National Assembly for Wales

Right, can Members come to order, please?

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. And question 1, David Rees.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Work continues with the Swansea bay city region and the UK Government to develop and agree an implementation, monitoring and evaluation plan to oversee detail of the deal.

Well, thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Now, last month, in an answer to Jeremy Miles, you highlighted that, as long as the 11 projects were in preparation, not all business cases had to be prepared before they could start working. But there’s an issue still with the governance aspects of the city deal. Now, earlier this month—on 4 October—a paper to the cabinet scrutiny for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council highlighted the concerns over the governance issues. Where are we with the governance issues, and when will you actually make a deadline by which they have to agree the governance issues, because there are projects that are ready to go, they’re waiting for this process to be at that point where governance is in place and we can actually ensure that these are going ahead properly?

Well, I thank David Rees for that question. Dirprwy Lywydd, just to confirm that, following my last questions, officials of the Welsh Government, and the UK Government, wrote jointly to the component authorities of the city deal, confirming on 12 October that neither Government will require all 11 business cases to be approved before funds can begin to flow. There are, however, a set of steps that need to be taken in order to allow that to happen. They’re relatively simple in nature but, for the record, I’ll just mention them briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd.

The first thing is that governance documents do need to be agreed by the full councils of the four authorities, and then by both Governments. That will allow the current joint committee to come out of its shadow form and to be fully appointed as a joint committee responsible for finance, staffing and legal decisions in delivery of the deal. That will allow business cases to come forward and, once approved, for funding to flow. I am very keen that the deal moves on from talking about the deal itself to the delivery phase. I was encouraged by the statement put out by the shadow joint committee, the leaders of the four authorities meeting together on 16 October, when they said that they were more determined than ever to see the deal turned into practical action on the ground, and there is now a clear process set out by which they can ensure that that happens.

Well, I’m concerned about governance and the delays that uncertainty about it might be causing at the moment. And I was very encouraged by your own comments last year, when you told me that, once the deal is agreed and funding secured—which you’ve just confirmed now—then the board should be representative of businesses in the region. And you assured me that you would include this important requirement in the discussions that you have with the board. Now, I understand that it seems to be a bit nearer than we were last time we spoke, but there is some disquiet still that private enterprise isn’t adequately represented in the shadow board, and I’m wondering how your representations to the board on this important point have moved matters on.

Well, I thank Suzy Davies for that. Just to give a tiny bit more detail, then, Dirprwy Lywydd, the way that governance arrangements are currently envisaged is that there will be a joint cabinet of the four leaders. In the end, because this is public money and money that belongs to local authorities as well as to the two Governments, those decisions must be made by elected individuals. But I have agreed with the Secretary of State that there should be an economic strategy board that will provide direct advice to that cabinet. The economic strategy board will be chaired by a private sector business representative, and we’re in discussions with the Secretary of State’s office as to how we can make sure that that person is appointed, and the people who will support them in that work.

Further to the governance issues, what discussions has the Cabinet Secretary had relating to financial contributions and return involving the four authorities? Councils may have to borrow around £360 million, which, in these times of austerity, is a major challenge. So, what discussions have you had about that? And also as regards the city deal, what discussions have you had as regards the need to be working cross-sectorally, with local government, and not just with the private sector but also with, particularly, the health sector, because there are major health innovations happening locally, and we’d like to see both sectors talking to one another?

Dirprwy Lywydd, just to take up the second point first, because Dai Lloyd is absolutely right—it is very important that the range of interests that have a direct contribution to make to the city deal are represented around the table when those decisions are being made. That clearly involves the local authorities themselves and their private sector partners, but the university is a very important player in all of this—has been from the beginning—and the university health board is as well. And part of the reason why governance arrangements take a little while sometimes to be agreed is that we have to make sure that we have all those component parts in place and that every part is confident that it can make the contribution that it wants to make.

As to the financial arrangements, these were confirmed in the original deal document. There’s £1.3 billion worth of additional investment coming to the Swansea Bay city region area as a result of the deal. The Welsh Government will provide £125 million of capital. The UK Government will provide £115 million. Then there are contributions from local authorities and from private sector interests as well. It is important that local authorities understand that they will have to use their borrowing powers in some instances in order to make their contribution, but all of that was, I believe, Dirprwy Lywydd, well understood when the deal was originally agreed back in March.

I thank Dawn Bowden for that. Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, full retention of the £244 million council tax reduction scheme, an extra £1 million to uplift the discretionary assistance fund and an additional £20 million for homelessness prevention are amongst the budget elements that assist most vulnerable groups in Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and beyond.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, and I’m sure, Cabinet Secretary, you will agree that the support offered to vulnerable people by this draft Welsh budget stands in stark contrast to the grotesque chaos of the Tories’ universal credit scheme. Welfare reforms, Cabinet Secretary, are stripping billions of pounds—yes, billions of pounds—from our Valleys communities, including Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and this, in turn, is impoverishing the lives of too many people. And I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree that the work of food banks is not uplifting, as leading Tories describe them, but are a sad indictment of twenty-first century Britain. So, in spite of the Tory cuts to our Welsh budget, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that the focus of this Welsh Government will be delivering the warm, secure homes that our people need, the financial support and advice they deserve, and the holding out of a helping hand that we may all need in tough times, so that in Wales at least, people know whose side we’re on?

Dirprwy Lywydd, let me begin by agreeing with the point that Dawn Bowden made in opening her supplementary question. I attended a meeting early today involving housing associations, the third sector, credit unions—all of them expressing real concerns about the impact that changes to universal credit are already beginning to have in parts of Wales. Some of us remember the time when we had what was called a social security system, and what we now have is exactly the opposite, a system that breeds insecurity in the lives of those people least able to bear it, and the result is that costs are created and displaced into other parts of the system. The Trussell Trust has reported that food bank usage in areas where there has already been full universal credit roll-out has increased by more than twice the rate in other parts of the UK where roll-out has not happened. But we see it as well in escalating arears, evictions, impact on mental health services, and so on. I know Members here have asked me in the past about the way in which Welsh Government budgets can be used to protect the social fabric of our society at a time when it is under such strain, and where individuals need to rely on it all the more. And the points that Dawn Bowden made about what we are trying to do in housing, in supporting people in greatest need, are part of our ongoing efforts to try to use the budgets we have to make good the social fabric because we know how much it is needed here in Wales.

Thank you, Minister, for replying to Dawn Bowden’s question with so much detail. But I think there is another side of the coin. Vulnerable people on low incomes have been hit hard by the Labour Government’s failure to pass on the funds it has to freeze the council tax in Wales, with the result that council tax debt has been labelled as ‘Wales’s biggest debt problem’ by Citizens Advice. The Welsh Local Government Association has warned that councils will have to raise—

Are we coming to a question, please?

[Continues.]—council tax—

Question, please.

[Continues.]—council tax by 5 per cent due to proposals in the draft budget. What action will the Cabinet Secretary take to alleviate the problem of council tax debt caused by regular above inflation increases and relieve the burden on hard-pressed households in Merthyr Tydfil and elsewhere in Wales?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I entirely reject the underlying proposition in that question, which is that had we frozen the council tax in Wales, that would somehow have left people better off. What we know is is that without the ability to raise the council tax, then the ability of local authorities to go on providing the services on which people rely would have been even further compromised. His party’s policy of attempting to freeze the council tax in England is in deep disarray. Very few councils now take up that offer and, in fact, the council tax in England rose at a higher rate than in Wales in the last year. What we do is we go on, quite unlike councils that are controlled by his party, protecting the most vulnerable from the impact of the council tax—£344 million in the budget laid in front of this Assembly earlier this month to make sure that the most vulnerable individuals and households pay no council tax at all here in Wales. The average council tax being paid by people on those benefits in England is now £181, and in many Tory authorities it is over twice that amount. The most vulnerable people, from benefits that have been frozen, are having to find money every single week to pay a tax that here in Wales nobody in those circumstances pays at all.

Thank you very much. We now move to spokespersons’ questions, and I call Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Steffan Lewis.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yesterday, the Welsh Government published the detail of its draft budget, including detailed budget expenditure line tables for 2018-19 and 2019-20. In the last 24 hours, a number of organisations have expressed concern regarding the Supporting People budget line in light of that budget line in particular disappearing in the 2019-20 budget table. Plaid Cymru, of course, understands those very real concerns as it formed a central part of our budget agreement with Welsh Government. Could the Cabinet Secretary take this opportunity to clarify the status of the Supporting People grant for both financial years, and can he particularly elaborate on the relationship between the Supporting People grant and the local government revenue support grant for both those financial years, in light of the fact that hypothecation will disappear?

Well, Deputy Presiding Officer, thank you very much for the question and congratulations first of all to Steffan Lewis for his new responsibility here in the Chamber.

Rwy’n falch iawn o gael cyfle i ateb y cwestiwn hwnnw. Gadewch imi ddechrau, Dirprwy Lywydd, drwy ddweud yn glir nad oes toriadau i’r rhaglen Cefnogi Pobl yn unrhyw un o flynyddoedd y gyllideb a gyflwynwyd i’r Cynulliad hwn, a dyna ganlyniad y cytundeb a wnaed rhwng Plaid Cymru a minnau yn y cyfnod cyn ei gyflwyno. Y flwyddyn nesaf, bydd Cefnogi Pobl yn parhau i fod yn grant unigol ar wahân fel y nodir yn y tablau a gyhoeddwyd ddoe. Ceir cynnig, a fydd yn cael ei drafod a’i ddatblygu gydag awdurdodau lleol a’r sector, i ddod â nifer o grantiau ynghyd yn yr ail flwyddyn. Mae’r swm o arian sydd ar gael ar gyfer Cefnogi Pobl yn yr ail flwyddyn honno fel y cytunwyd. Nid oes toriadau iddo. Yr achos dros ddod â meysydd cysylltiedig ynghyd yw y byddant yn caniatáu mwy o ddisgresiwn proffesiynol wrth ddefnyddio arian ar y rheng flaen ac yn lleihau’r swm o arian a ddefnyddir yn y grant ar gyfer gweinyddu. Fodd bynnag, gwn fod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gymunedau a Phlant yn cydnabod yr angen i allu parhau i ddangos sut y bydd yr arian yn cael ei ddefnyddio, a bydd yn trafod ffyrdd o sicrhau bod hynny’n digwydd fel rhan o’i ymgysylltiad â’r sector, gan barhau o drafodaethau lle y trafodwyd hyn yn benodol yng nghyfarfod bwrdd cynghori cenedlaethol Cefnogi Pobl ar 21 Medi.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. So, to clarify, the removal of the ring fence—and I understand that this will be piloted in the next financial year—and the discretion in pilot areas will not allow local authorities therefore to underspend, so to speak, on the Supporting People grant. Can he clarify and confirm that the merger, so to speak, with other grant streams will, in fact, be complementary rather than competing, and that, in that case, every single penny allocated and guaranteed for the Supporting People grant for the next financial year and the one after will be spent on Supporting People projects?

I think the Member makes a very good point in the way that he puts it, that the grants are being brought together because they are complementary. They all operate in the area of early intervention and prevention. Dirprwy Lywydd, I should have answered the point that Steffan Lewis made in his first question to me: the proposal is not for Supporting People grant to go into the RSG. It’s not going into the unhypothecated part of the settlement; it is going to remain in a hypothecated grant, where the mechanics of how that grant will function in the future will be worked out in the engagement with the sector itself, where local authorities will have to produce delivery plans and where grant payments will be made in arrears, subject to that delivery. So, there will be a very clear mechanism through which the money that we have agreed and which will be there in both years—there will be a very clear mechanism for tracking it and making sure that it is being used for the intended purpose.

That’s a very important point, of course. I’m glad to hear the clarification that hypothecation will remain in a form. However, the fact that the budget line in particular for the Supporting People grant disappears in the second year raises questions on how we can ensure that we can scrutinise fully and properly as elected representatives, but also in terms of the sector as a whole, that that money, which is allocated and is being protected because of the agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, is actually being spent on what it is intended for. So, the Cabinet Secretary, now that he has clarified that the merger with other grants will not lead to a diminishing sum for the Supporting People projects and that it is a form of hypothecation, albeit in a different accounting form, so to speak, can he go on the record and clarify that we will be able to scrutinise that that is actually what is being delivered on the ground, even in the absence of a specific Supporting People grant budget line in Welsh Government books?

I understand that if the Cabinet Secretary responsible does decide to amalgamate the grants into a single grant stream, it will be important that the actions that flow from that grant stream can be monitored—that they can be monitored internally by the department, that they can be monitored by the project group and that they can be reported in a way that allows Assembly Members here to see how money that is allocated through agreements we reach here is then put to work on the ground, and the detail of how the mechanics of the grant will function in future. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, Carl Sargeant, is keen to make sure that those mechanics are agreed with the sector and with local government so that their transparency can be secured.

Thank you very much. Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure that you would agree with me—in fact, you’ve stated it many times here in the Senedd—that openness and transparency and good councillor conduct are key to engagement with our political democracy and to attracting people to have faith in our political system, ultimately then helping us to attract more people to stand as candidates. Sadly, however, I have an e-mail here, sent by a Swansea Labour councillor, Mark Child, to colleagues in your Labour Party and it was sent from his council e-mail address. I’ll be sending you a copy of the said e-mail, but I will read a very short extract:

Hi David et al, Next full council is Thursday 26th of October…There is an opportunity to ask questions from the public gallery at full council.’

It goes on to ask party colleagues to help find members of the public to ask a range of questions on their behalf. In relation to one question on cycle paths, the councillor asks,

Could someone ask whose idea this was so we can reply “this was Labour’s proposals for Bishopston”‘.

Is this really your question?

Yes, I think you need to come to a question.

Do you think this kind of thing helps the public to have confidence in local government? As the Cabinet member—[Interruption.]—with responsibility for local government, will you investigate this blatant and utter disregard for due procedure and for making a mockery of the public questions available in some local authorities?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I look forward to seeing the e-mail in full. So far as I’ve been able to understand it from listening to it, I hear a publicly elected person encouraging the idea that members of the public might come and ask questions at a public hearing of the council. I’m struggling, so far, to see what the difficulty with that would be, and I’m perfectly certain that all political parties here take the trouble to make sure that their members are informed and, when there are matters that are of interest to them, that they are able to come and take part in democratic forums.

I’m sorry, Cabinet Secretary, but I don’t think you understand local government proceedings. This is time allocated to members of the public who are then able to come along and scrutinise what they are genuinely interested in. It isn’t for a political party, of any colour, to actually feed questions to people to do that in order that they might score some kinds of political points. Frankly—and the fact that you’re laughing about this, I find it disgraceful of you as Cabinet Secretary, who should be, actually, embracing and encouraging true local democracy. This is an absolute mockery. Now, it is evident that the Labour Party is seeking to manipulate full council by drafting in stooges to ask planted questions. I actually hope that you will take this matter seriously. They should not be using their publicly funded office for party gain, and wouldn’t you agree with me that this is, in fact, a breach of councillor conduct and it should be referred to the standards committee? I’ll certainly be looking into it. Will you be asking your colleague, even the First Minister if you’re not prepared to, to investigate this conduct? But will you, at the very least, condemn in the strongest terms any council in Wales, or any political party that has elected councillors in Wales, that subverts proper scrutiny in this way?

Let me begin by saying, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I think it is very important that all citizens in Wales who have an interest in the proceedings of democratic bodies are able to take part to the fullest available extent in the work of those bodies, in asking questions and in scrutinising people who take decisions on their behalf. If the Member believes that there has been some breach of proper procedure, then her tender interest in procedures would have led her to conclude that the right thing to do is to draw that breach to the attention of those authorities responsible for monitoring those breaches, not spraying around suggestions that it should be followed up by people who have no such responsibility. So, if she has a complaint, and she believes she has, she should report it in the proper way, and then make sure that it is investigated in a proper way. As I say, so far, from what I’ve heard her read out this afternoon, what I’ve heard her read out is members of the public being encouraged to come and take part in democratic debate.

Well, that, to me, just says that you’ve abrogated your responsibility as a Cabinet Secretary. These issues—[Interruption.] These issues partly explain the lack of public trust in politics, and I want to ask you about candidacy now in Wales, which is at crisis point. In September, the Electoral Commission reported that 7 per cent—that’s 7 per cent—of all county and borough seats were held unopposed at the elections in May. Now, 100 per cent of the town and community council seats in our capital city of Cardiff were uncontested or vacant in this year’s elections. Hoping to increase interest in candidacy through local government reform will not be enough. This is where nobody came forward and were encouraged to come forward to stand for seats in a democratic election in May. I think that, again, is a failure of this Welsh Labour Government. Will you commit your Government, going forward, to taking proactive steps to tackle this democratic—? And just for all the muttering of the backbenchers: at the end of the day, as I’ve said on many occasions, we haven’t had the chance yet to lead on some of the portfolios here that are held by Welsh Labour Members, but I’m telling you now that I can tell you that if Welsh Conservatives were leading local government in Wales, I can assure the members of the public there would be more openness, democracy and democratic accountability.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I share the Member’s anxiety at the number of uncontested seats in town and community councils in Wales in May’s elections. I want us to do more as a Government, but it is not just for governments to be taking action in that regard. In our principal council elections, there were more candidates than ever before, and that’s a sign that efforts can be successful in bringing more people forward for election. I’m very proud to be a member of a party that fielded many hundreds more candidates than her party fielded in those elections. I say to her that just as Government does have a responsibility to make sure that the position of a town and community councillor is made attractive and is widely advertised, we, all of us as separate political parties, have a responsibility to try and encourage people to stand for election, and the fact that there were no elections to town and community councils in Cardiff is as much a reflection on her party’s inability to find people to stand for those posts as it is of any other political party.

Thank you. UKIP spokesperson Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We had a panel from the Welsh Local Government Association in committee this morning, Minister, discussing matters relating to the draft budget. We all know that these are difficult times for local government funding, but one thing that would help councils to take decisions is some certainty of future funding levels. I know you have provided an indicative budget for 2019-20, so we have moved to a two-year cycle. The situation in Scotland is that they effectively have a three-year cycle. The WLGA are calling for a multi-year settlement and say that a three-year settlement would be a great help for their forward planning. What’s your response to that?

Well, I say this to the Member: I share the WLGA’s ambition for a three-year cycle—I wish I was in a position to do that for them—but we do not have a Welsh Government budget for the third year of this cycle because there has been no comprehensive spending review by the incoming Government, elected in June of this year, and in circumstances where I simply do not know how much money we will have available to use for all public services in Wales, I cannot give local government a sensible and reliable indicative budget for that third year. I wish I was in a position to do that, because I understand the points that they made to you and that you made this afternoon about that helping them to be able to plan.

I made a judgment, Dirprwy Lywydd, that it was possible to provide a firm budget for next year and a reliably indicative budget for the second year in the budget that I laid on 3 October. Without the figures that I need from the UK Government about what the shape of the Welsh Government’s budget will be in the third year, I simply didn’t have reliable enough information to be able to give local government figures on which they could plan properly.

Yes, thanks for clarifying that. Of course, that lack of information would make it very difficult, so I take it that the situation regarding the UK Government and Scotland is therefore different from the situation regarding the UK Government and local government funding in Wales. Continuing with the theme of the financing of local government, you’ve stressed in the past to the WLGA the need to seek alternative sources of income. The WLGA say that this is currently easier for councils in England to achieve due to their power of general competence. We heard today that English councils have invested in petrol stations, in superstores and, in London, they even own their own shopping centres. If councils in Wales had the power of general competence, would this more entrepreneurial route be a good route for them to go down, do you think, or would there be too many potential drawbacks?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I am keen to provide local authorities in Wales with a general power of competence. It was included in the draft Bill published during the last Assembly term and was widely welcomed by local authorities. It is one of the reasons why I’m keen to press ahead with local government reforms so we can bring a Bill in front of this Assembly that will provide local authorities in Wales with exactly that ability. I think they will want to look carefully at some of the ways in which those powers have been used across our border. I think that there are some positive lessons that can be learned from things that local authorities there may have been able to do. Some of the more speculative investments that have been made, of the sort that Mr Bennett outlined, are giving rise to some concerns in some parts of England about whether taxpayers’ money has been reliably invested and whether it will give local taxpayers a proper return. Sometimes it’s lucky to be going second in something because you are able to gain from the experience of those who’ve gone first. This is an area where I think Welsh local government will be able to reflect on the experience across our border, use the new power we are keen to give them where they can do it to advantage, but maybe not to be drawn into some areas of activity where proper returns and the levels of probity that we would expect may not be so easy to guarantee.

Yes, thank you. That, of course—. I think you need to have some kind of thought to the possible disadvantages, which you’ve outlined, so I think that’s a sensible answer.

Now, another development in England—[Interruption.] Another development in England is that at least one council has successfully set up a not-for-profit energy company. That is the Robin Hood Energy company in Nottingham. Now, if these powers of general competence did come to Wales, do you think that would be an idea that some local councils could effectively pursue here?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, there is a very long and proud history in Wales, dating back many years—and particularly during the inter-war years—of municipal socialism, in which local authorities were indeed the direct suppliers of utility services like water and like energy. Now, I am keen to see some of that spirit reinvented in the modern era. You can’t do it exactly as it was done then, but finding new ways in which local authorities can provide services, which make sure that those—and this is the case in the Nottinghamshire scheme, isn’t it? The scheme is focused on making sure that those who have the least ability to pay bills are not further disadvantaged by being drawn into the most expensive forms of tariff. By organising it on a public basis and a not-for-profit distribution basis, it is more possible to make sure that tariffs are available that protect those who need that protection the most. I’m sure there will be some Welsh local authorities who will want to look at that experience and see whether they will be able to do more of that sort here in Wales.

Thank you very much. Question 3—Adam Price.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the pay cap imposed by the UK Government should end, and the UK Government, not Welsh public services, must find the money to do so.

Well, the Scottish Government, last month, in its programme for government, has committed to scrapping the pay cap for NHS staff, for teachers, for civil servants and other hard-pressed public sector workers. Responding to this, the interim leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Alex Rowley, said:

This SNP u-turn is long overdue, and it is welcome to see that’

finance secretary

Derek Mackay has finally followed Labour’s lead to end the pay cap.’

Now, Labour are calling for the Westminster Government to scrap the pay cap. They’re applauding the Scottish Government in scrapping the pay cap. But, in the case of the one Government where they could end it themselves, they’re refusing to do so. Isn’t this rank hypocrisy of the worst kind?

What it is, Dirprwy Lywydd, is a reflection of the different levers available to different Governments in parts of the United Kingdom. I am meeting Derek Mackay tomorrow. I look forward to discussing with him how far he has got in his plans. We don’t have much detail yet, either of the extent to which the pay cap will be able to be lifted in Scotland, or how he intends to pay for that, but his ability to raise funds is of a different order to ours, and he does not have to make some of the arguments I have to make about the UK Government’s impact on our budget. So, I look forward to discussing it further with him, but the difference lies not in the sense that Adam Price outlined, but in the different set of tools and capacities that different parts of the United Kingdom have to take action in this area.

Public sector workers in Wales deserve a pay rise. Public sector workers in Wales need a pay rise. They’re still paying the price for the casino capitalist bankers who took us into an economic crisis. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that Westminster needs to end austerity and increase the budget allocation to Wales so that we will be able to give workers in Wales the well-deserved pay rise that they really should get?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I entirely agree with what Mike Hedges has said. Of course public sector workers in Wales deserve to be properly paid for the work that they do, and he’s absolutely right to point to the fact that people who struggle on on wages that have not been increased year on year ask how it turned out that they were responsible for the banking crisis of a decade ago while those who were responsible for it appear to have to shoulder a good deal less of that burden. Mike is absolutely right as well, Dirprwy Lywydd, in saying that, just as the pay cap in Wales should be lifted, then the responsibility for paying for lifting that cap, for that policy in the first place, must come from those who are responsible for it. They must provide the money. The First Minister has provided a guarantee that if a cap is raised in November’s budget and the money flows to Wales to lift that cap, every penny of that will be devoted to that purpose.

Whilst we in UKIP recognise that the public sector pay cap must be brought to an end and all employees, not just a chosen few, should be paid commensurate with their work grades, we also believe that there are huge opportunities to avoid the high levels of waste in some parts of the public sector. Bureaucracy and waste are still prevalent in the NHS and, in some instances, could be said to be at epidemic levels. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that only by reducing the huge levels of bureaucratic staffing endemic in our public services will we be able to fund true front-line staff, with salaries commensurate with their responsibilities, and this on a sustainable basis?

I don’t agree with the point the Member has made in the way that he makes it. I would have agreed with him had he simply said that there are always efficiencies that can be made and ought to be made in public services. That is undoubtedly true. To go on, though, to make some far more sweeping assertion that public services are bloated bureaucracies just flies in the face of what we know about them. Many of our public services have very hollowed-out centres, have reduced the capacity that they have at the centre to run very large and very complex organisations to what I regard as the minimum sustainable level. Does that mean that they should not go on trying to make sure that money is squeezed out and put in the front line? No, it doesn’t. Should that money go to people who are providing front-line services? Yes, it should. Should that money be directed to a chosen few, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has suggested? No, it shouldn’t.

I thank the Member for that question. A large proportion of local government spending helps prevent difficulties from occurring or those difficulties from deteriorating further. In order to assist all local authorities in these endeavours, I have decided to provide an additional £1.77 million over and above the local government settlement to ensure that no local authority in Wales sees its budget reduced by more than 1 per cent compared to the current year.

Diolch. Well, in fact, this question was raised with me by the Red Cross and, after that, I wrote to you with a written question, and your reply recognised that local government is responsible for a range of preventative services, but similarly, then, responded with reference to local government funding in the round. What consideration have you therefore given to financial provision in the context that sustainable, community-driven development at local authority level, mobilising individuals, associations and institutions to come together and build on their social, cultural and material assets, putting them at the heart of decisions, will prevent care needs from becoming more serious and therefore save money for local authorities at times of budget reduction and the opposite?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I regularly agree with what Mark Isherwood says about the need for all public services to regard their users as assets, to make sure that, when people are involved with public services, they are not regarded as problems to be solved, but as joint participants in the business of bringing about improvement. That sense of co-production is particularly important in preventative services. We’re very lucky in Wales to have such a vibrant third sector that helps to mobilise citizens in exactly that way, and I have always believed that local authorities that seek to engage their citizens in that positive way are likely to be able to make greater impacts with the budgets they have, particularly at the preventative end.

