between the original estimate and the final outcome that’s been given to the Finance Committee?

Well, we have made changes to the way RIAs are developed and presented. Revised guidance has been produced that sets out a more clearly defined and staged approach to the development of the RIA, and it provides publishing a draft RIA as part of the policy consultation in order that people can have a better sight of the RIA and at an earlier stage.

I’m not surprised that he doesn’t support the trade union Bill. That needs to be passed before, of course, the competences change, and that is something that we are keen to do.

The right to buy is something I’m sure we will discuss over the course of the next year. From the perspective of the Government, it makes no sense to build houses while at the same time selling them off—in other words, filling the bath when the plug is out.

On the childcare offer, which has been raised, well, as I said earlier on, the pilots are beginning in September. That will roll out then. It is right that this is done properly. ‘Get it right and don’t mess it up’ is the phrase that I always use, and so these things take a little time in order to get them absolutely right.

On the local government Bill, the objective of the Bill, quite simply, is to have better and more sustainable local authorities. There will be mandatory working as part of that Bill. It’s not the intention of the Bill to impose mergers of the local authorities, though that option will be available to them. It is right to say that there will be mandating of cross-boundary working in order for there to be better delivery in local authorities.

There is the issue of the minimum unit price Bill in terms of alcohol. Cross-border issues are always an issue. They’re an issue between Scotland and England. They’re an issue, for that matter, between Northern Ireland and the republic. They do have to be managed—that much is true—but that’s not a reason not to do something.

In terms of what the leader of Plaid Cymru said—‘complacent plagiarism’, I think, was the description that she may have meant. We don’t accept that all. Everything that we are producing is in our manifesto—the manifesto we were elected on. She raises reasonable chastisement; well, there was no mandate in the last Assembly for us to move forward with reasonable chastisement—there is now. There is now. That is something that we intend to take forward, as I’ve said, and in answer to my colleague Julie Morgan: consultation over the next 12 months and the Bill introduced in the third year of the Assembly. That is the timetable that we are talking about here.

The leader of Plaid Cymru mentioned the new treatment fund as being her party’s idea—not so. If I remember rightly, it was a cancer drugs fund that her party were keen to advocate, towards the end of the last Assembly. The new treatment fund is different. And on zero-hours contracts, as she knows, this is something that we have sought to deal with, and with new powers we are able to do that.

In terms of Brexit, she is right to say, again, that Brexit will take up a great deal of legislation. I don’t think that Simon Thomas, with the greatest respect, had the largest of crystal balls when he said, last year, that this would be a problem for farm payments and the environment. We knew this, and he is right. He’s still right, but I’m going to credit him with extensive gifts of foresight in those circumstances. We shared a number of these issues last year, and they, of course, will need to be dealt with.

A continuity Bill, it is right to say, was first raised by Steffan Lewis. I give him credit for that. It is something that we have been working on. It’s not the case that nothing has happened in the meantime, and I want to make sure that when and if a Bill is required—bearing in mind what was said by David Davis yesterday, and I don’t take that necessarily at face value at this stage—then such a Bill would be ready to bring, if that is appropriate.

In terms of what the leader of UKIP said, well, he talked extensively about the minimum unit pricing of alcohol Bill. Let’s bear in mind this is a health Bill. First of all he said that it is a regressive tax, which indirect taxes tend to be. He is right about that in some ways, but then he said, of course, the more you earn the more you drink, which makes it sound like a progressive tax, because it’s based on income. I have to say to him that if you turn the argument around, if you say that the price of something doesn’t deter somebody from partaking in it, it’s similar to the price of cigarettes—it’s similar to the price of cigarettes. Yes, people are aware of the health effects of cigarettes, but one of the reasons why many people reduce their smoking levels or stop smoking is because the price of cigarettes is so high they don’t want to spend their money anymore, and so, you know, that worked, as far as tobacco was concerned.

The other thing to bear in mind is, even though this is health legislation, and the point was made by Joyce Watson, one of the reasons why alcohol has become—. Probably, the main reason why alcohol has become so cheap—and he made the point himself; people are loading up at home, as he put it—is that supermarkets and pub chains are able to undercut traditional pubs, and as a result they have suffered. One of the indirect consequences of such legislation could well be that it put those pubs on a more equal footing with the supermarkets and, of course, with pub chains, who have been able to undercut, because of the lack of a minimum unit price, the offer that is made by rural pubs, and by community pubs, who have not been able to compete with them. So, even though this is a health measure—there is no question about that—there potentially is that indirect effect in terms of those pubs that have found it hard to compete.

A gaf i droi, felly, at beth ddywedodd Simon Thomas? Mae’n iawn i ddweud bod rhaid i ni, wrth gwrs, adael lle i beth sy’n mynd i ddigwydd ar ôl Brexit, ac mae hynny’n mynd i effeithio ar yr amser a fydd ar gael i ni yn y Cynulliad hyn i symud deddfwriaeth trwyddo.

Ynglŷn â sicrhau pleidlais i’r rheini sydd yn 16 oed mewn etholiadau awdurdodau lleol, rydym ni o blaid hynny. Mae hynny’n rhan o’r Bil ei hunan. I ateb ei gwestiwn ef ynglŷn ag STV a’r system bleidleisio, wel, wrth gwrs rydym ni wedi ymladd yn y lle hwn i reoli’r system sydd yn ethol Aelodau’r lle hwn, felly mesur o ddatganoli yw hwn—sicrhau bod cynghorau eu hunain yn gallu dweud pa fath o system sydd yn berthnasol iddyn nhw, ac nid ein bod ni fel Llywodraeth yn dweud wrthyn nhw pa system y dylen nhw ei dilyn.

Fe gododd e sawl cwestiwn diddorol ar ôl hynny ynglŷn â ffracio—rhywbeth i’w ystyried y flwyddyn nesaf, efallai—ynglŷn â blaendaliadau ynglŷn â ‘plastics’, ac ynglŷn â gamblo. Bach iawn o bwerau a fydd gyda ni, ond, wrth gwrs, rhaid ystyried ym mha ffordd y gallwn ni newid y sefyllfa. Ynglŷn â’r awdurdod cyfreithiol, mae’n iawn dweud bod barn Llywodraeth Cymru ddim wedi newid. Mae gwaith wedi cael ei wneud ynglŷn ag ym mha ffordd y gallwn ni symud hwn ymlaen, a bydd yna ddatganiad ar hwn, y byddwn i’n meddwl nawr, yn yr hydref, ynglŷn â beth fyddai cynlluniau Llywodraeth Cymru er mwyn sicrhau bod hwn ddim yn marw fel mater—fel ‘issue’—dros y misoedd nesaf.

I welcome the comments then made by my colleagues Julie Morgan, Huw Irranca-Davies and Jenny Rathbone, and the welcome they gave to legislation. Can I acknowledge, of course, the principled stance and the work that the Member for Cardiff North, Julie Morgan, has put into the issue of reasonable chastisement? She has met with me several times, as did my former colleague Christine Chapman, making the point forcefully that this is something that we should take forward. I hope that she now sees that the conversations we had had an effect, if I can put it that way, and there is now a timetable in place.

Just to deal with the issue that Jenny Rathbone, Member for Cardiff Central, raised, yes, it is right to say that building regulations may need to be looked at in the aftermath of what happened with the Grenfell Tower. Of course, they are regulations that can be dealt with through secondary legislative procedures rather than through primary legislation, but she is right to say that it’s absolutely crucial that we can satisfy ourselves that the building regulation regime is independent and robust, and that is something, certainly, I know the Minister is very keen to examine and to take forward.

On that basis, as I said earlier on, Dirprwy Lywydd, I would commend the statement to the Assembly.

Thank you very much.

Item 4 and item 5 on the agenda have been postponed until 4 July.

Therefore, we move to item 6, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the Circuit of Wales, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will know, from my written statement issued earlier today, that the Cabinet met this morning to consider a decision on whether the Welsh Government is able to provide a financial guarantee to the Circuit of Wales project at Ebbw Vale. We’ve been working to support the development of this project for a significant period of time, both in financial terms and the time spent by Welsh Government with those behind the project. I’m confident that the resources we have committed over the past few years are fully justified for such an ambitious project. At the same time, we have always been very clear that any financial guarantees and risks taken by the public sector had to be proportionate and fair.

I will briefly summarise events over the past 12 months for Members’ benefit. In July last year I told the company that I would expect to see at least 50 per cent of the project funded and 50 per cent of the financial risk of the project to be undertaken by the private sector, and for the project as a whole to provide value for money for Welsh Government and the public purse.

In February the developers submitted a new proposal to Welsh Government, which was followed by a formal application in April, requesting a guarantee of a loan facility of £210 million. Extensive and detailed due diligence by external experts employed by Welsh Government has shown that due to the way that the deal is structured, the current proposal would see the Welsh Government exposed to more than 50 per cent of the risk. This is because the £210 million underwriting element would carry a higher risk than other parts of the financial package. As a result, following discussions with Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Treasury during the due diligence process, it is assessed that there is a very significant risk that the full £373 million debt of the entire Circuit of Wales project would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending.

Over the next three years, this would have the same impact on Welsh Government budgets as if we had already spent the money and would place a significant limit on our ability to deliver current and future projects to improve Welsh infrastructure, housing, hospitals or schools. Cabinet, therefore, today decided that the potential impact on the public finances of the current proposal before them was too great and we are therefore unable to offer the financial guarantee requested on this proposal.

I do recognise that many people in Ebbw Vale and across south Wales will be disappointed by our decision, especially as the company has generated some very high expectations of the jobs that would be created. In addition, many people were pinning their hopes on this project to bring wider economic benefits for the south Wales Valleys, particularly the broader Heads of the Valleys. The due diligence made clear that the main benefit to the local economy, and the majority of new jobs, would not be created at the circuit itself, but by separate businesses, particularly in the engineering and automotive sectors, clustering in the location as part of a proposed technology park to follow at a later date. In total, both the circuit and the technology park, according to due diligence, would likely fall substantially short of the 6,000 jobs figure. Based on our previous experience, we also believe the technology park proposal could well require significant additional public funding.

Recognising the economic potential this type of development would bring, and the fact that the people of Blaenau Gwent, and the wider Valleys have waited long enough for the promised jobs, Cabinet this morning agreed to move ahead with a new and significant project. The Welsh Government is committing to building a new automotive technology business park in Ebbw Vale, with funding of £100 million over 10 years, with the potential to support 1,500 new full-time jobs and act as a catalyst for economic growth across the south Wales Valleys. We will begin this stand-alone project with the delivery of 40,000 sq ft of manufacturing space on land currently in public ownership. In addition, we will work with our partners to explore the potential of locating a south Wales metro depot in the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, and introduce programmes to support new and existing employers in Blaenau Gwent on skills development within the local workforce.

Politics is about difficult decisions, and today’s in relation to the Circuit of Wales was no exception. I do not take the impact of this decision lightly, and neither do my Cabinet colleagues. We made every effort to make this project work. However, this is about getting the decisions right, and getting the right investment into Blaenau Gwent and the wider south Wales Valleys—investment that is sustainable, long term and that genuinely benefits local communities. It’s my wish that these new initiatives move forward as quickly as possible for the people of Ebbw Vale and the south Wales Valleys.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today. Today’s decision to reject the Circuit of Wales will clearly be disappointing to the people of Blaenau Gwent. It is, I think, incredibly disappointing that it has taken six years and in excess of £9 million of public money for the Cabinet Secretary to reject this project, which of course could have been as significant an investment in the south Wales Valleys as has ever been seen. And, of course, it would have been transformational for the region and an investment of that scale would have signalled, most certainly, that Wales is open for business, providing investment in an area of Wales that desperately requires inward investment. It is therefore, of course, a huge blow for the region.

What is confusing is the disconnect, I think, between the Cabinet Secretary’s statement and evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by a senior civil servant in the department who claimed that the money spent to date on the Circuit of Wales had represented good value for money and provided a significant project that is ready for delivery. You can’t both be right in that regard, so can I ask you for your views on that in particular?

Second, in your statement you suggest that there is a risk that the full debt of the entire project would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending, but advice that has been received from the firm whose job it is to advise on the balance sheet has suggested that it would be a package of funding that was underpinned by a new sort of risk-based support, in the form of a Government guarantee. So, what I would ask is that—. And that there would be no additional borrowing to the Government. So, I would be grateful for some comments on that.

My understanding was that the project would be classified to private sector because the Welsh Government would not have enough influence over the Circuit of Wales to call it a public body, and would not be providing enough financial support so that it becomes publicly funded, because total public sector support would have made up about 50 per cent of the overall funding. So, I would therefore be grateful if you could explore in more detail why the Treasury and ONS came to a different conclusion and suggested it would be classified against Welsh Government capital spending.

Can I ask what intention does the Welsh Government have to claw back the funding that has been invested in companies directly associated with the holding company? The project estimated that there would be the creation of 6,000 full-time jobs, in areas ranging from research and development to hospitality, with a further 3,000 construction jobs. Can I ask why you feel that the assessment was so wide off the mark? What is your assessment of the consequences that the rejection will have on the confidence that private investors have in investing in Wales in general in the future?

I’ll give one example here: the Welsh Government has previously announced that the next TVR series will be built in Wales, and the Welsh site was expected to be announced imminently. Given that this had been planned to be the centrepiece manufacturing site in the Circuit of Wales development, can you confirm that today’s announcement will not affect that? The reason I ask that is that a TVR spokesperson is now refusing to confirm that this car will be built in Wales at all. So, can you confirm that the project will go ahead here in Wales, and will you confirm what talks you’ve had with TVR about locating them here in the new automotive development that you announced today? I do have to say that this decision will—I hope not, but I think it will possibly threaten inward investment opportunities and potentially destroy confidence in the Welsh economy. I hope that is shown to be wrong.

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I think the Member is right to say that there will be disappointment that, after almost seven years, this project is not able to go ahead. Insofar as questions about why it has taken so long are concerned, they should be levelled in part at the development company. For our part, we have tried at every occasion to make this project work. It’s gone through a number of guises in terms of the business model, and on each occasion we have worked with the developers in an attempt to deliver for the people of Blaenau Gwent and the wider Heads of the Valleys area.

But I do believe that, as a consequence of considerable work that’s being undertaken, not just through due diligence but before, we are in a position that is well-informed to be able to take forward that second phase of the Circuit of Wales proposal, which is the technology park. We are now armed with considerable intelligence regarding the demand for a technology park in Blaenau Gwent and the need for us to support what is a strong, existing tier 2 sector of the automotive industry. One of the primary factors that, to date, has prevented investors from locating not just in the Valleys, but in many parts of Wales, is the lack of available industrial space to develop and manufacture their goods. So, the difference between the proposal for the track and the proposal for the technology park amounts to hundreds of full-time, sustainable jobs. I’ve been very clear that the world will not wait for Wales to develop advanced automotive technologies, we need to be leading the world, and Blaenau Gwent has been waiting long enough. If we were to wait for phase 2 to be delivered by the development company, we could be left behind insofar as autonomous vehicles are concerned and electric vehicles. We need to move now, and Blaenau Gwent could become Britain’s centre of excellence for new technology in the automotive sector.

The Member rightly asks about evidence given by the deputy permanent secretary, and I would caution any Members from naming civil servants who are not able to respond personally in this Chamber. I would say that I believe that the deputy permanent secretary was right in the evidence that he gave, but at the time of committing our initial funding, the developer’s proposal was for a project that would be fully funded by the private sector, but which needed Welsh Government support in its early stages and to get off the ground. We’ve also—as a consequence of the work that’s gone into due diligence and the project—been able to take forward the proposals for the technology park.

In terms of the question of the debt being on balance sheet, of course, the Member will be aware that you cannot get a definitive answer until all contracts are signed off. Even then, it can take many, many months. Essentially, moving forward with a decision on the basis of the very high risk of it being on balance sheet would be dangerous—dangerous for the Welsh Treasury and dangerous for the taxpayer and public funds, because it could, in several months’ time, lead to Welsh Government having to cancel existing capital build projects. I would invite Members to identify £157 million of projects across Wales at present that could be stopped as a consequence of this project.

In terms of additional borrowing, additional borrowing would likely need to be of strategic national importance, but this is something that is being taken up with UK Government, and clawback of any investment and any funds already committed to the project will, of course, be dependent on the future of the Heads of the Valleys development company, but, of course, we are examining that.

In terms of the estimate of jobs to be created from the proposal, I have heard Members in this Chamber use, on many occasions, the figure of 6,000 jobs. Whilst that figure is apparent on the website for the Circuit of Wales, it is a figure that is not reflected in due diligence and, indeed, due diligence finds that the actual likely number of jobs to be created is significantly lower than that. I think there is also a need to recognise that there are two different phases to the project, which will produce two different numbers of jobs created. The first phase would create far fewer lasting jobs than the second phase. That’s why I believe the people of Ebbw Vale deserve that second phase now rather than later. In terms of developing the technology park, we’re already engaged with the industry, with stakeholders. I’ll be convening a meeting of experts and stakeholders from the area as soon as possible—I’m hoping next week. We’ve spoken with TVR, with Aston Martin Lagonda and with Jaguar Land Rover: all confirm that the track is not an essential component of development within Wales. As far as TVR is concerned, we are looking forward to their new product being launched in the autumn and manufactured here in Wales.

In one fell swoop, we’ve gone today from being the future location of the Circuit of Wales to the endless location of the circus of Wales, because we are now an international laughing stock as a result of the shamateurism displayed by the Government. Now then, there must be a day of reckoning, I’m afraid, for the mistakes that have been made, but today let’s focus on the questions.

Can he say when he first received advice that the Welsh Government was exposed to more than 50 per cent of the risk, and when he was told by ONS and Treasury this meant that the project could be on balance sheet? Is he aware that one of the most senior officials involved in the project wrote to Aviva on 14 June and said, and I quote, ‘The good news is that at the moment there does not appear to be any showstoppers’? Are we really led to believe that the Government was not aware of the balance sheet issue on 14 June, but that became the mother of all showstoppers just 13 days later? Either you’d left it to the very last minute after six years of deliberation and £50 million had been spent, including £9 million plus of public money—in which case this is the most serious case of negligence in the sorry history of this Government—or you did know, in which case Aviva were misled. According to another e-mail in my possession from Aviva, this would not be the first time, as they claim that the statement made at the time of the first rejection in April 2016 does not, in fact, reflect the true facts of the matter. If that’s true, that will have not just the most serious political consequences, but also legal ones. So, can the Cabinet Secretary say what provision has he made for any legal charges or costs that may result from any litigation that is likely to be brought by the partners?

On the jobs figure, can he say what the jobs figure was that the company provided in its submission? Because in a statement this afternoon, they say it was not 6,000 as he claims in his statement. Whatever that figure—[Interruption.] Well, I am asking him if he can respond to the statement they’ve made this afternoon. Whatever that figure is, you say in your statement that your own due diligence came up with a different figure for the total combined between the circuit and the technology park. Can you say what that figure is? And will he now publish the external due diligence as opposition parties have asked, so we can see the full facts of the case?

Finally, he said that he’s made every effort in this case. Did he actually contact the investors, Aviva, FCC—the construction company—and the Heads of the Valleys Development Company when this problem was identified, in order to try and resolve it? That’s what I would call making every effort to implement this project and its potential.

Finally, on the TVR issue, TVR have said that,

‘The proposed factory site we have selected for TVR in Ebbw Vale was strongly influenced by the potential siting of the Circuit of Wales project’.

That’s in a letter to him. Can he say categorically today that TVR will still be based, not in Wales, but in Ebbw Vale and if he can’t will you resign?

I can tell Members, as I said in my contribution to Russell George, that we have spoken to TVR, Aston Martin Lagonda, Jaguar Land Rover and other stakeholders. As far as TVR is concerned, the plans are still there to build the car with the launch this autumn and to build it in Blaenau Gwent. We are working incredibly closely, not just with TVR, but with the supply chain to ensure that we get maximum benefit from that new product, which will be proudly built in Blaenau Gwent. We will continue to support TVR, Aston Martin, Toyota, Ford and all other parts of the Welsh automotive sector.

I think it’s foolish to believe that you could approve a project without undergoing thorough due diligence, which is what the Member has repeatedly called on Welsh Government to do since last summer. I think it’s foolish, because it’s only through the process of due diligence that we were able to then go to ONS and Her Majesty’s Treasury and be able to assess the risk in the way that it’s weighted and the likelihood of it being on balance.

In terms of the note that he mentions concerning Aviva, and the way that there appears to be, at the moment, no showstoppers, well, the whole point of due diligence is that you strip away all of what appears to be the case and you actually get to the facts and then the facts are scrutinised accordingly. I know that the Member has been tweeting quite busily today about the legal charges. I can say that Welsh Government is not liable for costs incurred by any of the other parties in developing the project and we are not anticipating any claims for costs being made.

My officials have held weekly meetings with the Heads of the Valleys Development Company—weekly meetings—to ensure that every opportunity is given to make this project workable. I do think that whilst this has been a test for Welsh Government, of course, this has also been a test for this institution. And it’s important that each and every Member scrutinises every proposal that crosses a desk, and I think it’s absolutely essential, moving forward, that Members do just that.

Well, there can be no better illustration of the dead hand of Government than this decision today, and the contrast is most instructive between what’s going on an hour away from Cardiff along the M4 by James Dyson creating an international technology park, which is going to cost between £2 billion and £3 billion, and our utter failure to be able to be the handmaiden of private finance for what would otherwise have been a transformational project in Ebbw Vale—a place that, goodness knows, needs every helping hand that it can get. [Interruption.] The Member for Blaenau Gwent can make silly party-political points, but I don’t think they will impress his constituents, who are going to be the victims of his own Government’s failure of imagination today.

I notice that the Cabinet Secretary didn’t actually give an answer to Adam Price a moment ago about publication of the due diligence, and I think this is absolutely vital. In fact, I think, in the presence of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it’s now clearly incumbent upon us to have the most wide-ranging investigation of the way in which this dismal story has unfolded over the course of the last six years. Are we really expected to believe that the Government accounting conventions about whether something is to be classified as public expenditure or private by the ONS and the Treasury have come as a blinding revelation today or yesterday and the Cabinet was totally unaware of these conventions hitherto? Why have we not heard this point at any stage in the past couple of years since this project has become a viable possibility in political terms?

The funding structure of this project, although the numbers have changed, has been, in principle, the same since the start. We know that the Government has never been asked to put any public money in upfront; it’s always been asked for a secondary contingent guarantee of private sector senior debt, which would crystallise only in circumstances when the site had been fully developed. So, what the Government liability would have been is an annual figure to refund the senior investors if the Circuit of Wales promoters were unable to pay the interest on their bonds, starting at the earliest in 2024 and ending in 2057. So, we’re asked to believe that we have to capitalise the whole of this expenditure today when none of it is going fall due until 2024, and only then on a one thirty third basis—on a 3 per cent per annum basis—which will actually come out of the Government’s annual managed expenditure. And so quite why this needs to be capitalised at this stage and then torpedo the entire project is a matter that must be regarded as of the utmost seriousness, because here accounting conventions, rather than the substance of the project, are the dagger that the Cabinet Secretary has plunged into the heart of the project. The reason for that has not been explained, because it is a contingent guarantee that may never be called, because, if the racetrack were to be built and were able to pay the lenders less than half of the cost of construction—what they’re due under their current contracts—then the project would not be in danger at all, and nothing would ever come onto the Government’s accounts. So, I’m at a total loss to understand why this possibility—which may be called upon at some future date, but only on that limited basis—should now be regarded as one big sum that could fall due immediately, because that will never happen.

And, therefore, what I want to know is why this issue has not been addressed hitherto between the Welsh Government and the Treasury or the Office for National Statistics, and why it is that the people of Ebbw Vale, most of all, have been led up the garden path until this side of a general election,

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions. I was very clear, last summer, when I said that the project developers needed to ensure that 50 per cent of the finance and 50 per cent of the risk fell on the shoulders of the private sector to ensure that we have value for money and to ensure that it didn’t come on balance sheet. It’s the due diligence process, which was only completed just a few weeks ago, that revealed the weighting risk. It’s because of that due diligence that we were able to discover the high risk of it coming on balance sheet. But the Member, I think, is then conflating the long-term liability over 33 years and the immediate risk of it being brought onto balance sheet.

Now, insofar as due diligence is concerned, let’s not forget that the Member, again, urged me not to embark on a thorough process of due diligence, but it is my belief that this has demonstrated the value of due diligence. I am seeking agreement from the Heads of the Valleys Development Company and the consultants who carried out the due diligence to publish a summary document of the documents. However, the fit-and-proper-persons test and also legal due diligence will be excluded from the publication. As soon as I have that agreement from the consultants and the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, I will move forward with publishing that document and I will place it in the Assembly Library.

I would urge the Member as well, and all Members who are critical of Government today, of me today, of the developers today, to now work constructively to ensure that the technology park—the £100 million that we’re going to be investing in it and in the skills of the people within the Heads of the Valleys area—is a success. We need to make sure the technology park utilises new and emerging technologies, that it employs people closer to their homes, and delivers the sort of prosperity that I think we all wish to see in the Valleys communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my deep disappointment at this decision today. As the Cabinet Secretary is aware, I’ve been a supporter of this project, as has my local authority in Torfaen, believing that it would be a transformative thing for the Heads of the Valleys area, particularly with our strong record of automotive manufacturing in Torfaen. I, too, am puzzled that we could hit such a major stumbling block at such a very late stage after seven years of consideration of this project. I do think there are very serious questions that need to be answered and I will look forward to seeing the information on the due diligence that you’ve committed to publishing.

I would like to press you on this issue of the 50 per cent risk not having been met, because it remains the contention of the developers that they have provided the appropriate money and that they met the criteria on it being less than 50 per cent risk falling to Welsh Government. Your statement refers to the way that that has been structured and I would be grateful for more clarity on that. It does seem to me that a very late rabbit has been pulled out of the hat, to some extent, in terms of this technology park, and there’s a lot of emphasis in your statement on meeting the needs of Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent, which is absolutely right—the expectations have been high there and people need to have something delivered. But, for me, this project was about much more than Blaenau Gwent—it was about the whole Heads of the Valleys area, including my constituency. So, I would like to know precisely how you intend to ensure that this technology park will deliver for my constituents, what the plan is to involve local partners, not just in Blaenau Gwent, but in Torfaen and the other neighbouring local authorities, and also how you will intend, going forward, to keep local Members informed, and how you will set out a concrete plan going forward. Thank you.

Can I thank Lynne Neagle for her questions? I do recognise the strong support that she has given the proposal. I recognise that she has been consistent over many years in supporting the project and I do share her remorse at the fact that we are not able to offer the guarantee that was sought. But I do believe that, reluctantly, it would have been wholly irresponsible to have granted that guarantee, given the likely impact that it would have had on the public purse. As I said in my statement this morning, it would potentially have had an immediate impact on major infrastructure, housing, hospital and school build programmes. Nonetheless, I do recognise that the Member and many of her colleagues have been determined in promoting the need for transformational change in the Valleys, and that is what I am determined to ensure the technology park achieves.

I’ll be working with further education colleagues, with local authorities, with the enterprise zone in Ebbw Vale, I’ll be working with experts in the automotive sector in Industry Wales to ensure that we gain maximum value from our plan, a £100 million plan, to create 1,500 quality full-time jobs for the people of the Valleys in south Wales. This is not a late rabbit. We have known for some time that there is a tier 2 automotive sector that requires support in order to grow, expand, and be at the forefront of the global market, but what this process has highlighted is that, with that demand, there is currently a lack of available space and support. We intend to challenge that, to deal with it, to address it, and to make sure that the automotive sector in the region can grow and prosper.

The project has changed many times over the past seven years. The company’s been aware of the need to ensure that the risk is kept beneath 50 per cent, and I do appreciate that the issue of 50 per cent ONS classifications can be confusing, but the risk profile of the different tranches of the project funding is relevant to the assessment of the effective weight of the Welsh Government guarantee. The different tranches, Presiding Officer, are exposed to significantly different levels of risk, and, based on the guidance, we would expect ONS and Eurostat in their assessment to weight tranches bearing a higher level of risk more heavily than tranches that bear a lower level of risk. A risk-weighted assessment would certainly imply the Welsh Government bearing more than 50 per cent of the weight of the project funding, even if—even if—our guarantee is seen as less than 50 per cent of the total unweighted funding, and that’s the difference between appearing to meet the criteria and actually meeting the criteria. The Member is shaking his head, but he should well know this, having served in Government, albeit 30 or 40 years ago.