Thank you very much for that question. The five principles underpinning Welsh tax policy, as set out in the tax policy framework, underpin our approach to the consideration of new taxes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, but, bearing in mind that these new taxes and any new tax introduced does have to have the consent of the Westminster Government too, and in looking at the four taxes currently being considered, each with their benefits and disbenefits, how important is it for the Government and the Cabinet Secretary that at least one of those taxes, the disposals of plastics tax, seeks a change in behaviour rather than is one that raises funds? And would that suggest that a tax of this kind, as with the plastic bag levy in supermarkets and so on in the past, is a tax that’s likely to gain support not only in Westminster but also among the majority of the population here in Wales?

Well, Deputy Presiding Officer, just to say that one of the new taxes that we already have, namely landfill disposals tax, is an example of a tax that tries to influence people’s behaviour more than actually raising revenue. So, I acknowledge the principle that Simon Thomas has alluded to. The new taxes, when we consider them and when we make the case for them that we will have to present when we go to Westminster—there is more than one element that we can include in that assessment, and the impact on behaviour, with a few other things, is one of the important issues that we can work up and include in the decision that we have to take in the new year, when we come to select one of the options to put forward in order to test the new possibilities that we have under the Wales Act 2014.

Last night, Cabinet Secretary, I attended a cross-party group meeting on tourism, and there were many tourism operators there who were extremely concerned about your suggestion that a tourism tax should be seriously considered for implementation here in Wales. The genie, of course, has been let out of the bottle, and, even if you rule this out early on, which I very much hope that you will, the spectre of the very prospect of a tourism tax that you have now allowed to be in people’s minds will put people off. They’ve already said this at the meeting. Now, given the fact—[Interruption.] Given the fact that this has received such a negative reception from the tourism industry that it’s causing many tourism businesses to hold off on investing in their own facilities, do you accept that it was a huge error of judgment to even bring forward suggestions for a tourism tax, and will you now rule it out for the whole duration of at least this Assembly term?

The Member, as ever, so wildly exaggerates his case that it loses any impact that it might have made. I’m interested to hear about his meeting last night. I do hope that he wasn’t encouraging other Members—[Interruption.]

You’ve asked the question. Will you listen to the Cabinet Secretary give the answer, please, without interrupting? Thank you. Cabinet Secretary.

I’m simply saying, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I do hope that he wasn’t encouraging other Members of his party to attend that meeting and ask questions. Otherwise, the Member behind him—he will be in great trouble with her as a result.

As the Member knows perfectly well, what we have done is to propose four potential ideas—all of them utterly mainstream ideas, all of them ideas that have been tried in other parts of the world. All of them have been part of the debate that has been alive here in Wales over recent months. They are no more than possibilities and each one of them will be carefully analysed.

My real disappointment, Dirprwy Lywydd, in the contribution the Member made is that, instead of wanting to use the new opportunity that we have here in Wales to have an open debate about these things and to hear the evidence and to hear from people who have different views and then to weigh it up in a proper way, he wants to foreclose that debate before it’s even begun. I think that is a disappointing way to think about the way in which our democracy here in Wales should operate.

To follow up that question—I understand that the finance Secretary is obviously not going to be able to rule in our out any of these taxes at the moment—will he bear in mind, in making up his mind, the report of the World Economic Forum on travel, which ranks the United Kingdom 140 out of 141 countries in the world for cost competitiveness in the tourism industry? Only one country in the world has higher tourist taxes than us already, if you include things like air passenger duty and VAT, and maintaining the competitiveness of the Welsh economy, particularly for international tourism, ought to be one of the important principles underlying any decisions on taxes the Welsh Government makes.

I think that all evidence from anywhere around the world is worth considering as part of the debate we need to have about which of these taxes is worth taking forward. There are many examples from elsewhere of tourism taxes. We need to look at what their advantages are and where there have been disadvantages identified. The evidence that the Member has pointed to this afternoon can be taken into consideration in that wider debate.

Following on from Simon’s question on the principles underlying new taxes or levies, can I ask to what extent the future generations and well-being Act and the principles underlying that are enshrined within new proposals? We know that the proportion of elderly people requiring residential care is forecast to rise by over 80 per cent by 2035, less than 20 years hence, alongside a rise of nearly 70 per cent in the proportion requiring non-residential care.

Gerald Holtham and Tegid Roberts have suggested that a hypothecated trustee-led small levy going into a fund, an enhanced social insurance fund in Wales, could fund adequate social care in Wales for the foreseeable future. Wouldn’t this be a fine example of using the principles enshrined in the future generations and well-being Act to guide the development of Welsh taxes and levies and to improve the lives of Welsh citizens?

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that. Three of the four different possibilities on our list have now been mentioned this afternoon. I think that’s a really good sign of our ability to have a proper debate about the different ways in which powers that have come to Wales might be used.

The work of Gerry Holtham and Tegid Roberts is very serious. They met recently, I know, with my colleague Rebecca Evans and talked about more work that needs to be done to build on that possibility. What I’m then keen to do, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I’ve explained in the Chamber before, is to test the new machinery that the 2014 Act sets out. I will be discussing that with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when I meet her tomorrow. There are a series of tests that we will need to be able to answer at the UK level here when a Government were to decide on which, if any, of the candidates to bring forward. Then, consistency with the principles of the well-being of future generations Act would undoubtedly be something that any Minister would expect to be scrutinised upon and tested upon by other Members.

Thank you very much. And finally question 6—Angela Burns.

I thank Angela Burns for that question. As she knows, I have announced four potential tax proposals, to be considered during this autumn. We will continue to seek opinions and evidence to inform the decision about which one of those four possibilities should be progressed to the next stage.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for that answer. On page 23 of the Welsh Government tax policy report, there is a boast that there was a considerable public response to the call for ideas about proposals for new taxes. Figures in the same report show that you had the sum total of 305 responses, which represents 0.009 per cent of the Welsh population. One might say that was a slight exaggeration. Can you please tell me how many of these responses were from private individuals rather than lobbying groups and how many suggested to you that a tourism levy was the best way forward?

Well, I take a different view than the Member does about the fact that 300 responses were received to a statement made here in the Assembly. It wasn’t even an official consultation exercise. I remember saying here during that statement that, uniquely in my experience, I was receiving e-mails in the Chamber from members of the public as part of that debate. I think the fact that 300 people decided that this was a discussion they wanted to take part in and that 60 different ideas emerged as a result of it—I think that is, in my mind, a pretty healthy sense that people out there want to take an interest and want to make a contribution to a new set of possibilities that we’ve never had here before. I’m perfectly happy to write to the Member giving her an idea of where people came from, but my—without checking, let me say that—impression from the letters that I saw and the e-mails that I received is that these very largely were individual citizens interested in what goes on in this Chamber and wishing to make their contribution to it.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 2 on the agenda is questions to the Assembly Commission, which this afternoon are being answered by the Llywydd. Question 1, Bethan Jenkins.

All activities in the public areas of the Assembly estate require sponsorship by an Assembly Member. Assembly Members may not use such events for activities that are for financial gain, including fundraising. Should Assembly Members have concerns about these rules, they are at liberty to make representations to the Assembly Commission, and we will consider the policy in the round.

I was asking in relation to discussions that I had with ‘The Big Issue’ when I was selling copies with them in Cardiff. They were saying that they were getting squeezed out by people who were begging in Cardiff so that they couldn’t potentially sell their issues very well there. So, I was wondering whether there was capacity around the estate for some ‘The Big Issue’ vendors to come and sell to those who are working in the Assembly or around the Assembly estate, given that this is a noble cause that will help people get off the streets from being homeless to potentially back into work. So, I was wondering—. Obviously, if I need to write, I can write, but I’m wondering whether there is any flexibility in the system just so that we can be assured that we have tried to encourage people to buy ‘The Big Issue’ in and around the Assembly estate.

Selling ‘The Big Issue’, of course, makes a very valuable contribution to support people who are homeless and to promote the case for tackling homelessness. The Assembly’s policy, of course, at present means that we cannot allow any fundraising activities on the Assembly estate, and that’s true of any charity or good cause that any Assembly Member here could propose as an idea. But it is true to say also that you could write to the Commission and request a possible exemption being made, but we would have to raise the issue once again. Once one allows one exception, then I can guarantee that each one of you as Assembly Members would wish to offer other exemptions, and I’m sure they would all be good causes.

The Assembly has delivered educational activities for hundreds of thousands of children and young people on the estate, in schools, colleges and out-of-school settings across Wales. Since its establishment in 2000, the team has delivered activities for primary and secondary school pupils and college students, aligning its services with the curriculum needs.

Commissioner—sorry, Llywydd—a healthy democracy means engaged and informed citizens and I’ve been raising the issue of political and democratic education in schools for some time, but we’ve also got a democratic information deficit amongst adults. In both 2016 and 2017, major surveys have suggested that just over a third of Welsh voters do not know that health is a devolved issue, believing instead that the Welsh NHS is run by the Conservative Government in Westminster.

For education, the percentage of respondents not knowing that education is devolved is even higher again. All available evidence suggests that an information deficit that is as unusually high as it is in Wales can affect the outcome of elections and referenda—it’s serious stuff. Will the Assembly Commission work either with the Welsh Government or on its own to take steps to improve political education, information and awareness in Wales, and do you accept that what’s happened to date is inadequate?

Well, the surveys that you’ve alluded to are disappointing in the level of knowledge that the people of Wales have as to where responsibility lies for decision making on devolved areas and non-devolved areas of competence. We know that, as an Assembly, coverage of our work here is limited in how it gets to the people of Wales through traditional media and press sources. That’s why the Commission established the digital taskforce that provided us with recommendations on how we can improve the communication directly with the people of Wales, especially through new media sources. So, the Commission will be looking at how we put those recommendations from the digital taskforce into action.

But it is the responsibility of all of us here, as AMs, or MPs elsewhere, to be clear with our own constituents where the responsibility lies for devolved and non-devolved areas of work when we do our constituency work, but also when we do the electioneering that appears on the horizon every now and again.

A visit to the Senedd can also be a valuable part of political education, yet a visit from a deaf constituent of mine a few weeks ago showed me that we still must strive to improve the experience of visiting here for those who are deaf. Unfortunately, although all efforts were made to get a British Sign Language interpreter here, nobody was available. I was grateful to staff in the Commission for helping with showing my constituent around, but whilst my constituent was watching First Minister’s questions, they discovered that there were no subtitles available on the screens in the public gallery. Can we arrange for subtitles to be displayed in the public gallery to ensure that we continue to lead the way in an accessible legislature?

I’m very sorry to hear of your constituent’s experience here. We want what we do here to be available and accessible to everybody in Wales. I’ll need to look into the issue that you’ve raised, but what we can do and should do on this we will strive to do as a Commission.

Llywydd, just one specific point I want to mention on that. The education starts here with young people coming in and schools coming in and the Commission does a fantastic job of encouraging schools to come to the Assembly to look at it. I had a school visit this morning from Awel y Môr; they brought 90 pupils—two busloads—and I had to book two slots for it. Because they’d booked two one-hour slots, they were informed that they couldn’t actually get support, because the booking for support is a two-hour slot, not two one-hour slots. Will you have a look at this so that we can support schools to come here, even if it’s only for one-hour slots, to get an understanding of what we’re doing here, and get the news for citizenship?

Yes, I’ll definitely look into that. I think it’s wonderful that 90 young people from your constituency wanted to come here to see democracy in action. And I don’t want anything that we do, in the rules that we have, to make that more difficult for young people, from all over Wales, to come and access our work here.

Security is a high priority for the commission. We invest in a range of security measures on the basis of professional advice and the changing nature of the security threat.

Thank you for that response. As we looked at the Commission’s draft budget, it became apparent that many of the policing security costs are paid through an agreement between the Commission and South Wales Police. Given that policing is non-devolved, and given that we are a legislature within the UK system and that we are not an independent parliament, and given that a number of the challenges that we face emerge from international terrorism—attacks and threats of that kind—is it the Commission’s intention to discuss with the UK Government, and the Home Office specifically, to consider whether or not they should shoulder some of the burden for keeping this Parliament safe for staff, Members and visitors?

The priority, of course, is to ensure what you’ve outlined, namely the safety of the public and the safety of a democracy at work here, and that is true whether policing is devolved or not. The practice, of course, and what happens is that we shoulder the financial responsibility with South Wales Police of providing that security for us. That is a common policy. The House of Commons do exactly the same, as do the Scottish Parliament, and they fund the additional requirements of such parliaments.

I accept the point that you raised in the Finance Committee, which is that policing is non-devolved, and possibly we need to look at this in a different way from the point of view of this Commission and this Parliament. But, currently, the position is that we see that as our responsibility, and that is the position that we accept at present.

Thank you, Llywydd.

Item 3, then, is topical questions. And the first topical question is to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, and Mark Isherwood.

Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the Targeted Regeneration Investment Programme, following its launch on 20 October 2017? (TAQ0056)

Last Friday, Llywydd, I announced a new targeted regeneration investment programme for Wales. The aim of the programme is to support projects that promote economic development, with activities focused at individuals and areas most in need, whilst serving the aims of wider sustainable development.

Well, as your written statement said, regeneration investment has a crucial part to play in driving prosperity and building resilient communities, and there’s no disagreement there. It also says that you’re inviting bids from local authorities, along with partner organisations. How will you ensure that the programmes that are delivered through this do things with people rather than to or for them, where we now have years of hard evidence showing what works and what doesn’t, and that those schemes that are simply delivered top down don’t have long-term sustainable benefits, whereas those schemes that break down the barrier between service providers and service users—and I’ve given you many examples over the last many months—actually have quantifiable, measurable and evidenced improvements?

The guidance issued to local authorities and partners is very clear about the working together of the principles developed under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The issue of partnership agencies working alongside local authorities is one that will gain support by the team who will be assessing the bids that come in through the programme. They will gain more points for working with partner agencies as opposed to working in isolation.

Thank you very much. And the second topical question is for the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language. Darren Millar.

Will the Cabinet Secretary respond to data which shows that Welsh students accounted for just 2 per cent of last year’s Oxbridge intake? (TAQ0057)

Welsh students deserve equitable access based on merit to places at Oxbridge. While the Seren network in Wales is helping to equip and prepare our academically brightest young people for top universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, those universities must now show that they are challenging the biases in their own admission processes.

Thank you for responding to this question today, Minister, in the absence of the Cabinet Secretary. I hope you’re getting a proportion of her pay.

The number of Welsh students studying at the UK’s top universities fell by almost 10 per cent in the three years to 2016. On top of that, we’ve had figures published just very recently showing that just 2 per cent of last year’s Oxbridge intake were Welsh students. We know from the information that’s being fed back to us in our constituencies that the 100 per cent pupil uptake target for the advanced Welsh baccalaureate is contributing to this problem. It’s leading to some schools strong-arming students into doing a qualification that is loading them with extra work, which is then preventing them and placing obstacles in their way from them being able to achieve the three As that they need to get into our elite universities around the UK, and putting them at a significant disadvantage.

On top of that, we know that many of those Russell Group universities don’t recognise the Welsh baccalaureate as being equivalent to a traditional A-level qualification. And, of course, this isn’t me alone that’s raising these concerns. These concerns are being raised by headteachers, by students and their parents. Indeed, Paul Murphy, the former Secretary of State for Wales—Lord Murphy—has raised concerns, saying that he heard repeated concerns from teachers saying that the Welsh bac does not currently meet the requirements of academically more able and talented students and takes up valuable space in their timetable. Given these concerns, and I accept what you say about the work of the Seren network, but given these concerns, what consideration will the Welsh Government give to abandoning the 100 per cent take-up target that has been set in respect of the advanced Welsh baccalaureate, and what will you do to review the work of the Seren network to ensure that it actually does work at getting more Welsh students into these top universities rather than the reduction that we’ve seen in recent years?

Given that question, I would say, based on your homework, Darren, I don’t think you’d get close to getting into any one of these universities. I think you need to understand both the context of what is happening here and also what the Welsh Government is doing. And you need to look not just at a few figures, but you need to read the rest of the page, and then turn the page and understand the whole picture, and you’re not doing that. Let me say this: it is absolutely the case that both Oxford and Cambridge are working well with the Seren network, and I pay tribute to both of those universities for the work they’ve done with the Seren network over the last few years. I particularly welcome the work of Jesus College Oxford, who took a group of Welsh students to—[Interruption.] If you don’t want me to answer the question, I’ll sit down.

No, you carry on. I’m listening.

I’ll say this to the Member: Jesus College Oxford took a group of Welsh students to Oxford in the summer, to a summer school, and spent considerable time talking with them. Over 2,000 people are now a part of the Seren network and are benefiting from all the advantages that that has given to them. It enables them to understand the processes needed to apply for and to gain a place in one of these colleges. And let me say this as well: both Oxford and Cambridge are participating well in that, and none of the issues that have been raised by the Member this afternoon have been raised by those universities in terms of their engagement. However, there is a context to this. It is clear that if you are white, if you are middle-class, if you are privately educated and from the south-east of England, then you have a better opportunity to study at these universities. And that is unfair and it is wrong. It is due to the biases in admission and processes within the system, and that needs to change. It is no accident, Deputy Presiding Officer, that, in 2015, 10 Oxford colleges did not admit a single British black student—not one—whereas in Harvard over half their intake today is non-white.

Darren Millar’s main question is quite timely for me. I have a constituent who is in the sixth form. He is 18 years old and his dream is to go to Oxford and all he wants to do is sit the admissions test. Not only is his conceptual knowledge excellent, he also predicted Trump, he predicted Brexit, he predicted the Corbyn surge and he can give detailed demographic explanations for why these things happened. Sadly, due to an administrative mix-up, he is being denied the chance to take the test. When I rang Oxford, they told me that they have to treat everybody equitably, which I found utterly absurd, given that he is a state school student, and I think, in this case, they should relax the bureaucracy to allow him to study. So, will the Minister agree that Oxbridge colleges need to become more flexible and accommodating, particularly with state school students, in order to increase their intake of students like the constituent that I’ve mentioned today?

I’d certainly be happy, Deputy Presiding Officer, to take up the case of the constituent that the Member has referred to and perhaps that’s something we can discuss following this question today. But on the wider issue, I’m not convinced that the universities need to be more accommodating; they simply need to be fair. They simply need to be fair, and they need to ensure that the way in which they recruit students from across the whole of the United Kingdom and elsewhere is done on the basis of fairness and ability, and not on the basis of a prejudice that appears to be working against the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom. The admission figures are well known. The analysis of those figures is well understood. It is consistent, it happens year-on-year-on-year; it is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way in which these matters operate. It must and has to change.

Do you know, I feel sometimes we really need to get beyond this obsessing with Oxbridge as well? There are other excellent institutions—the Russell Group and others as well—that we really should be encouraging our young people to aspire to, and not just within the UK as well. We need to look beyond that in terms of broadening our young people’s horizons and look at Harvard, Yale, the Sorbonne and others. Why shouldn’t we? It was a recommendation actually in the Diamond review that the Welsh Government extends the student support package beyond the UK. It was actually in the Plaid Cymru manifesto as well. Are you going to cheer that too? Well, never mind. [Laughter.] Certainly, that’s something we should be encouraging. The Government, in fairness, said that they accepted that recommendation and that they would be developing a pilot. So, I’m just wondering whether the Minister’s in a position to give us an update as to where you are with developing such a pilot.

I hope the Member isn’t criticising me for attempting to answer the question that was asked on this occasion. But I accept that he might see it as a very rare event. I accept the point that he makes and I don’t dismiss it. I think it’s a perfectly valid and fair point. In terms of what we’re seeking to do at the moment, our work is being tunnelled through the Seren network. I’d be quite happy to write to Members on all sides of the Chamber actually outlining what is happening with Seren at the moment. I think it’s been a great success. I’ve spoken at a number of Seren events, including their national conference last year, and I have to say that I have rarely spoken to such a large group of enthusiastic and motivated young people who are all anxious to receive the help and support that Seren provides, and then to succeed in whatever their chosen field or chosen approach is. I will say to the Member that a number of students I have spoken to have not simply been concerned with going to the Oxbridge colleges, but a number of them have applied to—and I know at least two have succeeded in winning places—the Ivy League universities as well.

Thank you very much, Minister.

The next item on the agenda is the 90-second statements and the first 90-second statement today is Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Next Tuesday, 31 October, marks the five hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Protestant reformation, a day when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, nailed his now famous 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Though primarily a protest against some of the beliefs and excesses of the then Catholic Church, the theses became a catalyst for the movement that changed the world, and the non-conformity it promoted would eventually take Wales by storm. The reformation affirmed the idea that the Bible should be available in everyday language, not just Latin. It promoted freedom of religious belief by challenging the authority of corrupt church leaders, and it promoted the belief that salvation is found through an individual’s faith alone in Jesus Christ, not through good works, penance or the intervention of a religious cleric.

It wasn’t all plain sailing. Some of Luther’s beliefs are frankly abhorrent and many of the early reformers reverted to the practices that were as corrupt as those they railed against. Yet, despite these, it’s impossible to diminish the positive impact of Luther’s actions 500 years ago and the effect that they had and are still having in Wittenberg, Wales and the world.

I will close with the words of Professor Sarah Williams of Regent College in London:

If we believe that all human beings are created equal, that they are free to act according to conscience, to speak freely, to be treated fairly before the law; if we believe that rulers should obey the same laws as their subjects, that oppression should be resisted; that leaders should be held to account, that differences should be tolerated within civil society—then the Reformation is something we must celebrate.’

Last week, I was delighted to attend Merthyr Tydfil’s civic centre for the rededication of the plaque that honours volunteers from the town who joined the international brigades to fight fascism in Spain—a fight that they hoped would save Spanish democracy and avert a world war. The event was attended by relatives of the volunteers and it was touching to listen to their stories about the commitment made by members of their families and to hear about the risks and dangers faced by the volunteers as they travelled to the front line for the battle against Franco and the fascists. Some did not return.

The rededication was followed by the annual S.O. Davies memorial lecture, organised by the Merthyr Tydfil Trades Union Council. The lecture was delivered by local historian, Huw Williams. Huw’s lecture was a reminder of the deep, international roots held within communities all across Merthyr Tydfil. This, of course, included people of Spanish origin who had come to Merthyr to work during the employment boom—some of whom later returned to Spain to fight alongside the international brigades. So, this plaque links together one part of Merthyr Tydfil’s rich political heritage with events in Spain of the past, and indeed, of the present. It reminds us all that we forget our history at our peril.

Today, wise heads in Spain and Catalonia are at this very moment thinking carefully about their history and so, I hope that we remember this important part in our history by acknowledging the sacrifice of those from Merthyr Tydfil and across the south Wales Valleys who volunteered for the international brigades to fight for democracy and against fascism in Spain. ‘No pasarán.’

The Vegetable Summit was held yesterday simultaneously in Scotland, England and here in Wales at the Pierhead. Its aim is to change our dysfunctional food system. Most people have heard about five a day, but few actually achieve it. Vegetables should be a fifth of our shopping; we buy less than half that. Sugary, fatty, salty foods are piled high and sold cheap, while some communities are fruit and veg deserts. The advertising industry tries to target children with sugar-loading cereals, drinks and biscuits and a mere 1.2 per cent of advertising is spent on promoting vegetables. Not surprisingly, nearly 80 per cent of five to 10-year-olds do not eat enough vegetables to stay healthy, rising to 95 per cent amongst 11 to 16-year-olds. That drives up obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

The pledges made yesterday include Birmingham, Brighton, Redbridge and Cardiff councils becoming veg pioneers so that growing and eating lots of veg is a normal activity. Lantra and Puffin Produce are working on a plan to increase Welsh veg production by 50 per cent by 2020. Castell Howell is driving up veg sales and putting more veg in its ready meals. Lidl, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Co-op are all going to put two vegetables in all their main meal dishes, and Greggs will put veg in all its soups and at least half its sandwiches. Cardiff Metropolitan University will include two vegetables rather than one in its canteens at no extra cost and Charlton House will be trialling free veg upstairs on Fridays. My Peas Please vision for Wales is delicious, accessible, affordable veg, where eating it in large quantities is normal.

Item 5 on our agenda is a debate a Member’s legislative proposal and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This legislative proposal, which I hope the Assembly will support today is for a Bill to amend the planning system so that there’s a presumption against planning permission for hydraulic fracturing or fracking. This is aimed to protect public health, the environment and the landscape of Wales.

The situation at the moment, following a Plaid Cymru motion tabled in February 2015 is that the Welsh Government has in place a moratorium against planning for fracking. Many argue that this position is open to legal challenge, but that, in any case, will soon change, because under the Wales Act 2017, both the National Assembly and the Welsh Ministers will soon have powers in relation to petroleum. Importantly, petroleum is defined in section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998 to include

natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata’,

such as shale gas, which is extracted through fracking.

The current, unsatisfactory position, however, is underlined by the fact that test drilling is still happening. A planning application to test drill for shale gas near Pontrhydyfen, near Port Talbot, was granted by Natural Resources Wales back in January 2016. We—. Sorry, Mike Hedges. I’ll give way.

Isn’t it more important, to start with, to ban the test drilling? Because people aren’t test drilling because they’re bored or looking for something to do; they’re test drilling because at some stage in the future, they think they’re going to be able to frack.

That’s an important point, and I know that allowing test drilling in Scotland, where they’ve come out against fracking, means there are now legal cases pending, and you shouldn’t give people encouragement, if you like, or spend money, that they would then have a legal recourse against you. It’s better to ban completely, and I accept that point.

We, in Plaid Cymru, have made our stance against fracking absolutely clear, and consistently so. This, now, is a real opportunity for our National Assembly to send a clear message in advance of gaining the full powers next April. We don’t want fracking in Wales, we don’t need fracking in Wales, and we should not allow fracking in Wales.

As well as being hugely unpopular, there are concerns that fracking could have a detrimental impact on human health and the environment. Under such circumstances, I would argue that the precautionary principle can and should be applied in full. We now better understand the impact of air pollution on public health—stated to be a public health crisis by Public Health Wales—and we must move away from burning and using fossil fuels in order to address that.

Of the chemicals used in fracking, 75 per cent of them can affect the skin, eyes, other sensory organs, the respiratory system, the gastrointestinal system and the liver. More than half the chemicals show effects on the brain and nervous system. More than 25 per cent of the chemicals can cause cancer and mutations. No wonder that the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently reported that while breast cancer rates in the USA have been slowly falling for many years, they are on the rise again in several counties at which natural gas extraction takes place. I give way to the Member.

Can I commend the Member for actually bringing forward this debate on this legislative proposal? Would he note that in the US where, on a state-by-state basis, they looked at this technology, the ones that allowed it to develop into something of a bonanza actually had to reduce and diminish their environmental legislation to make it happen? They actually stripped away protections to make it happen, and that had an impact on public health too.

I’m sure the Member is correct, and we are faced with this challenge of leaving the European Union and keeping our high environmental standards, and I think that’s a challenge of a country that has its Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as a centrepiece of its legislation.

In terms of protecting the environment, fracking will not help us either combat climate change or end our dependency on fossil fuels. Shale gas is terrible news for our climate. Fracking will create more climate-changing gases, it’s not compatible with our climate change targets, and shale gas will keep us hooked on fossil fuels and distract us from the real solutions of the future: energy efficiency and renewable energy. Allowing fracking in Wales, I also suggest, would make a nonsense of the Government’s own recently announced target of 70 per cent of our electricity to come from renewable resources.

There’s also a risk that fracking could contaminate water. The UK’s Environment Agency found that flowback liquid from the Lancashire shale contained, and I quote,

notably high levels of sodium, chloride, bromide and iron, as well as higher values of lead’.

The impact on our landscape would be enormous. For fracking to be fully developed, we could see 10,000 to 20,000 wells scattered around the countryside in clumps of six to seven on so-called drilling pads. I do note, with a deep irony, that those who are the strongest backers of fracking tend to be those who oppose windfarms in the strongest possible terms as well.

It may also be the case that the UK’s geology would not support fracking. In August 2017, Professor John Underhill, Heriot-Watt University’s chief scientist, stated this:

The inherent complexity of the sedimentary basins has not been fully appreciated or articulated and, as a result, the opportunity has been overhyped.’

He warned against relying on shale gas to, quote,

ride to the rescue of the UK’s gas needs only to discover that we’re 55 million years too late.’

Plaid Cymru wants to end our dependence on fossil fuels, and this does include a complete ban on fracking. We acknowledge that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity, and we need to decarbonise our energy sector. It remains our aspiration to produce as much electricity as is consumed in Wales from renewables by 2035. Fracking is diverting the attention of the energy sector and, possibly, public funding as well, from sustainable and renewable sources of energy. Instead of investing in fossil fuels, the UK Government should be investing in clean renewable technology. Swansea bay tidal lagoon has a huge potential for the Welsh economy and could create more jobs without the risks to public health and the wider environment.

I hope today the Welsh Government will support this proposal as a commitment to use the powers when they come into force next April to ban fracking in Wales. Instead, we should look to amend the land-use planning legislation to fast-track community-owned and farmer-owned energy schemes, with a presumption in favour of development. We would then transform our energy policy to place the interests of Welsh communities at the heart of everything we do.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), I haven’t selected the amendment tabled to the motion. David Melding.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I say we’re happy to note the proposal without necessarily endorsing it? I do have a qualified position on this. Also, the current position, which is essentially a moratorium on applications until this area is devolved, is something we think is appropriate so that, in effect, the Welsh Government and this Assembly are allowed to develop an evidence-based approach. I do have some reservations about an approach that says, on every ground, it is comprehensively banned, because I think evidence usually requires a slightly more nuanced and subtle use than that, and I do think it’s very important that we develop our public policies in the light of evidence.

There are some potential benefits—at least, those who propose the use of fracking talk about them: the use of gas instead of coal, if that stops us shifting to renewables as quickly as we want, I can see how it diverts attention, but it is kinder than coal, we know that; and the possible income and investment in former coalfield communities, I don’t think these things can just simply be put aside. However, there is a lot of public opposition, and it is a very—or it seems to be, anyway—a very disruptive intervention and it has a big impact on our landscape. So, I don’t think those factors can be put to one side very easily, and they’re certainly of concern to communities around Wales.

But I come down to this need for an evidence-based approach, and we do need to make a fair assessment of this technology to see if is able to be exploited to some degree. I know there have been lots of arguments, from earthquakes to flaming taps, and if they’re there, and it’s robust that those are a real risk, then we must, obviously, pay attention to that and act on it. But I do think some of the range of stories you hear require us, anyway, to apply—

Will you give way?

[Continues.]—full rigour to those claims. I’ll give way.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I understand the evidence base you’re asking for, but there’s also a problem that there’s no evidence base to actually support—to analyse the impacts upon the environment. That’s what we need. We need to look at the impacts on the environment and, unfortunately, we have yet to get that, so we haven’t got it for, but we also haven’t got the problems shown either.

I think we should advance in a way that is fair to all technologies, basically. So, I think that’s what we need to remember when we’re looking at developing energy sources, that we use the same criteria.

I think one of the big issues that fracking would have to face is whether it can be reconciled at all with our wider strategic objectives, especially in the well-being of future generations Act. Now that, I do accept, is a very material point. I also accept that the application of this technology in Britain may have been exaggerated. I think, in general, it is more feasible in areas that are away from population and of a wider area. We are talking about fairly constrained sites, so those are big, big factors.

So, I’m happy to note this and to look forward to a full and proper evidence-based approach from the Welsh Government and this Assembly. I suspect the people of Wales would expect—would require, anyway—great reassurance if this sort of technology is going to be used on any scale whatsoever.

For me, this isn’t about flaming taps or earthquakes. These are clearly issues that would need to be sorted out if fracking was ever to be permitted, but I think there’s a much broader point that this debate is about that cuts through, I think, some of the tortured arguments that David Melding just made.

Our whole way of life, since the second industrial revolution, has been built upon access to energy derived from fossil fuels, and we’ve built a materially prosperous society on that. However, as a matter of logic, if it is based on finite natural resource, then surely there’s going to come a time when that reaches its limit.

Now I’m not anti-technology—far from it. I’m very open to the idea that innovation can help us find ways of improving our way of life that are consistent with respecting the planet’s boundaries, but I do worry that most of us are in denial about the impact that human behaviour has had on our environment and impacted its ability to sustain us in the way of life we’ve come to assume is our right. My problem with fracking is that, instead of taking the hint that we’re reaching the limits of our reliance on fossil fuels, we’re trying to blast the last bit of gas out of the earth to sustain an industrial lifestyle, instead of confronting the fact that we need to find new ways of doing things.

Now, the gas produced through fracking may emit only half as much carbon dioxide as coal, but this doesn’t take into account the leakage of methane and other greenhouse gases during the process. When these are added in, studies show, the shale gas can create even more pollution than coal, and I don’t see how releasing highly damaging gases into the air that contribute significantly to greenhouse gases and rising temperatures is consistent with our stated policy of cutting emissions year on year. I heard David Melding call for nuance and policy that is based on evidence. Well, the evidence on climate change is fundamentally clear and there’s no room for nuance around it. This is a threat to our and our future generations’ lifestyles, and we must tackle it with a clarity that does not allow for nuance. So, I don’t see how we can countenance sanctioning fracking in Wales, and for that reason I support the Bill.

I would say, Llywydd, we need to stop trying to find a way around this to please corporate interests. We need to focus on developing our economy in a way that respects the needs and well-being of future generations. Our focus should be on reducing the amount of energy we need through innovation and building up our renewables capacity so that it not only meets our energy needs, but can provide us with green energy that we can sell and export. Let’s end Wales’s association with dirty energy and make us leaders in clean energy.

Let me first say that, as things currently stand, I would be very concerned to see any fracking in Wales. It’s not been proven to be safe, but neither has it been proven that it cannot be made safe. I also agree with much of what Simon Thomas and Lee Waters have said about the dangers of fracking, which is why the concept of fracking in Wales really, really, really does worry me. Before permitting energy sources such as fracking that could affect the ecological or geographic environment, we need to be informed and certain of its consequences on our environment and people living in the vicinity of it.

The proponents of fracking say that fracking allows drilling firms to access difficult-to-reach resources of oil and gas. I’m sure that’s true. In the US, it has significantly boosted domestic oil production and driven down gas prices. It’s estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. The industry suggests that fracking of shale gas could contribute significantly to the UK’s future energy needs, and the taskforce on shale gas, an industry-funded body, has said that the UK needs to start fracking to establish the possible economic impact of shale gas, saying it could create thousands of jobs. However, those against fracking point to some largely unanswered environmental concerns.

Fracking uses huge amounts of water, which must be transported to the fracking site at significant environmental cost. Environmentalists say that potential carcinogenic chemicals used may escape and contaminate ground water around the fracking site. The industry itself suggests that pollution incidents are the result of bad practice rather than an inherently risky technique. But, while it might be that good practice may prevent pollution, we must be mindful that, when profit and loss come into play, the temptation for corner-cutting may be an overriding one. There are also worries that the fracking process can cause small earth tremors, as happened near Blackpool in 2011.

Objectors also point out that fracking is simply distracting energy firms and Governments from investing in renewable sources of energy and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. But, although that may be the case, I believe that any restrictions or controls on fracking should be based solely on the safety and sustainability of the process, rather than a means to encourage exploration of alternative energy sources. We should of course be exploring renewables, and are doing so. But it would be sensible and prudent to have a healthy mix of energy sources, and it may well be that fracking could be a safe and acceptable part of that mix.

So, turning to the motion, I think there may come a time when it might be appropriate to introduce a presumption against fracking. However, this proposal pre-empts a finding that fracking cannot be safe. We all know that sourcing energy comes at some cost to the environment, whether it be fossil fuels or the development or installation of renewables. So, we can’t expect fracking or any other energy source to be problem-free. But we do owe it to the people of Wales to find out to the highest degree possible what the implications of fracking are, and whether fracking can or cannot be safe. I believe that we need to properly and carefully gather and examine the evidence, perhaps via the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which could come back to this place to present objective findings and an educated and evidence-based recommendation as to whether we should presume in favour or against approvals for fracking. It may well be that we will find that we should presume against approval, and I have no problem supporting that stance should the evidence point that way. But, until we have that proper study, we are simply relying on dribs and drabs of information from either the pro or anti lobby, whose members may have vested interests.

So, in summary, I am not saying that we should not presume against. I’m saying it’s perfectly possible that we should presume against. We just don’t have enough information from reliable and objective sources to make that judgment right now. Once we’ve decided if there should be a presumption either way, it remains UKIP policy that any final decision should be made by the people who live in the local area via a referendum. While some may attempt to undermine this policy by moaning about the cost of a local referendum, on such important issues we should be giving local people a stronger voice in their area. The costs of such a vote could become part of the application costs for the multinationals that would be looking for a decent frack. Thank you.

I support Simon Thomas’s Bill for all the reasons that have already been outlined on environmental grounds, and we need to be moving away from fossil fuels and on to renewables. There’s one aspect I’d like to interrogate Simon Thomas on, which is how we fulfil our global responsibilities in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Because we have to bear in mind that Centrica, which is the largest energy supplier in the UK, has already invested £40 million in a 25 per cent stake in the Bowland exploration licence. So, how would you frame your legislation to ensure that people were aware that, although they thought we were in a frack-free country, if we simply import it from another energy supplier who is fracking over the border or somewhere else, we are simply burning up the carbon that we should be endeavouring to save? Therefore, I think that this is a particularly important point. I’m concerned that Centrica says one thing and does another. Because it claims to be a world leader in new technologies and cleaning up the world, but, actually, it is one of the largest donors to something called the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which sounds very cuddly but is a climate-denying fossil fuel lobby. So, therefore, I wondered if you would be able to address that in your response.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for bringing this forward today? Because I think it’s an important proposal that he is putting down, and I took part in the debate in February 2015 in relation to fracking. Michelle Brown has highlighted, and I agree with her, that there is a mix of energy generation that is required. We all accept that. But it’s also important that, when we do that, we balance that with the safety of the environment. Therefore, we must look at those considerations, and I err on the side of the lack of evidence for safe fracking at this point, and that’s particularly important, because that is what we’re talking about, hydraulic fracturing—as we all know it, fracking—and the implications of that. Across the globe, environmental groups have mounted significant protests against fracking, citing the fact that the detrimental environmental impact that shale gas extraction may have could prove to be substantial. And that’s it: we don’t know, and I’d rather err on the side of safety.

There is no doubt that public concern is significant around fracking and the related industrial processes. As Simon Thomas highlighted, there is one application possibly waiting to come in, within—. Actually, it’s not Pontrhydyfen; it’s in Cwmafan, technically, because it’s in my own ward—but it is a concern. And boreholes have been approved, because there’s no control on boreholes. So, we should look at—. If you are going to look at it, expand, look beyond just fracking itself; look at the boreholes and the processes beforehand that can lead to the concerns of communities, not to understand the whole process. Cut it straight away and we are better off.

Dirprwy Lywydd—Llywydd, sorry—there are many gaps in the scientific literature regarding these impacts and, as a result, public debate often relies on information and anecdotal sources. We need to get the evidence. David Melding was quite right: evidence is important. But we need to have the evidence of safety or not safety, and that’s not there. And the analysis of geological structures—as Simon Thomas said, our strata are different here in Wales compared to—the Vale of Glamorgan, perhaps, compared to Blackpool. We need to have that investigation. Scientists from Global Responsibility and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health have published reports that reviewed current evidence, all issuing the fact that there are concerns.

The many environmental risks have already been mentioned—I won’t mention them all. But we also talk about health and safety aspects. We forget sometimes that there are workers on these sites, and Cornell University in the US actually conducted research that found that exposure to gas drilling operations was strongly implicated in serious health effects on humans and animals. And the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health released a hazard alert on data collected that workers may be exposed to dust with high levels of respirable crystalline silica—silicon dioxide—during fracking. So, there are serious health implications for workers. These can go on to people around the communities because, unlike America, we have tight spaces. And, unlike America, we have the opportunity perhaps now to do things.

It was mentioned by Huw Irranca-Davies that places in America are changing American laws. But New York State has banned fracking. Maryland has banned fracking. There are countries and regions that have banned fracking, and while we may not be the leader this time, I think we should definitely follow.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d like to begin by thanking Simon Thomas for bringing forward this proposal. And I note the terms of the motion and acknowledge the concerns several Members have raised in the Chamber today around fracking.

At the end of last year, I made a statement on our developing policy on energy. I set out three priorities: to use energy more efficiently, reduce our reliance on energy generated from fossil fuels, and drive the energy transition to deliver maximum benefits for Wales. Last month, I announced stretching targets for renewable energy, which include Wales generating 70 per cent of its electricity consumption from renewable energy by 2030. This will help us to decarbonise our energy system. Moving towards clean energy requires action to move away from continued fossil fuel extraction, as well as further work to encourage and incentivise the generation of renewable energy. And, of course, it was a key Welsh Labour manifesto commitment to continue our robust and unequivocal opposition to fracking. So, I believe Welsh Government has fully demonstrated we support the sentiments behind the motion.

It is an opportune time to take action to prevent Wales being locked in to further fossil fuel extraction through onshore unconventional oil and gas, such as shale or coalbed methane. We already have a precautionary planning framework through two notifications directions that have been issued in respect of unconventional oil and gas extraction. However, I recognise there is a need to do more. I’ve already commenced a review of ‘Planning Policy Wales’ to ensure it best fits with the intentions of our well-being goals and supports progress in terms of our decarbonisation agenda. As part of this revision of national planning policy, I will strengthen planning policy in relation to the extraction of onshore unconventional oil and gas, and will be consulting on changes early next year. I have written to chief planning officers informing them I intend to consult on such changes. I am confident the changes I propose to consult upon through my overall revision of ‘Planning Policy Wales’ will achieve the objectives of the motion without the immediate need for changes to the law. However, I do not rule out the possibility of introducing legislation at some future date if it proves necessary.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. I was about to intervene on the Minister there when she concluded her comments, so I will make the comments that I’d intended to make there now. I’m grateful that she has just confirmed that she will retain the current moratorium, but also that she recognises that when the further powers do come to us here in the Assembly, it would be possible for the Government, if necessary, to take statutory legal steps in order to ensure that the current situation remains. I don’t think she has dealt with some of the concerns that others have in terms of the testing or in terms of the drilling, and I think that’s perhaps where the Government may need to look in the future.

If I could just respond to the debate more broadly by saying that I’m grateful to every Member who participated in the debate. I sense that a majority here are in favour of a ban on fracking in Wales, and a full ban for the reasons that have been outlined very clearly by people such as David Rees, Lee Waters and Jenny Rathbone too. Now, I recognise the dilemma that David Melding finds himself in, because the Conservative Party in Wales in 2016 wanted to retain the moratorium on fracking, but a year later in the general election this year the UK Conservative Party said:

Byddwn yn datblygu’r diwydiant siâl ym Mhrydain.

I think David Melding has performed a miracle in making the argument that he did make, but I would tell him and others here that the feeling among the population against fracking is so strong that this is an opportunity—and I say that positively. It’s an opportunity for us to restate how we can develop alternative technologies and renewable technologies instead of fracking in Wales. And in that sense, I stand with Lee Waters. We are not against new technology; in fact, I want to see the development of new technologies in Wales—for example, offshore where £100 million of European funding and Welsh Government funding is now invested around the coastlines of Wales to develop marine energy. This is where we want to see industry work and investment done in Wales, not underground with fracking in geology that is, if I may say, increasingly clearly, inappropriate for the kinds of developments that have taken place in the US or Canada. Our geology and our communities aren’t appropriate for those kinds of developments in terms of underground gas.

And the final point that I want to raise is a point raised by Jenny Rathbone. Yes, we can’t disconnect entirely from fracking, and I will answer the question by asking another question, if I may. There is gas coming into Milford Haven today. There’ll be a huge a tanker outside the port. That’s LPG but where LPG goes depends on the price of fracked gas in the United States, and although we’re not importing that directly, the price of the gas and where it goes and whether it goes from the western isles to us, or from Qatar or to South Korea all depends on the international price of gas, and we can’t disengage from that.

But I would conclude by endorsing the words of David Rees. Although we wouldn’t be the first to ban fracking, given the history that we have of underground gas and underground energy, we could take hold of that history and make a stance and make it clear that Wales is not a nation where fracking should be allowed.

The proposal is to note the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item is a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee on Communities First, and I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased to open today’s debate, and I’d firstly like to thank all those who provided written and oral evidence to this inquiry, as well as the staff and service users that we met on our visits, and place on record our acknowledgment of the significant and important work that has been delivered by Communities First projects and staff across Wales over the last 16 years. It has had a positive impact on individuals, in many cases life changing, as with a number of young people in my own constituency who are now working in community development themselves and helping to bring about further positive change within their communities.

Following the announcement to wind down the programme, we decided to do a short inquiry that focused on three things: the strengths and weaknesses of Communities First, transitional arrangements and the impact on other related programmes. We published our initial findings in July and followed this up with a more detailed report, which was published last week. We made 11 recommendations. The Government accepted six, accepted in principle three and rejected two.

We strongly recommended that a tackling poverty strategy should be published. The Government rejected this recommendation, saying that its policy would be set out in ‘Prosperity for All’, its national strategy that was then published in September, and that it wanted to take a more holistic approach in responding to the long-term challenges.

While we welcome a cross-departmental response, we still believe a poverty strategy is essential. It would show how the cross-Government approach is working and would enable the Assembly to scrutinise its effectiveness. We do not think a holistic approach prevents such a strategy and action plan. So, I would press the Cabinet Secretary to reconsider these matters.

Moving on to the transitional arrangements for Communities First, in guidance, the Welsh Government stated that the three Es—employability, early years, and empowerment—should inform decision making for local authorities. The evidence we heard highlighted the importance of the Welsh Government’s employability plan and, in our report, we highlighted that it has still not been published. This has made it more difficult for local authorities to draw up their transitional plans, and for us as a committee to understand the full impact of the end of Communities First. We would urge the Welsh Government to publish it as soon as possible.

Moving on to empowerment. Local authorities and other key stakeholders told us they were unclear what it meant in practical terms. We therefore recommended that Welsh Government should clarify this, and that was accepted in principle. Transitional guidance is cited as defining empowerment as:

making sure communities are engaged and empowered to have their voices heard in the decisions that affect them.’

We do not believe that this definition provides the necessary clarity and would ask the Cabinet Secretary to provide some concrete examples of what is meant in practical terms.

Communities First has been delivering a wide range of different projects across Wales. Some of these, though, could—or, some would argue, should—be delivered by statutory services. We therefore recommended that Welsh Government should ensure that local authorities identify such programmes and that those that are successful and valued by communities are transferred to relevant statutory bodies. This would then enable limited legacy funding to be directed to projects that Communities First does best.

The Government accepted this recommendation and outlined how they were taking this forward. However, while welcoming the work that is being done around health and education, more information on what support is being offered to projects that fall outside of these areas would be appreciated. Additionally, the work that is being done will not capture any projects that were closed down directly as the result of the announcement to wind down the Communities First programme. I would therefore like more information on whether the Welsh Government has made any assessment of the number and details of such projects, especially those concerning health and education that fall outside of the three Es.

During oral evidence, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that legacy funding would be available for the next two financial years. He also added that there was the possibility of a further two years’ provision. We called for clarity. The Government then confirmed the commitment to funding for the next two years, but again did not clarify the position beyond that time. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary were to provide that clarity today, and if he cannot do that, to commit to doing so before the publication of the final 2018-19 budget.

Llywydd, in closing, I would like to reiterate my comments commending the work done by Communities First across Wales, but now that the decision has been made to close the programme, it is essential that the transitional arrangements and continuing delivery are robust and help protect the most effective elements of the programme. I hope our report will play a part in this, and I now look forward to hearing Members’ contributions. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Chairman for those comments then, and for the work that the committee and everybody has done on this. We heard from a large number of witnesses throughout this inquiry, and I think what has stood out the most from it is the total lack of consistency experienced across Communities First in terms of outcomes, working partnerships and management. For some, we did hear positive reports, and, of course, that is fantastic. Some mentioned true engagement with those most disengaged and the lives of some individuals being demonstrably improved by the dedication and hard work of certain staff members. But from others—and I think it’s fair to say the majority—I would say real concerns were raised. As noted in the report, despite running for over 15 years, and at a cost of over £432 million to the taxpayer, it does remain unclear at best as to whether this programme will have had much sustainable impact at all. We heard concerns from a number of witnesses with regards to the place-based approach taken, with the Bevan Foundation asserting that this type of intervention simply does not work and makes an assumption that the individual is the problem and should be treated, leaving open further questions about other potential problems with leaving the other place-based initiatives in place while Communities First winds down.

So, given the findings outlined in the report, I would be interested to know whether the Welsh Government plans to look into any potential programme adjustment with regard to Flying Start, Communities for Work and Lift. In terms of management and working partnerships, it was incredibly disappointing to note that performance management frameworks did not join up, and that a protectionist attitude and/or silo mentality has led to insufficient talking. We know in organisations and other groups how that can be a real danger, especially with regard to the duplication caused by reluctance to engage in true partnership working. These kinds of attitudes simply are not acceptable where public resources are being used, and when the future of individual lives can be so dramatically and personally affected.

Of course, the failure by the Welsh Government to publish their employability plan made it hard for the committee to really assess the full impact of the closure of Communities First. Frankly, this is not acceptable, and we hope to see this plan published as soon as possible to ensure proper scrutiny against this key policy driver.

So, I think, as a minimum, based on our inquiry, the Welsh Government needs to reflect on the findings of the report and ensure lessons are learnt for the future programme, in whatever form it may take. Going forward, I would suggest that the Welsh Government takes a good, long look at itself and, in fact, undertakes an investigation as to why this programme has been allowed to run for so long when there have been such glaring problems in certain areas. Giving evidence, the Cabinet Secretary said that he thought that

what Communities First has done is that it has had the ability to stop communities probably getting poorer.’

This isn’t good enough. We must be showing far, far more ambition than this, and I do look forward to further working in this area from the Welsh Government, seeing them demonstrate far more robust, workable and concrete aims to deliver poverty reduction across Wales. For what it’s worth, I actually believe that Communities First now should be wound up. It’s failed as a project, and I would certainly look at our future generations, and the implications on that, and providing sustainability for our most vulnerable communities. And I would ask the Cabinet Secretary how he is working with our future well-being co-ordinator in taking forward a better programme, so that we can have real, sustainable outcomes. Thank you.

There are now only 18 months to go until the phase-out of Communities First is concluded. And, in terms of the transfer of delivery and legacy funding, we must be confident that statutory bodies that will take over delivery of current projects have the funding required to deliver those projects, and that money is ring-fenced accordingly. I say that because, today, there are some questions over the merging of some funding streams related to Supporting People, some of which could include aspects of current Communities First schemes. So, I need to understand here today whether the budget allocation process currently under way is going to include an overall cut in the amount that is currently spent on Communities First. And will you categorically rule that out as Cabinet Secretary?

There is a note in the Cabinet Secretary’s committee response that states that there will be no financial implications, as spending on programmes going forward will be drawn from existing budgets, but it does not say which budgets, or if the budgets where Communities First will be merged into will have a corresponding increase in money. I think we need clarification on that. It says in response to the committee report that individual strategies for specific aspects of poverty will be rejected by the Government going forward. Of course, we understand as a party that there needs to be a cross-cutting approach, with attention paid to how various aspects are drawn together, but what about a separate child poverty approach?

Myself and Sian Gwenllian, my colleague, have raised on numerous occasions—both in the committee, and here in the Chamber—that there should be consideration of a dedicated child poverty strategy, as many other countries have, because aspects of child poverty cross-cut beyond economic issues, particularly relating to local government, social services and housing, for example, and education, education equalities, and intervention for children in a crisis, for example. So, we’re not satisfied that there is no need for that individualised strategy in relation to child poverty.