Now, I think it’s absolutely essential that—[Interruption.]—. It’s absolutely essential that we avoid committing ourselves to expensive projects that could lead to the cancellation of hospitals, schools or house building. Nonetheless, we will take forward this plan for Ebbw Vale, for Blaenau Gwent, and for the Heads of the Valleys, and I’d urge again Members to work with us. Collectively, we can make a difference, and I’d urge Members to do just that.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I have had my concerns about this project from the beginning. Four years ago I put in my local newsletter for my constituents, which shows—four years ago, 2013—. I will read a couple of my concerns for this project: a developer exaggerating the figure they put for the jobs; high-profile events, such as this one—how MotoGP will be attracted to the circuit when they have contractual obligations with other race tracks, not only this one—and how developers are going to raise this £300 million. That was a concern. The money, of course, will come from the private sector, but from where? All these four, and all a long list, they never satisfied then, and I think they have never satisfied now. I, indeed, have a copy of this for you to look at. All along, I have stressed the need for due diligence to apply to the financial requirements of this project, and believe the results have justified my call for caution and concern.

The Welsh Government committed over £9 million of taxpayers’ money to these projects in the last four or five years, which was totally unnecessary. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what lessons his department has learnt in view of the critical Wales Audit Office study of this funding? Also, would he like to send his two officials into the Public Accounts Committee? If so, when? This decision will, of course, be met with disappointment and dismay in Ebbw Vale. It’s my region and I’d love to see this region prosper like Cardiff and other areas like London. There are great people and nice people there, and there is a great opportunity. So, I welcome his announcement of a new automotive technology business park in Ebbw Vale, and I hope that gets success. Can I ask what discussions he has had with business organisations and the local authorities about this park? What initiatives will be offered for businesses who locate and relocate in this area? Will he agree to provide a further statement as soon as possible for information—when he receives it—for the various business and investors? Like he just mentioned earlier to others, I don’t want to repeat; most of my colleagues have shown the concerns regarding your decision, but I think your decision is perfectly perfect. Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for his contribution? I am happy to commit to bring forward details of the technology park project at speed, and to ensure that regular updates are provided to Members. I’ve already spoken with a number of stakeholders in the region and stakeholders within the sector, and there is widespread support for the development of a technology park. I’ve also spoken with experts such as Chris Sutton, who has been clear that one of the big barriers to investing in the Valleys has been the lack of suitable industrial units, and, as I’ve said, we will be addressing that challenge.

In terms of lessons learned, I think there is one major lesson that should be learned from this process: that no matter what the promises are, it’s only through a thorough process of due diligence that we can truly assess whether a project stacks up, whether it’s viable and whether it is the right project for the people that it’s designed for. I am keen to ensure that investors looking at Wales can have confidence in the Welsh Government to carry out an objective process of due diligence, to support their business growth and their investment in Wales, and to have the guarantee that the Welsh Government, as a partner of business, will do all we can to help their employment prospects grow and prosper.

In 2013—the Member produced a newsletter in which he expressed concerns, I think, about the jobs figure. The 6,000 jobs figure that’s been much promoted and widely repeated has been found to be a significant overstatement and that, again, was found as part of the due diligence process. In all fairness to the project promoters, the 6,000 jobs figure is not something that they say they are responsible for being promoted in the media, but that figure is nonetheless on their website at the moment, and the facts of the matters are that it is overstated and that the real jobs are actually there in phase 2, which we, as a Welsh Government, are now determined to deliver.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on public sector decarbonisation, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. This debate focuses on the important role of the Welsh public sector in meeting Wales’s statutory commitments and ambitions around decarbonisation. The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 commits Wales to a long-term target of reducing emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, as well as interim targets and five-yearly carbon budgets. This sets out a long-term framework for decarbonisation offering clarity and certainty to drive low-carbon action and investment.

At my attendance at COP22 in Marrakesh last November, I clearly saw how transitioning to a low-carbon economy brings many opportunities around energy efficiency, clean growth, quality jobs and global market advantages. This cannot only be seen within the economy. There are wider benefits such as enhanced places to live and work, with clean air and water and improved health outcomes. These wider benefits are the very essence of what the well-being of future generations Act is looking to achieve in the public sector. You may question why I’m keen about taking action specifically in the public sector on decarbonisation when it only accounts for a small amount of our emissions in Wales, currently 1 per cent. However, to achieve the depth of decarbonisation required, leadership is needed at both the national and local levels. The public sector is uniquely placed to influential emissions far more widely through procurement, the delivery of their services and engagement with their communities.

Collectively, the public sector has one of the largest estates in Wales, and, therefore, has an important role in reducing its own emissions and influencing its customers and contractors to take similar action. This means cutting both the direct energy consumption and carbon emissions of the public sector estate and the indirect emissions that come from the provision of services such as education, health and well-being, infrastructure and energy, transport and waste.

This is not a new area for the public sector. Our original climate change strategy focused on actions around the sector improving the efficiency of our schools and hospitals. Alongside this, legislation has been implemented through EU, UK and Welsh interventions, and, most recently, our well-being of future generations Act, which highlights the integral part climate change plays in the delivery of our well-being goals.

The Welsh Government has been supporting decarbonisation in the public sector for some time. Our Green Growth Wales initiative is investing over £2 million per annum, supporting the identification and delivery of energy efficiency projects within public buildings and renewable energy projects. The service provides technical, commercial and procurement support, supplemented by invest-to-save-type finance in a public sector support package unrivalled in the rest of the UK. The savings derived from reduced costs are used to repay the investment finance and provide a substantial economic boost for our businesses. By the end of the current Government term, we expect to have invested nearly £70 million in public sector energy projects.

But the opportunity is much bigger. Within Green Growth Wales’s initial work within the public sector, a pipeline of projects with a capital value approaching £500 million was identified. My officials are currently evaluating the current support and seeking views from the public sector on areas for improvement or additional support.

Our finance will continue to enable benefits as it is repaid and recycled into new projects. Using our money in this way means we expect to enable around £650 million in cash savings on energy and reduce emissions by 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the assets we finance. For example, earlier this year, I was able to announce a finance package of £4.5 million to enable Monmouthshire County Council to build Oak Grove solar farm, which will generate an income of over £0.5 million per annum for the authority and achieve savings of nearly 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide over its life. I was also able to support Flintshire County Council’s LED street lighting programme with a £3 million loan, enabling annual savings of £400,000 for the authority and a lifetime saving of over 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

We’ve also made significant strides in the treatment of waste, with the Welsh Government’s waste programme delivering municipal recycling rates that are the third highest in the world, resulting in dramatically reduced carbon emissions and the stimulus for significant private sector investment in Wales.

In the UK and elsewhere in the world, we can see specific action on the public sector. The Scottish Government have a reporting duty on public bodies where they are expected to report yearly on a number of areas such as governance, export of renewable energy, estimated carbon savings from future projects and procurement objectives. British Columbia has legislated their entire public sector to be carbon neutral by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero each year. Since 2010, their entire public sector has been measuring GHG emissions, which include energy use from buildings, fleets, equipment and paper.

In Wales, whilst activity to date has primarily focused on reducing emissions from public sector assets and waste, there is already activity under way that explores how a public sector organisation’s actions can directly and indirectly affect total emissions. These emissions are scoped into direct emissions such as company facilities and vehicles, and two forms of indirect emissions: those specifically from electricity purchased and consumed by the organisation, and those from sources not within the control of the organisation, such as procurement of goods and services and employees’ commutes.

Last week, I met with Natural Resources Wales, and it was pleasing to learn about the great work they’re doing within their Carbon Positive project. The project has shown over 80 per cent of their emissions are indirect, with 60 per cent through the procurement of goods and services alone. This shows the importance of not only looking at public sector emissions from their assets, but also their wider activities. NRW have now installed charging points, procured electric vehicles and are looking to improve the energy efficiency of their building, recognising the economic business case for taking action.

To meet our long-term target, the Welsh Government will have to use all available levers to achieve our 80 per cent reduction, whilst delivering real benefits to Wales. It is therefore our ambition to set challenging but achievable decarbonisation targets for the Welsh public sector as a whole, and to ensure senior colleagues in the public sector place carbon reduction and green growth at the forefront of strategy development, programme delivery and decision making.

The Welsh public sector must take a leadership role in an area that will have such a significant impact upon our citizens, communities and businesses. We are committed to further developing the low-carbon economy in Wales, and driving decarbonisation in the public sector in Wales will provide an important and consistent signal for investors and businesses. Decarbonisation in the public sector, whilst challenging, is also easier to achieve than in other areas of the economy. Decarbonisation must therefore be deep, achieved relatively quickly and across all public sector activities. Our ambition is, therefore, that the Welsh public sector is carbon neutral by 2030.

There are a variety of ways in which the ambition can be achieved and how we can monitor progress to enable the public and businesses to see how our commitment is being delivered, and offer opportunities for learning. Next month, I will be launching a call for evidence around this ambition, which will ask stakeholders to set out evidence on the opportunities and challenges around this headline target, have their say on potential interim targets, and how they feel we should monitor and track progress. The call for evidence will help to inform how we accelerate work within this important area. I welcome your views on our ambition around decarbonising the public sector, how we address particular challenges and realise the significant opportunities and benefits associated with this agenda.

Thank you. I have selected the six amendments to the motion, and I call on David Melding to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do move the amendments in Paul Davies’s name. I welcome the fact we’re having this debate; I think it is an important subject. I also welcome the significant strides that have been taken to reduce the carbon footprint, and the Welsh Government has given some leadership in this area, but I would say, before I’m viewed as being too generous, that we are still short of where we want to be, and perhaps in comparison to some other areas of the United Kingdom, we could do better.

In 2014, the level of emissions in Wales was around 18 per cent below the 1990 level. That compares with the UK as a whole getting a reduction of 36 per cent. Wales accounts for 9 per cent of UK-wide emissions at the moment with only 5 per cent of the UK population. Now, there are reasons for this, such as our industrial heritage. However, it does mean that we’ve got to take this issue even more seriously than other parts of the UK. It’s an overriding issue for them as well, but it does bring with it extra challenges for us.

The Cabinet Secretary mentioned the public sector, which has relatively low emissions, though I think the—. I don’t know if this is coherent, but the multiplier effect that it can have is quite considerable. I mean, the commute for one thing—all those public servants driving into work individually. But we can be more imaginative than that, looking at the way students get to school and the school run. There are many issues that involve public services that generate very high emissions at the moment.

Can I turn to our two amendments? We did want to sharpen this motion somewhat, but they’re both intended to improve our general performance here, and to be constructive. The first, on carbon budgets: now, these are a vital tool in reducing national budgets, but the Welsh Government has been very slow to use this particular tool to date. If I take section 31 of Environment (Wales) Act 2016, it does state that we must set carbon budgets for the first two budgetary periods—that’s 2016 to 2020, and then 2021 to 2025—and that these have to be set, or at least the first one, before the end of 2018. Well, we are, actually, nearly half way through the first budgetary period, and there’s still no imminent prospect of that budget being set in legislation—the deadline has not yet been exhausted. But if you compare the UK Government’s action in this area—and that was taken by a Labour administration, incidentally—in the Climate Change Act 2008, statutory obligations were created for carbon budgets. The Act came into force in November 2008, and the levels for the carbon budgets were announced the following April, in 2009, and they were approved and then entered into force in May 2009.

Will the Member give way?

I’ll just finish this bit. So, that means that there was a seven-month time lag before the UK carbon budget levels were implemented. I give way.

I’m grateful to the Member, and I understand the point he’s making, but of course we know that this new Government that he’s referred to—he referred to the Westminster Government—has a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party, who are climate change deniers. The confidence and supply agreement relates to financial budgeting but not to carbon budgeting. Does he expect carbon budgeting to continue in the current administration?

I certainly do expect it to continue. I can’t speak for the DUP but I can speak for the Welsh Conservative Party, and we acknowledge man-made climate change. So, our approach is one of supporting and encouraging the Welsh Government, actually, to go further.

But, anyway, we could move more quickly here, and it’s a pity that we haven’t. I realise I’m going to run out of time if I’m not careful. Can I turn to another, I think, inspiring piece of legislation—the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? It’s quite clear that it has raised expectations across Welsh economic and public life, and that’s important, but one area of disappointment that’s been picked up by WWF Cymru and Chwarae Teg, and has been picked up by our Assembly committees, and the Finance Committee, which the Member, who has just intervened, Simon Thomas, chairs, is that we’ve been relatively slow in embedding that Act into our own budget-setting procedures. Now, in fairness to the finance Secretary, who is listening to this debate, I’m pleased to say, I thought he gave some ground during the budget process in saying, ‘Well, you know, we’re just starting out but we do realise we’re well short of where we want to be in utilising the future generations Act’. But there, again, I think we need to get that Act really effective in our own budget processes as soon as possible so that they help also to shape the decisions we’ll be making to reduce carbon emissions.

I thank you for your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer.

That’s quite all right. I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to move our amendments, which certainly are intended to improve the original motion and to make a contribution towards the public debate that the Cabinet Secretary has outlined.

May I start with the two Conservative amendments first of all, and to say, although I understand fully the intention behind the two amendments, the first, I think, is a little unfair because the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 itself sets a date of 2018 for the first carbon budget? We may have all been at fault in allowing that to happen without holding the Government’s feet to the fire a little more effectively. But, certainly, the second point on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is fairly made, and it’s one that the Finance Committee has also been promoting, and we will certainly be supporting that amendment today.

The Plaid Cymru amendments—well, there are four, but they turn around three issues, if truth be told. First of all, the establishment of a not-for-dividend energy company at arm’s length from the Government—Energy Wales, which we have been promoting as part of the solution to decarbonising the public sector in Wales. Secondly, to prominently say that tackling air pollution is just as important to decarbonisation as energy itself. In that context, I realise that the Government does have some sort of taskforce—a task and finish group—on decarbonisation, and as I understand it, the Cabinet Secretary for health isn’t on that taskforce. I do think that decarbonisation is as much of a health question as it is a question of energy and use of natural resources.