In relation to Flying Start, we acknowledge there is a postcode lottery to this programme, and the Government does accept that this isn’t ideal. However, although there are options for flexibility, I can’t see from the Government’s response to what extent they are taken out—I believe it’s called ‘outreach’—how many local areas take up that outreach opportunity to expand on Flying Start, and what are the opportunities ongoing.

I understand—you’ve heard me say before as well—that monitoring and reporting need to be improved on with any new moneys moving forward, emanating from Communities First. We’ve had evidence that, once somebody gets into a job, there is a lack of information as to how long they stay in that particular job, and the follow through in relation to support for that particular individual. I have a personal concern as well that Communities for Work is clearly set up in a Communities First area. If that is one of the answers to replacing Communities First, via current economic European levers, how is that going to be extended in future, given that it does, at the moment, cater for a smaller geographical area?

Our frustration as well, as a committee—and, no, I can’t speak for everybody on the committee—was a lot of emphasis was put on the employability plan, employability strategy, moving forward, which I believe is in the hands of Julie James AM, but it’s very difficult to analyse how that would be a response to Communities First, when we have simply not seen any of the detail, and we’ve been promised it time and time again. So, we can’t, at this moment in time, be assured that that can be the silver bullet to Communities First going into other funding streams, because we simply don’t have the knowledge and the detail in front of us.

Ultimately, I haven’t understood precisely the rationale for ending Communities First in and of itself. It might be good to have a frank conversation about the fact that, potentially, it’s because, ultimately, it failed to achieve what it set out to achieve. We can’t simply throw away money like this in the future, because it’s a lot of money that’s gone to something that has not been a success. While individual projects may have been successful, as a concept it did not succeed. So, we need reassurance, not only as a committee, but as AMs that any future schemes will go about doing what they intend to do and that local people can be as involved as possible.

I don’t have much time left, but my other biggest bugbear was this whole concept of empowerment. It says you define empowerment, and I quote,

as making sure communities are engaged and empowered to have their voices heard in the decisions that affect them.’

That doesn’t say much. It doesn’t say how they’re going to be engaged, how they’re going to get involved in the process. We can bandy these terms around as much as we like—as we did with ‘programme bending’ for however long when I was first elected—but words need to transform into action. I hope that you will listen to that comment and make sure that citizens are involved in any future make-up in a proactive and meaningful way when thinking about the future of helping those in areas of poverty in Wales.

Can I thank the committee Chair for his statement and, indeed, the honesty of his report? In 2001, the Welsh Government launched its regeneration strategy for the south Wales Valleys. Amongst the many initiatives envisaged the flagship proposal was the Communities First programme. This, as the name suggests, was to be a communities-based set of interventions that were designed to eradicate poverty across what used to be termed the south Wales coalfield. Sixteen years later, and with £432 million invested in the project, the Welsh Government itself has finally decided that its impact has been negligible. Why? Because the Valleys still continue to top the league tables for inequalities of poverty, health and education.

Although this project was supposed to be community driven, Government and local authorities controlled the funding. In many instances, the governance boards set up to administer the programmes under the scheme were populated largely by local councillors, which meant many decisions were made with regard to party political agendas. Community engagement was thus much diminished. It must be acknowledged that there were instances of good practice and some substantial achievements, particularly with regard to children and young people, but these were patchy and certainly not universal.

The overall failure of Communities First must also be viewed in the context of some £1.2 billion of so-called European funding spent on other Valleys initiatives. ‘Strategic partnerships’, ‘capacity building’, ‘joined-up thinking’ and ‘local action plans’ were the buzzwords of the time—all compelling rhetoric, but short on delivery. Hindsight is, of course, a powerful tool, but there is much about the Communities First project that should have been seen not to be able to deliver the required goals. Perhaps the failures of the scheme could have been avoided by initiating a stand-alone pilot project to evaluate its possible outcomes, which could then have been rolled out in a more co-ordinated fashion.

The Welsh Government made substantial mistakes in the regeneration strategies—Communities First amongst its most prominent. But it is immensely encouraging to see that it appears to have learnt from these failures and now seems to be embracing a whole new ideology with regard to eliminating poverty. There seems to be a very real realisation in this Welsh Government that poverty can only be eradicated by a strong industry-based economy. The truth is, only good well-paid jobs can achieve the goal of poverty eradication and that is why we in UKIP will support any Government strategy to build a strong, resilient industrial economy in the Valleys of south Wales.

I appreciate some of the nuances in this debate today. Communities First has played a role in my area and I don’t recognise the language of failure, because many people in my community will say that Communities First didn’t fail, but actually provided a great deal of uplift to people who live in my community. I’ve seen in the report the evidence of strengths. There’s a lot about the value of engagement and engaging with people who otherwise wouldn’t have engaged in community activities. I’ve seen people go from strength to strength. One very small example in my constituency: in my council ward, when I was a councillor, I was involved in the demolition and rebuilding of a local community centre and we had £400,000 from the Big Lottery. I absolutely say, guaranteed, that there were people involved in that project who would not have been as involved in that project if they hadn’t developed the skills they had through Communities First. So, there was a definite benefit, even if sometimes the benefit wasn’t exactly as intended by the project. So, I think the language of failure is wrong to use. I’ve seen places like Aber valley, Bargoed, Cefn Hengoed, Graig-y-Rhacca and Lansbury Park, all benefit from Communities First.

Just to look at three recommendations that took my interest and the interest of some of my constituents: recommendation 11, recommendation 5 and recommendation 6. Recommendation 11 looks at the closure of Communities First and the impact on other Welsh Government programmes. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted the recommendation. In the Aber valley in my constituency, there are two bodies that were reliant on Communities First funding; that’s the Senghenydd Youth Drop In Centre, which I’ve mentioned before, and the Aber Valley YMCA. They took part in Communities First projects, but unfortunately, the lead delivery body hasn’t included them in the targets for legacy funding. I know that that Cabinet Secretary will want to take a limited role in these areas, but what opportunities for appeal would there be for those areas that may not be included by the lead body in legacy funding, other than going to their local Assembly Member and asking them to raise those issues here in this Chamber? I think that’s quite an important issue to address.

The other one is recommendation 5, which is addressing the issue of employability. The recommendation asks the Cabinet Secretary to take the broadest view of employability. Yesterday, I talked about the launch of the Federation of Small Businesses self-employment report. I feel that, as Communities First is wound up, then we should not just look at employability, but also self-employability and the role that self-employability can play in the employability programme. There’s 8.7 per cent self-employed in the Valleys communities, which includes Caerphilly. How can we then ensure that that number grows so that the people who wish to be self-employed, particularly women, can access self-employment? That would involve engaging further education colleges, local schools and people who would operate successfully through Communities First in previous cluster areas.

Finally, recommendation 6, for my contribution. We know that the lower super-output areas tend to exclude people who may be living in poverty outside of those areas and the concept of outreach is very welcome. Bethan Jenkins has already mentioned the fact that perhaps we need some expansion of the understanding of outreach, as the programme is wound up. The children’s commissioner gave evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee last week, in which she said that she would like to see the childcare offer extended to non-working parents. In order to do that, you’ve effectively got to end austerity and I would understand the Cabinet Secretary’s view if he were to say that that would be incredibly difficult within existing budgets—virtually impossible. However, I understood from my discussion with, and my questioning of, the children’s commissioner that what she was referring to was an extension of Flying Start universally, and, again, that would be virtually impossible. However, looking at the issues of outreach, where can we be clearer about how outreach can be introduced within local authority areas? I’d like the Cabinet Secretary to explore that in as much detail as possible. I’m therefore pleased that, again, he’s accepted those recommendations.

I think this report should be welcomed. I think it makes a valuable, cross-party, independent contribution to the discussion about Communities First and I’m glad that the Government has looked on this in a very open-minded, clear and honest way and I look to see those improvements that I’ve suggested, and that other Members have suggested, being taken on board by the Government, and I really believe that they will.

I cannot find any reference in this report on key lessons learnt from Communities First to key issues such as programme bending, grant-recipient bodies, the damning Wales Audit Office reports and the rejected proposals to take Communities First forward from 2012. Like many, I gave my support to the programme when it was launched because we were told it was about genuine community empowerment and ownership. My initial concerns were raised when evidence-based allegations were brought to me of Welsh Government gerrymandering, manipulating Communities First boundaries for political advantage in rural north Flintshire. This concern was added to by growing evidence that the programme wasn’t delivering improved outcomes for people in the Communities First areas, with high inactivity and benefit dependency and low prosperity levels persisting. But, whenever we challenged the Welsh Government over this during the second and third Assemblies, they told us that Communities First was instead about programme bending, conveniently ignoring that the purpose of programme bending was supposed to be delivering improved outcomes.

Well, we’ve heard that the programme, between 2001 and 2017, involved spending of nearly £0.5 billion. Well, the 2006 interim evaluation of Communities First found

little evidence of rigorous monitoring and evaluation’

and that

Communities First is still a long way away from producing the regeneration outcomes that…are its main aim.’

As a member of the Audit Committee in the second Assembly, I successfully called for an inquiry into Communities First to be included in the Wales Audit Office forward work programme. The resulting Wales Audit Office report, published in July 2009, found significant Welsh Government failure, stating that serious weaknesses in financial planning and the processes of funding the programme led to widespread variation in funding with no clear rationale into funding decisions, that there was an absence of basic human resource and financial planning, that monitoring was weak, and that there was no evidence that anything was done with the feedback.

The 2008 Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, ‘Community empowerment in practice: lessons from Communities First’ found a general failure to exert community influence over statutory members of Communities First partnerships and

no evidence of significant mainstream “programme bending” where statutory agencies prioritised actions and expenditure in the Communities First partnership area.’

The Plas Madoc Communities First whistleblower asked for my help as she’d properly reported her concerns to the Welsh Government only to then suffer false allegations against her rather than see action against the guilty parties. It was only after I referred this to the Wales Audit Office, supported by a Plaid Cymru Member and a Liberal Democrat Member, and after the Wales Audit Office then produced a report confirming

a fundamental lack of financial control and governance’

that action was taken that led to the conviction of the Communities First co-ordinator.

False allegations of a similar nature were then made against the Higher Shotton Communities First co-ordinator after she whistleblew against Flintshire Council, then one of the few local authority Communities First grant recipient bodies in Wales, stating that they were wrongly taking control of the programmes and diverting funding outside the Communities First area. Another Communities First co-ordinator in Flintshire had resigned under similar pressure.

The joint paper published in 2011 by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, the Centre for Regeneration Excellence Wales and Community Development Cymru, ‘Communities First—A Way Forward’, found that the original design of the programme was flawed and that the missing link in achieving community ownership was the lack of a longer term vision in the Communities First programme that, quote, ‘would move beyond programme and Government dependency and provide the community-owned dimension which is often sought but seldom achieved in creating a better Wales.’

The Minister then and Cabinet Secretary now rejected this, instead rolling out the 2012 cluster model and ignoring the lessons from Flintshire and made most local authorities the Communities First grant recipient bodies, enabling too many to encroach on programme delivery and emasculate the communities themselves.

In February, the Cabinet Secretary Carl Sargeant revealed that Communities First will be phased out by March 2018 and, in June, he told the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee that the programme would not be replaced, that the record of its work in Wales’s most deprived areas had been mixed and that the figures aren’t moving. What an admission of failure. And all because the little Napoleons failed to understand that as well as having needs and problems, our most marginalised communities also have social, cultural and material assets and that identifying and mobilising these can help them overcome the challenge they face and that citizens and communities should be seen as the co-producers of health and well-being rather than simply the recipients of services.

Can I say, firstly, that anyone who thought a £30 million-a-year programme would eradicate poverty was somewhat hyper-optimistic and delusional? This is echoed by the evidence of Caerphilly council. Can I just say that to expect a single programme to singlehandedly reduce poverty is naïve and unrealistic? You will never eradicate generational poverty by a single anti-poverty programme. It has been very successful at some things and not so successful at others, but actually, poverty, fundamentally, is down to economics. Anti-poverty programmes and employment support programmes are all well and good, but, unless you have a robust economy, then we’re never going to eradicate it.

We also know that the first thing that the majority of people who live in a homogenously poor area do when they increase their income sufficiently is move—they move to a more affluent area. I think the Chair will be able to tell us about that. But we know the characteristics of poor communities: poor health; high numbers of people on benefits; those not on benefits on low pay and irregular hours; general low educational attainment; few books in the home; with many, a sense that things cannot get better. Where you have an area that is disadvantaged, then, to quote the Welsh Local Government Association,

if you look at the most disadvantaged areas, they’ve got the most parts of the system where intervention is needed, so they need a multi-agency approach, an intensive piece of work, to put all the bits back, and get them working again. In a more affluent area, where you’ve got pockets of poverty, the system isn’t quite as broken, and, therefore, you need fewer interventions—more specific interventions—to help those people get back up and running’.

Ynys Môn council said:

The programme has reaped success for changing and improving individual people’s lives by supporting them into training, volunteering and work opportunities and improving their life skills’.

To quote Swansea council:

Community based, accessible services allow staff to understand communities, building relationships and trust that support disengaged people to participate in and access services that they would not otherwise’.

Turning to recommendation 1, which I think is incredibly important, what’s going to happen to what has been done? I think it doesn’t matter if you call it Communities First or you call it ‘Swansea First’ or if you call it ‘Making a community better’. It doesn’t matter, the title—it’s what’s going to happen to the schemes.

Communities First successes in Swansea include—and I’ll just talk about health first—weight loss programmes, improved diet, smoking cessation programmes, exercise programmes. Will Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board or Health Improvement Wales take these on? Because these really are important, in my opinion. I think, far too often, for health, we keep on thinking it’s hospitals—we need more money in hospitals; we need to do more in hospitals. I believe that we need to do more of getting people fit and well so that they don’t end up in hospital. I know how the life expectancy in some of our poorer areas can be up to 10 years less than that in some of our richer areas. You’ve got to improve lifestyle.

On poverty: a project that looked to help people to reduce their utility bills; a clothing shop project, which recycled unwanted clothes; a project that promoted the local credit union and getting people out of doorstep lenders, which is one of the biggest problems that happen in some of our poorest communities. These doorstep lenders, some are meant to be national companies, but they certainly do cause huge problems and they end up paying massive interest rates, some of our poorest people. Who will take on projects like these?

Low educational attainment is a major cause of poverty. Projects prioritised improved educational attainment by helping adults back into learning. Family learning projects operated in partnership with local schools. Homework club sessions targeted children and parents who don’t have ICT and internet facilities at home, supporting young people with their education. I was very fortunate that I was brought up at a time when I was not disadvantaged, because no household had more books than I could access from the local library. Now, there are those who are ICT-rich and those who are ICT-poor, and that does make a huge difference to the educational attainment of very many children. I think that’s one of my greatest fears at the moment, that, if you’re poor now and you don’t have access to all the ICT equipment, then you’re going to be disadvantaged as a child. A parent and toddler group aimed at increasing the development and learning of pre-school children. A homework club provided support to children with their homework and, more importantly, ICT facilities for them to be able to do it. There was also a scheme that encouraged a learning environment in the family home. Who is going to take these over?

On Flying Start, what the Chair of the committee has seen in Newport is replicated in Swansea East, where relatively affluent areas distort the data, so the poorest areas in Swansea—Plasmarl, the terraces of Plasmarl—do not get Flying Start. Yet, the converse is true. I’ve got large detached houses that are in a Flying Start area, because they’re close to a very poor council estate. This cannot be right, and I think it really is important that we ensure that Flying Start targets individuals and is not based upon somebody living 10 streets away being rich.

There are many things that we can learn from Communities First. I do think that there was a failure back in 2001 to establish a robust evaluation mechanism that could have exposed poor programmes much more systematically and much more quickly, because, unless you have some effective monitoring arrangement, it’s impossible for Welsh Government, based in Cardiff, to pinpoint areas of concern until they become a crisis.

I think that some of the things that occurred during the early programmes also indicate a failure to hold delivery bodies to account, because, ultimately, although it was a bottom-up programme that required the community to shape the way in which services were going to be delivered, nevertheless there was always a delivery body that had to be there to ensure that things were done appropriately and that the governance arrangements were in place. I’m not aware of any of the delivery bodies being held to account and being obliged to reimburse central Government where things went really badly wrong.

The 2002 refocus gave the programme a better central purpose—to tackle people’s employability and get more people into work—and that probably should have been there from the beginning, because it wouldn’t have prevented all the soft interventions that have enhanced community well-being and made people emotionally, physically and mentally more ready to take on employment, but it would have given you that central driving focus. I think it’s disappointing that we haven’t had any independent evaluation of the success of Communities First since the 2012 refocus, because I think it makes it more difficult for us to know what really does work and what doesn’t work in terms of trying to re-energise communities that need public investment to make them more sustainable.

One of the problems—or not the problems, one of the things where I perhaps disagree with many colleagues is that a geographical focus, in my view, is very important, because you have to put some ring fence around the area that you want to target, because otherwise it’s always easy for people who are delivering programmes to simply avoid the most challenging problems and go for the easy wins. So, I think that geographical focus is very important—that place-based approach—but using super-output areas is a convenient mechanism, because there are lines on maps, there are statistics that are collected for a whole host of reasons, which makes it easier to monitor the numerical achievements. But, clearly, super-output areas are a very blunt instrument in that, in many cases, they cut across streets, they cut across whole estates, which clearly produces anomalies in terms of injustice. But I think that the Communities First programmes weren’t sufficiently imaginative in finding ways in which they could get around that by engaging with other programmes that would enable them to take on individuals that were needing support but weren’t in the catchment, and I’m pleased that that is a recommendation that has come out of our report.

None of these regeneration programmes are forever, and I think it’s really important that people should have recognised that from the starting point, because the whole point of these programmes is to pilot innovative ways of working with very complex issues around poverty. It’s really, really complicated, and we needed, always, to have been bearing this in mind in terms of informing and reshaping statutory services so that we could deliver them better, and I am concerned that, if all Ministers are responsible for tackling poverty, it becomes nobody’s responsibility. So, I feel that the winding-down process needs to be robustly managed to ensure that local authorities, who are, in the main, the delivery bodies, are really analysing what are those aspects of the programme that have been really successful and that need to be incorporated into their mainstream delivery programmes, because, otherwise, I feel all the learning and the achievements of Communities First can be lost.

Firstly, like others, can I thank the committee for the comprehensive, if sometimes uncomfortable, reading in terms of the report? I’m not going to deal specifically with any of the recommendations in the report, but there are three key issues that I wanted to raise, focusing on the future and the actions that still need to be taken, and we will draw lessons from that report in terms of taking them forward. My comments, as you’ll appreciate, will be made in the context of areas like my own constituency. For me, this must be about what we deliver in the future, through and beyond the current transition period.

So, firstly, the report contains the inevitable realisation that the efforts of the Communities First programme faced an uphill challenge to overcome the history of social and economic deprivation of too many of our Valleys communities, in the context which I’m coming from. That task became almost impossible when we were faced with a UK Government that chose to pursue a policy of austerity, an austerity that was built around a programme of so-called welfare reform. If I refer back to my question to the Cabinet Secretary for finance early on, according to research by Sheffield Hallam University, that programme of reform is going to see nearly £0.5 billion a year being removed from Valleys communities. The welfare reform programme, when fully implemented, will remove more than that from the Valleys every three years. That’s more than £1 billion every three years.

That assault on our Valleys community is in progress, and, in light of that assault and the associated impoverishment of our communities, Communities First faced being a sticking plaster that was never going to be a total solution. As Hefin said, whilst Communities First did some outstanding, life-changing work, in itself, it could not raise many thousands of people in our most deprived communities out of poverty, because it lacked the support of UK Government policies that were amongst the key drivers in tackling poverty. So, that wasn’t the fault of Communities First.

Secondly, we must ensure that the best parts of Communities First projects and the associated lessons are carried forward—many other colleagues have made that point, too—through this transition period, because, as we’ve already heard, so much good has come out of them. I’ll just use one example from my constituency. The Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure, is aware of the Forsythia youth project, which was a fantastic project in providing—and is still a fantastic project—support and guidance to young people. It provides early intervention, mentoring support and role models, and has been life-changing for many young people in Merthyr Tydfil. The success of that project has been recognised by so many partners, both at local and national level. It would be a crime—a crime, really, against our young people—if projects like that were lost due to the changes in the programme. So, the best of Communities First, obviously, has to be taken forward, and I would like some assurance from the Cabinet Secretary that his transition division have a clear view on the essential projects that need to be saved.

Thirdly, we must remember the continuing value that place-based policies can deliver. Indeed, in the near future, I look forward to welcoming the publishing of the work of the Valleys taskforce, recognising the Valleys as a place that needs to receive further cross-cutting attention from our Welsh Government to help us move our communities forward. In my constituency, I see some great examples of award-winning regeneration in Merthyr Tydfil. By the way, Merthyr Tydfil is a town that is growing; it’s a vibrant hub in the Valleys. Can I say it is not the town that was portrayed so negatively, once again, in ‘Valley Cops’ on our tv recently? But the work in Merthyr Tydfil is far from complete, and the Communities First transition is seeing this particular budget reduce, I believe, from £1.6 million to somewhere around £370,000. So, we’re going to be facing significant changes.

I also look at communities like Rhymney that need some extra care and support to help them face the future. They’ve not benefited strategically, like Merthyr Tydfil has, and they can’t point to the same levels of investment and regeneration as its neighbours, either across the valley in Merthyr or down the valley in Caerphilly. So, there are places that must receive our attention as part of the all-new strategies that we’re currently announcing, whether it’s in ‘Prosperity for All’, whether it’s the work of the Valleys taskforce, whether it’s our Welsh budget choices and local government settlements. There remain places and communities, like those in my constituency, that we are obliged to support if we’re to achieve our aims. Our continuing commitment is vital as they face the prospect of losing billions of pounds of support from UK Government over the coming years.

So, as we move away from Communities First and the transition to a new phase is under way, we must remember that the causes and symptoms of poverty remain to be challenged and to be overcome, and this cannot be achieved by Welsh Government alone, who do not hold all the economic levers. But I know the Cabinet Secretary will give some assurance that, in now focusing on resilient communities, tackling poverty remains a key objective for this Welsh Government.

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

I’m grateful, Llywydd, for the opportunity to respond to the committee report. I’m thankful to the committee for their report, and grateful to all those who’ve given written and oral evidence. While there were differences of interpretation and emphasis, the Government was able to accept most of the committee’s recommendations, as the Chair made reference to.

Llywydd, the decision to close Communities First was a difficult one, but after careful consideration, I took the view that while the programme had done much for individuals, overall poverty levels remained stubbornly high, and no one programme could be expected to remedy this. It was time for a radical change of direction and, as Mike Hedges alluded to, this is about a jigsaw, a suite of tools that is able to protect our communities. The Welsh Government is committed to a cross-Government drive to create prosperity for all, and as I said in February, we are determined to build resilient communities by focusing on early years, employment and empowerment. Our national strategy, ‘Prosperity for All’, has now laid out our plans to invest in the prosperity and well-being of communities and individuals across Wales.

Many who responded during our extensive engagement exercise appreciated the help that the programme gave to individuals and the work of the staff, but there was also recognition of the need for a new approach based on tackling the root causes of poverty and working with local people to focus that effort as effectively as possible.

Like Hefin David, I’m offended by the use of the word ‘failings’ for Communities First, because actually we did see and have seen some great work going on in your communities across the whole length and breadth of Wales. Janet Finch-Saunders and Mark Isherwood wash their hands of this, but it’s their Government that have put pressure on Wales, which has a huge impact on the issues of tackling poverty—[Interruption.] They can laugh, but the fact of the matter is, you have as much to be responsible for as anybody else. Llywydd—[Interruption.] No, I’m not at the moment. I may give way in a little while. The Welsh Government is committed to cross-Government working, as I said earlier.

Change is never easy, Llywydd, but I make no apology for facing up to difficult questions and difficult challenges. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us in working through the difficult choices we have, and those involved in developing the answers. Last October, I announced I was minded to phase out Communities First. Following that, I conducted a broad consultation, receiving several thousand responses. In February, I announced that I would close the programme and set out our new approach to building resilient communities. We took the time to listen to people before taking that final decision.

Phasing out the programme rather than opting for a sudden closure, together with the mitigation measures I put in place, is providing opportunities for staff redeployment and the continuation of some of the most effective Communities First projects, like Dawn Bowden has alluded to.

The work to take forward our new approach is progressing well. Our strategy, ‘Prosperity for All’, sets out how we mobilise all the energies of Welsh Government to support the building of resilient communities throughout Wales. Key activities across my portfolio will complement those undertaken by my colleagues, and we will deliver in ways that involve and empower our communities, involving them from the onset.

We are working with a wide range of partners to identify the things that need to be put in place to support the empowerment of our communities, and this shared exploration will shape how Welsh Government supports the development of resilience in those communities.

Llywydd, the transition year was designed to maximise the support for those who need it and who would feel the effects of change, and the Communities First transition team offers the help and advice needed to lead delivery bodies and staff on the ground. I know that many Members have been to see me with local issues and I have been able to point to my delivery team and transition team for their support. They have ensured that bespoke support has been rapidly available, as required, in addition to the frequent bilateral meetings and bi-monthly meetings of the lead delivery body network.

A key aspect of the team’s role this year is to support mainstreaming activities, which are both effective and valued locally. Lead delivery bodies supported by the transition team have done some excellent work already in securing the future of some of the most successful projects from Communities First. However, Llywydd, I must be clear that this is not about mainstreaming absolutely everything. Not everything works in every area. That’s why I have asked for the focus—to look at the best bits, as some Members put this, and make sure that this is a programme that meets real community needs. Dawn, one of your questions was about how we make sure that we are sighted on these decisions. These will be decisions by the local delivery bodies. This is not a decision for me to pick out. We are distant from those communities. It is important that there is a local influence and making sure that they understand that better.