The third element to our amendments is one that turns around the decarbonisation of transport. A Member has made the point already on the flow of civil servants travelling from place to place. Part of the solution to that is where you locate offices, and decentralising offices from Cardiff and larger towns, but part of the solution, too, is ensuring that things such as vehicle charging points are available in their places of work so that people can make alternative choices in terms of transportation, and that there is public transport, particularly decarbonised public transport, either through liquefied petroleum gas or the use of hydrogen, which has huge potential in Wales, and there is some innovation and skills available in Wales.

So, Plaid Cymru does believe that if these three areas, and the four amendments, were added to the Government’s motion, we would be more likely to achieve the aim—an aim that we do support—of being carbon neutral by 2030.

Now, as the Cabinet Secretary has already stated, although the public estate is small in terms of its contribution to carbonisation, namely 1 per cent, it’s significant in terms of the size of the estate. So, one thing that we could look at is how we can turn buildings on the public estate into buildings that are energy producers—using solar panels on all public buildings in Wales, for example. Whether they’re listed or not, we could just move that towards the future. We could establish a company, as I suggested earlier—Energy Wales—and look at how local authorities can use more low-carbon vehicles, or lower carbon vehicles. When we asked at the beginning of the year, I was told that only Ynys Môn uses LPG vehicles, and I’m sure that there is scope for more local authorities to do likewise.

If we look at other nearby nations: in Scotland, the Scottish Government has invested £3 million to double the number of hydrogen buses in Aberdeen from 10 to 20. In London, we’ve just seen the development of the first double-decker hydrogen bus, and that city has committed to have at least 300 emission-free or carbon-free buses by 2020. So, although we occasionally tell ourselves that we have good legislation here—the Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 and so on—and although we tell ourselves that we have ambitious targets, the fact is that we are not yet in the vanguard, and we do have some catching up to do. As long as the Government is still on track, and is actually speeding on that track, then Plaid Cymru will support these ambitions.

Can I start by saying that I fully support the Welsh Government’s support for decarbonisation? I believe that unless we take appropriate action, catastrophe awaits us, not just in Wales, but across the world. We cannot afford the earth to keep on getting hotter.

The three main carbon-based fuels are coal, oil and gas. Coal is composed primarily of carbon along with quantities of other elements—it’s a fossil fuel created from dead plant material. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons formed from dead sea creatures. Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other alkanes. It is formed of layers of decomposing plant and animal matter. What do all three of these have in common? They are carbon based.

Burning carbon, assuming sufficient oxygen, will create carbon dioxide. With insufficient oxygen it produces carbon monoxide. How do we know it’s not creating large amounts of carbon monoxide? Because we know carbon monoxide is a serious poison. If we were creating large amounts of carbon monoxide then people would not be alive. So, we know it’s creating carbon dioxide and we know it’s creating carbon dioxide in large quantities. We could even, using calculations on the weight of material we’re burning, work out how much carbon dioxide we are creating.

Greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth’s surface would be about −18 centigrade. So, we do need some of them, otherwise we would be far too cold.

So, we’ve got two ways we’re going to die out now, we can either die out from carbon monoxide poisoning or being too cold. So, we need to get it absolutely right. So, some greenhouse gases are inevitable and beneficial, but the more we have, the hotter it gets. That is why it’s important that we reduce our carbon usage.

How can we be sure that greenhouse gases have that effect? Well, you would think the closer a planet is to the sun the hotter it would be, but we know that Venus is further away from the sun—substantially further away from the sun—than Mercury, but we also know that Venus is hotter. We know why Venus is hotter—because 96 per cent of its atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

I’m happy to take an intervention at this stage from anybody who wants to say that they want to deny the fact that we are creating greenhouse gases via carbon dioxide and it is making the Earth warmer. I don’t understand where these people who are deniers of the effect of man-made global warming come from, because it goes against all you get from basic science. Nothing I’ve read out here would come as a shock to a 16-year-old doing GCSEs.

The decarbonisation of the power sector means reducing its carbon usage. That is, the emissions per unit of electricity generated in grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour. This is necessary to achieve the mandatory greenhouse gas emission targets set in the UK Climate Change Act, which requires emissions to be cut by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. We’ve got to do it, and we’ve all got to do it.

A gradual decarbonisation of the power sector can be achieved by increasing the share of low carbon energy sources like renewables, like: wind, especially offshore wind, which is much more reliable than onshore wind; solar energy, which was very popular and then the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, decided to cut the subsidy on it; and tidal energy, and I speak as somebody who could speak for the next two and a half minutes on tidal energy, even if you wouldn’t let me, Deputy Presiding Officer. But it’s reliable. It’s the one thing we know—the tide is going to come in and out, as long as the moon stays in place. If the moon’s gone, we’ve got a bigger problem than the fact that the tidal energy is gone.

So, we need to use these alternative energies. We need to use electric cars. We need to start thinking—in those immortal words: there’s only one planet we’ve got; if we destroy it, we can’t go and use another one. That really is the key.

Another argument that has been made is that Wales is too small and it doesn’t matter what we do. What we do as individuals all matters. We know that everyone needs to decarbonise—big countries and small countries, the tiniest islands and the largest countries. Even Donald Trump’s America needs to decarbonise. We need to play our part in ensuring a sustainable world. At what stage do we say, ‘Oh, well, we’ll just go back and start again’? Because we can’t. If the Earth gets too hot, it’ll be impossible for people to live in large parts of it. People will be dying, we won’t be having the food that we’re used to, and water levels will rise. It’s a no-brainer these days: we need to ensure that we decarbonise, and I welcome the decision of the Welsh Government to start doing this.

Thanks to the Government for bringing today’s debate. We are interested in environmental issues in UKIP and, particularly, we are concerned at the worsening air quality. This is an aspect specifically raised by Plaid Cymru in their amendment 4 today. We cannot escape the growing health menace posed by the worsening quality of the air around us, as evidenced by the increasing prevalence of asthma and other related health conditions. Many urban communities in Wales are suffering from worsening air quality and there has been recent evidence that Crymlyn in south-east Wales has one of the worst environments for air quality in the whole of the UK. This is disturbing enough for the residents of Crymlyn, of course, but the reality is that the blight of poor air quality is affecting most of our built-up areas in Wales. We do need to do what we can to tackle this issue and we would back calls for the Welsh Government to include measures to reduce air pollution as part of their programme of decarbonising the public sector. So, we do support Plaid’s amendment 4.

I do take on board some of the points that Mike Hedges just raised regarding what is referred to as denial of climate change. I think, sometimes, the phrase itself is slightly misleading because there is, sometimes, not a denial that climate change is happening, but rather scepticism over how much of climate change is caused by the man-made elements. So, perhaps, sometimes, there are more nuances than a simple, binary choice of whether or not we accept climate change. So, hopefully you will recognise that there are nuances of opinion on this issue.

The Government’s motion as a whole, we do oppose. We think that a lot of effort is expended internationally and on a UK level in attempting to reduce carbon emissions to very little positive effect. Again, I take on board what Mike Hedges just said, that we do need to make an effort in Wales. However, our basic view, our basic premise is that our UK carbon emissions are dwarfed by those emanating from China, for instance. Action to reduce global emissions can only effectively be taken at global level, and must involve binding legislation severely restricting the polluting impact of China and other large-scale polluter nations.

In the UK, there is a considerable negative effect in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions in terms of how these efforts hit the pockets of ordinary people. The Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a report in December 2016 stating that, on average, every British household is paying over £300 a year to cut carbon emissions. This is to pay for the switch to more expensive energy sources in compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008. At Welsh Government level, there is also going to be a cost to the public of implementing these decarbonisation measures, and, ultimately, as several speakers have mentioned today, the Welsh public sector doesn’t make a significant impact on carbon emissions. According to the Welsh Government’s own website, the latest statistics indicate that the public sector is responsible for less than 1 per cent of total carbon emissions in Wales, which the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged in her opening remarks. Another speaker referred to that figure as well, so there seems to be consensus around that figure. So, we do wonder why such great effort is being put into further reducing emissions in a sector that is so very insignificant in the bigger picture.

The European Union’s position on tackling climate change was that all new public buildings needed to be carbon neutral by 2018 and all new buildings by 2020. So, I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary, in her response, can clarify what the position is, because we are still members of the European Union and we are obliged to comply with its regulations. I think it’s really important to recall that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 obliges all 46 public bodies to address sustainability, and not put at risk the well-being of future generations. So, I commend many of the points raised by David Melding—very difficult to disagree with him on this subject—although I won’t, sadly, be voting with his amendments.

I wanted to use this opportunity to praise the role of wood, the substance, that it can make for Wales to meet its public sector carbon neutral target by 2030. Because the public sector has a huge role to play in showing the private sector the way towards a low-carbon economy, when we currently have the dominant private house builders so resistant to change and continuing to use ways of building that are not in any way properly addressing energy efficiency. It seems to me that using wood in the construction industry, particularly for buildings, is a way of using Wales’s unique selling point as a country well-endowed with land, as well as land that is suitable for cultivating wood. It’s interesting to note that the wood-based businesses are the fifth largest industrial sector in the UK. So, this is a very large contributor to the economy, and timber construction can change the face of sustainable development. But it’s sad that only 15 per cent of the timber we use in construction at the moment is grown in the UK, and the UK is the third largest importer of wood in the world.

Timber housing in Wales is currently less than 25 per cent of all new builds. In Scotland, by contrast, timber frame accounts for over 75 per cent of the new-build market. We urgently need to grow more trees and that is obviously not a quick fix. That takes between 25 years and 40 years in order to be able to harvest. But we also need to build many more houses in order to meet the needs of our population, including council housing and other social housing. The most efficient, low-carbon and high-performance housing throughout the world is based on wood. So, in the past, there was no reason to challenge the role of steel and concrete in construction, but climate change changes that as everything else. People like Michael Green, a Canadian architect, urges us to swap steel and concrete for timber in a book he published in 2012. Steel and concrete are

‘wonderful materials…but…they are hugely energy demanding to produce and have significant carbon footprints’,

he said.

‘Climate change and the need for more urban housing collide in a crisis that demands building solutions with low energy and low carbon footprints’.

‘As a renewable material grown by the power of the sun, wood offers us a new way to think about our future. To do so means reinventing wood; making it stronger, more firesafe, more durable and sourced from sustainably managed forests.’

And it’s not just Green who’s arguing that case. Professor Callum Hill, who’s a materials expert at Edinburgh Napier University, points out that timber products lock up more carbon than is used in their production. They decrease carbon dioxide in the atmosphere both by reducing emissions and removing carbon dioxide and storing it. Wood has that unique ability. I commend the action of Powys County Council in adopting a wood-first policy, which is the first local authority in Wales to do that. We can see from what has happened in Hackney in London, which is obviously a local authority with almost no land, and which adopted a wood-first policy several years ago and has won many, many awards for the quality of its housing, schools and public buildings. This is a way in which I feel we ought to be going in Wales. I’d be interested to know whether the Cabinet Secretary has thought about that.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to all Members who’ve taken part in the debate. I think in this very challenging economic climate how we respond to the challenges and the investments we make now will absolutely determine the viability of the public sector and our collective future in Wales. We know that decisions we make today will either usher in a new era of collaboration and efficiency, or they’ll lock us into an outdated and, ultimately, more carbon expensive pathway, which will then threaten the delivery of key services.

If I can just turn to the amendments. We won’t be supporting the first amendment. The approach to carbon budgets, as David Melding pointed out, is following the timeline set within the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. The timing of the regulations was previously discussed and voted on when that legislation went through in the previous Assembly. I’m not going to look to bring the carbon budget setting forward. I think we need to make sure that those budgets and the interim targets are at the right levels. They need to be based on robust evidence and, as you said, we do have until the end of 2018. So, that work is ongoing.

We won’t be supporting amendment 2. Carbon budgets will fully incorporate the provisions within the well-being of future generations Act. I am working with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, who is watching us very closely, believe me, in the decarbonisation area, to ensure that we do fully embed all principles and goals within the Act in all our decarbonisation work, not just within the public sector.

We will not be supporting the third amendment. In considering whether the Welsh Government should either develop or promote a public energy company, it’s really important to be very clear about the purpose of such a body and the potential benefits, risks and costs. Many of the functions proposed by Ynni Cymru are already being taken forward by Welsh Government-funded programmes of support, such as our Warm Homes programme, the Local Energy Service and the Green Growth Wales public sector support office.

Colleagues will be aware from previous discussions that we’ve had a series of events to initiate a stakeholder conversation in March this year, and that was about the potential for such an energy company for Wales, and how this might fit with our role in advancing the process of the decarbonisation of the energy system in Wales. And I think what those events did, really, was provide a very clear consensus around the risks, the challenges and the tensions inherent in Welsh Government setting up and then running an energy supply company, which would heavily outweigh, I think, the potential benefits of doing so. And I think the message that I took away from those events is that we need to focus our resources on filling the gaps, linking up and supporting things that wouldn’t happen naturally.

We will be supporting amendment 4. Actions taken to reduce carbon emissions can also address emissions of air pollutants, and it is important to maximise synergies and avoid unintended negative effects. We will be taking a collaborative approach in the development of our clean air zone framework for Wales and, again, that work will be reflected in the Brexit stakeholder working group on air and climate.

We’ll be supporting amendment 5. We do have support available to the public sector to utilise to deliver electric vehicle charging points, for instance, on their premises, for employees and visitors. And we supported NRW’s Carbon Positive project, which I referred to in my opening remarks, and that led to the installation of such infrastructure. It’s not hugely complex, it’s not cost prohibitive, and I do expect the public sector to simply deliver on that.

And we will be supporting amendment 6. Our Smart Living programme is working with the public sector, academia and business to deliver a range of smart demonstrators, including ambitions around hydrogen. Hydrogen may well be an important energy carrier and storage medium in the future, and as part of this work, we’ve set up a hydrogen reference group that is convening stakeholders right across the sector, with the aim of delivering a hydrogen demonstrator that could involve transport.