In Pembrokeshire, for example, the lead delivery body has engaged closely with the health board to incorporate the Communities First approach around healthy eating into the board’s general service delivery. A local GP is now facilitating the work of the action group that supports people with additional needs to live in the community. This shows how the best bits of projects previously delivered by Communities First can continue and thrive in a new context. In Newport, many former Communities First projects are being delivered by a different provider, programme or team. The Tackle Project is now being delivered by the Dragons. The well-being support team and Newport youth services have also taken on a number of projects too.

Our work to carry forward the best of Communities First includes the legacy fund and the employability grant, and these are being developed in collaboration with the organising groups and with colleagues in local authority areas. I listened to Hefin’s point around the self-employed, which is a really important one. I will ask my team to see how that operates. The broader question around the employability plan is with Julie James and will be issued shortly. We are just finalising the detail of that. Employability is a key priority, and £12 million of employability grant supports that work. The legacy fund is enabling local authorities to continue projects that make a difference to lives in their area. It is a two-year legacy programme. After two years, I will be speaking to the finance Minister to see how that ends up in the RSG provision in order for the continuation of support.

Where there is local drive and determination, Llywydd, some of the best aspects of Communities First can continue in new and innovative ways. I congratulate all those working with the support of my officials to find new ways to particularly thrive on those projects in the future. Some people still ask me when I will reveal a successor programme to Communities First. My answer is that the challenges of creating prosperity for all is no longer a matter for one particular programme. It is the central and defining mission of this Government as a whole.

I call on John Griffiths to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Could I first thank Members very much for their level of interest and, indeed, their level of passion for these issues, including Assembly Members who are not members of the committee? I think their contributions were very valuable, actually, in providing balance in terms of experience of Communities First. It was very good to hear, for example, from Hefin David, Dawn Bowden and Mike Hedges—none of them members of the committee—in terms of the successes of Communities First in their areas and about how, as Hefin said, some of those successes in developing community capacity then had important benefits when it came to other projects, because that capacity was used to enable those other projects to take place and, indeed, succeed. So, I think that does give necessary balance, which I hope our report has done in any event—looking at some of the shortcomings but also all the good work that took place. I think we did try and strike that balance in our report, and I hope that we did so effectively.

I think that a lot of the points made by Assembly Members, Llywydd, concentrated—and I think necessarily so—on the evidence base, evaluation, and performance management, because our report does indeed deal with those issues to quite a large extent and, indeed, they feature in a number of the recommendations. Recommendation 4, in talking about the tackling poverty strategy, talks about performance indicators, effective performance management, and setting out a broader evidence base. The recommendation 8 talks about ensuring that performance indicators are consistent across the whole of Wales, publicly available, broken down by local authority, and made available to committee to aid scrutiny. Recommendation 9 is the dashboard of poverty indicators, perhaps involving organisations such as the Bevan Foundation or Joseph Rowntree, and we talk about a longitudinal study on poverty in Wales in recommendation 10. So, I think it’s clear that the committee identified those issues around evaluation, performance management and an evidence base very strongly, and I’m glad that that’s been reflected by contributions today, because it has become a mantra for Welsh Government to be evidence-based, and we need to see the practical application of that in important programmes such as those that tackle poverty.

A number of Members talked about the importance of the economy, Llywydd, and I think we would all recognise that. The saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is very important to tackling poverty, and we want to see the economy strengthen in Wales, but we also, alongside that, want to see bespoke programmes and initiatives to tackle poverty, including those that are place-based, again, as a number of Members mentioned. I think it is right that we should have a balance between those that are generally available and those initiatives, those projects that are geographically specific.

Llywydd, I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his response. I think it is important that we have clarity in terms of legacy funding, and if that is to go into RSG, then we look forward to getting more detail as to exactly how that is going to occur and what controls and what parameters will be set around that to make sure that it does have the desired effect in tackling these issues. I think the transition team is important, and we want to see that sustained in terms of the help for lead bodies and the ability for Assembly Members to bring issues to the Cabinet Secretary, and for those to be tackled by that transition team.

I think it is important that there is a cross-Government approach and, again, we recognise that, Llywydd. But what we want to see in terms of the tackling poverty action plan—and, you know, this was indeed an important recommendation—is that set out in a strategy that enables scrutiny, and which contains all the performance management and performance indicators that I started off by addressing. I think that that is a key ask for the committee, and we want to see that taken forward.

Finally, as Members mentioned, in terms of the good practice and the successes, it’s very, very important that they are retained. Recommendation 1 refers to statutory bodies recognising that success and taking on responsibility, and we want to ensure that that is an important part of what’s taken forward for the future, and that’s why it’s the first recommendation.

The proposal is to note the committee’s report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on a tourism tax, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move the motion. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today’s motion is very clear: we simply do not want to see a tourism tax implemented in Wales. I imagine most of you will have worked that out by now. [Laughter.] Members are aware that Wales now has significant tax-raising powers under the Wales Acts of 2014 and 2017 and that, earlier this year, the Welsh Government consulted on proposed new taxation methods. That consultation resulted in proposals for four new taxes to be introduced—a tourism tax, a levy for social care, a vacant land tax, and a disposable plastics tax. I was going to mention the 305 responses received to the call by the Government for ideas about proposals for new taxes, but that was mentioned by earlier Members. And I did hear the Cabinet Secretary’s response to those questions, and you seemed to think that that was more responses than you were expecting initially. So, I will leave that be for now.

Today’s debate is about solely focusing on the impact and concerns that the implementation of a tourism tax could have, in any shape or form that that might take, even if the amendments to this motion don’t entirely reflect that. If I can turn to the amendments briefly, we will not be supporting the Labour amendment, not surprisingly, which deletes our entire motion. Although a lot of that amendment is factual, there are other parts of that we cannot agree to. But I have to say that at least amendment 1 is relevant to the motion compared with the corker, amendment 2, supplied by Plaid Cymru, which is nothing to do with our motion at all. I’ve got to say, I do find it ironic that the party that has probably wanted tax devolution longer than anyone else here in this Chamber doesn’t want to talk about a major tax proposal, such as a tourism tax, when this group has put a debate about this tax and about this proposal on the table.

I’m grateful to the Member for giving way. Can he tell me what his fiscal vision for Wales is?

And there we have it. Plaid Cymru Members will do anything to distract from talking about a tourism tax. Fiscal vision for Wales, landfill tax—you’ll talk about anything, but you don’t want to talk about this.

Now, to be fair to the Member—not the Member who intervened, but Adam Price—he was more than happy to talk about and endorse a tourism tax in the draft budget statement only a couple of weeks ago, until he was silenced by other Members of his group who clearly think it’s a daft idea. Now, there are two options here. Either Plaid Cymru are happy with a tourism tax [Interruption.] Dai Lloyd, I’m not sure which side of the fence you’re sitting on this one, whether you’re on the Adam Price side or the other side of your group. Either Plaid Cymru are happy with a tourism tax or they are not. I suspect the truth of the matter, as is quite clear, is that it depends who you speak to in the Party of Wales. There have certainly been different noises coming from different quarters over the last couple of weeks. [Interruption.] Anyway, you may chunter. I think the people of Wales deserve to know where the Party of Wales stands on this issue, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say about a tourism tax when you contribute, as I imagine you will later.

So, back to the tourism tax. Scepticism is not limited to Assembly Members. Even the Bevan Foundation, who have publicly supported, to be fair to them, the tax, at least in its embryonic form, have conceded that they simply don’t know what the impact of a tourism tax in Wales would be. I’m sure that even the Cabinet Secretary would say at this point we do not have an assessment of what that impact would be. This proposal has met with widespread criticism from the tourism sector in Wales. The Wales Tourism Alliance have clearly set out their opposition to the tax, arguing that

Whilst the WTA is not opposed to fair taxation, the WTA opposes a Tourism Tax on the grounds that they would harm the hospitality and tourism sector and is simply not a fair tax’.

We believe the Wales Tourism Alliance is right: a tourist tax is not a fair tax, and as the basis of the Welsh Government’s proposals for new taxes in Wales, we’ve been told in the past that fairness, equality and non-regressiveness was at the heart of their strategy. That does not feature in the proposals for this tax.

A tourist tax could result in these businesses having to increase the cost of their facilities to accommodate any rises, and it could have a detrimental impact on local economies across Wales. We know that the tourism sector in Wales makes a huge contribution to the Welsh economy, and I’m sure that throughout this debate, Members from different parts of Wales will be highlighting the very real contribution that tourism makes to their constituencies and regions. I’ve had my own postbag, as I know other Assembly Members have. One e-mail here from a caravan park owner in my constituency who is very concerned about the effects that a tax implemented here would have on border businesses, and the way that tourists who would otherwise come to Wales may simply stay the other side of the border. We know that there is a long, porous border between England and Wales—it’s quite different to the border between Scotland and England—and we would not want to see anything implemented on this side of the border that would discourage people from coming here and spending their money on Welsh businesses and the Welsh tourism sector.

It’s crucial that the Welsh Government therefore protects and supports the Welsh tourism sector so that it continues to make a healthy contribution to our economy. Let us not forget that the tourism industry is a competitive marketplace and businesses in Wales are not only competing on a global level but on a domestic level with our counterparts across the rest of the UK. If the Welsh Government presses ahead with the introduction of a tourism tax in any shape or form, then it simply makes other places in the UK a more cost-attractive proposition than holidaying here in Wales.

In places like my own constituency, which, as I’ve said, are geographically close to the English border, it could have serious implications if people choose to stay the other side of the border in the future. In assessing the potential of a tourism tax there seems to be no assessment whatsoever of the impact on border constituencies, and it’s frankly worrying that the Welsh Government has allowed these proposals to be further considered.

And of course it’s not just hotels and accommodation providers that could feel the pinch of this new tax. Wales is a small country with intricate supply chains, particularly in the field of hospitality and tourism. Pubs, clubs, cafes and shops are all businesses that could feel an impact if these proposals were to go ahead. A tourist tax could be incredibly harmful to the footfall of many of these businesses across Wales, many of whom rely on tourism income to stay in business.

As I say, it’s not just AMs who’ve been expressing these concerns, the FSB have also put their own views forward and I agree wholeheartedly with the FSB’s view that the Welsh Government should, and I quote,

avoid supporting any levy that is targeted almost exclusively at small businesses.’

Areas of Wales that are most dependent on tourism to support the local economy are often also the same areas that have the least diverse economies, and we must be careful that the full potential impact of a new levy on small tourism businesses is understood.

We’re afraid that there’s simply been no assessment of regional inequalities and the role of local tourism industries, and no understanding of the potential impact of this on the industry as a whole. This tax, accompanied by the impact of the recent rate revaluations for some businesses, and the fact that industry already pays 20 per cent in value added tax, will surely do nothing to help the industry—[Interruption.] I hear some comments from Members sitting opposite on how we can oppose this. Well, you clearly don’t care about the impact of it or you would possibly have put an amendment forward that even mentioned the subject that this motion is talking about.

If you’re serious about supporting the tourism industry in Wales, there’s one easy way that your party could do that. We’re talking about taxation—what about value added tax? What about VAT? What about reducing VAT? You could do that in a matter of weeks in the budget, if you’re serious about supporting the tourism industry.

We’ve had value added tax, we’ve had plastics tax—once again, the party opposite wants to talk about any tax but will not talk about the tourism tax. I haven’t even heard it mentioned yet. But, as I say, I look forward to your contribution later.

So much for a welcome in the hillside. Will the introduction of a tourism tax send the right message of welcome to visitors? We don’t feel it will. No, we fear that it will send the opposite message, and it sends the message to businesses that the Welsh Government is determined to squeeze our small businesses as much as it can by implementing a tax such as this.

I very much hope that this tax will not go forward and will not be implemented. There is still time for the Welsh Government to look again and reconsider this. In that light, I urge Members to support this motion and send a clear statement to our tourist industry today that we are on your side and we want to continue to work with you to create a Wales that is open, accessible and affordable to all.

Thank you very much. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt?

Formally.

Thank you. I now call on Steffan Lewis to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Steffan.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I was perhaps naively looking forward to a mature debate this afternoon. Sadly, that’s not been forthcoming. The Member for Monmouth was conspicuous in his silence this morning in Finance Committee when we heard evidence from experts on the proposed tourism levy. It’s a pity that evidence is not something that he wants to include in his contributions in this Chamber. Just to make it clear that the introduction of a tourist tax in Wales is not Plaid Cymru policy. It is not Plaid Cymru policy. We, however, welcome—.

I’ve just started, so I’ll make progress, but I’m happy to give way later on. [Interruption.] It is not Plaid Cymru policy. However, we welcome very much the Welsh Government’s approach in introducing four ideas for further research and further testing, because the contradiction in the contribution from the Member for Monmouth was that we didn’t have any evidence in order to make a firm decision. The whole point of the process that has been announced in the budget is that we gather the evidence to make a firm decision. I’m happy to give way to the leader of the opposition, if he would like to—.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. The contradiction in your opening remarks is amply amplified by, obviously, Adam Price, as remarks in the budget statement that came, where he did say that there was merit in looking into a tourist tax and delivering a tourist tax here in Wales. So, he was speaking in his capacity as the Plaid Cymru spokesperson, surely that is what he’s speaking on: Plaid policy.

Perhaps the Member’s translation equipment isn’t working or something—.

No, no. He spoke in English because it was my intervention.

It is not Plaid Cymru policy to introduce a tourism tax. We welcome the exploration of four taxes, as has been outlined by the Welsh Government, to gather evidence because we are an open-minded party, willing to look at new ideas, new innovations, because let’s face it, Dirprwy Lywydd, whenever there is a new idea in the course of politics in these islands, the Conservative Party are always on the wrong side. We wouldn’t be sat in this Chamber today had they had their way because they are always on the wrong side of history, and that is true for their policy on taxation.

As Wales’s second largest employer, tourism is the backbone of the economy in many parts of our country; it supports, as the Member for Monmouth has said, 120,000 jobs and it’s of vital importance to all regions of our country. Currently, the tourist industry in the United Kingdom faces a disproportionately high tax burden compared to our other key industries and to other countries in Europe. Only Switzerland places a larger tax burden than the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]—on its tourism industry. I’m sorry, I think I’ve been pretty generous; I’d like to make progress. Sixteen out of 19 countries in the eurozone have a VAT rate for tourist services that is lower than 10 per cent. Our closest neighbour, and, in many ways, our direct competitor, Ireland, reduced the rate of VAT to 9 per cent in 2011: 57,000 extra jobs were created as a result. In a globalised and increasingly competitive market, Wales needs every advantage possible to sell ourselves as a tourist destination.

Our tax system, overseen by the United Kingdom Government, currently puts Wales and the many small businesses that are the foundation of our tourist industry at a disadvantage. Plaid Cymru has repeatedly called for a VAT cut on tourist services from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. It is estimated—. Evidence suggests that the reduction would create over 5,500 thousand jobs in Wales, whilst injecting £166 million into the Welsh economy. Given the strategic importance of tourism as an industry to our nation, Wales could become a tourism VAT cut test bed if the Conservatives wanted it to be so.

The Conservatives’ new-found interest in the health of the Welsh tourism industry is to be very much welcomed. And I assume, therefore, given their concern about the tax burden on the tourist sector in Wales, that the Welsh Conservative party has succeeded in persuading Philip Hammond to deliver a cut in VAT in tourism when he unveils his budget in a few weeks’ time. That is Plaid Cymru’s policy on tourism and taxation in Wales, and we will be placing an amendment to the UK budget—

I’d like to listen to the mover of the amendment, please. Thank you.

[Continues.]—in order to achieve it. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

If we’re going to meet the target to reach zero waste by 2050—coming onto Plaid Cymru’s amendment—we will need radical changes to our behaviour, to the goods we consume, and their packaging. And of the four taxes that the Welsh Government’s proposing to undertake further inspection into, it is the tax on disposable plastics that is Plaid Cymru policy and that featured in our manifesto for the 2016 elections. Wales was pioneering in introducing the plastic bag charge in 2011, and we saw a reduction in the use of plastic bags by 71 per cent as a result. A tax on disposable plastics is the next step forward to disincentivise the use of other non-recyclable plastics, like takeaway boxes and coffee cups, and to encourage businesses to find recyclable alternatives.

In conjunction and in conclusion—. In conjunction with other schemes like can and glass return-deposit schemes, Wales can continue to lead the world in meeting our recycling targets and reducing the waste that we send to landfill or incineration. We now have the powers to shape our own distinct tax system. As we do so, we have the opportunity to take a flexible, innovative approach to taxation that balances the need to raise funds for the public purse with an understanding of the power that taxes can have to change behaviour, and I look forward to all parties contributing to the historic opportunity the country has to shape its own fiscal policies in the years ahead.

I’m delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. In the few weeks that this idea’s been floated by the Welsh Government, I personally have received a huge amount of correspondence from businesses, individuals and trade organisations that are, without exception, against this idea. Let me be clear: I am pleased that the Assembly now has some responsibility for its taxes, but if taxes are going to be imposed then they’ve got to be not only fair but also have the effect they are designed for. The worst type of tax is one that impacts on the individual business and reduces income and therefore tax take, and from what I see, this proposed tourist tax is such a tax. There is no evidence that it works. There’s no evidence that implementing it across the board throughout Wales would be effective. And in a nation where we share such a long land border with England and compete with England for many tourists, it promises to be counter-productive.

I represent a constituency that covers two counties where the tourism industry is key to our economic prosperity. In Pembrokeshire, tourism is worth £585 million a year, and in Carmarthenshire £370 million a year. The tourist industry creates the equivalent of 5,683 full-time jobs in Carmarthenshire alone. Whilst I’m not claiming that the whole industry would be put at threat, it is undeniable that a tourism tax would have a serious impact on visitor numbers and consumer spends.

I have looked at how such a tax or occupancy levy or bed tax works in other European nations. We need to remember though that, traditionally, occupancy rates are far higher than in the UK, and therefore we may not be comparing like with like, Cabinet Secretary, and that is something I would like you to really address. For example, in Germany, business travellers are exempt. Belgium reduces VAT to all Belgian hotels and restaurants from 21 per cent to 6 per cent, but it does then have a city tax on top. I do laugh slightly at Plaid Cymru saying they want to be responsible for their fiscal powers and that they’re looking forward to it. Well, hurrah, I agree with that, except you spent most of your debate talking about a tax that we actually have no responsibility for and no leverage on, which is the rate of VAT. Portugal—[Interruption.] Portugal only applies the tax for the first seven days of travel. So, what I’d like to understand, Cabinet Secretary, is what kind of models you would be looking at, how you would be examining them and how you would be evaluating them against the current background that we have in the United Kingdom, because whether it’s Labour in Westminster or the Conservatives in Westminster, VAT has been at this level for quite some time and I don’t see it changing anytime soon and we need to understand that to make sure that we do not overtax our own people.

The tourism sector in Wales does make up the highest share of workforce of any of the UK nations: 12.7 per cent of the total workforce, compared to 10 per cent in Scotland, 8 per cent in England and only 4 per cent in Northern Ireland. So, tourism is incredibly important to our nation and to our economy. Twenty-five per cent of all VAT-registered businesses in Wales are in the visitor economy.

As far as Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire are concerned, I’m worried that it will hit locals just as much as tourists. It will make people think twice about having that night away in a local hotel, staying over at a wedding or holidaying in neighbouring parts of Wales. It will have a knock-on effect on other local businesses. In Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, we’ve encouraged many, many farmers to diversify, and there are some truly spectacular successes. But how will this tax impact on those diversified businesses?

Whilst the major holiday season is the main income earner for the tourism sector in Wales, we also find the shoulder season an important period for the industry. However, this mainly attracts UK visitors and I am concerned about how a tourist tax will impact on that particular market. We will be less attractive than Cornwall.

The UK currently ranks one hundred and fortieth out of 141 countries for price competitiveness, primarily due to the level of tax that visitors already pay. The UK charges a full rate of VAT on all three components of visitor expenditure: accommodation, restaurant meals and attractions. Other parts of Europe don’t. Also, our VAT is twice the European average. By adding a further tax, this will then make Wales even worse off and I’m concerned that this is just another tax for the conglomerated budget of the Welsh Government. Will this money be ring-fenced? Who will collect it? How will it be reinvested in tourism? And, unlike the tax on plastic bags, which was designed to change culture and behaviour, this, Cabinet Secretary, seems to me to be just a tax on wealth and leisure and I would like to know how much it would cost to implement and the ongoing consequences.

I did think that the premise of today’s debate—. It seems to me, the Tories don’t actually want a debate at all; they’ve called for a debate, but what they don’t want is a debate. And, I would’ve thought—perhaps naively—that politicians, regardless of colour, would be eager to have a national conversation about the fundamental issues of how we raise and how we spend taxes. The fact that this is new territory for us as a country, after nearly 800 years, and as an institution, should mean being open to innovative, ambitious and, yes, controversial ideas. And the tourism levy falls squarely within those criteria.

It’s also worth repeating that nothing has yet been decided. Rather, this is a debate about whether or not we should debate those issues. The tourism tax—and I will remind the Tories again—is but one of four shortlisted proposals that were whittled down from hundreds of suggestions submitted by various quarters of Welsh society. So, that’s where the ideas have come from. They’ve come from Welsh society—

Will you take an intervention?

Not now. I’ve only just started. You had your say earlier on.

And all four—a levy to fund social care, a packaging tax, a tax on vacant land and the tourism levy—do have huge potential for good, and they have pitfalls as well. That’s why this process is so compelling. Welsh Government has said it will test all four proposals before submitting one of them to the UK Government early next year. That, to me, seems entirely sensible. But, what makes no sense whatsoever is to say ‘no’ now; to close down the debate before it has even started, and that’s exactly what the Conservatives are trying to do. Did you want an intervention?

I’m grateful for you taking the intervention. Can I just ask: how many tourism businesses in your own constituency have you discussed this with? Because, at the end of the day, your economy will suffer a great deal as a result of a tourism tax, and I cannot understand why you think it’s a positive thing that we’re even discussing the possibility of a tax on tourism here in Wales, when there’s no such discussion—

I don’t want a speech; this is supposed to be an intervention.

[Continues.]—going on over the border in England, and we would face a lot of disadvantage as a result.

The point is—and you’ve done it again—you’ve closed down the debate; you don’t seem to understand the need to have a debate about this. I know full well how many tourist operators there are in my area, and I will make representations on behalf of those whom I have already replied to, who get in contact with me, without question. Because, if you had one inch of restraint, I was going to move on from the merits to the pitfalls.

One of the merits of a tourism levy and the proposal that has been put forward and mentioned by the Bevan Foundation is that it is a tax for good. There are examples—and some people have mentioned them here today—from around the world where it has been used very successfully: in parts of France, Catalonia, Slovenia, Berlin, San Francisco. They are hardly tourism backwaters. In San Francisco, I understand that it’s zonal, a bit like the London underground—so with a higher percentage charge the closer you stay to the city centre—and in Berlin it’s a flat rate. These are the details. What is perhaps more pertinent to today is what the impact has proved to be, good or bad. From the international examples, we know the tax is generally reinvested in tourism, on promoting the area and providing tourism-related services. That might include, as is the case in France, using the money raised to pay for the additional cost associated with large numbers of tourists, from infrastructure projects to cleaning up the beaches. The point is that it’s a tax paid by people who live outside an area to ease the financial burden on people hosting their stay.

After seven years of Tory cuts and the pot of money here being ever smaller, it is possible that raising local taxes can help ease the burden on the local taxpayer, who will have to pay for hosting individuals within their constituent parts. But there are also pitfalls, and we must scrutinise those very carefully. We do know, and I’ve said it and I’m fully aware of it, that Mid and West Wales does thrive on its tourism industry, directly and indirectly, and it is the lifeblood of those areas. So, whatever happens, whether we do have a levy or whether we don’t, what we absolutely must do is have a debate.

I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak against the introduction of a tourism tax in Wales. I do so because I believe a tourism tax would have a severe and adverse impact on the economy of my region. South-east Wales is a major destination for tourists from both the United Kingdom and from overseas. Six years ago, we put in this Chamber the Enterprise (Wales) Bill, and we emphasised very strongly to improve our tourism, and also, since 2010, the Ryder Cup, NATO, and also our football team and FIFA, have improved tremendously the visitors from abroad and the other side of the channel that come in.

Indeed, in 2014, south-east Wales was the second most popular destination for domestic overnight trips in Wales. Spend on these domestic overnight trips stood at £361 million a year. In 2014, there were also 441,000 international visits. Half of all international visits to Wales in 2012 to 2014 were made in South Wales East. Forty-seven per cent of all spend on international visits to Wales was spent in my region. Day visits are also popular there. There were 39 million day visits to Wales in 2014, accounting to over 40 per cent of all Wales day visits.

Deputy Presiding Officer, south-east Wales contains some of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom. Unemployment and deprivation remain stubbornly high. About one in 11 jobs in the region is accounted for by the tourism sector. I believe the tourism sector would be hard hit by the introduction of a tourism tax by this Government.

Just a few months ago, the UK Government announced that tolls on the Severn bridge between Wales and England will be scrapped by 2018. A study commissioned by the Welsh Government suggested that the removal of tolls would boost the Welsh economy by £100 million. No wonder Welsh businesses in the tourism sector have already expressed concern that a tourism tax could have a devastating effect on their industry and deter visitors from coming to Wales. That is without the knock-on effect on pubs, shops, cafes and visitor attractions in different areas, including our beautiful churches and beautiful scenery all over. They rely on this trade. It is also undermining a campaign by Visit Wales to promote Wales as a tourist destination.

But this is not the only Welsh Government strategy that will be hindered by this approval. ‘Our Valleys, Our Future’ is the Welsh Government strategy to deliver real change for the South Wales East Valleys. One of its priorities is to do more with the Valleys’ natural environment, its culture and heritage, so they can be more widely enjoyed by local people and those living further afield. It goes on to say:

The Valleys will be a recognised tourist destination, attracting visitors from across Wales, the UK and beyond.’

I ask the Welsh Government, in all honesty, whether a tourism tax will help or hinder the delivery of the aims of this strategy—all their strategies. A tourism tax was introduced in Ibiza and Majorca in 2016. I urge the Welsh Government to look at those consequences. Thomas Cook slammed its introduction, and the word is a ‘significant extra sum’ on family holidays. That would persuade many families, for holidays, to go somewhere else, not Wales. The Majorca Hoteliers Federation said the tax would lead to ‘millions in losses’ for the island’s economy. Wales cannot afford to increase the burden on our tourism industry and deter people from coming here. I hope Welsh Government will think again and again, and withdraw this damaging and potentially disastrous tax.