If I can just turn to Members’ comments, I think David Melding absolutely grasped why we’re doing this with the public sector, even though it accounts for only 1 per cent of our emissions; it is that multiplication factor that you spoke about. And I am, just to reassure you, working very closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to align our finance budgets and our carbon budgets going forward.

Simon Thomas referred to staff commuting, for instance, and again talked about the NRW Carbon Positive project. It was very impressive the work that they’d done around their staff commuting, getting the infrastructure around low-carbon vehicles. I’ve asked officials to look at doing a similar project across the Welsh Government estate and our officials, and I think we’ll be quite shocked to see what comes out of that. I’m currently going through a procurement process to have electric vehicle charging points put in our estate, and I’m hoping that will be completed by the autumn.

Mike Hedges reiterated that we can’t just have business as usual and the reasons for that. It’s not just about jobs and opportunities that a low-carbon economy brings forward; it is about the health benefits, and Gareth Bennett referred to the need to look at air quality within that. And that’s why we’re supporting amendment 4.

Jenny Rathbone talked about wood being used for the construction of houses, and I’m very keen to see that. And in my bilaterals with not just the Cabinet Secretaries but Ministers also, this is something that we’re very keen on. Julie James and I had a long discussion about skills, because it’s really important that the skills to do that are there. I was very pleased to open Pentre Solar last year, which are houses in west Wales that have been constructed through timber. I absolutely agree with you that we need to grow more trees, and you’re right: the policies that we’re doing now are very long term; we’re talking about 30 years. Last week, I managed to get Confor and NRW in the same room, because it’s really important that we’re not only planting more trees, but we’re planting the right trees in the right places going forward.

I mentioned that our ambition is for the Welsh public sector to be carbon neutral by 2030. I think I’ve set out the evidence that shows that the sector really does have substantial influence in this area, and it’s really important that they show that leadership. And I’d just like to urge all colleagues to respond to the call for evidence on the public sector decarbonisation, so that we have that wide breadth of evidence to consider how we can deliver on this very important issue. Diolch.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on Stage 4 of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s my pleasure to present the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill before the National Assembly for Wales for its approval.

Hoffwn ddiolch yn fyr iawn i bawb sydd wedi bod yn rhan o hynt y Bil, grŵp ymroddgar ac arbenigol o swyddogion sydd wedi rhoi cyngor rhagorol yn ystod datblygiad a hynt y Bil. Fel y bydd yr Aelodau yma yn gwybod, mae nifer fach o drethdalwyr yn y maes hwn yng Nghymru, mewn maes technegol, arbenigol, ac rwyf wedi bod yn ddiolchgar iawn iddyn nhw, yr ymarferwyr, am eu parodrwydd i gyfrannu eu harbenigedd yn ystod datblygiad y Bil.

Rwy'n arbennig o ddiolchgar i bwyllgorau'r Cynulliad sydd wedi bod yn gyfrifol am graffu'r Bil, y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol, y Pwyllgor Materion Deddfwriaethol ac yn enwedig y Pwyllgor Cyllid a'i Gadeirydd, Simon Thomas. Mae craffu wedi gwella’r Bil hwn, Dirprwy Lywydd, o'r materion penodol iawn o sut y dylai’r gwastraff gael ei bwyso neu ostyngiadau dŵr gael eu cyfrifo i'r materion ehangach o nodi diben amgylcheddol y dreth yn y Bil i bob pwrpas, ac mae cyfeiriad yno at y cynllun cymunedau .

Bydd cam nesaf y gwaith nawr yn cynnwys y gweithredu’r ddwy dreth a gyflwynwyd gerbron y Cynulliad yn ystod blwyddyn gyntaf tymor y Cynulliad hwn a’r broses o sefydlu’n ffurfiol Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru ym mis Hydref, gyda chyfarfod cyntaf bwrdd yr Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru sydd newydd ei sefydlu.

Dirprwy Lywydd, credaf fod y Cynulliad hwn wedi mabwysiadu dull cydweithredol ac adeiladol o weithredu’r ddeddfwriaeth hon, yn seiliedig ar y dymuniad cyffredin i greu deddfwriaeth trethi deg a chadarn yma yng Nghymru. Yn ysbryd y cydweithredu hwnnw, rwy’n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau'n cefnogi hynt y Bil hwn y prynhawn yma, y ​​trydydd o dri bil treth yng Nghymru.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the passage of this Bill at Stage 4 of this legislation. As you yourself have indicated over the weeks and months of this process, landfill tax, as the second tax to be devolved, may not be the talk of pubs and clubs across this country but it is nonetheless an important tax, an important tool in the often talked about Welsh Government toolbox. And it’s vital, of course, that we have our own replacement for that tax when, in April 2018, the UK-wide landfill tax is switched off. That deadline is fast approaching so we appreciate that the Welsh Government does need to have an alternative.

It’s an important tax because of the environmental aspect of the tax, which was discussed extensively by committee members in the Finance Committee sessions. Clearly, over time, we hope that the tax take from it reduces because we hope that, over time, the amount of landfill will go down. But there is a strong need for this tax at this point and there will be for the foreseeable future.

Can I thank you as well for the way that you’ve dealt both with myself—and your officials have—and the way you’ve dealt with Simon Thomas, the Chair of the committee and the Finance Committee? It’s not always been an easy tax, task—I’ve got my taxes and tasks mixed up. I discovered over the last few months that tax legislation, even when it appears very simple at the outset, can at the end of the day become a far more complicated affair than was first foreseen. So, thank you for your patience and for your officials’ patience.

As you said in your opening remarks, the next stage is going to be implementation. Even since the process of Stage 3 and Stage 2 and the amendments that were made, as you will be aware, a couple of amendments have struck me that weren’t tabled at that time for differing reasons, and there is still a process of implementation and development of the tax to be done. You made several undertakings during the Finance Committee meetings that you would be watching that process very closely and that, where amendments haven’t been tabled to cover all aspects of this, you would be keeping a close eye to make sure that the tax is developing in the way that you would want it to and the committee would want it to, and that the spirit of that legislation plays out over the time to come.

I hope you will keep a watch now, and I hope that, where faults do emerge—. Because no tax in its initial development is perfect, so I’m sure there will be—obviously there will be—flaws that will be observed over the months and years to come. I hope that you and the Welsh Government will be looking closely to see that those can be ironed out. We do have the land transaction tax coming in at the same time, you’ve already mentioned the Welsh Revenue Authority, and I know you are, to use the expression, juggling a lot of balls in the air at the same time with all of this tax devolution. As you are aware and I’ve said, it’s not an easy task. We are more than happy within the Welsh Conservatives to support you on this difficult road, and I know you have the support of other committee members and other Members of this Chamber in ensuring that this process of tax devolution is as smooth and as professional and, at the end of the day, as straightforward and understandable to people out there, not just in here, as is possible.

We welcome, of course, the passage of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill. As has been said a number of times during this process, I think it’s a very important step in the development of the first tax regime for Wales for nearly 800 years. Wales’s progress has always been, perhaps, a zig-zag, but there is progress, and it’s part of the maturing of our democracy, to tell you the truth, and that’s to be welcomed greatly.

We’re content, specifically, to see the Plaid Cymru amendment to the Bill, which was passed at Stage 3, and we’re very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his support, and his willingness to listen always and work with us on a cross-party basis in a way that defines the spirit in which he always engages with this place.

The Plaid Cymru amendment, of course, ensures that Welsh Ministers have to draw attention to the objectives of the Bill in exercising their powers and duties under the Bill. This puts the environmental objective at the centre of the Bill and will ensure that it’s implemented in the way that it was designed, namely to encourage a reduction in landfill waste in future.

This tax, as has been said several times, is one that tries to put itself out of business, as it were. And, of course, the intention of this amendment was just to reinforce that and ensure that that is always a high priority, as I’m sure it will be, in the mind of the Minister and his colleagues as we move forward to implement this Bill.

I don’t suppose this Bill is the talk of bars and clubs up and down the land, but, if I ever get to a bar and meet a landfill operator, I will be able to talk with him or her for several hours now on landfill and the operations of it. And that’s very much a learning process that I went through on the committee, but I think the Government went through as well, because there were several amendments that directly arose from the collection of the evidence that we had that have improved the Bill and ensured that the Bill can operate effectively.

I’ve been on several committees here in the last six years that have taken through Bills, in a different guise I’ve done legislative competence Orders previously, and, in another different guise, done parliamentary Bills. I have to say that this has been the single most effective Bill process that we’ve undertaken. I think that needs to go on record, and my thanks are to the Minister and his officials for helping that process, but also to my fellow Finance Committee members and the members of our team as well for ensuring that smooth-running.

I think a lot of that was due to the approach the committee took, but also the approach the Cabinet Secretary took, because he not only listened to amendments, he actively worked with opposition Members on amendments, which I think is refreshing, and we had the wonders—the absolute wonders—of two amendments from Labour Party backbenchers taken forward and discussed in a Bill committee. Now, this is an innovation I want to see more of, I have to say. I want to see more of this, and taken forward in absolutely the right spirit that backbenchers hold their Government to account, but press interesting ideas, which the Government then responds to and comes back. And, indeed, at least one of them had a real impact and change on the Bill.

So, this is the way we should be making legislation, I feel, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s only the case—. Because sometimes you have an ideological difference, I accept that. If it’s the sale of council homes, whatever, you’re going to have that difference, and you can’t work in quite that way. But, when we can see what we can achieve together, we can, I think, improve Bills significantly. But, particularly if we’re going to have tax Bills and a legislative approach to the budget process, which is something, again, the Finance Committee’s interested in, then, the more we work together, the better we will be as a parliament, but, more importantly, the better the voters will know what we’re doing, understand why we’re doing it, and therefore support the work we’re doing. So, I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for the way he approached this and say that, at the end of the day, this was a Welsh Government Bill, but passed by a parliament of Wales.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to that debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’ve been very grateful throughout the passage of the Bill to be able to rely on Nick Ramsay’s advice on what is being talked about in the pubs and clubs of Wales. Every time he’s assured me that this Bill was not being talked about there, the happier I’ve become. What I am sure of is that if we don’t get the implementation of these taxes right then that will soon change, and people will be talking about it everywhere. So, he was absolutely right to say that there is a very serious job of work to be done over the next nine months so that, when we arrive in April of next year, the Welsh Revenue Authority is ready for its responsibilities, and the way that the two taxes that have been taken through this National Assembly are being administered will mean that people throughout Wales can go about their ordinary business confident in the knowledge that things are being done effectively.

Thanks to all Members who have spoken about the spirit with which the legislation has been developed. These are highly technical, highly specialist pieces of legislation. They don’t involve, as Simon Thomas said, great issues of ideology. They are Bills that have benefited from the scrutiny process and the ideas that have emerged during it. I’m very grateful to Members’ indication that they’ll be supporting—[Interruption.] Of course.

Thank you for giving way. You’ll recall, Cabinet Secretary, that members of the committee did consider an amendment at stage 3 that would have considered implementing a review process of landfill tax. We discussed that with you and you believed it would be more appropriate to have a review of LTT and landfill tax, for all taxes, rather than just an independent one. I wonder if you could reassure us that will be taken—I know you’ve considered it, but reassure us that it is taking place and that there will be a process at which all of the elements of these taxes will be reconsidered periodically.

Yes, Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m very happy to give that assurance. It’s another example of a result where three parties were able to get together to agree on the best way of making sure that there is an independent review of both taxes carried out on a similar landscape, carried out to a similar timetable, and I’m very committed to making sure that that will happen, and I’m very grateful for the indications from Members of their support this afternoon.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to the urgent debate on the UK Government and the DUP’s confidence and supply agreement, and I call on the First Minister to open this urgent debate. First Minister.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m grateful for the time allowed for this urgent debate today in response to the wholly exceptional circumstances created by the UK Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. The terms of a deal to prop up the minority Government in London emerged yesterday and Members will be familiar with the details, but, essentially, the UK Government has earmarked almost £1 billion over the next two years for Northern Ireland, and much more in later years, and more beyond that, I suspect, will be extracted as the price of support from the DUP in order to keep the Conservative Government in office. In return, the DUP will support the Queen’s Speech, financial Bills, and EU exit legislation. We hear that the deal will be supervised by a co-ordination committee chaired by the UK Government.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is the most destructive political agreement in living memory. It is unfair, wrong and corrosive. Only last week, we were told that the Prime Minister’s priority was to build a more united country, strengthening the social, economic and cultural bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Well, this agreement undermines the very principles of fairness and solidarity that are the foundations of the UK.

The distribution of revenue across the UK must be carried out transparently, in accordance with established and publicly available principles and rules, with any departure from those rules properly explained and justified. It should not proceed on the basis of short-term, party political advantage. For all its faults, we are supposed to have the vestiges of a rules-based system centred on the Barnett formula. Now, as Members will know very well, I am no advocate for Barnett. It is, at best, imperfect and should be replaced by a more objective system where resources are distributed on the basis of need. But, for now, it is all we have.

Llywydd, if the Barnett formula were to be applied to the DUP deal, Wales would receive £1.5 billion over the next two years and £1.67 billion in total over five years. However, what the UK Government is saying is that Wales will receive zero. Of course, it’s not just Wales losing out; England and Scotland will receive nothing either. And the question I ask is: how can this be a basis for stability? How can it be a basis for any kind of respect from the people of Wales and elsewhere towards the UK Government? At the very least, voters are entitled to expect that the Government of the day will do its utmost to advance the interests of all parts of the UK fairly and equitably. If the DUP has extracted additional spending on infrastructure, for schools, for the health service and for deprived communities from the UK Government in return for its support, then that should be extended across the UK, not just Northern Ireland. Immediate pressures on health and education services are not the exclusive experience of Northern Ireland. Additional provision for mental health services should not be allocated only to Belfast. Ignoring the needs of Wales, Scotland and England in this way can only sow the seeds of further anger and resentment. Sacrificing the integrity of the UK for the sake of a deal to cling on to power will live long in the memory.

Llywydd, I must also express concern about what the DUP has agreed to do in return for propping up this administration. They have, seemingly, offered the UK Government carte-blanche support for EU exit legislation without having had sight of any proposals in detailed form. This drives a coach and horses through established consultative arrangements for developing an approach to Brexit involving both the UK Government and devolved administrations through the JMC.

A series of questions now need answers. Firstly, what are the implications of this agreement for future funding arrangements for other nations in the UK and, indeed, the regions of England? Has the UK Government now, in fact, abandoned the current rules for short-term gain? The Chamber will be particularly interested to hear from the leader of the Welsh Conservative group. Was he consulted on the agreement? Does he share my annoyance and that of others in this Chamber about this flagrant abuse of fair funding arrangements? Does he agree with me that the benefits of additional spending should be enjoyed across the UK, not just in Northern Ireland? Silent so far, his opportunity lies this afternoon.

What are the implications of this agreement for the UK-wide consultative process on EU exit? Specifically, if the Northern Ireland Executive comes back into being, as I hope it will, how is the UK Government-DUP agreement compatible with arrangements for the Joint Ministerial Committee? We believe that this agreement contravenes established constitutional practice, and the Cabinet Secretary for finance, I can inform the Assembly, has taken the first steps to initiate a formal dispute under the terms of the JMC dispute resolution machinery.

I’ve already made my views known, in the clearest terms, to the Secretary of State for Wales, with whom I spoke yesterday. He could not answer the questions that I put at the time, but, Llywydd, I have no doubt that many Members will feel as strongly about these issues as I or anyone in the Welsh Government, and that’s why we were keen to provide time today for this urgent debate, so Members have an opportunity to set out their thoughts.

I do welcome the opportunity to stand here today and address the debate. Sometimes, when a batsman is sent out to bat, he looks around the pitch, just to make sure he’s got all the fielders in view, and then he makes sure that none of the googlies get him caught on the wrong side. Ultimately, I hope to be able to, obviously, make sense of the deal that was put forward yesterday in the context of Wales but, importantly, in the context of the First Minister. Because I do remember this time last year, when he was in a minority situation, and obviously he was carving up deals with the Lib Dems, and obviously Plaid Cymru, and there was that memorable photograph of him using his handkerchief to wipe his eyes, almost wiping the tears away when the Chamber did come together on the vote for putting him in as First Minister. And no doubt, the deal that Kirsty Williams extracted from the First Minister was far greater because of that vote. Yet, time and time again, we have tried to elicit what that deal has meant, what that deal means and exactly what arrangements govern that deal, and to date, we have nothing. Fourteen months on, we have absolutely nothing.

We witnessed, with the concordat that was launched with Plaid Cymru about the support around budgets, that, ultimately, they aren’t consulted on anything, because we saw it in FMQs last week when it came to the European and single market arrangements. There was no agreement between the two parties, and today in the legislative statement, the reaction from Plaid Cymru was that they still hadn’t been consulted. So, we’re in a situation where there is a minority Government in Westminster after the general election. We all understand that. We all understand that, but the hypocrisy that’s coming from the Labour First Minister in particular, instead of being a First Minister, is just making him a very expensive political pundit—most probably the most expensive political pundit in Wales, I would suggest—because instead of offering solutions for Wales’s issues, he seems to want to comment on everything that isn’t within his control. And the real issue here is what—[Interruption.] The real issue here is that the country—[Interruption.] The country—

I do want to hear the leader of the opposition. Andrew R.T. Davies.

The United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The United Kingdom needs a Government, and a majority Government, to get on and get on with its business. And so, to achieve that majority status, obviously a deal was concluded with the Democratic Unionist Party, along the same lines—[Interruption.] I can see the Member for Ogmore chuntering away there, but it is a fact that Shaun Woodward, when he was Secretary of State in 2010 after the 2010 general election, was trying to carve a deal up with the DUP then, which involved money over to Northern Ireland. And also Lord Adonis, in his memoirs, makes exactly the same point. Now, what we need to be doing here, from Wales’s point of view, as I have said time and time again, and as I said yesterday and I said last week, is that where money has gone over and benefited—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute. Where benefit has gone over to Northern Ireland, we need to secure those benefits here for Wales. And yes, I was talking to Downing Street yesterday morning, First Minister. While you were on the balcony talking to the BBC, I was talking to the people that count. That’s the difference—[Interruption.] That’s the difference—[Interruption.] That’s the difference between me and you, and we know what we want to achieve for Wales. All you want to do is grandstand, First Minister, and you will. You will continue to be marginalised and put to one side instead of working for what is in the best interests of Wales. Now, it is a fact—. Sorry, I will take the intervention.

I thank Andrew for giving way on this point, because he raises the important issue that as part of the peace process, historically, successive Governments have indeed shown their beneficence to Northern Ireland in order to actually solidify the peace process—part of the so-called peace dividend. Absolutely right. This is a whole different kettle of fish. I would ask him to reflect very carefully on the difference between actually underpinning the Good Friday agreement and making sure that those institutions stand, and actually showing a deep unfairness to the different constituent parts of the UK, by doing a deal that does not show fairness to other parts. This is not the same thing. And I would simply ask, in sitting down, for the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to speak as the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, not the Secretary of State for Wales.

I would draw your attention to what Lord Adonis said when he was negotiating with the DUP in 2010, when he said ‘We have written the new numbers down’ when it talks about money—for what the DUP vote was at that time. So, we won’t take any lectures from the Welsh Labour Party or the Labour Party when it comes to doing deals around securing votes. What is transparent about this deal is the figures are there and the agreement is there. What we will do from the Welsh Conservatives’ side is work with colleagues to make sure that there are resources brought into—

Will you take an intervention?

I haven’t got the time. What we will make sure, from the Welsh Conservatives’ point of view, is that instead of being sidelined, like the First Minister will be, we will work to make sure that the resources are made available to bring forward projects for Wales’s benefit, that this country does get the stable Government it requires to take us through the Brexit process, and ultimately, we will be governed by transparency and fairness, which is not what this Government has done—[Interruption.]—which is not what this Government has done when it has tried to shore up its position here with the Liberals or with Plaid Cymru. That is the fact. That is the evidence. From the Welsh Conservatives, we will fight tooth and nail to make sure we unlock those resources to bring into Wales to seek the benefits. I know I’m looking at Huw Irranca when I’m saying this, but ultimately, Huw Irranca needs to look at what he was voting for in 2010 and ultimately ask himself: why the hypocrisy? What you can count on from the Welsh Conservatives is that we will bring the resources into Wales, unlike the Labour Party, which will just grandstand, as we’ve seen today with the Circuit for Wales. And what is important today is to reflect on how we can constructively take forward Wales’s position in the new Parliament at Westminster and influence to bring resource here and benefit to Wales, and on this side of the Chamber, we will be doing that. We will not be marginalised, and we will make sure that Wales’s voice is heard in this argument.

The DUP deal keeps Theresa May in power through a confidence and supply agreement, and the size and the scope of the deal is unprecedented—£1.5 billion, including £1 billion of new cash, and flexibility of £500 million of existing funding, with no indication as to where that money is coming from. Well, perhaps it’s magic. The Barnett formula has been bypassed completely, and we estimate the cost of this to Wales as being £1.7 billion, and that is after cuts to this Assembly’s block grant of—how much? You’ve guessed it: £1.7 billion, according to the Welsh Government, as a result of austerity. This is money that Wales needs. To add insult to injury, we are told by the Tories that our funding floor and city deals are somehow comparable to this vast sum, even though the city deals include Welsh public sector money, both from the Government here and local authorities, and even though the funding floor has happened more by accident than by design.

Aside from the specific effect on Wales, we have to consider where this leaves the UK as a state in the light of the Brexit negotiations. Are the negotiators in Brussels looking at the governance of the UK and seeing a situation that is strong and stable? I’d say probably not.

But let’s turn to the position of Wales in all of this. People in Wales shouldn’t just be frustrated at this deal; they should be angry. Wales has always been third in the queue, behind Northern Ireland and Scotland, for both powers and funding. It’s not as though this country doesn’t need additional funds. This is the country that has kicked up the least fuss. We’ve been the quietest and most well-behaved of all the UK countries. We have never rocked the boat, and that has led to us being left behind, ignored. We—and I mean the Assembly as a whole, rather than any individual political party—have only decided, quite late in the day, that we should run our own police force, that we should have our own legal jurisdiction, and we’ve only got to that consensus years after Northern Ireland and Scotland have established those aspects of their democracy. We look as though we haven’t been respecting ourselves or our own national institution, so it can be no wonder that we are not respected at Westminster.

The current situation and the way that we’ve been doing things haven’t created significant leverage. Westminster Governments don’t perceive any real hunger for constitutional change from Wales. The Wales Office, now rebranded as the UK Government Wales, is doing what it says on the tin: acting as a spokesperson for Westminster in Wales, not as a voice for Wales in Westminster. That has to change, and that’s why I call upon every single Tory MP to stand with Wales to vote against this Queen’s Speech unless and until they can get extra funds for our country, too. Failure to do so will be letting Wales down, and they deserve to pay a heavy price for that.

All of the political parties here need to consider how we can change this situation. It isn’t just about our constitution. The effects of this political weakness can be seen all around us, in our infrastructure and our economy. It is an outrage that we are one of only three countries in Europe without any electrified railway, alongside Moldova and Albania. And when electrification does eventually happen it’ll be years later than in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland—a stark symbol of where we are in that pecking order.

Now, I don’t say any of this to talk Wales down. I say this because my ambition for this country knows no bounds. Our potential is vast. It has not yet been unlocked or unleashed. But while condemning this deal we must also learn the lessons.

Leanne, thanks for giving way. You make some good points about the need for Wales to be a self-confident, forward-looking nation, and I don’t disagree with you there, but you do have to accept that there has been significant progress made on many of the areas you’ve mentioned. You mention electrification, but this afternoon we’ve been talking about tax devolution—that’s happening. The Welsh Government have worked very hard to deliver a fiscal framework. So, I appreciate you’re not happy with this deal in Westminster—you want more—but you must respect that, under the previous Government, there have been changes we should welcome.

There have been changes. My point is that we are always last. We are always at the back of the queue. We must be honest. We must be honest among all parties in this Chamber. I would say the United Kingdom is not working for us. Too often, as in this case, it is working against us. The first step for us here is to admit that the UK, the Westminster system, is not delivering for Wales. It is penalising Wales, and once we admit that, we should look seriously at the next steps for Wales to use all of the influence that we have as political parties to ensure that this country moves up that pecking order.

As I said, the £1.5 billion deal is just the beginning. The DUP will no doubt come back to the table for more. Beyond the headline cash figure there are commitments on air passenger duty, corporation tax and more city deals. At the same time as we’re being told that Wales can’t have control over air passenger duty and that we should be grateful for the city deals that we’ve already got, the DUP will be leveraging these extra concessions throughout this Parliament.

We cannot afford for Wales to be silent when that happens and I would urge all fellow party leaders here today to think about what we can all do to amplify our voices. We must consider what we can do collectively because we should all accept that what Wales is doing at the moment is not working.

To finish, this deal has made many people very angry. The cash to Northern Ireland has effectively ended austerity there while we still have to suffer from austerity in Wales. Wales should demand parity of treatment and everyone here has a duty to do that.

The First Minister’s opening speech was full of unconscious humour and he did at least have the good grace, I think, to chuckle whilst he was talking about it being unfair, wrong and corrosive, this deal, as though it would be any different if it was Labour that had the larger number of seats and was doing a similar kind of deal with the DUP. I’m old enough to remember, as I’m not sure whether it was Lynne Neagle or Ken Skates pointed out earlier in the day, what politics was like in the 1970s. I remember the negotiations between the Wilson Government and the Callaghan Governments with Northern Irish Members, and I remember the day when the Labour Government was brought down by Frank Maguire coming over and being plied with drink in the Strangers’ bar only then to abstain in person so that the Government lost a vote of no confidence. So, this is power politics. We’ve seen it all before and no doubt we’ll see it again. I congratulate the DUP on the deal that they’ve done with the Government. In fact, they’re such good negotiators, I think they should be in charge of the Brexit negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] But for the First Minister to complain about this—

Are you taking the intervention?

[Continues.]—in an extended display of sour grapes, I think, and is quite—I give way to Dafydd.

I’m grateful to him for making the reference to the 1970s, because I also remember this period extremely well. I was in the bar the very night—[Laughter.]—the two Irish colleagues, Gerry Fitt and Frank Maguire, arrived to abstain in person.

But the difference, surely, is this: that, in this case, this deal is being made with a massive subvention totally outwith the normal constitutional and financial arrangements and totally outwith the Barnett formula. The deals that were made between Labour and ourselves and other parties, in the times of Wilson and Callaghan, were deals that were made openly on a limited scale. They weren’t intended to prop up a Government for five years.

Well, the DUP are obviously better negotiators than their counterparts in those days. We have to remember that the Barnett formula itself, of course, is a product of those negotiations, something that is inherently unfair to Wales, quite regardless of these negotiations, because, on a per capita basis, of course, Wales, as the leader of Plaid Cymru very rightly pointed out, gets a very raw deal indeed.

But why are they not entering into negotiations with the United Kingdom Government to get a better deal for Wales? They’re in opposition to the Government, as indeed are the DUP, technically, and they could be doing a deal to get exactly what she claims to have wanted on behalf of the people of Wales. But because of her bigoted and blinkered refusal even to contemplate talking to, let alone negotiating with, a Conservative Government, she denies the people of Wales the benefits that she claims to want.

Therefore, that speech was pure humbug and hypocrisy, because she does have power, through her four Members of Parliament at Westminster, to influence the negotiating process, because the Government only has a bare majority anyway with the votes of the DUP. So, if she really wants to say, for example, on the Circuit of Wales project, we could make a change to the accounting conventions—that appears to be the only reason that the deal has been scuppered by the Welsh Government—in exchange for their votes, why doesn’t she do that? Answer—[Interruption.]

Does he agree with me that, if Plaid Cymru had done a deal with the Conservative Government, it would have given them 322 seats and, excluding Sinn Féin, that would have been an overall majority? We could have got quite some things for Wales with that, couldn’t we?

Indeed. Well, for once, my former colleague talks sense—[Laughter.]—as he always used to. But that is exactly the—. We are in the era of power politics. There’s no good complaining about unfairness—life is unfair, as we know. Goodness knows, I’ve been on the receiving end of so much unfairness in the course of my life and I make no complaint about that, of course. I must be a masochist to be in politics at my age. But, nevertheless, the DUP have done what they were elected to do—get the best deal for Northern Ireland.