I think it’s about time that we should understand that, to increase our economy, there’s no point in increasing taxes. There are other areas that Government is looking at, of which four areas have been mentioned: water tax, sugar tax, land value tax, and there are other areas to look at, and I think, if you ask the public, they’d give you certain areas where tax can be raised, not on tourism. Thank you.

I’m delighted to support the Conservative motion today. I can also say that I can support the Government amendment to it, basically because it doesn’t really say anything. But it’s a good turnout that we have, at least on this side of the Chamber today. There is, of course, what we might call an aching void in front of us on my left, apart from the few distinguished sentinels of socialism who have come to watch the proceedings and report back.

The first thing I want to do is to rise to the challenge that Steffan Lewis threw out earlier on to Nick Ramsay about what’s our vision for Wales on devolved taxes. I’m very much in favour of devolved taxes, because it gives us the opportunity in Wales to add to our natural advantages, particularly in relation to the tourism industry. I strongly, therefore, support the Plaid Cymru call for differential rates of VAT. It gives us the opportunity to reduce the tax burden in Wales relative to our neighbours, and that, therefore, will perhaps help to correct the imbalance that has grown up over the years, and which has been very eloquently described many times in this Chamber by Adam Price, about the poverty of Wales compared to other parts of the United Kingdom and how we need to do something really dramatic to correct that. My motivating force in politics all my life has been the ancient Gladstonian principle of allowing money to fructify in the pockets of the people. So, I have always generally opposed the introduction of new taxes and called for a reduction in the existing tax burden. And I think we have to recognise the economic background against which any proposal to introduce new taxes in Wales would have to be measured. The IFS has recently produced figures to show that we are now, in Britain, facing the highest tax burden that we’ve had since 1986. There are £17 billion-worth of tax rises in train for the rest of this Parliament, and, if the Government sticks to its stated objective of wiping out the deficit by 2025, that means an extra £34 billion of taxes. I’ll give way, sure.

Just to ask you: who was in Government in 1986?

Well, indeed. We were, of course, clearing up the mess that was left to us in 1979. [Interruption.] Many Members in this Assembly, of course, are not old enough to remember those dark days of the 1970s, but there are some of us with long, long memories indeed. But this is an important debate because tourism is massively important to Wales, and as one of the Members for Mid and West Wales—of course, we have all the best bits of the tourist industry—then it means it’s of even greater importance to us.

It’s very useful, I think, to introduce some of the background statistics into this, against which any new proposal for a tax would have to be measured. Wales’s share of tourist visits to the UK is about 3 per cent, and, of those, 43 per cent visit Wales only. The average stay in Wales is six nights, and the average spend is £363 per person. That’s £61 per night on average and that is much less than the average spend in the UK, which is £100. Now, we don’t know at what rate any tourist tax would be imposed, but the Bevan Foundation has suggested £1. Well, £1 on £61 may not seem very much, but bearing in mind the facts that I mentioned earlier on in questions to the finance Secretary in relation to the price competitiveness of Britain in world markets—. I’ll repeat what I said earlier on, if I can find my glasses. Britain is almost bottom of the world league table in terms of price competitiveness: one hundred and thirty-fifth out of 136 countries. We at our peril make that situation even worse, and although it may not seem very much—£1 or £2 or whatever—it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many people, and anything that makes Wales a less attractive place to visit in terms of value for money cannot be good for the tourist industry.

Yes, there are examples all around the world of the successful introduction of tourist taxes. Where they do tend to work is where demand on the part of tourists is pretty inelastic. Bath is currently, I believe, thinking about introducing some kind of a tourist tax. Well, getting around Bath in the tourist season is often very difficult. Venice is another case in point, or even New York or San Francisco, as mentioned by Joyce Watson earlier on. These are all international venues that have relatively inelastic demand for visits. Whether that would be so for Wales or all of Wales is a different matter altogether and, against the background of economic difficulty that we’ve lived and grappled with for many years, I do think that we’d be taking a very great risk indeed if we added further to the tax burden, which might tend to make it a less attractive place for foreigners in particular to visit.

Can I just remind Members of my declared interest in that my husband is the partner in a tourism business? Cabinet Secretary, I’m still hoping that this bed tax is something of an Aunt Sally and is included in the list of Welsh Government taxes being considered so you can be seen as a listening Government when you drop the idea. At the moment, it’s a little bit like threatening a child with spinach for breakfast because it’s good for them, and then claiming that you’re being merciful when you don’t carry out that threat. All this time, of course, that poor old child is regarding this threat as punishment for some unknown wrong that they don’t deserve, and that’s how the tourism sector is feeling at the moment.

Members of the tourism cross-party group, who were there at my invitation as chair, not because of Darren Millar’s exhortation, members who represent more—many, many more—than 305 people and represent all parts of the Welsh visitor economy, are very nervous about the fact that this is even being considered. English councils on the Welsh border are asking: will it be good for them, or will they be losing business because their marketing offer crosses the border? They’ve all seen world destination cities like Edinburgh and Bath, and even communities like Camden, pull back pretty swiftly when they recognised the wider implications and ask, ‘Why is Wales thinking of this?’ No-one wants to open the sluice gates to the UK charging bed tax when those beds are already more visibly expensive than their equivalents in other countries. And, yes, I know that VAT is a matter for the UK Government, and like you and MPs from all parties, including my own, we think that there is a strong argument for reducing VAT, but we cannot make that decision in this Chamber. What we can do here is agree not to impose further taxes on our tourists.

I just want to use my own example of why high VAT counters the point made by many that we are only talking about a few pounds and that no one will notice. Rome is a world destination, and people will definitely pay more to go there. You pay bed tax on top of your 10 per cent VAT but, not being widely advertised, it can come as something of a surprise to visitors. And it was a 12.5 per cent surprise for my family when we went in February, on a budget, to see the rugby. You do notice an extra €35 when you’re planning to spend just €280. Would it stop me going to Rome rather than London? I don’t think it would. Would it stop me going to Aberystwyth rather than Whitby? Well, you know, quite possibly. Let’s remember that, at the moment, the majority of visitors to Wales are from within the UK and are already facing the heaviest tax burden, generally, of our European counterparts. Of course, a budget for that holiday is a feature in anyone’s decision making, and we don’t want even modest bed taxes affecting those decisions and reversing very good trends for Welsh tourism at the moment.

I want to mention specifically Barcelona and why the tourism tax was introduced there. This is something that I discussed directly with the Catalan tourism agency and Barcelona tourism when I went to visit them not long after the tax was introduced. There were two reasons there. The first was that, in the wake of the crash, tourism was basically all they had left that was making money—all they had left to tax. The bed tax was introduced to assist the region’s economic recovery, with 25 per cent of those receipts going to health and education. The remaining money was destined for a tourism development fund, into which the sector itself directly paid extra money via its chambers of trade. That money was used to support a quality tourism offer, but it was also used to develop tourism in such a way that it was better balanced with the lived experience of residents.

That was the second reason: residents of the region were starting to object to the way that their standard of living was being affected by the economic collapse of sectors on one hand, and the way that their quality of life was being affected by the very high numbers of tourists in their space, pushing up the costs of goods and services. For that particular audience, the bed tax was held out as a deterrent and a way of balancing numbers. In any event, I think it’s probably worth mentioning that the majority of the Catalan Parliament did not support the introduction of the tax, and it only passed due to a considerable number of abstentions. Part of the reason for those was the issue that Ryanair was receiving huge subsidies to bring budget tourists to smaller airports in the region. I’m wondering if that kind of confused and contradictory support for the sector is what supporters of the tourism tax may have in mind. Thank you.

I am surprised that we are having this debate today because there was no mention of a tourism tax in Welsh Labour’s 2016 manifesto—a manifesto on which they were elected as the largest party to this Assembly. When there was a Labour Government also elected at UK level, there was a promise not to raise certain taxes, but this promise was broken and a raft of other stealth taxes was introduced when you came into office. Increases in national insurance and council tax became the norm. I do not want this past behaviour to be replicated or normalised in Wales. I appeal to the Welsh Labour Party and the Welsh Labour Government, therefore, not to prioritise the exploration of a tourism tax, but instead to concentrate on implementing the parts of their manifesto that encourage economic growth and the creation of well-paid jobs—these parts of the manifesto that are positive for Wales.

The tourist areas within my region, such as Gower and Porthcawl, try to promote the beautiful, unique country that we have, and I want to see the tourist industry in Wales flourish. The Welsh Government’s exercise on the tourism tax will continue to divert the resources of Government employees, special advisers and the like from implementing the manifesto priorities in order to explore a tax that is not a manifesto commitment. Consequently, I support the Conservative motion. It is my firmly held view that we should always strive for low taxation, giving individuals the opportunity to spend and invest in Wales. Now, it is possible to make a case for a tourism tax, but only in countries that already have a thriving tourist sector and low taxation levels applied to tourists. Such countries will prosper regardless of whether or not there is a tourism tax. This is because they have already engineered the best environment for tourists and businesses in the areas outside of any tourist tax. However, this is not the case in Wales. Wales, and the UK, is not a low-tax environment for anyone, and especially not for tourists. For approximately 20 years, the UK’s VAT rate for the hospitality and tourism sector has remained one of the highest in Europe—[Interruption.] Sorry? Did someone want an intervention?

Carry on.

Okay. According to a 2014 report by Geoff Ranson of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign group—specifically, he reports:

The UK is the highest in comparison with the other countries being nearly 3% higher than Germany and over 5.5% compared with Ireland which is the lowest of the comparator countries, who removed the airport tourist tax on 1 April 2014.’

Consider this report together with the British Hospitality Association’s statement made this year that European visitor numbers to the UK are already down due to the increased threat of terrorism. Any suggestion that you can improve Welsh tourism with a tax that may increase prices on tourists would seem far-fetched. According to the Welsh Government, in 2016, tourists spent around £14 million a day whilst in Wales, amounting to £5.1 billion a year, and Professor Annette Pritchard, director of the Welsh Centre for Tourism Research at Cardiff Metropolitan University, when speaking to BBC Wales’s ‘Week In Week Out’ programme, said about tourism in Wales, and I quote:

We are not doing as well internationally as our competitors, we’re getting about 3% of visitors and about 2% of spend.’

This contrasts to our having roughly 5 per cent of the population. So, this suggests that Wales is already underperforming on tourism. Wales has much to offer to those who wish to enjoy our splendid countryside and coastlines. Therefore, any tax that increases the cost of visiting Wales is likely to reduce tourism in an already underperforming sector that is situated in an overall high-tax environment. If we consider consumer spending habits, price and cost are usually, if not always, a factor as to whether someone makes a purchase, and tourism is no different in this. This vitally important industry must be protected, encouraged to grow, and encouraged to improve its performance. It should not be squeezed with any more tax.

Anthony Rosser, chair of the British Hospitality Association in Wales and manager of a hotel in Wales, said in a recent interview about any proposed tax,

It would be an utterly retrograde move. We…have very real worries over the recent cauldron of costs that have boiled over in the last 18 months, including increases in business rates…rising inflation and food and energy hikes. Increasing costs like this will…be handing an unfair advantage to our competitors’.

Finally, it might be said that the tourism tax could be set to a very low level, perhaps £1 a night. Indeed, the Bevan Foundation, which is not part of the Welsh Government, this made the suggestion in a recent blog post and other reports, and they said that such a levy could be capped by Welsh Government. My concern about this is that it leaves a door ajar that could be pushed wide open by Government.

Are you winding up?

Yes I am, thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Our tourist industry must not be encumbered by a tourism tax, let alone an ever-increasing tax within a high-tax UK and Welsh environment. So, I hope that the considerations that I have put forward today, independently of the modelling of any Welsh Government economist, show that the Welsh tourism industry does not need the tax, does not want the tax, and deserves much better.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Diprwy Lywydd. I just wanted to begin by reminding Members why it is that we are having this debate at all. We are having it because the Wales Act 2014 provides the National Assembly with a power for the first time to propose new Wales-only taxes. The process is untried and untested, but I have always believed, since becoming finance Minister, that it’s a possibility that we ought to explore in order to see the potential that this power might bring to Wales. The question, Dirprwy Lywydd, is how to go about the process. We well know the tradition we inherit from Westminster. I’ve no doubt that, when I meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow, she will explain to me and my Scottish finance Minister colleague that budget secrecy and budget purdah means that there’s very little she can share with us. Indeed, UK Cabinet members will only hear of what’s going to be in the budget on the morning of 22 November. The results of this closed and secretive way of conducting business are often deeply unsatisfactory. The sugar tax, if newspaper reports are to be believed, the health Secretary of the UK Government heard about for the first time when he was listening to the Chancellor’s speech on the floor of the House of Commons. Certainly, in an area that is wholly devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there were no prior discussions of any sort with any devolved administration in advance of that announcement. The result is that many, many months later the results of that announcement are still unclear.

The apprenticeship levy, sprung on industry and everyone else, has been even more pernicious in its effect. UK Government figures published earlier this month show that the number of people starting apprenticeships in England in May to July of this year has plunged by 61 per cent compared to the same period in the previous year. Taxation developed without debate and without proper engagement is inevitably vulnerable to unforeseen and unintended consequences, and it’s because of that deeply unsatisfactory history that we have tried to embark on our new fiscal possibilities in a very different way. We have published for all to see our tax principles and our tax work plans. In July of this year I published the approach we intend to take to the new powers to propose new Wales-only taxes. I said then that I would announce in my budget statement of 3 October the shortlist that had been drawn up for what I hoped would be serious and sober investigation during the autumn.

The reason that today’s debate is so disappointing is that it attempts to fly in the face of developing a new approach. Far from wanting to open up possibilities for Welsh citizens and Welsh policy making, the Conservative Party seeks only to close those possibilities down. Far from wanting an open exploration of the evidence in which anyone with an interest could make a contribution, they want to conclude a debate just as it has begun. Now, of course they are entitled to their view that a tourism tax is not something they would want to see taken forward in Wales, and if the motion on the order paper was for us to note the Conservative Party policy, there would be no objection to that. But that’s not what we’re asked to note. We are asked to agree that a view that one political party has come to should be imposed on the rest of us without a chance to have a debate of any proper sort.

Steffan Lewis was absolutely right in his original contribution when he said that what his party was in favour of was what Adam Price had said back in July: that there was merit in looking into the proposal. And that is the proposition that is in front of the Assembly at the moment. We simply say that a tourism tax is an idea that is worth having a proper exploration, and we say that because, as other Members here have already pointed out, it is an idea that is common in many parts of the globe, in cities that many of us will have visited: Paris, Brussels, Rome, New York, Berlin, Barcelona and so on, and in places that are the regular destinations of Welsh people taking holidays abroad. A tourism tax in France, in Majorca and in Portugal—

I’m grateful to you for taking the intervention. I’m wondering, in deciding on choosing the four, which included the tourism tax, for your list, how much evidence you’ve taken from those parts of the world that have decided not to proceed with a tourism tax.

In saying, Dirprwy Lywydd, that a tourism tax was an idea worth serious consideration, of course we looked at evidence from other parts of the world, and we saw then that tourism taxes operate in different ways and at different levels. We saw that they are almost always opposed by the industry itself, and indeed that the predictions of dire consequences regularly fail to materialise. I looked at what the head of the tourism organisation in Barcelona said when opposing the introduction of a tourism tax, just as visitor numbers to Barcelona rose more strongly than they ever had before. I looked at what the tourism organisation in Majorca said, just before the tax turned out to be so successful that they intend to use it even more next year.

I don’t say that the debate is in any way settled. I thought that Angela Burns’s speech this afternoon would have been a perfectly proper speech to make in a debate about whether a tax is a good idea or not. I thought the questions she raised were absolutely proper questions, the sort of questions that we would want to explore, that ought to be answered. Where I disagree with her and with her party is in believing that now is the moment at which you should try to shut all that debate down.

I normally listen very carefully to what the Member for Monmouth has to say. I think there’s only two points that I can take from his contribution this afternoon. He objected to the idea of a tourism tax on the grounds of fairness—this from a party that represents the bedroom tax in every part of Wales. Every Member on that bench is prepared to say to people who live in their constituencies that it is perfectly fair for them to pay £15 a week for a bed in their own home, but apparently it is utterly outrageous to suggest that someone coming to a wedding in Pembrokeshire might pay £1 a night to stay in Wales as part of that visit.

Instead, they will approach the newly liberated Severn bridge, slam the brakes on and say, ‘I was going to go to a wedding in Pembrokeshire, but I think now it’s going to cost me a £1 I’ll go to one in Hereford instead.’ I mean, it’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd and they have to know that that is the case.

Not only, though, are they worried about fairness but they’re worried about the border. We know they’re worried about the border because Tories have always regarded that Wales’s chief advantage is that we come cheap. It was the whole basis of their whole economic policy in the 1980s—[Interruption.]

No—he is not taking interventions.

The whole basis of your economic policy throughout the 1980s was that Wales would have to earn its place in the world by being the cheapest place that you could possibly employ somebody, and they want our tourist industry to be the same. At least when Mr Hamilton gets up he treats us to his normal, weekly dystopian view of Wales as the new Singapore, somewhere where we’ll all be able to enjoy money fructifying in our pockets as we make our way to the workhouse.

Now, the purpose of the debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, and the purpose of the Welsh Government’s position is simply this: that we think that a tourism tax is an idea worth exploring. We agree with Plaid Cymru that a plastics tax is an idea worth exploring too. We will want to do that in a way that is sober and sensible, that we will explore some of the proper questions that people have raised this afternoon, and that we’ll do that by talking to stakeholders—we’ll give them an opportunity to contribute to our thinking and we’ll consider the evidence in proper detail. And when we’ve done that, and when we’ve done that with all the other possibilities that are in our prospectus, I will come back to the Assembly in the new year and let you know which of the four ideas we think is most likely to be able to test the new machinery that we have available to us.

We want to do it in a way that is open, that is engaged, that creates a different climate about tax policy here in Wales. I look forward to keeping the Assembly and the Finance Committee properly informed of our progress in doing business in that way.

Thank you very much, and I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank those Members who took part in this debate this afternoon. In opening, my colleague Nick Ramsay comprehensively outlined why this ill-conceived proposal would be inappropriate for Wales, and, of course, the tourism industry would be significantly affected, as we’ve heard in contributions today from Members on this side of the Chamber. Now, as he and other colleagues—Angela Burns, Mohammad Asghar and Suzy Davies—have rightly said during the course of this debate, the introduction of a tourism tax would compromise the progress that has been made to boost Wales’s visitor economy and it will undermine business investment and employment opportunities in the tourism sector and put Wales at a disadvantage to other locations within the UK. There’s no doubt about that.

I have to say, Caroline Jones made a very fair contribution, pointing out, of course, that this tax was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto ahead of last year’s elections. Now, we can all agree on one thing this afternoon here: we can agree that the tourism sector does make a huge contribution to the Welsh economy. Figures from the Great Britain tourism survey demonstrate the great work that’s being undertook by the tourism sector in Wales with both visitor numbers and visitor spend showing significant improvement—something that we need to build upon and not jeopardise.

Now I come to Joyce Watson’s contribution. Of course, Joyce Watson says, ‘Nothing has been decided yet.’

Well, that is true. [Laughter.]

Well let’s have a look—. [Laughter.] Let’s have a look at what the First Minister says. So, the First Minister, talking about tourism tax said—. This is what the First Minister said, on 10 October:

We think that’s a way of sharing the burden. We think that’s a good way of ensuring more money is available for tourism.’

And responding to Darren Millar, he says:

I would have thought he would welcome anything that would ensure that visitors pay a little more to contribute to the local economy.’

Well, it looks like to me that the First Minister’s pretty wedded in his views. Joyce Watson also says we need a debate about this. Well, that’s what we’re doing this afternoon, Joyce Watson. Because what Joyce Watson needs to do is she needs to have a debate with her constituents across her region in mid and west Wales. As Neil Hamilton points out, many of those businesses in mid and west Wales depend on the tourism industry and the tourism trade. So, perhaps Joyce Watson can let me know how she gets on after she’s debated this issue with constituents in her own region. [Interruption.] No, no, no.

No, he’s not taking an intervention.

If she wants to—go on, then. Hurry up.

That’s very generous of you, thank you very much. The point is I will have a debate with people. What you’re actually doing is closing the debate down. Can’t you see that?

No, I can’t see that; we’re having this debate this afternoon, Joyce Watson.

Caroline Jones also pointed out the chair of the British Hospitality Association, who also happens to be the managing director of the Lake Vyrnwy Hotel and Spa, which is based in my own constituency, expressed his views that a tourism tax will hand an unfair advantage to our competitors in England, and this has, of course, been echoed by many others—the Wales Tourism Alliance and MWT Cymru, who have also said that the prospects of introducing a tourism tax will harm Wales’s competiveness and keep additional pressure on an industry that already pays VAT. Now, to those Members who have said that Wales should be not afraid of following the lead of other European countries, it should be remembered that most of those European countries that operate a tourism levy, with the exception of Slovakia, operate a reduced VAT rate on the main components of visitor expenditure.

Now, turning to Plaid Cymru’s contribution, it’s of course disappointing that they’ve amended our motion and totally ignored the main basis of our debate this afternoon, preferring to talk about a disposable plastic tax. And that’s worthy to be debated—I think there’s another debate in itself that could be talked about—but there wasn’t even the subject of our original motion. Now, in the draft budget debate, of course—I don’t want to misquote anyone here—Adam Price signalled his support for the tourism tax. This is what he said:

I think this is an idea that deserves to be explored.’

And he went on to say, talking about the tourism tax:

It’s called investing in the future of your country’.

Now, Steffan Lewis says—

I’m grateful to the Chair of the committee upon which I sit. I’ve written to him and pointed out that you’ve misrepresented me on a whole series of occasions. You’ve just read out the quote—what did it say? Explore: exactly what the Cabinet Secretary said, so stop making things up by saying that we support it. We’re saying we have open minds. Let’s look at the merits and demerits of every idea. The answer is in what I said, not what you said I said.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I’m going to agree with Steffan Lewis this afternoon. Steffan Lewis has said that a tourism tax would be an additional burden and not something that Plaid Cymru can support at this time. So, I agree with Steffan Lewis’s comments. Now, the Cabinet Secretary has commented this afternoon on our debate. What I would say is that one thing I am pleased the Cabinet Secretary has said is that he will make a decision in the new year: that I very much welcome, because I really believe that even the suggestion of a tourism tax is causing great damage to the industry. In fact, it’s already causing damage. It’s already causing damage. So, the sooner we can have a clear statement that this will be taken off the table the better. And I should say as well that when the Cabinet Secretary does make his decision, I very much hope that he will also say—[Interruption.] He will also say—

Can we listen?

[Continues.]—that this will be taken off the table for the rest of this Assembly term.

[Inaudible.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’ve tried my best over the last minute to contribute to this debate, but I’ve been shouted down, but thank you, Presiding Officer.

Well, just carry on with it if you’ve got anything else to say. Or sit down.

When the Cabinet Secretary announces in the new year, I hope that this proposal will be dropped. What I would call on him to do is to ask him to ensure that this proposal is dropped for the rest of this Assembly term, because that’s the assurance that is needed by the tourism sector and businesses across Wales. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree—[Interruption.] Can Members calm down and stop making sedentary comments when we’re actually moving on? The proposal is to agree the motion—[Assembly Members: Hear, hear.] The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we will defer voting on this item until voting time.

We will now move on to the Plaid Cymru debate on universal credit, and I call on Bethan Jenkins to move the motion.

I’d like to open this debate by placing Plaid Cymru’s opinion on this policy firmly on the record from the outset. Universal credit is a pernicious and cruel policy cooked up in the out-of-touch corners of the Tory party like a gone-off Eton mess to penalise those looking for work. It’s a well-known fact that certain elements of the Conservative Party and those in UKIP who used to be Tories once upon a time have long held disdain for those in poverty or out of work. There’s been a long-term push amongst elements of the right to instil this notion of the deserving or the undeserving poor, a black-and-white simplistic response to the complex issues of poverty, deprivation and unemployment that doesn’t work in the real world.

If universal credit is meant to incentivise work, it suggests that, before universal credit, there was no incentive. Can anybody tell me with any seriousness that the regime before universal credit was generous or a giveaway for the out of work or poor? If anyone believes that, then clearly they have never been on benefits or possibly never had a proper conversation with anybody else who has even before the current universal credit roll-out. If this policy is about getting people to work and creating more responsibility and empowerment for claimants with a monthly payment, including the housing element, why the arbitrary, pointless and mean-spirited six-week payment delay? Can anybody representing the Conservative Party tell me why a new claimant in Aberavon, for example, will have to wait such a long time for a first payment if that person has unexpectedly been let off? Who will explain to someone why they may be late paying bills and go into unmanageable arrears? What rationale is there from the UK Government for this? Or is there, as I suspect, no real reason, as Angela Burns said in a leaked e-mail yesterday, and I quote:

I think this position is indefensible and if I’m challenged I will say so. For the life of me I cannot understand why a 6 or 4 week gap is deemed acceptable. It should be a seamless transition and it’s not beyond the wit of man to make it so...this cavalier attitude that the poorest can muddle through is callous at best and downright cruel at worst. I’m ashamed of my Government.’

Well, I must say that I fully agree with Angela Burns here. I’d like to focus specifically on that aspect of housing a little more, because the roll-out of universal credit, far from incentivising work and responsibility, is actually putting the roof over the heads of the unemployed at risk.

Let’s start with one damning fact. Almost half of all council tenants in the—.

[Inaudible.]

Well, you can come in if you want to make an intervention. I’m happy for you to confirm your views in that e-mail.

If Members would just carry on speaking and I’ll decide who’s going to be able to get up and speak, and if you could keep quiet to listen, as well.