What is Plaid Cymru doing? They’ve been elected to get the best deal for Wales but they’ve utterly failed to take up the opportunity. In fact, the Welsh Labour Party in the last general election did as much as it possibly could to pretend they were no part of the Labour Party nationally and that Jeremy Corbyn didn’t exist. Why don’t they use the independence that they sought to persuade the Welsh people that they had from Labour nationally to do a deal with Theresa May themselves? They could transform British politics by breaking away from the Labour Party nationally and doing what they claim to want also—a deal in the interests of the people of Wales.

So, I’m afraid, although I very much welcome the opportunity for us to debate this matter today, that the debate is actually just an exercise in humbug, hypocrisy and sour grapes. Theresa May did get the largest number of seats. The DUP are prepared to do a deal. They’ve got a deal. Yes, we are the losers, but who’s responsible for that? Not them, but Plaid Cymru, the Labour Party, and their little helper from Brecon and Radnor.

I’ve sat in this Chamber now for over 10 years and like others, during that time, I’ve listened to the Tories plead for money—money to be spent on all public services without exception. And I dare say that we will hear those pleas again. I think the best thing that the Tory group, or the Conservative group, over there can do now is actually take that begging bowl to Westminster and ask them to shake their magic money tree, because they found it, and they found it in abundance, at the cost of the people you should be representing. So, that’s the first bit of advice that I would give to them. But I want to move on to Crabb and Cairns et al. They are supposed to be representing Wales. So, I put on the television and I waited last night for them to say something that would actually give something to the Welsh public who would expect them to stand up for Wales. Well, I was sorely disappointed, and I’m sure that the people of Wales were equally disappointed.

So, we heard Crabb, that is Stephen Crabb, the MP for Preseli, Pembrokeshire—just, I have to add, just—and he was previously the welfare secretary. And it was the same Stephen Crabb who supported a cut for disabled benefit claimants of £30 a week. He justified that by using public money, that is taxpayers’ money, ‘wisely’, so that people could help themselves. So, I expected him to say something on behalf of the people in Pembrokeshire and the people of Wales that would be in line with using taxpayers’ money from Wales for the good of the people in Wales. But what did he say? And I want to quote this, what he actually said was, ‘Well, it’s the cost of doing business’. Now, according to ‘The Independent’ online, that’s a phrase that usually applies to companies describing the paying of bribes to obtain deals in overseas markets. It’s not usually a term that’s applied to Government. If we are talking about using public money, taxpayers’ money, from across the UK solely to keep the Tories in power, with £1 billion-worth over two years, I want to put a question to Cairns and Crabb et al: that is 97 per cent of the taxpayers who are paying this don’t actually live in Northern Ireland, yet it is Northern Ireland who are going to see all the benefit.

So, I want to move on now to look at Cairns. I want to look at what Cairns said. So, I thought that as Secretary of State for Wales he would actually have something to say about Wales, and about bringing money to Wales—and, yes, I did name-check it, you’re absolutely right, he is the Secretary of State of Wales—and very proud, he stood up and he defended the indefensible. He thought that it was perfectly fine to give money towards Northern Ireland. No mention of Wales, of course. No mention of standing up for Wales. Maybe he ought to consider his position. Maybe he needs to think about where he stands and who he represents. It would have been nice to have that same £1 billion in Wales. It would have been nice to have it to spend on our NHS, our schools, our roads. Next time, when the Conservatives bring a debate and they ask us for more money, I hope that they will consider taking that begging bowl, taking it to Westminster, and asking for the redistribution of wealth that, actually, we should have been afforded as well.

Well, we are, at the moment, dealing with the general election result, and it did generate only two viable options. One was a minority Conservative Government—the one I, incidentally, favoured, but that would have been fragile, obviously—or, secondly, a combination with the DUP to create a confidence and supply agreement. There was no other combination that could have produced a Government for this country and, clearly, the Prime Minister decided that the need to negotiate a successful Brexit required that greater security of a confidence and supply agreement. It’s on that basis that some cost has been exacted. I’m not surprised that that is now being scrutinised and, of course, it’s quite appropriate that it is.

I have to say, before I get to that, I do find this combination between the Conservative Party and the DUP tricky, because of Northern Ireland’s exceptional status in the UK’s politics. We now have a British Government reliant on an Irish party for the first time since 1910. Like John Major, I note the complications this could introduce to the peace process. However, the extensive financial package that the DUP has negotiated could, at least, assist the re-establishment of the power-sharing Executive. It had been placed under some strain by—let’s call it—austerity politics, before even the biomass heating controversy brought things to a complete halt. As a point of statecraft—and I know the First Minister takes a great interest in the politics of Northern Ireland—I do hope that we will see a chance now for all the parties to work together and to use their additional resources productively.

I note that both the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have indicated and, indeed, that was repeated this afternoon here, that they’ll instigate the formal dispute mechanism. I think that’s a responsible thing to do if you believe the dispute is of enough gravity to require that, and I’m sure you will make the case very strongly. It is clear, I think—even on this side of the house we have to recognise it—that the deal with the DUP has wider implications, and it does, I concede, pose some serious challenges to the Welsh Conservative Party and to the Scottish Conservatives. However, some of the criticisms that we’ve heard this afternoon have been the stuff of simple partisan conflict. I do think we need a degree of moderation and proportion when we look at these issues, because we are talking about the peace process, Brexit and the future structure of our state, and it does call for statecraft, as well as making more immediate points of impartisan dialogue. We have heard that Gordon Brown, in the dying days of his premiership, did approach the DUP, and, presumably, he would have been faced with the similar difficulties of involving not a party of an ideological stamp—

Will you take an intervention?

[Continues.]—but one that represents a very particular part of the United Kingdom and doesn’t have a wider mandate than that.

I’d rather not, and I think you’re going to speak in the debate, but if you press me, I will give way, but I still have a few things I want to say that I think the Assembly would like to hear. Do you want me to give way?

If you don’t mind. I think it was Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former head of the Treasury, who stood down last year, who said

‘£1 billion for Ulster is just a downpayment. DUP will be back for more’

So, in terms of the consistency of this arrangement moving forward, are you concerned about that?

Well, time will tell on the stability of this whole arrangement. My own view, and I’m now going to get into awful trouble, is that it’s anyone’s guess after the Brexit negotiations are over. But I do think we need to stand up for Wales. That’s why the National Assembly is here. In times of debating the allocation of resources of the UK state, of which we are part and we’ve generated those resources from time immemorial, obviously, there’s a constant debate about what is the fair share. I do believe that part of what I would say is the £1 billion two-year deal that Northern Ireland’s got should be Barnettised. But I do want to be restrained in what I’m going to call for, because I think some of the claims are very much overinflated.

In terms of infrastructure, we already have—quite often, anyway—a bilateral approach to this, and I think it’s in the future calls that we will make for special projects that we will need to ensure that Wales gets its fair share. The tidal lagoon is a very obvious one that is now looming.

However, I am troubled about the implications of some of the revenue expenditure—which I put at about £450 million over two years for Northern Ireland—not being Barnettised, because I do not think this sets a good precedent for the United Kingdom. Some of those increases I think can be justified for Northern Ireland on the basis that it will aid the peace process, and there is precedent for this. But I do think that some of this money needs to be Barnettised, and I do call on the UK Government to reconsider this aspect of the deal that they have just negotiated, and to think in terms of the Scottish and the Welsh budgets.

Can I conclude—you’ve been very generous, Presiding Officer—by saying in terms of where our state goes after Brexit and also reflecting on this experience, that we do need to see a block grant system being replaced by some form of Treasury grant that is overseen by an independent grant commission? That could still allow special payments in exceptional circumstances, but I think it’s that sort of stability that we will need for the British state once it negotiates the rapids we’re now facing in terms of the Brexit process. Thank you.

I’m pleased to follow David Melding, who made the most coherent attempt to set out any justification for the situation we’re in, and I’ll certainly join with him in saying we must now stand up for Wales.

But let’s examine the position we’re in. By negotiating this deal, we have a Conservative-led administration in Westminster that has, in effect, exactly the majority that it had before the general election when it said that that majority was not strong and stable enough to take it through the Brexit negotiations. And I feel that really, really tells on the very precarious situation that Westminster is in. I don’t think this Government will last a Brexit round of negotiations, but time will tell, as David Melding says.

Now, the payment that has been done to allow this to happen, which is about £100 million per DUP MP—which is more than Gareth Bale got transferred for, by the way—does bring into focus just how desperate Theresa May and the Conservative Party are to stay in Government, or rather to avoid another general election for the suspicion that they have of where it may lead them. And I think it’s best crystallised in this quotation, which was said only today:

‘This is a deeply divided country and singling out one part of it in order to give a semblance of short term stability is just one more of the prices we are paying for the consequences of Brexit.’

That was Lord Heseltine. That was Lord Heseltine speaking on Scottish radio today. I always thought it would be the unionists that destroyed the union, and I’m even more convinced of it now.

Let’s examine what the financial support is for Northern Ireland, because I think it does bear some examination. A lot of people have talked about it being a three-page confidence and supply document; in fact, there are another three pages. The other three pages are about the financial arrangements and there is quite some detail there on the financial arrangements. Infrastructure development in Northern Ireland—£200 million per year for two years for the York Street interchange project. I don’t know what that is. The First Minister may know through his family connections what that is, but what I do know is that that is a predetermination before you get an executive elected in Northern Ireland, and that’s a DUP priority that’s been funded. Seventy five million pounds per year for two years to provide ultrafast broadband for Northern Ireland. Well, we could do with £75 million per year for ultrafast broadband here in Wales as well. A commitment that the needs of Northern Ireland are properly reflected in the future UK shared prosperity fund. We’ve had no such commitment yet—no such written commitment from the Westminster Government that this shared prosperity fund, which is replacing, of course, the EU structural funds, is going to deliver that well for Wales. A commitment to utilise networks of embassies and high commissions to promote Northern Ireland as a location for foreign direct investment. Promote Northern Ireland above Scotland, above Wales, above the regions of England—what does this mean? A future commitment to work towards the devolution of corporation tax rates—something that has been denied the other parts of the United Kingdom—with options developed for the autumn budget this year. A commitment to city deals across Northern Ireland. Now, this is what just makes Alun Cairns’s remarks that this is some kind of a super city deal an utter nonsense because they get this deal, and they get city deals and they get enterprise zones. So, they’re getting everything we get plus the billion. This is not just breaking Barnett, it’s trashing it and trampling it into the mud.

In order to target pockets of severe deprivation—and I accept there’s severe deprivation in Northern Ireland—the UK Government will provide £20 million per year for five years. It’s not a two-year deal; this is five years. That’s £100 million to support the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver the measures around tourism. An additional £50 million for two years to address immediate pressure in health and education. Well, yes, we could do with those. And then, £100 million for two years to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s delivery of its priority of health service transformation. We don’t have a Northern Ireland Executive yet, and yet they’re already talking about its own priority. Of course, this, in effect, could be delivered by the Westminster Government through direct rule, which will lead to even more problems.

And then a final thing—flexibility for remaining funding from previous allocations for shared education and housing to be dispersed flexibly within this spending review period. In other words, none of the Treasury rules on transfers of money from one year to another in education or housing will now apply in Northern Ireland. I don’t know how long we’ve been arguing for that—at least 10 years, at least 10 years. It does make you think: you make a sensible, coherent argument based on the economy, based on the well-being of your people, and all you’re told is that some strong-arm politics are going to win the game. Well, I say this isn’t strong-arm politics; this is desperate measures and an unstable Government that will fail. It will fail, if nothing else, on this, the final bit of the agreement and the financial part, which talks about the legacy and says this:

‘Both parties reiterate their admiration for the courage and sacrifice of the police and armed forces in upholding democracy and the rule of law and will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe them.’

Now, in any other context, that’s a platitude and we’d all sign up to it. In the Northern Ireland context, that is dynamite—quite literally, dynamite.

I would like to thank the First Minister, actually, for his response yesterday to the confidence and supply agreement. I thought his anger—his anger—at the agreement was palpable yesterday, and it was very clear, the dissatisfaction, not just from Wales but also from Scotland, at the fact that today you can have cash for votes. That’s what’s happened here. Some people in this Chamber might be more familiar with cash for questions; cash for votes is worse. Cash for votes is worse and that’s what we are talking about here.

Can I just say that the other point that I think is worth underlining is that this won’t be the end of it? This won’t be the end of it. They’ll be back for more. That’s one of the terrifying things about this. This is just the beginning of the negotiation. They’ve locked them in for a couple of years. If they can grab onto power for the five years that they are supposed to hold on to power, then we will be talking about even more funding that is being shoved down their throats. That is not acceptable. And who is this DUP that’s propping up a tottering Tory Government? Who are they? Well, they’ve got pretty questionable views on abortion and they’ve got unpalatable views on gay rights. But, more than anything else, do you know what worries me? It’s that they are politically and economically incompetent. They were brought down because they offered to pay people £160 to burn £100-worth of fuel. It’s a ridiculous situation. There was no upper limit to the amount that they could be paid and that’s what brought the situation to a head in Stormont. They’ve got into bed with people who are simply incompetent, and I think that should also be underlined.

But, more than that, there were successive Governments in this country who fought and worked tirelessly to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. The fact is that there is a resolution that is lodged in the United Nations that suggests that the United Kingdom Government should be an honest broker in the negotiations in Northern Ireland. That is simply not possible when the UK Tory Government is in bed with one of the parties. It is not possible to be an honest broker and I wonder how on earth that situation is going to play out.

Brexit—there’s a blank cheque on Brexit. They have literally said, ‘Anything you want. Anything you want on this, we will sign up to.’ The only point they’ve made is they want a soft border with Northern Ireland. Now, I welcome—I think it’s really important to have a soft border with Northern Ireland, but I am terribly concerned that we will see a hard border with Wales. Now, where are these Tory MPs from Wales, shouting and making sure that we don’t have a hard border if they’re having a soft border with Northern Ireland? I think people in Wales who are sick and deserve to be treated well by the NHS are the same kind of sick people who are sick in Northern Ireland; they deserve the same kind of services.

The statement suggests, finally, that it wants to strengthen and enhance the union. I believe that this agreement will drive a wedge through our country and our Celtic cousins, and I, personally, severely lament that fact.