Let’s start with one damning fact. Almost half of the council tenants in the 105 local authorities who receive the housing element of universal credit are in arrears by a month. Nearly a third are behind by two months, whereas those still on housing benefit—only 10 per cent of council tenants—are a month behind, and less than 5 per cent of that group are two months or more behind. So, tell me again how universal credit helps in this regard. When the overall benefit itself is often cut and the UK Government expects those on the credit to simply muddle through, factor in all inexplicable delays and you have a recipe for disaster—evictions, court proceedings, court costs and the spiral of debt and charges that becomes too much for many to bear. And then, of course, there’s a final slap in the face. When someone in a difficult situation needs to call to enquire about the benefit and why there is a delay or a sanction or a late payment, they get charged up to 55p per minute. Thankfully, that particular penalty on the poor and disadvantaged is now being phased out, but only because of public pressure.

The administrative charges have also been poorly managed at best. Administrative control would benefit us here in Wales and make the lives of claimants better to properly incentivise work, whilst not condemning people to poverty in the process. When it comes to universal credit, the SNP have used their limited powers to propose more frequent payments—twice monthly—allowing people to have the housing component paid directly to landlords. However, they do not have the ability to prevent the culture of sanctions, in principle. The new social security Bill also imposes duties on Scottish Ministers to give assistance, which means that they could design discretionary housing payment systems to mitigate sanctions.

We must have the control of benefits devolved to Wales, so solutions designed for our country can be put into practice as they are being done in other parts of the UK. If Labour was serious about altering the current benefits and housing assistance regime, they would be supporting the devolution of benefit spending and policy, including universal credit. I fear, however, as we’ve witnessed with the bedroom tax and zero-hours contracts in the past, that they would prefer to make warm speeches, as you may hear today, condemning the Conservatives on a UK level, but not making or demanding the powers here in Wales so that we can be the masters of our own destiny. We’ve had similar issues on similar cases where we have the decisions, we have the powers within our control to be able to lead on this agenda.

I hope that the Welsh Government will now support the full devolution of benefits, which our people so clearly need, and I would hope that the Welsh Conservatives can follow the lead of some of their colleagues here in telling the UK Government to make changes, or abolish this harsh, arbitrary and pernicious regime. If we agree, as parties—or other AMs may agree—that this is a policy that is harming those who are in poverty, then we should be using every power that we have, even if that’s principled and moral power, to say to the UK Government that they should abolish this particular universal credit regime.

Thank you very much. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 is deselected. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch. I move our amended motion. As it states, the National Assembly for Wales acknowledges concern about the roll-out of universal credit. Two weeks ago, I wrote to the UK Secretary for Work and Pensions regarding universal credit helpline charges, imploring him to immediately explore and consider alternative options in a situation in which some people have been charged up to 55p a minute to discuss their individual claim in English, creating further barriers and much distress, whereas the Welsh language helpline is free. We were therefore pleased to hear last week’s announcement that this charge would be scrapped. We also welcome reports that UK Ministers could reduce the waiting time for universal credit payments from six weeks. As the MP for Stevenage said on Saturday,

on that particular issue I think we are very, very close to getting a resolution.’

It is, in fact, great to see backbenchers in the Government party doing their democratic job and their Government listening, and a shame that we haven’t seen the same here from Labour backbenchers on issues ranging from warnings over a decade ago that Labour’s massive social housing cuts would create a housing supply crisis, to their failure to speak up publicly now in support of disabled campaigners fighting Welsh Government plans to scrap the Welsh independent living grant.

Our amended motion also welcomes the principles behind universal credit. As the communities Secretary said here himself last week,

the principle of the universal credit programme wasn’t wrong’.

When the Centre for Social Justice, which has two Labour Members on the board, envisaged universal credit, they found that most people claiming benefits wanted to work but were held back by a system that did not incentivise employment. They found that, despite a massive redistribution programme, worklessness was becoming ingrained in many parts of the UK. Research, however, found that universal credit claimants in the initial roll-out were 13 per cent more likely to have been in work than those on jobseeker’s allowance and earning more money than those on jobseeker’s allowance.

Evidence today shows people are moving into work faster and staying longer in their job as a result of universal credit. Claimants will no longer need to go through the bureaucracy of changing their benefit claim when they enter work, as universal credit stays with them. Advances are available for anyone who needs them, and around half of people take this up. For those who can’t wait until their first full payment, interest-free benefit payment advances are available within five working days, and if someone needs it urgently, this can be made on the same day. Over 50 per cent of new claimants have made use of these payments.

At the beginning of this year, 55 per cent of people on universal credit weren’t getting their first payment on time, but now over 80 per cent get the right amount on time the first time, with the remaining 20 per cent having missing information. The most recent expansion phase will only take the proportion of the forecast universal credit claimant population from 8 per cent currently to 10 per cent by the end of January, with time to address issues as they arise built into the roll-out schedule. Over three quarters of tenants were already in rent arrears before they started claiming universal credit, but, after four months on universal credit, this had fallen by a third.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I heard what he just said about how the roll-out will allow these issues to be ironed out, going forward. Can he understand, therefore, why we have it trialled in Torfaen and Flintshire here in Wales, and today, in fact, in the last 10 minutes, the Welsh Local Government Association has said, on the basis of those trials, it should be paused in Wales for reflection?

Seeing the signatory, I suspect there was something of a political motive there, coinciding with this debate.

However, as I said, arrears have fallen for those on universal credit by a third after four months. However, it has always been recognised that although most people on low incomes manage their money and want to, some will need extra support, which is why the UK Government issued the universal credit local support services framework in February 2013, developed between the Department for Work and Pensions and partners, including the Welsh Local Government Association.

This ensures that claimants who are not yet ready to budget for themselves on a monthly basis or are unable to use the internet are protected and assisted onto the new system. But, claimants who have debt problems or other vulnerabilities, such as poor numeracy skills, substance abuse or mental health issues, are given practical support at the onset of their claim through a network of local services, and alternative payment arrangements will be available to help claimants who need additional support, paying housing costs directly to landlords, making more frequent than monthly payments to help with budgeting, and splitting payments between partners where there is financial abuse. That is what the public sector in Wales has been signed up to, supposedly for four and a half years, and this now comes under the banner of universal support.

As I highlighted in this Chamber four years ago, DWP officials have been working with all the devolved administrations since March 2012 on plans for universal credit roll-out, alongside the framework with local government, including the WLGA, and we must therefore ask the Welsh Government why universal support isn’t operating better in Wales.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to formally move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today’s Plaid Cymru debate addresses one of the main social issues of our time. It’s now beyond doubt that the roll-out of universal credit is causing increased hardship, and the fact that universal credit has been accompanied by drastic welfare cuts has made the inherent problems in the scheme even worse. Citizens Advice has established that universal credit recipients are more likely to be in arrears on rent, council tax and water bills. Debt, evictions and food bank usage have all increased for some recipients in the pilot schemes. We know that homelessness is up already, yet, down the line, this will mean greater risk of homelessness again, as well as increased costs for the NHS, local government and social services.

Now, the greatest lie behind universal credit, and the greatest injustice, is the idea that this is somehow all about incentivising work. Using the social security system to get people into work is a laudable aim that very few people would disagree with. But the way to achieve this is by making work pay more than the benefits, not by penalising people and forcing them into low-paid or insecure jobs, or by using sanctions. In fact, the DWP’s own impact assessment of universal credit suggests that 2.1 million recipients will see their deduction rates increase. This means it’s not true to say that universal credit makes work pay; quite the opposite for 2.1 million hard-working people.

This means that the new system is, in fact, removing financial work incentives that existed under the previous system for a significant number of people. To add insult to injury, universal credit embeds the culture of sanctions and extends that culture to part-time workers, as if part-time workers are now what the Tories would call scroungers.

The rate of sanctions is higher than the previous system and can be applied to people who are in paid work. If the UK Government insists on pressing ahead with universal credit, there is a model already existing within the UK for Wales to be able to modify and mitigate its worst effects. Devolving administrative control of welfare would allow Welsh Government to alter the frequency of payments, end the culture of sanctions and long waits, and ensure that payments could go to individuals instead of to households. The model for this, of course, is in Scotland, where the first use of devolved powers by the Scottish Government was to change the frequency of payments from monthly to fortnightly following feedback. They also enabled the housing components to be paid directly to landlords. The new laws in Scotland also place a duty on Ministers to give assistance to people entitled. This means that actions can now be taken behind the scenes to tackle that culture of sanctions.

In Northern Ireland, similar measures to mitigate universal credit have already been agreed and will be implemented upon the resumption of power sharing.

A wider devolved social security agenda has also been made possible by this level of devolution, including extensive policies to mitigate the effects of Westminster’s welfare cuts and the establishment of a social security agency. The devolution of those aspects of social security is supported not just by the SNP, but on a cross-party basis, which includes the Labour Party in Scotland. We need such a consensus here in Wales, here in this Assembly. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government don’t agree. Where is their anti-poverty strategy? What are they doing to mitigate these cruel welfare reforms? If the national health service can be operated by the different nations, then there’s no reason why other aspects of the post-war welfare state can’t be as well. We must put devolution of welfare on the agenda. It makes no sense to keep having a go at the Tories on this when we could be doing things differently here in Wales. As AMs, we risk being just commentators on this—

[Continues.]—complaining from the sidelines without any ability to mitigate, to modify or to change policies. I give way to the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you. Just for clarity, are you aware how much it costs the Scottish Government to implement just the administration process of this; not the benefit end of it—just purely the administration, providing the ability to do this?

I don’t have that figure to hand. Would you like to tell me?

It’s £200 million upfront that they pay and £66 million each year just for the administration costs paid to the DWP. That’s the issue I have with the administration process here. We should be doing something very different. They should be doing this automatically, not charging Scotland or us to do that. That’s the challenge we face.

But the point is the principle, isn’t it? While Westminster—[Interruption.] While Westminster are making—. While Westminster are making decisions that are increasing homelessness and pushing the people that you are responsible for into hardship, this is something that you should be prepared to consider.

Instead of the Westminster way—[Interruption.]

Can you settle down, please?

Instead of the Westminster way, which is failing so many of our citizens, we should be prepared to take responsibility ourselves, and the Assembly should support a Welsh way on welfare. A Welsh way would be based on evidence, on humanity and on justice. That would build a safety net that supports those in need: dignity instead of debt, hope instead of hunger—why not?

I’d like to start my intervention with a quote from a constituent of mine in Carmarthen:

Being a single mother scares me. I had a letter today giving me information as to how much universal credit I’ll be entitled to, and I’m going to be £210 a month worse off. I work 16 hours a week and I’m just about making ends meet now. I dread to think what situation I’m going to be in when I finally get switched to universal credit. For every £1 I earn over my work allowance, I have 65p taken off me. How is this meant to encourage and help people to work?’

That’s just one of the 20,000 people in Pembrokeshire alone who are going to be impacted by changes in universal credit, and whilst it’s true to say that some will be better off, the fact is that because of the insistence on pursuing austerity measures by the UK Government, most will be much worse off. The oddest thing of all about this policy, as has already been suggested, is that it’s being implemented and the way it’s being implemented, in many cases, undermines that financial incentive to work.

Single parents with dependent children are particularly hard hit, receiving £3,100 a year less than they received with tax credit: a massive hit on any family budget. And the UK Government has deliberately staggered the roll-out of universal credit so that we can learn lessons, but in Wigan, four out of five universal credit claimants, or over 80 per cent of people, ended up being in rent arrears. I must ask, if that’s the evidence of the lessons, why are we not pausing to rethink how we can make the system easier for some of the most deprived and vulnerable people in our communities?

More than half of the people in receipt of universal credit are in work. They’re doing the right thing for themselves and for the wider society, but now they’re being penalised. I don’t think anyone’s promoting the fact that we should continue with the present system, which is extremely complex, but the way this system is being introduced is proving to be entirely counterproductive.

A particular problem emanates from this point that money is paid in arrears, and at the moment it’s a 42-day wait for the first payment, and others, you’ve heard, can extend to 60 days in arrears. Around half of universal credit recipients so far have been able to access advance payments, but it’s really difficult for vulnerable people with poor reading and writing skills to prove that they’re in need of money to pay for bills or to pay for food. And the fact that the UK Government thinks that this delay in payment is somehow acceptable and possible for people who often have chaotic lives, I’m afraid just serves to underline how utterly out of touch they are with their constituents. And on top of that, just imagine what it’s like for someone who has an addiction—perhaps to gambling, alcohol or drugs—or people with learning difficulties to manage what might seem a vast amount of money then, arriving to them all at once.

It’s interesting to note that the joint committee on human rights has warned that the roll-out of universal credit benefit could expose women to abuse because the benefit is paid to couples through a joint account. We should be concerned that some men may limit their partners’ access to money and force women to stay in violent relationships.

In the pilot schemes we’ve seen, we’ve seen massive increases in rent arrears, which have implications for social housing landlords and council house landlords. We’ve heard already that a lot of people are now homeless as a result. We’ve seen these massive demand increases at food banks. Many have been driven into the arms of ruthless moneylenders, and they charge extortionate interest rates simply to people who want to feed their children. Let’s not forget that, in Wales, one in three children are living in poverty—a shameful situation in a country that is the fifth-richest country in the world, and where the UK Government will have made £80 billion-worth of tax cuts, including £22 billion-worth of income tax cuts, by 2021. I think it’s time to inject some justice into this system, to rebalance the inequality in this country, and to make sure that everyone is incentivised to contribute and to work.

I am afraid that I disagree with the proposal that control over welfare should be devolved. I don’t think there’s any chance that the UK Government will cough up the cash for welfare while relinquishing administrative control. [Interruption.]

No, I don’t think you can give way because you are out of time yourself. So, if you could wind up, please.

Well, I think it is worth just underlining the massive amount of money that comes into Wales additionally over the block grant as a result of welfare benefits. I think that we would be going down a very, very dangerous avenue if we opened up that can of worms.

One of the main problems with universal credit is that it is paid to households rather than to individuals, and I will focus on that aspect for a few moments. Only one person can be in receipt of the funds on behalf of the household, so there are issues of equality arising immediately from that because it is likely that it’s the male that will receive that money in most cases, not always, of course—not by any means—but in most cases probably. This will increase the financial reliance of women on men and will militate against the fact that men and women are equal. Women’s right to financial independence is a fundamental right—a right that is undermined through universal credit. It’s therefore a significant retrograde step in seeking full equality between men and women—an effort that some of us have been involved with for 40 years and more. The journey towards full equality is painfully slow as it is. And any retrograde step in this regard—and this what this is—should be criticised by this Assembly and, more importantly, we must change it and use the powers that we could have here in order to change that. Benefits should be paid to individuals, and not to households.

One aspect of this causes great concern. Paying the benefit to one person in a household can mean that some women can be held in an abusive relationship. With the man taking the payment, then that man has the power, and if that man is abusive towards his wife or partner then it’s very difficult for the woman. Those in favour of universal credit argue that there is a mechanism to counteract that, but that’s naïve in my view. Half of the women who are abused fail to leave the relationship because of financial abuse. A woman may remain in an abusive relationship because of concerns of serious financial consequences for her if she were to leave.

The money itself can increase abuse. One partner can withhold money from another using financial power in an unacceptable way. Under universal credit, if a couple separate, then one person has to inform the DWP. Well, the person in receipt of the benefit isn’t going to be willing to make that notification, so in most cases, again, it’s the women who will have to do that and will be caught out by the process at times. A new application has to be made, which will take at least five weeks to be processed. For a woman without access to money and possibly childcare responsibilities, time is everything, and making a new application isn’t always a priority when you’re fleeing for your life or are concerned about the safety of your children. If the benefit were to be paid to individuals, then you wouldn’t have to go through that bureaucratic process of registering when couples separate.

Now, of course, if we did have the right to administrate benefits ourselves in Wales, we could change that. We are talking about administration here, not having the right to create new benefits; we’re not talking about funding, but the administration. And having those levers could be a means of creating a fairer system. Yes?

I’m grateful to the Member for giving way, and that is an important point, because, of course, the devolution of budget for the whole of the welfare system would be an enormous challenge to us, given the fiscal constraints of the country. But the administration of welfare is another matter, and, of course, the Cabinet Secretary pointed to the administrative costs earlier. The block grant in Scotland was adjusted the year prior to the devolution of the administration of justice, so that there was a top-up to the block grant in Scotland for the administration costs, the initial costs. So, it isn’t just a matter of starting from a complete baseline. However, that does pose, of course, serious questions.

This is an intervention, not a speech.

But Welsh local authorities will be paying the price anyway for Tory welfare reform, so we’d be picking up the tab one way or another anyway.

Thank you for that explanation. In Scotland when some welfare powers were devolved, the UK Government did actually work out how much needed to be added to the block grant and a baseline was put in place. So, there are ways around these financial problems, and we are talking here about the administration—and that’s what we must emphasise time after time. And that is the point: if we were able to get hold of the administrative levers, we could change some elements of the benefits system. It’s too easy to cast the blame on the Tories in London. Yes, we should, of course, point out that this is part of an ideological crusade in terms of welfare reform, but we need to do more than that; we need to provide solutions, and this is one solution that we’re proposing here today: give us administrative control here in Wales, so that we can create a fair system. And if you believe in the creation of a fair system in Wales, well, if you’re not persuaded today then just look into it and come with us to look for alternative ways to move forward, to create a system that doesn’t militate against the most vulnerable in our society.

Everyone who wants a better system should work towards this end. You’ve heard about creating a shield to protect Wales from the extremes of the Conservatives and the UK state. Well, administrative control of part of the welfare system would be a shield against some of the extremes of universal credit and an utterly unfair system.

Thanks to Plaid for bringing today’s debate. The new system of universal credit is causing major concern among those who will be affected by it. We are seeing this from the results of the roll-out so far. So, in UKIP, we share the concerns. We agree with Plaid to that extent, and we think that Plaid are right to bring this forward as a subject for debate, although we don’t support Plaid’s ambition that welfare should be devolved to Wales. In that regard, we actually support Labour on this occasion, in that we don’t think that devolving the welfare system to the Welsh Assembly is a viable solution to the problems facing Wales, and it may actually make things a lot worse, because of the reasons that we’ve heard advanced, of Wales being a net recipient of welfare and the lack of knowledge that we will get the same level of funding if welfare is devolved. I accept that Steffan Lewis may have raised a point that needs to be further investigated, but that’s our position as it stands at the moment.

We also agree with the Conservatives to some extent, in that the principles behind universal credit may have been laudable in terms of helping people back into work, as a concept. It is just that the way that the new set-up has been designed is so very flawed that it leaves us very probably in a worse situation than we were in before.

We heard evidence on the subject on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. We had academics from social policy units coming in who’d interviewed a lot of the claimants who were involved in the roll-out, and a sample of the claimants were asked what they thought about the new scheme. Overall, the new system wasn’t welcomed. The major issues included accessing the system in the first place, delays over payment, issues over whom the payment goes to where there are joint claims, and sanctions.

One aspect of the new system is the difficulty of making the claim in the first place. Now, a few years ago we had a change from a system whereby most new claimants for benefits would make an appointment to see someone, a real-life person, at a jobcentre or a similar office, to a system whereby the majority of new claims were made over the phone. So, that raised one level of difficultly. Now, with universal credit, we’re moving on to a new level of difficulty, because now the initial claims are made online. So, this raises the issue that some claimants aren’t online and can’t do things online, and the risk is that many of those people could fall through the cracks.

Once you actually get your claim processed, the next problem is the delay over payments. Well, we’ve heard a lot on that subject today. Bethan Jenkins detailed that in her opening contribution when she highlighted the risk of claimants falling into more debt due to the delays. There’s also the risk of the rent arrears, which we’ve also heard about, due to the system whereby the claimants themselves get paid the rent in a large lump sum, and it’s not actually paid direct to the landlord. Unfortunately, this method does increase the risk of people getting into arrears and landlords not getting their rent. Eluned Morgan highlighted the issue of the problems of the joint claims, and who gets the payment, and the fact that there isn’t really any protection built into the system for women and children, although, obviously, it’s not always the woman who gets the payment, but in general that is a point that we need to consider.

Once you are in the system and you are getting your payment there is the ever-present threat of sanctions, which Leanne Wood mentioned. Now, under universal credit, the sanctions regimes are tougher, and, of course, as in any bureaucracy—and the welfare system is a massive bureaucracy—the sanctions can be misapplied. Here is a for instance. The universal credit system has to deal not only with people not in work, but also people who are in work, but who are in low-paid jobs. This is because it is also replacing working tax credits. The problem is that, under the old system, you could claim working tax credits without visiting the jobcentre, as they were claimed through the tax system. Now, if you have a job, but it is low paid, you still have to go to the jobcentre to claim your top-up payments. So, you are in work, perhaps in a regular full-time, nine-to-five job, but you also have to go to the jobcentre at regular intervals. I wonder if you can see where we are going with this: yes, people who have jobs are being given jobcentre appointments that clash with their hours of work. They’re missing these interviews, understandably, and are then sanctioned by the jobcentre for failing to keep them. If one is caught up in this kind of trap, one is entering a Kafka-esque world of battling against a heedless bureaucracy, and the individual will very rarely win that battle.

Even if you have a job that takes up, say, 10 hours, you will encouraged—in other words, blackmailed—into getting another job for 15 hours. This inflexible approach leads to absurdities such as a woman of 60-plus who had three jobs totalling 21 hours and was still told to get another job. Sanctions can come quite randomly, and can occur six months after the alleged misdemeanour occurred. The problem with this is twofold. One issue is that the person being sanctioned will probably no longer remember the reason for it, so won’t be able to effectively appeal. Another issue is that it will be largely unforeseen, so it again raises the risk of the claimant going into debt or rent arrears—

Are you winding up, please?

Yes. So, in general, we agree that this is a massive problem. The other issue that no-one’s talked about, which I don’t have time to go into, is that there is no meaningful way of retraining people through the system at the moment, and that is the crucial element. If you’re going to get people into work, why is there no real emphasis on retraining them and getting them into meaningful employment? Thank you very much.

Now then, as we’ve heard, when universal credit was first proposed, many people welcomed aspects of it as a simplification of what has become a ridiculously complex system. However, such is the rare talent possessed by Iain Duncan Smith MP that defeat has been well and truly snatched from the jaws of any minor possible positive result.

And, yes, problems with the benefits system figure largely in my surgeries—my GP surgeries now. They always have. Issues with poverty and benefit payments figure largely in the medical sphere because of the poverty and the stress and the anxiety and the depression that follow on from complete mismanagement of how people who need money cannot get what was—as the Cabinet Secretary said—social security. We’ve forgotten that bit, about making sure that our people who need it have security.

There have been huge concerns about aspects of how universal credit was designed from the start, as we’ve heard from Bethan Jenkins and others: the monthly payments, the high taper rate, the penalties for second earners and so on. And obviously we’ve seen as well, in areas where we’ve had roll-out of universal credit, that the use of foodbanks has reached epidemic levels. The current situation, plainly, is totally unacceptable.

But the concerns about universal credit, those monthly payments, the penalties for second earners and so on, you know, you can tackle them, as we’ve heard, quite simply—you change the payments to fortnightly or weekly, you allow the housing components to be paid to landlords direct, if that’s what people want, to prevent arrears, you pay individuals not households, you don’t charge people to call the helpline and allow alternatives to online interaction for those digitally excluded, and you end the culture of sanctions on the most disadvantaged people in society.

These mitigation steps are already in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland as they are already devolved there. So, devolving administrative control to Wales would allow us to make payments fortnightly not monthly, make payments to individuals not households, pay the housing components direct to landlords to prevent arrears and evictions, to become responsible for professional development of DWP staff, which will allow far greater flexibility for reducing sanctions if not actually eliminating them completely, and linking DWP schemes with existing skills schemes could create a Welsh new deal and retraining.

Now, as I’ve said, and it has been said, welfare is already devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Administrative control costs are taken care of as the level of benefits and funding remains set by the Treasury. Labour supports devolving the benefits system in Scotland. In fact, it’s always pushing the SNP Government to go further. There is no issue there about not wanting benefits devolved in Scotland from a Labour point of view; they want the SNP to work even harder on it.

So, changing the frequency of payments will prevent evictions and homelessness, which carries a considerable cost to Welsh public services as well, which has to pick up the tabs of evictions and homelessness, not to mention slashing the use of food banks. We have to administer this rotten system better: give us the tools to do that, as Labour is pushing the SNP in Scotland. Labour supports the devolution of social welfare from Westminster to Holyrood and any moneys that need to administer it have obviously been taken care of. So, supporting devolution of benefits in Scotland is fair enough for Labour. Supporting it in Wales—not on the agenda. Support the Plaid Cymru motion and mitigate the disastrous consequence of universal credit in wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Last week, I went to visit a job centre where I met a team of people rolling out universal credit. The individuals I met are doing what they can to support their claimants, but their operating system is broken, a system that has been designed without any regard for the lives of claimants, designed for how the Government feels people should live, not how people do live—no regard for the realities, the stress, and the sheer complication of getting by on a very low income.

People who try to manage from week to week are having to wait for six weeks for their benefits. Who is not going to struggle without income for six weeks? Many people will be left in desperation, and we’ve all heard terrible personal stories of real hardship, of the six-week wait, of payment in arrears, of struggling to manage to pay the rent and to put food on the table.

Now, we hear that some are being given an advance and some are being offered fortnightly payments, but delays are much more typical, and those discretions, where they exist, are exceptions and are at the individual decision of case handlers. Those decisions should not be based on individual discretion. They should be a matter of course. I’m certain that a Welsh Government with powers over the way in which universal credit was run and administered would do things differently: faster, more frequent payments reflecting the reality of people’s lives and not the lives we wish they had. But let’s be quite clear: it isn’t just the roll out of universal credit that’s the problem; the whole way in which it’s designed is deeply flawed. It was intended to make work pay, but it won’t make work pay whilst you lose 63p of benefit for every extra £1 that you earn, and, for those out of work, the situation is even worse. Universal credit doesn’t even begin to meet any realistic living costs, including the cost of housing, and we all know that this is putting landlords off taking universal credit tenants.

If you’re unemployed in your early 20s, you’re on £58 a week. In an economy where the cost of living continues to rise, who on earth can manage on that? Compare that with the support the state gives people in work: the personal tax allowance is worth £220 a week. The share of our national wealth going to personal tax allowance is going up, and the share of our national wealth going on universal credit benefits is going down. That tells you everything that you need to know. A benefit that was claimed to be about making work pay is actually about making claimants pay. And, as universal credit is being rolled out, the UK Tory Government will just steamroller on, not caring for the distress it causes, not bothered for the people this is hurting, too weak to see the flaws in its plan, too weak to stop and think again.

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

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd, and I thank Members for their contributions in this debate. I share Members’ concern regarding the devastating impact the roll-out of universal credit is having on vulnerable people here in Wales and across the UK. We are deeply concerned about the UK Government’s relentless welfare cuts and how they’re having an impact on low-income families, particularly those with children. I have repeatedly expressed our concerns to the UK Government, and have written calling for the roll out of universal credit to be paused.

Llywydd, I welcome the belated decision by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions last week to make the universal credit call line free from next month. The length of time people have to wait before they receive their first payment of universal credit—some six weeks or more—is one of the biggest issues affecting people moving on to universal credit, and I’m grateful for Angela Burns’s contribution yesterday; she’s absolutely honest and right in what she wrote. Most worrying is that, for those new universal credit claimants who are seeking vital support for their housing costs, many will not be able to afford to pay their rent to their landlord until the first payment is received. Local authorities where universal credit full services are already in operation are seeing increases in rent for many tenants, and this is causing, or exacerbating, debt problems for those most in need of support, and has serious consequences, Llywydd, for many people who face eviction as a result of not having any money to pay their rent. We hear from the UK Government that claimants can request an alternative payment arrangement to ensure that their first housing costs are paid direct to their landlords. I’m not convinced the current processes are secure enough, though, or flexible enough to ensure that this happens for the most at risk of not paying their housing, with the risk of eviction and homelessness. Mark Isherwood eloquently quoted me a part of what I said about universal principles over how this operates. The introduction of universal credit wasn’t wrong—he’s right in what he says there—but he didn’t finish off what I said about the universal principles were okay, but, actually, the system is flawed, it doesn’t work, and it’s having a desperate effect on our communities, and that’s why we need to halt.

Our most vulnerable people, who are already trying to cope with the difficult, complex circumstances in their lives, now find themselves having to go through the additional obstacle to get access to this urgent support through universal credit. The Secretary of State promised on 2 October that this waiting time would be reduced for people when making a claim for universal credit by requesting immediate same-day payments for some of the money or asking for a 50 per cent advance payment. I do not consider that this quick fix is sustainable as a permanent solution for vulnerable claimants who might already now be in debt, and this borrowing could well plunge them further into the abyss of debt. It’s not working. It needs to be stopped. As a matter of urgency, the UK Government needs to significantly reduce the waiting time for the first payment, getting rid of the seven-day waiting period and changing the default position for those with housing costs to be paid direct to the landlord. They also need to reinstate two-weekly payments for those who require more regular payments.

I listened to the contribution by Plaid Cymru Members. The fact here is that the UK Government can do this. They can reduce the waiting time. They can reinstate the two-weekly payments. The system that’s operating in Scotland is exactly the same system that is operating in England and Wales. It’s just a trigger on the machine. [Interruption.] Of course I’ll give way.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way. He makes the absolutely appropriate point. The tragedy of this—. There are human tragedies and we’re seeing them unfold now and it’s going to get a lot worse, but the governmental tragedy of this is that it has been trialled. The evidence has been clear, not for the last six weeks or six months, but in the years that this has been trialled from the very instigation of this, that the design was wrong, and they can make it right. I think, actually, the reflection of Members—including some Conservative MPs and including some on the benches here as well, I have to say—is the compassion that says, ‘Let’s make this policy work. Fix it at that end so that it genuinely makes it worth going to work and work will pay.’ It can be done and they should be doing it now, and they could do it.

The Member is right in what he says. We are pressing the UK Government in that space. What we do know is that a failure to—[Interruption.]

Excuse me, can we stop having discussions amongst the benches, please? We will listen to the Cabinet Secretary. I don’t want to tell anyone to be quiet, but you’re pushing me today and it’s because it’s the end of term, I’m sure. So, we’ll listen to the Cabinet Secretary, please.

I’m grateful, Llywydd. What we don’t recognise here is that, actually, a claimant who fails to turn up to one of the meetings, for whatever reason—illness or, as the Member said earlier on, going to work—actually is sanctioned. Well, maybe we should start those sanctions with the MPs who didn’t turn up in Parliament, the Tory MPs who didn’t vote in the universal credit debate. That’s where we perhaps should start.

I’m grateful for Members’ contributions here, but I was slightly surprised at the contribution made by the leader of Plaid Cymru in terms of the process for introducing the benefit to Wales. When I asked her about the cost of this, the Member was completely unsighted. Actually, this principle of what she’s trying to achieve is—. I don’t disagree with her, but, actually, you haven’t done the homework about the Scottish Government paying £200 million upfront and then £66 million annually just to administer this—nothing to do with the benefit system at all—when actually the UK Government, if it’s the right thing to do, should be doing it in the first place.

Will you give way?

Of course I will, yes.

The point I made in an earlier intervention was that the Scottish Government managed to negotiate a fiscal framework that allowed an adjustment to the Barnett block in order to administer welfare in Scotland. Is he saying that he doesn’t have the confidence to go up to London and negotiate a settlement for Wales so that he can administer welfare here and end the injustice now?

Let me tell you that I’ve been to London and I’ve talked with Lord Freud about the very issues that your colleague mentioned, particularly about women’s issues and the way that claims are made. But what the Member should really consider—[Interruption.] What the leader of the opposition—. What the leader of Plaid Cymru, I should say, should consider is that, actually, her contribution was a weak one when she didn’t even know the numbers. So, we may park that there.

Let me point out to the Member’s intervention that, actually, if he thinks it is right to pay £266 million in the first year for administration costs when the UK Government can do this at the stroke of a pen or by just telling the computer, ‘This is how we want the system to operate’, and when we could use that money more carefully for supported intervention, the Member has a long way to consider the intervention on this.

Will you take an intervention?

I’m not going to take any more interventions from Members because—[Interruption.] Well—

No—carry on, then.

The issue here, Llywydd, is making sure that what we do here is fit for purpose, protecting our most vulnerable in our communities. Plaid Cymru have obviously brought to the table a thoughtful consideration for the Chamber—

No, he’s not giving way.

[Continues.]—but they haven’t fully thought that process through, particularly on the costs around this.

Thank you very much. I call on Bethan Jenkins to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. I think, if nothing else, we’ve had another lively debate, and I think it’s good for democracy. I think it’s important that we start on the administrative costs that Steffan Lewis has intervened on twice. The fiscal framework agreement—[Interruption.]

Quiet now.

[Continues.]—between the UK Government and Scottish Government in 2016 states that the baseline Barnett formula—he’s not listening to me, even—will be adjusted to reflect the responsibility over welfare, including costs and administration—including costs and administration. It says in point 31, and I quote,

Both Governments have agreed that the UK government will provide £200m to the Scottish Government to support the implementation of new powers. This will represent a one-off (non-baselined) transfer, supplementing the block grant, to support the functions being transferred. The profile of this transfer is to be agreed by the JEC.’

So, it’s entirely possible, should the Welsh Government want it, to go to London and demand to have those types of conversations. The fact that you won’t even bother to go and ask is testament to your leadership, not to Leanne Wood’s leadership for making a speech, and you deciding you want to ask her a question. It’s testament to your leadership, as Cabinet Secretary in this regard. And it’s not just us who believe that, potentially, we should devolve some of those powers—Jeremy Miles said it today. And on the equalities committee recently, we had academics down from Scotland who told us that, where 15 per cent of disability benefits have been devolved to Scotland, they’ve done it in a humane, principled manner, and we will be actively looking at those proposals as a committee—[Interruption.] It’s phenomenal now that I’m not even being listened to, when we have—

We are listening.

[Continues.]—constructive ideas to build our own potential welfare system for the future here in Wales, so that we won’t, potentially, have to put sanctions on people, and that we can administer payments with respect for the individuals. Why can that not be considered by the Welsh Government? We’re not hearing that answer here today.

We won’t be supporting the Tory amendment in this regard. The Centre for Social Justice, which Mark Isherwood pointed to, is a Tory think tank with the most paradoxical name ever thought up for a think-tank. I’ve got two—.

The only reason I make this intervention is to have it on the record that the front bench are laughing at this, which is a serious matter—[Interruption.]

[Inaudible.]—vote to be taken. I have asked politely. I have asked politely—

Sit down, Mark, please. I have asked politely for you all to listen. We are not in a playground. We actually are trying to have a sensible debate. I don’t want people telling me when to shout, ‘Order’, because those people are doing as much barracking as others. So, if we can all now listen to what Bethan Jenkins has got to say in reply to the debate. Don’t wave your arms at me, don’t point at anybody and we’ll get through this, before I call for somebody to put the vote. I don’t want to do that lightly, but I will do it, because we’re getting nowhere. Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you. I think it’s important that we take this debate seriously, because we’ve seen on Westminster benches previously when people have taken this too lightly, and it doesn’t go down well with the public. It doesn’t go down well with the public if people see people laughing in the Chamber.

The point that I wanted to make to Mark Isherwood is that this was set up by Iain Duncan Smith, who actually then admitted that their own policies were wrong with regard to the benefits system. So, how can we take that think tank seriously?

Yes, it was set up by Iain Duncan Smith. That’s a statement of fact, but he deliberately brought in a chief executive who was not a member of the party. Actually, he was a former communist—certainly, far to the left of the Conservative Party. He deliberately populated the centre with non-Conservatives, and he deliberately has Labour MPs and former MPs on his board of management.

Okay. Thank you very much. As you may have realised, my voice is going; I don’t have Strepsils like Theresa May, and therefore I’m not wishing to speak for very much longer. But I think what’s important is we’ve had the debate, we’ve aired the concerns, but we always describe the problem here in this Chamber. We describe it because it’s bad, but as opposed to continuing to describe the problem, I think we could be coming up with real solutions here in Wales, calling for those powers here in Wales, taking a look at what is being done in other parts of the UK, and forging our own future in this regard. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Then we will defer this until voting time.

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

We move to call for a vote on the motion on the debate on a Member’s legislative proposal tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote.

It doesn’t matter on this vote, but mine isn’t showing on the screen. Whether it’s showing with you or not, I don’t know. It’s not going to matter on this vote, but I think it may matter on others.

All right. Okay.

Nor mine, either.

You have voted. [Interruption.] Well, the two Members who said they didn’t know whether they’ve voted have voted, so I’ll close the vote, then. For the amendment 46, six abstentions, therefore that amendment—sorry, proposal—is agreed.

We now move to a vote on the Welsh Conservatives debate on a tourism tax. So, I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to this motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 17, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now go to vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 27, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2 is therefore deselected.

I call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 27, nine abstentions, 17 against. Therefore, the amended motion is carried.

We’ll now move to the Plaid Cymru debate on universal credit, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 9, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now move to vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 17, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 32, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 32, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, the amended motion is carried.

If you are leaving the Chamber, can you do so quietly and quickly please?

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Russell George to speak to the topic he has chosen—Russell George.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We all know about the crisis that is facing general practitioner recruitment, especially in rural areas. Just last week, we had reports in the media that not a single person had applied for a job vacancy to work as a GP in a Pembrokeshire surgery in the last nine months. There are plenty of further examples from my own constituency of posts being advertised and not being filled for years. I’m therefore delighted to introduce this short debate to highlight an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare that is serving to alleviate pressure on GPs in my own constituency. It’s a very innovative proposal, which, as far as I can see, and as far as I am aware, is unique to Wales, and only in Llanidloes is this approach being taken. I hope the Cabinet Secretary will agree that what I’m about to say today will demonstrate a practice that could transform primary healthcare across Wales.

Results from my own health survey across Montgomeryshire last year indicated that while patients are generally pleased with their GP practice, there is specific concern about how long patients have to wait to receive an appointment. So, at the end of last month, I was delighted to sponsor an event for Assembly Members here in the Senedd, at which we heard from Dylan Jones, principal pharmacist at the Dudley Taylor pharmacy in Llanidloes, to learn more about how a new model of delivering healthcare has served to combat this issue, looking at workload pressures on GP practices, which are currently facing, of course, the GP crisis that we are aware of, and allowing consultations for minor self-limiting conditions to be effectively managed in community pharmacies, and increasing capacity also, of course, and reducing costs.

GP practices are experiencing an unprecedented increase in demand, and A&E services are also under severe pressure. Indeed, nine out of 10 GPs say that their workload has had an adverse impact on the quality of patient care, with four out of five GPs also concerned about the sustainability of their practice. So, given the difficulties associated with the recruitment of GPs and other practice-based healthcare professionals, I would suggest that continued investment in community pharmacist independent prescribers would represent a valuable use of NHS resources.

With the number of GPs decreasing and practices often run by locums, pharmacies are ideally placed, I would say, to take the pressure off GPs, who deal with 57 million consultations for minor self-limiting conditions every year across the UK, 18 million of which could be effectively managed in community pharmacies. Indeed, you have to wonder why some of these conditions are dealt with by the GP at all, with pharmacies being better placed to deal with sore throats, chest infections, ear disorders and so on. So, in association with the medical practice in Llanidloes, Dylan Jones and Dudley Taylor pharmacy in Llanidloes have pioneered an independent prescribing service, which has recently won UK-wide recognition at the prestigious C+D awards. It is important also to note that Dudley Taylor pharmacy, Powys Teaching Local Health Board and Dylan Jones took a big risk, and they should, I think, be congratulated for the commitment that they have shown in making this success a reality.

Supported by the health board, and the GP prescribing lead at the medical practice, Dr Raynsford, Dylan has qualified as an independent prescriber and the new independent prescribing service began at the pharmacy last December, enabling Dudley Taylor pharmacy to treat patients with acute illness within the pharmacy and reducing the need to visit a GP.

So, it is clear that close collaboration between all parties was key to get this service off the ground. As a prescribing lead at the medical practice in Llanidloes, Dr Raynsford has been integral to the trial, from the very beginning agreeing robust information sharing and referral protocols, which has also allowed the new service to secure access to GP health patient records from within the pharmacy. Communications between the pharmacy and the practice regarding availability and capacity is effective, and this close working relationship has delivered big improvements in patient care.

The service that the Dudley Taylor pharmacy and the medical practice are providing ensures that primary care treatment and advice is quickly available to local people from the community pharmacy on the high street, alleviating, of course, the pressure on GPs and providing a more convenient service for patients, and helping to provide a greater choice for patients, particularly as the pharmacy is able to offer a prescriber service on Saturday, when the GP practice is not open—a service that is highly valued by patients. Patients are directed to the most appropriate provider more quickly, reducing pressure on GPs and increasing GP availability for more appropriate patients, whilst boosting footfall, of course, and supporting the viability of local pharmacies.

The new service in Llanidloes has also resulted in a sustained reduction in the number of patients using emergency appointments at the GP practice. On average, there has been a 23 per cent reduction in GP appointments compared with the same period the year before, and when considering the impact that the service has had on the GP workload, and the pressure at the practice, Dr Raynsford believes that evening surgeries in particular have been much less busy as a result. This has allowed the practice to consider extending the number or increasing the duration of routine appointments, and also allocating more time to providing care outside of surgery, such as home visits to palliative patients, for example. So, by offering patients an alternative to a traditional GP appointment, the evidence suggests that the pharmacy service facilitates a more appropriate use of GP time and allows for a greater focus on patients with complex care needs. In this regard, Dr Raynsford believes that the pharmacy service has been unequivocally successful in meeting its initial objectives, and represents one of the most important primary care service developments of recent years. Feedback from patients has also resulted in universal satisfaction with the service and the quality of care they have received. All respondents indicated that they would recommend the service to a family member, and the pharmacy has also had feedback from patients that has also been very positive, saying that it makes a real difference to them as patients.

The figures also speak for themselves. Ninety per cent of patients have effectively considered or already made an appointment at the GP practice, and 65 per cent would have made an appointment at the GP practice if the pharmacy service was not available. The service is now considered an integral part of the local primary care service in Llanidloes, and is highly valued by the local community. The new service has also impacted on patients’ perception of pharmacy services, with an increasing positive relationship proving to be professionally rewarding.

As a result of the success in Llanidloes, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary whether he would join me on a visit to both the pharmacy and GP practice to see and hear first-hand about the service, to see whether it would be possible to develop this model further, to provide the same accessibility, but also for a greater range of ailments, in a way that truly integrates the GP practices to offer more accessible treatment, care and advice.

However, for all the new initiatives to be a success, a commitment will be required from central Government on whether you and your department will financially support our community pharmacists to pursue additional training to become independent prescribers. Given that the community benefits extend beyond the pharmacy, I would be interested in hearing from the Cabinet Secretary about whether he feels that there is potential for this kind of service to be allocated from a separate pot of money via the primary care innovation fund, so that the benefits are not limited by the size of an individual pharmacy budget, and also so that the new service isn’t top-sliced from existing pharmacy or GP budgets.

Deputy Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I firmly believe that this has the potential to pay for itself over and over again, and it would transform the way in which healthcare is delivered, particularly in rural areas. Delivering cost-effective, high-quality healthcare for the most appropriate provider will benefit the whole NHS, and I look forward to hearing your views on this, Cabinet Secretary, and the potential for rolling this out across Wales.

Thank you very much, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you to Russell George for bringing this particular topic to the Chamber today, and it is one of those occasions where we are in broad agreement. Indeed, noting that you’ve had a presentation from Dylan Jones, who coincidentally—and I want to place on record my congratulations to him, belatedly, following his recognition at the Welsh Pharmacy Awards as the joint winner of community pharmacist of the year. The Deputy Presiding Officer will, of course, be interested to be reminded that the other joint winner is Jacqui Campbell from Prestatyn, and Pritchards in Prestatyn where I launched the NHS Wales stickers and in a range of other healthcare providers. There’s something here again about understanding who’s part of the healthcare team, what those local healthcare teams look like now and what they could and should look like in the future. Llanidloes is one of those examples of where we think that the rest of healthcare providers should look more and more like this, because it’s in line with the direction of travel that this Government is already taking, and the sorts of changes we want to support to help sustain and improve local healthcare as well. It’s fair to say that not every change in this direction are ones that are particularly supported locally at the time, Llanidloes being a good example where not everyone was in favour of the sorts of changes that are now being made. I’m pleased to see that there’s been real movement, and that’s across parties as well, and thinking about the sorts of teams that we’re talking about, the approach in Llanidloes is consistent with the one that was set out within the national primary care plan. I’m thinking about something that Lee Waters said in the Chamber as well about the approach being taken in Kidwelly, where a difference in the model of care has been really important in sustaining local healthcare rather than seeing it collapse, and only and solely being a focus on local GP services.

I think it’s fair to point out some of the underpinning principles within the successful Llanidloes programme. The first is collaboration, because the health board, the GPs and the pharmacies had full and equal roles in developing the new service in Llanidloes. There’s something there about local stakeholders coming together, not just the power to agree, but actually a shared recognition of the risks in not agreeing what the future could and should look like, and these are almost always people who live within the communities that they serve. So, there’s a real direct interest in seeing the services continue successfully. We know that patients are satisfied with the service. They’re seen quickly and feel that they’re efficiently dealt with. Space has been created for GPs to spend more time doing what only they could and should do as well, in particular seeing people with complex needs. But also the community pharmacists are recognising that it’s professionally rewarding. There’s a recognition with other healthcare professionals that there’s more that community pharmacy can do as well.

There are two other points I would make. There’s one about information sharing, and what we’ve been able to do to enable the wider system to share information safely, in particular community pharmacies being engaged in a network where they can see a version of the GP record. That’s really important, and I’m delighted to confirm that we’re ahead of where we want to be in Choose Pharmacy in the roll-out to community pharmacies across Wales. I indicated that by the end of March 2018 I expected half of our community pharmacies in Wales to be online. We are already over half at this point, so we’re five to six months ahead of where we expected to be. That’s a real success story, because people recognise in examples like Llanidloes and other communities within Wales that it’s been a real benefit to everyone within the local healthcare community, but particularly a real benefit to local citizens. And, yes, the other part includes independent prescribing and, of course, there are a range of community pharmacies who are already independent prescribers. We seek to encourage a range of other people in addition to doctors to have the ability to be independent prescribers, using their clinical skills to do so. There are a range of nurses who can do so and a range of other healthcare professionals—pharmacists, therapists and others—all within their own clinical competence. So, there is a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to be taken. That’s a key feature of not only what’s happened in Llanidloes, but more broadly in the national Pacesetter programme for local healthcare. And, of course, that’s supported by a fund of £43 million, including £4 million that is in that national Pacesetter programme, and there are many other examples across Wales of what that looks like, either within or outside that programme. Part of my challenge and optimism about the service is that we do have examples of what is working, improving local healthcare for the people that work in those local healthcare teams, but, crucially, for the citizen as well. And for all the challenges that we face, in addition to other nations within the UK, we have good examples and are able to say, ‘This works in Wales already.’ There’s an example in rural Wales that works, and we really should be able to roll that out in different parts of rural Wales. The same with Valleys Wales, urban Wales as well. And, actually, there’s lots of learning to be taken already. Our consistent challenge is how consistently and how rapidly we’re able to do that across the country.

And I mentioned earlier the Choose Pharmacy platform. That was a deliberate choice to be made. NHS Wales Informatics Service, often maligned, but they helped to develop the new IT platform, and the Welsh Government then invested nearly £800,000 in making that available. In addition to that, we have systems in hospital that allow modernised patient information to be transferred between the GP and the hospital as well. So, we really are doing more to share information, but we still want to do more, we still want to move quicker than we currently do.

Will you take an intervention?

I will, yes.

I had a fascinating visit to a community pharmacist in Burry Port the other week, and I was disappointed that the computer system the pharmacist has does not speak to the computer system that the rest of the NHS uses, and these kinds of digital barriers are stopping the potential this model has.

Indeed. There is more for us to do about making sure we have a fully joined-up system. And there’s something about having a platform to allow the sharing of the record, and then having what are currently independent businesses having their own platforms that can actually talk consistently with them. As we continue to develop our digital platform within the health service, we do need to make sure that we have things that are consistent between the different parts of our system. It’s not an easy challenge, but it’s something that we expect as part of what we want to achieve. And, equally, I know, Lee, you’ve made points before about catching up with public expectation, because most members of the public already expect pharmacy and their local GP practice to be able to talk to each other on a digital platform. They expect the hospital system and their local healthcare system to be joined up as well. So, we’ve got a lot to do to catch up. And I recognise the point. In fact, I met pharmacists from Burry Port in a recent day with the health board, and with the university, about what they’d already managed to do and the further innovation they wanted to see take place as well. And, actually, seeing that innovation take place, and it being successful, is part of what gives me real encouragement about the future. Things are happening, and I’d rather have the challenge of, ‘How do we make that more successful across the country?’ rather than, ‘We have no ideas and we don’t know what to do.’

There are, of course, opportunities for community pharmacists to train as independent prescribers, as Russell George asked, and I’m happy to see that supported more generally, in addition to seeing a greater contribution to be made by community pharmacists, and thinking about how we do that with the staff, with the people, with the workforce and, of course, the platform to allow them to do so as effectively as possible.

The common ailment service, which is now being rolled out on the Choose Pharmacy platform, is important in itself. It takes pressure off GPs, gives the citizen more options, and that should then mean that we have other things that we can do, including chronic conditions management and others as well. So, I see it as a start of having a trusted platform to roll out, and then there is more that we could and should do, and I’ve made those comments previously in this Chamber and beyond.

I want to go back to your point about continuing to invest in community pharmacy. And I’m really pleased and proud of what we’ve been able to do in Wales. Everyone knows we face difficult choices, and I won’t make party political points about the Welsh Conservatives at least, but there are difficult choices to make. We know there is less public money available. The Welsh Government has a smaller budget in real terms, and we don’t really expect that to change in the budget round that we’re expecting in November. So, the choices we make are even more important. And I made a deliberate choice to continue to invest £144 million every year in community pharmacy. Across our border, in England, there have been cuts of 7 per cent made to the community pharmacy team. Now, that’s a difference in choice. That’s part of devolution being different, but part of the reason that I chose to do that was that I think there’s more that we can get from the community pharmacy network. And I want to see the network sustained, and to see that used in a different way. And if it can’t maintain the investment in the service, we may well see some pharmacies not existing anymore, not because there’s a quality argument, not because there’s a useful agglomeration of pharmacies locally providing a better and more robust service, but simply because the money wouldn’t be there for that to take place.

And that’s why the roll-out of the platform matters, but also there’s something for something in this as well. Having made a deliberate choice not to cut that investment in the community pharmacy system here in Wales, there’s an expectation that we’re seeing more quality in what’s delivered, and not a payment by volume, by prescribing and by dispensing, but actually a payment in the ability to deliver more quality in the care that the community pharmacists actually provide. And that should make it a more interesting place for them to work. It’s, in some ways, not dissimilar to the conversation with high-street optometrists who want to be able to do different things. And the way we’ve rolled out services into high-street optometrists made the job more interesting for those people, and it’s a better use of our resource across the system—better for GPs not to have people turn up with eye care problems when they’re probably not the right person to see, a better job for the optometrists to do themselves, and actually, for the citizen, more rapid access to the right healthcare professional within their local community. And that’s more of what I expect to see within our system right across the country.

That’s also why, from this month, I’ve also made available £1.5 million specifically to go into that pharmacy quality programme, and that will support collaborative work between pharmacies and other local healthcare providers to make sure that the advantages that we currently have are made real. So, that’s the direction that this Government is setting and that’s the environment that we want local healthcare to be provided in. I think Llanidloes is a good example of what we could and should see more of in the future, and more that we can learn about what to get right and, equally, things that won’t go right and mistakes that we shouldn’t repeat in other parts of our system.

So, there’s much that we can be proud of and much that I’m proud of within our system here as well. And I look forward to working alongside community pharmacy and other healthcare professionals to deliver the very best possible healthcare, even within the current constraints that we all know we operate within.

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