I’m pleased that we are able to air our thoughts on the confidence and supply agreement between the Conservative majority in the House of Commons and the DUP, although I think that some of the commentary so far has been so predictable.

This election proved a challenge for all of the main parties. Despite voting for Brexit, the electorate were not clear in giving the Conservatives the mandate they need for getting the will of the people done, and it is my view that that lack of clarity will affect the deal that any Government would be able to strike. Nonetheless, the Conservatives’ share of the vote did see an increase of over 5 per cent since the last general election, and at 318 we are the largest party in Westminster. We increased the share of vote in Wales—in fact, it’s been the best vote in Wales since at least 1935. And I think that this is really important, because the election proved a challenge for all parties.

It proved a challenge for the Labour Party, who are now lumbered with a leader that Carwyn Jones and most of the elected Welsh Members here have spent time trying to distance themselves from. Who would have formed a Government if not the Conservatives? Or were you all recommending that we should ask the public to go straight away to another general election? Huge tensions remain within Welsh Labour between those loyal to Corbyn and those who disowned his leadership, and it’s only a matter of time before this discord is again played out in public.

Having lost 15 deposits, I would have thought that Plaid Cymru would have been more alive to this opportunity, because why is it that Plaid Cymru MPs didn’t use any of their possible leverage for Wales? I think that Neil Hamilton—or, in fact, I think it was Mark Reckless and Neil Hamilton—did make that point really clearly about the mathematics of the situation. It could have helped, because you’re absolutely right, we need to be honest, as Leanne Wood kept saying. Is it right, for example, that Liz Saville-Roberts wanted to do a deal, but the leader of Plaid Cymru refused?

All this nonsensical cavilling over the confidence and supply agreement. Coalitions and confidence and supply agreements are commonplace in politics. There’s one now in place between Labour and Plaid, and there’s a lack of transparency on their concord. What have they actually signed up to? Scotland has also experienced such agreements between the Conservatives and the SNP. At a UK level, there have been six coalitions over the last 120 years, including the most recent one. And we should remember that the Labour Party clung onto power by agreeing a deal with the Lib Dems, which enabled Jim Callaghan to see out his term of office.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, indeed I will, Rhun.

Would you agree that the group of eight Conservative Members of Parliament from Wales could also hold Theresa May to ransom over this?

If you’d like to wait until the end of my speech, I might just answer your question for you.

Across Europe and many other parts of the world, such deals are common. And let us be clear: you don’t like it, you can’t get over it, but with the most seats and the most votes, only the Conservative Party has the ability and the legitimacy to form the next Government. Do I agree with the DUP on many of their positions on social issues? Absolutely not. But this will provide the certainty and stability the whole country needs as we embark on Brexit and beyond, and that’s what we have to concentrate on.

I speak as somebody who wanted to remain within the European Union. Looks like we’re going out, and not a lot we can do about it at the moment. But my goodness, if we’re going out, we go out with the best possible deal and I want us to have a strong UK Government to do that. And let me be clear—

No. And let me be clear, I am a Conservative, but above all, I am a Welsh Conservative, so I, for one, will be doing my level best to make sure that Wales gets its fair share. I do understand that Northern Ireland is a special case and does need extra investment. With no representation from the mainland political parties and only the Conservatives standing in some seats over there, it often does not get the voice it needs at Westminster. This deal will give it that voice, and, sadly, I do respect the DUP for finding and using that voice. We have to ask ourselves, when criticising the deal, whether anyone in this Chamber would have wanted to live under the conditions that existed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and the damage they did to attracting inward investment and infrastructure improvements.

However—[Interruption.] However, I want to see positive progress from Westminster on the tidal lagoon. I want to see positive progress from Westminster on electrification. I accept that the scrapping of the tolls on the Severn bridge will come in under secondary legislation, but I also want to see the Barnett formula apply to elements of the confidence and supply agreement, such as health and education. And don’t keep talking to me about pork barrel politics: the Llandeilo bypass comes to mind as an absolute example.

Simon Thomas did actually make some very sensible commentary about the financial aspects of the confidence and supply agreement, and I believe all of us should put aside the toxicity that has gripped politics for so long. We need to work, all 60 of us, and our Welsh MPs of every hue, to get the best deal for Wales. We should press on the weaknesses within those financial settlements to make sure that we are not left behind. We should press for progress on all of these issues and that’s what my colleagues in the Welsh Conservatives will be doing.

Let’s be clear on context: we recently had a general election that has eviscerated this Tory Government. Its majority has been destroyed and Theresa May’s authority has been smashed. It is difficult to ever remember a campaign where a Prime Minister has sought to actively fight a campaign without meeting the public or answering any questions. It was bizarre to see the Tories run a presidential campaign where their prime candidate was too scared to even appear on ‘Women’s Hour’. Strong and stable turned to weak and wobbly as fast as jelly left out in the sun. We were told by the Tories that they were the ace negotiators needed for Brexit, yet it took a whole two weeks to secure the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. Two weeks to buy the votes of DUP Members of Parliament who, vote by vote, troop into the same lobbies as the Tory party anyway.

The First Minister called it fairly and squarely, and that is indeed that this is a £1 billion bung. Indeed, the Tory benches opposite like to lecture us on prudent bookkeeping, the merits of austerity and how you need to spend money wisely. So, let’s quote from today’s ‘The Times’ and see whether the Members opposite can justify the throwing of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money to Northern Ireland to just avoid facing the wrath of the British public at another general election. I quote,

‘Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that Northern Ireland already has the highest public expenditure per person but make the lowest tax contribution.’

No wonder then that, across the United Kingdom, from Glastonbury to the SSE Swalec stadium on Sunday, crowds sang Jeremy Corbyn’s name. The abiding principle of the Labour Party, for the many and not the few, has now become a patriotic call to arms.

So, where will and where does this Tory buy-out end? And I repeat my question: does anybody seriously think that the DUP will not be back for more? All of this outside of the DUP’s horrific record, as has been mentioned, on equality, abortion, climate change and a Victorian attitude to gay rights.

We all know that the Prime Minister is, as George Osborne memorably stated ‘a dead woman walking’. A dead woman walking and a zombie Government. Indeed, the paralysis in Downing Street is so bad that speculation has centred on the Chancellor becoming a caretaker Prime Minister, and let us not forget that ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ was due his P45 before the Prime Minister suffered such a derisory election result. How can this hollow shadow of a Prime Minister stand up to those canny and very experienced negotiators of the DUP? As I said, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former head of the Treasury, who stood down as Permanent Secretary last year, said,

‘£1 billion for Ulster is just a downpayment. DUP will be back for more...again and again... They have previous in such matters.’

This Tory-DUP supply and confidence agreement is truly shocking, and in my view, an epitaph to this Tory Government. In fact, Bruce Reynolds and Ronnie Biggs would have been proud of this smash-and-grab raid that has been undertaken on the UK Treasury, but it is sadly Wales who is the victim of this great political robbery. First Minister, I know you will not stint or falter in your efforts to stand up for Wales and stand up for our Welsh citizens. It is right that any funding that goes to Northern Ireland should mean Wales does get its fair share under the Barnett formula, and it is true that the people of Wales are sick of the Tories lecturing us that there is no alternative to austerity. So, I call on the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to denounce the Prime Minister’s discovery of the magic money tree, which showers gold to save itself, but delivers dead leaves for those in poverty. Theresa May, we know, is no friend of the leader of the Welsh Tories, but she certainly, certainly, is no friend of the people of Wales.

The First Minister has rightly said that, as currently drafted, the deal between the Conservatives and the DUP all but kills the idea of fair funding for the nations and regions. This deal flies in the face of fairness, full stop. It is dismaying, disappointing and deeply disturbing that Theresa May has cobbled together a deal with a party with such a terrible track record when it comes to equality. It would seem that Theresa May cares more about clinging to power than our basic human rights. The DUP has been consistently visceral in its opposition to LGBT rights. It staunchly opposes same-sex marriage, and has vetoed several attempts to pass new legislation, as a consequence treating us and telling LGBT people that we are second-class citizens.

Ian Paisley Jr has previously called homosexuality immoral, offensive and obnoxious, and said that he was repulsed by gays and lesbians. Well I’m sure the vast majority of us are likewise repulsed by Ian Paisley Jr’s obnoxious bigotry, intolerance and discrimination. The First Minister, in his opening, said the deal undermines the very spirit of fairness and solidarity. I think, now, we must still stand in the spirit of solidarity, and it’s paramount for all fair and progressive politicians to call out this deal with the DUP, and speak up for the equalities and the rights of all LGBT citizens—not just here in Wales, but across the UK and including Northern Ireland.

I call on the First Minister to close the debate.

Well, Llywydd, it’s right that we should have had this debate this afternoon, so that Members could put their views. Can I say, before I deal with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, that the speeches given by David Melding and by Angela Burns were far closer to the kind of leader’s speech I would have expected from somebody who is leading one of Wales’s biggest political parties? What a contrast there was between their thoughtful contributions and the shouting that we saw from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives.

Let’s not pretend that this is anything other than what it is. It is a bung; it is a bribe; it is cash for votes. This is an example of the UK Government saying that Barnett must stay, but saying that it is expedient that Barnett should be ignored when the UK Government deems it fit—in other words, to help themselves. They have begun the unravelling of one of the binds that holds the four nations of the UK together, and that is the very question of fair funding. If the UK is not for fair funding of its constituent nations and regions, then what is left for it? Surely, that solidarity is something that we should prize and something that should not be given away—frittered away, indeed—needlessly. I suppose, for Theresa May, it’s a question of not so much principle, but if the bowler hat fits, wear it—considering the people that she’s been dealing with.

I expected more from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. He is somebody who has a thick skin. I mean, he was kicked off debates in the middle of the election campaign, and kicked out of his own manifesto launch, which we’re eternally grateful for, because that changed the election, as far as we were concerned. The speech that Theresa May made at Wrexham turned the tide of the election. He is not allowed to attend the UK Cabinet. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives is. I almost feel sorry for him at this stage, and yet he tells us, ‘I have been talking to the people that count.’ Well, there have never been any results in the past; there will be no results in the future. How can he defend a situation where more money is made available for mental health in Northern Ireland, not in Wales; more money is made available for education in Northern Ireland, not in Wales; more money is made available for health pressures in Northern Ireland, not in Wales? His colleagues, and I give them credit for this—identified that as a problem and an issue, and they said that they would fight to change things. He failed to do that. He said that he would stand up for Wales. He has failed to do that on this occasion. Could I urge him as well to take this matter up with his parliamentary colleagues? There are eight of them. They have a powerful voice. They actually have a powerful voice, the eight of them. They could make the point to Theresa May that this is not acceptable, as far as Wales is concerned, and that Barnett should continue to apply. Let them now start to speak for Wales and not be the sedate eight that they’ve been over the past few weeks.

Could I say that in terms of the—? If I could turn to David Melding as well, David is always worth listening to, and he made some very pertinent points. He made the point that at least some of this money should be Barnettised. Now, from my perspective, I don’t begrudge Northern Ireland the money, but I say if Northern Ireland should have extra money then so should Wales, Scotland, and the English regions. The reality is, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has put it, austerity has been ended in Northern Ireland but not in England, Wales, and Scotland, even though the taxpayers of the nations of Great Britain are paying for the ending of that austerity. Why should they pay for something they do not benefit from? That is something that they will ask. Because we should not underestimate the anger that has been felt in the three nations of Great Britain over this deal. If there needed to be a deal done, then that deal should not have been done at the expense of selling down the river England, Scotland, and Wales. That is something that divides the UK rather than unites it.

Now, as Simon Thomas said—and I welcome his forensic dissection of the agreement itself—there is money here for projects that normally we would have to pay for ourselves. I know the York Street interchange, as it happens. It’s a terrible traffic problem in the middle of Belfast. It’s our equivalent of the Brynglas tunnel or some of the problems on the A55, yet those projects we have to pay for. There’s no extra money for Wales to pay for those infrastructure projects, important though they are. There’s no extra money to pay for broadband, important though that is, but, apparently, in Northern Ireland it’s different. We have to borrow money to pay for these schemes. Northern Ireland has the money given to it. [Interruption.] The Conservatives think it’s funny. Look at them. They think it’s funny that Wales is being done down in this way. Well, let the people of Wales judge them. And, yes, bring on the next general election, frankly, if you’re that afraid of it. We are more than happy to say to the people of Wales that you have not—with the exception, in fairness, of some of your speakers—stood up for Wales on this occasion.

Angela Burns made the points that she did. I recognise the fact that she said that Barnett should apply with regard to health and education. I do remind her that she said that the Conservatives, as the largest party, had the legitimacy to govern. That’s not the way she saw it last year when the vote took place in this Chamber when we came back as the largest party. It was different then to what it is now, but a different party was involved at that time. So, there is an inconsistency there, shall we say, in the points that she has made.

What troubles me more than anything is that this Conservative Government has been tasked with getting the best deal for the UK as it leaves the EU, and it’s been shaken down by 10 DUP MPs. What hope is there then for the future if that is their strength?

I listened carefully to Neil Hamilton: ‘bilious waffle’ is what I’ve got written down here, masquerading as an attempt at debate, somebody who took the viewpoint of the UK Government—perhaps he wants to go back into the Conservative party—and the DUP rather than, again, speaking up for the people he actually represents. Could I remind him? It’s all very well for him to blame other parties for this scenario, but his party failed to get a single MP at all. So, if any party is going to take the blame for this, it’s his own for their abject failure in actually getting anybody elected to Westminster.

The reality is that this is a deal that has been done to save the skin of the Prime Minister, and not a deal that has been done in the interests of all four nations of the UK. Where does this leave Brexit? Where does it leave the Brexit negotiations? All we know is this, Llywydd: the DUP are fond of the phrase ‘no surrender’. Today, the Conservatives are fond of the phrase ‘abject surrender’.

And that concludes the urgent debate.

And, therefore, we go to the final item on the agenda, namely the voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time on the debate on public sector decarbonisation. Amendment 1—I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, seven abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I call for a vote now on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I call for a vote now on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, 10 abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote now on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

I call now for a vote now on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed.

I call now for a vote now on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.

I now call a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

And that brings today’s proceedings to a close.